User talk:Betty Logan

This editor is a
Senior Editor
and is entitled to display this Rhodium
Editor Star.

Wpbsa open tour

Hi Betty if you look at Wikipedia world snooker tour and go to the section regarding this event it actually States the WPBSA finished up their involvement with the WPBSA Open Tour at the end of the 2002/2003 season which would cover these events ?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.147.136 (talk) 06:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Why does it state the WPBSA finished with the open tour at the end of the 02/03 season?. With main tour Challenge Tour and open tour being ran by them it clearly states when they handed it over. Can you have a look please ?. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.147.136 (talk) 06:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The Open Tour was taken over by the EASB for the 2002/03 season according to the Hayton book. I can even scan in the relevant pages if it matters that much to you, but the Hayton book clearly states that the EASB ran the event from 2002/03 onwards. For the first season the EASB allowed pros to enter, but after that it was limited to amateurs. I am aware that you disagree with this, but I can only go off what the book says. Betty Logan (talk) 07:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I have got this book with this page it clearly states that the WPBSA and the EASB separated during the 2003-2004 season. I want to see your evidence because I have no problem showing you what Hayton said it did not change until 2003/2004 season. Which is also reported on world snooker tour and any site you use, discuss ?. 31.200.140.223 (talk) 00:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

The evidence is all provided in the Hayton book, and the relevant page numbers are given in the citations at International Open Series. But I will spell it out for you:

• 2001/2002 – Open Tour is introduced and operated by the WPBSA, the professional governing body. Conducted on similar lines to the PTC including an amateur leg (pp. 180–182).
• 2002/2003 – The EASB, the English amateur governing body, takes over the Open Tour. The EASB are in partnership with the WPBSA at this time and as a result the EASB permits WPBSA members to play in some of its competitions (pp. 182–184)
• 2003 – EASB ends partnership with WPBSA. There is a subsequent revision of EASB Open Tour rules to exclude professional players (page iii of the Introduction).
• 2003/2004 – Open Tour is operated by EASB purely as an amateur competition (pp. 184–186).

I really can't make it any simpler than that. No matter how much you protest, the simple incontrovertible fact is that the EASB ran the Open Tour in 2002/2003 admitting pro players and prohibited pro players the next season following the split. Betty Logan (talk) 08:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

These relevant page numbers on Hayton's book you speak of how come they cannot be viewed when they are clicked on BTW?. You can't even read them. it is a useless link.92.251.188.33 (talk) 02:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC)02:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

But Betty I actually have a transcript from the book and that is not what is implied by Eric Hayton at all.that seems to be your interpretation. It does not say the easb took over the running of the events in the 2002/2003 season. It is clearly stated by Hayton that the WPBSA ran all 3 tours during the 2002/2003 season prior to their split in 03/04. Would you like to see it ?. I'm not protesting I just have evidence that's all. I can show you this and you can show me your transcript please ?. Just trying to sort it out thank you 92.251.188.33 (talk) 02:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

You can't read it online because it's a book! Hayton at no point says the WPBSA ran the event in 2002/03. He categorically states the EASB ran the event across 2002/03. If all you have is a transcript then the transcript is obviously wrong, because the book has a complete listing for each season and each tournament. It also lists every single result. I also regard this constant haranguing as mildly insulting because you are either saying I am too incompetent to read what it says in the book or you are accusing me of lying. Clearly if I have the book and you only have a transcript of the book there isn't a debate because a transcript is not a reliable source. Anyway, here are scans of the relevant pages, and now please let this be the end of it: http://postimg.org/gallery/254c1vr82/ Betty Logan (talk) 10:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Can you post me the pages where it shows the 2002/2003 results are stated as Pro-Am in the book please id love to see it if possible? 178.167.200.213 (talk) 00:28, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Because what you sent is absolutely unreadable it cannot be viewed have a look yourself and tell me how you can view those scanned pages please ?. I can't even see them ?. 178.167.200.213 (talk) 00:31, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually you can read it online on Amazon.co.uk it gives product description with a written introduction from Hayton with pages on the history of Snooker. It even mentions this split that's how I saw it. I don't know how it's wrong when it's taken from his book it's a scanned page.i can give you the link will you read it yourself?. 92.251.130.4 (talk) 05:24, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

How many times do we have to go through this? Do you or do you not accept that the EASB ran the the Open Tour in 2002/2003? Betty Logan (talk) 06:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Wpbsa open tour

Hi Betty I have the source from Eric Hayton's book that says the WPBSA and EASB actually spilt in the 2003–2004 season. So the events in 2002/2003 are not Pro-Am as you claim would you like the view the article to prove this please as I have the article ?. Regards 178.167.200.213 (talk) 00:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

This is all covered above at #Wpbsa_open_tour. Betty Logan (talk) 11:04, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Betty I read the scans you sent by zooming in but at no point in that section does it call the event a pro-am. Just like the PTC'S had pro and amateur playing in them they were not called pro-am. I think they are what they were called 'Open Tour' events because there was 3 different tours going back then. I have rolf kalb's email he is a snooker statistician he will know. Will I ask him to clarify ?. I also have a contact at World Snooker I can turn over results to you if I get them ok ?. 92.251.130.4 (talk) 05:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hayton actually said that there were 3 tours in 2002-2003 Main Tour, Challenge Tour and the Open Tour which allowed players to gain access to the Challenge and main tour. It was a different system with so many players then. He then says the WPBSA and the EASB split in the 2003-2004 season. This is all in the books introduction page, will you read it when you get a chance please ?. Regards 92.251.130.4 (talk) 06:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Re. Film categories

Hi Betty Logan, I agree with you that we should put together a project-wide discussion. For me, the initiative to start (and then be productive in) such a discussion requires a bit more of catching up with developments and refreshing my knowledge on the more general guidelines and rules. Yesterday and most of today I have been following one hint after the next, starting from a link I was given to a CFD of last year. From this I got most of the answers I had about your view and the views of some of our other key members. I have also followed many edit histories to get an idea of who (and maybe why) is behind this restucturing in categorization (not only in Films). Not everybody wants to explain their actions, however. I feel some just follow the brain hemisphere responsible for puting everything in little etiketted boxes, forgetting the needs of the other hemisphere. Well, I did get some jolts out of this quest, but also hopefully more insight.

Another thing I observe is that it may not quite be up to WP Films or even Wikipedians to define what the function of the categories should be, because there are some technical limitation of the system to make full use of them. When we were starting Film categorization we had input from two editors who were putting together the category intersection proposal. I see that it remains a proposal since, waiting for Wikimedia to respond. My guess is that if the Wikimedia computing power was anywhere comparable to that of Google, this issue would have been resolved long time ago. Also, looking at the recent Wikimedia Strategy forums, I see that more focus is directed to social interactions, although I believe that if they gave more focus to make more powerful use of categorization it would be as much to their benefit as in ours. Back to the point: as soon as I feel confident I understand enough of what is going on, I will initiate a talk in the project. I am not very eloquent and I often find myself being very naive or overy talkative, which works against what I am trying to achieve. In any case it is good to know that you are for the WP discussion approach. Best regards, Hoverfish Talk 22:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

If you have time and wish to add your points or edit mine, I have started this page to help me focus on all that is worth bringing up for discussion, but I am still in the brainstorming phase so any input is appreciated. Thank you. Hoverfish Talk 23:29, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

On the issue of "primary" genres (by WP:weight considering the sources, and all such things considered), can you think of any main set of genre categories that could go to all film articles? Some are clear as generic ones, like drama, comedy, crime, horror, documentary, but after these few I am wondering how far we can go with "primary" ones. Action, thriller? Are they mostly stand-alone? Then for genre crossings, should we put two or more primary genre categories? I know this is going to sound like plenty of trouble, so I am trying to get a complete picture. - By the way, my quest with the search techs went nowhere. I tried their suggestions but the searches keep timing out and I get very partial results. Oh wel... Hoverfish Talk 21:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Allmovie has a good selection of primary genres at http://www.allmovie.com/genres. Pretty much any film can be categorized under that combination. Take Jaws for instance: Allmovie categorises it under two primary genres and then there are a number of specialised genres that are applied to it. I think Allmovie have a pretty good approach; something like a "thriller-adventure" intersection category isn't really needed if you already include thriller and adventure categories (and remember if you cross 20 genres over with each other that would produce 400 intersected categories), but something like Category:Monster movies, Category:Seafaring films and Category:Survival films arguably add more depth to the categorization. Betty Logan (talk) 06:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm taking a wikivacation soon and I'll be back after the first week of September. I like a lot your idea and I'll think more about all it involves. When I am back we'll find out how other feel about it. Cheers. Hoverfish Talk 02:10, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Cast section and character descriptions of Die Hard 2

there's an argument on Die Hard 2 about the cast section and character descriptions. A lot of film articles have character descriptions which I feel are very necessary, but that version of the cast section has been switched back and reverted by TheOldJacobite and Deloop82. It is on this section of the article's talk page. BattleshipMan (talk) 02:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:12 Monkeys#"doesn't need refs"

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:12 Monkeys#"doesn't need refs". Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC)Template:Z48

Amazing Spider-Man 2 budget

Hey man. Just clarifying to you that on the budget sheet (https://www.filmla.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/2014_FeatureFilm_study_v9_WEB.pdf#page=7) that $200 million figure isn't an overall number, but how much was spent soley on special effects/sound editing (per the section). I had to double check it too but that's what I took it as. Hope this clears it up, don't want to start an edit war. Cheers! TropicAces (talk) 03:20, 27 July 2017 (UTC)tropicAces

That is not correct because they have $250 million for The Hobbit in both sections and also $210 million for Transformers in both sections. It is obviously a mistake but it is not clear which figure is the mistake. Betty Logan (talk) 03:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

you're right. Huh, that's odd. Fair to assume that the $200 figure is the mix up since that was Sony's "official number" but everyone has speculated costs between $250-300, but right, can't go off that thought train. Sorry for the mix up, have a good one! TropicAces (talk) 03:25, 27 July 2017 (UTC)tropicAces

I think they are probably both at the extreme ends. Deadline says it cost $255 million (see [1]), so bang in the middle sounds about right to me. Depends what they count as a cost to be fair. If they are trying to recoup money from a tax body they probably push up the budget. Betty Logan (talk) 03:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Star Wars split

I noticed you made a comment regarding the Star Wars splitting and redistribution of content off the main article. There's currently some implementation of it, though some elements are under discussion, and there's some moves toward restructuring. To update you on it, in case you wanted to revisit it. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 16:54, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, Betty Logan. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

- SchroCat (talk) 04:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

User return?

Hi, Betty. I received a recent e-mail request from User:Hayal12 asking for reinstatement to Wikipedia. Currently, they are under an indefinite block for disruption and lack of communication -- with the eventual option of the Standard Offer. My usual inclination is to leave blocks in place for the duration once I've given them. But their e-mail showed a significant improvement in tone and willingness to communicate. My plan would be to reopen their talk page and allow them to make a public return request. I know this editor would mostly impact your neighborhood, so I wanted to get your opinion. What do you think? — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Ultimately he was blocked for non-communication and he is communicating now so the other problems aside there is some significant progress on the main issue. I was indefinitely blocked soon after I started editing for refactoring comments in discussions but I acknowledged the error of my ways and was given a second chance and became a GA and FL contributor so it would be hyprocritical of me to deny the same opportunity to another editor. Obviously the lack of communication was symptomatic of other recurring problems but he also made plenty of good edits too. The way I view this is that it is much easier to block an editor who blows his second chance than it is to find committed good editors, so there probably is more to gain by allowing him access to the talk page than there is to lose from Wikipedia's perspective. Maybe a probation period could be considered where he is banned from altering column dividers for what remains of his six month period and we can take it from there? Betty Logan (talk) 17:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Good suggestions. Thank you. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 15:40, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Bond 25 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bond 25 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bond 25 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. BilCat (talk) 15:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Bond 25

Every time... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bond 25 ~sigh~ SchroCat (talk) 15:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Now see Shatterhand (film). Facepalm - BilCat (talk) 05:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I would leave it for now and let the AfD at Bond 25 run its course and then use the outcome at the AfD to put Shatterhand up for CSD. Betty Logan (talk) 05:35, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

The War Game

Hello, Betty.

I added my edit on The War Game as the version on the Internet Archive said that there is no copyright in force on the film. As the Internet Archive is a legal organisation, I expect that it would check this sort of thing before uploading it, and I would've imagined that the BBC would've told them to take it down if it had a copyright.

However, I might be wrong. Is there a well-established way to check whether a film is in the public domain? Epa101 (talk) 15:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

The film is almost certainly in the public domain in the United Kingdom but not in the United States. It was made for the BBC in 1965 when copyright was automatic and lasted for 50 years, so a British film released in 1965 would enter the UK public domain in 2016, which is probably why somebody has uploaded it to the Internet Archive. However, copyright terms in the UK and the US are not the same: the copyright term for films in the US lasts 95 years, so The War Game will not enter the US public domain until 2061. British films are protected under US copyright in the United States due to the Berne Convention. Since the Internet Archive is hosted in the Unisted States then technically the uploader has broken the law by uploading it to a jurisdiction where it is still under copyright; if they had upoladed it to a file server in the UK that would be perfectly legal. Either way it shouldn't be listed at List of films in the public domain in the United States because this list only covers the US public domain, not the UK public domain. As for noting its UK public domain status at The War Game ideally you just need a WP:Reliable source, but the Internet Archive doesn't meet that criteria; the Internet Archive is basically just a file hosting service like Youtube and doesn't corroborate copyright. Betty Logan (talk) 15:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Betty. That all makes sense to me. I have learnt a lot from your informative response. Epa101 (talk) 22:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Highest-grossing films

With Despicable Me 3 achieving $1 billion, not only it became the 31st film to reach the mark, it's the 6th animated film. I was hoping maybe you can put the information of 6 animated films reached $1 billion. And you know that [[Toy Story 3, Frozen, Minions, Zootopia, and Finding Dory reached it.

I don't think it's relevant. The article is not about animated films or live-action films, it's just about films in general. Betty Logan (talk) 20:07, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Just a suggestion. Ggianoli —Preceding undated comment added 20:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Problems with career Prize money on cuetracker.net

Cuetracker.net does not count team event prize money. This should be taken into account on Wikipedia pages ! 92.251.169.183 (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Cuetracker should not be used at all, and you should quit inserting your own WP:Original research into the article. Betty Logan (talk) 20:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

So what should be used where do you get your figures from ? 92.251.169.183 (talk) 20:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

You can see where the figures are from by clicking the citation for the figure. Betty Logan (talk) 20:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

You are not listening the citation said he had won MORE THAN 8 million prior to the 2015 World Championship but someone rounded it up to 8 million which is not right, by the way who is anyone on here to tell me I cannot use a source to add prize money I can add any total as long as I have a source that is the rule 92.251.169.183 (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

ROS has clearly won over 9 million in prize money and it is clearly stated 92.251.169.183 (talk) 20:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I am not listening because your perspective is not in line with policy. I suggest you read WP:Verifiability not truth and WP:Reliable sources. If you want to use your own figures I suggest you set up a blog or something. Betty Logan (talk) 20:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

You are not listening did I say I was using my own figures ?. It's quite simple to follow I told you I had a source but because it doesn't suit you, you don't want to hear, do you own Wikipedia btw ?. 92.251.169.183 (talk) 20:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

If you have figures based on reliable sources then add the sourcess to the article. For several weeks now all you have done is change the numbers in the article without providing any citations. And please stop posting on my talk page. The Ronnie O'Sullivan article has its own talk page so raise your points there. Betty Logan (talk) 20:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I raised the issue here but I won't ever bother again. I put a lot of my own time into this site to be spoken to in such a manner 92.251.169.183 (talk) 20:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

FYI

Hello BL. I wanted to let you know that I reported the new IP and editor here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dcasey98. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 02:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Aborted script for Bond 17

Hey girl. I'm not option for write this in this page of James Bond in film. I put it in GoldenEye; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GoldenEye&diff=802522479&oldid=802517929 but this jerk DonQuixote believes that the sources are fansites but not. Hel me with this please.--190.158.26.48 (talk) 19:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

DonQuixote is correct that fansites are not WP:Reliable sources. Also, please read WP:NOTPLOT; plot summaries are only included to support encyclopedic coverage of a work, so it is not necessary to include a plot summary for a film that was never actually made. Betty Logan (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Cuetracker.net not a reliable site for prize money ?

Why or how do you get to decide that ?. People are allowed to add edits here with a referenced source but in your personal opinion cuetracker.net is not good enough is it ?. Why is cuetracker.net referenced for century breaks then ?. 92.251.186.12 (talk) 11:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Reliable sources, or not, are designated by the Wikipedia community and not by any individual. Additionally, Betty has asked that you stop posting on her Talk page - which she has every right to request. If you continue to post here, rather than the article Talk page; you may face a block. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 12:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request

Your name is being listed in this resolution. Better comply. Saiph121 (talk) 03:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I've filed a new dispute resolution concerning the following disputed categories for the Beauty and the Beast (2017 film) article.

• Category:Feminist films
• Category:Films about narcissism
• Category:Films about bibliophilia
• Category:Witchcraft in film

You need to explain your motives in your opposition in the inclusion of these following categories, because in my own judgement these are considered as "DEFINING" in which you disagree with that notion and even disregarding the sources that have been provided in this categories to be proven and justified in its reasons to be including in which the current consensus that has been ruled is completely biased and prejudiced. Saiph121 (talk) 01:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Everyone except you at the discussion agrees the categories should remain out of the article so perhaps it is your motives that need examining. Betty Logan (talk) 10:26, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

DRN case closed

This message template was placed here by Nihlus, a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. You recently filed a request or were a major party in the DRN case titled "Talk:Beauty and_the_Beast_(2017_film)#Overcategorization". The case is now closed: consensus has been reached on the talk page. If you are unsatisfied with this outcome, you may refile the DRN request or open a thread on another noticeboard as appropriate. If you have any questions please feel free to contact this volunteer at his/ her talk page or at the DRN talk page. Thank you! --Nihlus 21:15, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• Additional comments by volunteer: If further disagreements form where consensus is not achievable, feel free to refile.

Steve Davis

Thanks for the info. I don't even know how to reply to these messages, or sign my reply. Apologies If I've done this wrong, but while it's worth spending the odd 60 seconds adding info to wiki, frankly I have better things to do than spend hours learning how to have arguments with other users. I did not start this "edit war". I work in archive television and am an acknowledged expert in the field. Of course I understand that you weren't to know that, but given your expertise on wiki, you must know that I do not have a history of arguments or edit wars on Wiki, I'm not entirely clear why you chose to take issue with a fact that is impossible to verify online without illegally uploading the match on Youtube, which it isn't particularly my place to do. I regularly come across old domestic video recordings, and came across a recording of the match in question recently. I thought the information was notable as it came from Davis' golden period. If you think the public is better off without this verifiably correct information, I'm afraid I haven't got the time to continue to argue with you. Best wishes, Diariser Diariser (talk) 21:55, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Edit - I attach a screen grab, in a final attempt to persuade you to reinstate the correct information! thumb

Please join the discussion at Talk:Steve_Davis#World_Team_Classic_match_details. Betty Logan (talk) 08:10, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

1960 in Film

Please provide a valid explanation for obtusely reverting my edits. --Chintu89 (talk) 17:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Which part of "This is a chart of domestic box-office rentals, not worldwide grosses" do you not understand? You keep adding a worldwide box-office gross to a table that does not chart worldwide box-office grosses. They are completely different quantities! If you are going to change the figure for Spartacus to a worldwide gross then you have to change the figure for Psycho to a worldwide gross (which was $50 million incidentally), and then do the same for every other film in the chart. I would have thought that was obvious, but apparently not. What you are doing is WP:SYNTHESIS which is against the policy, and that is the reason I have reverted you. Betty Logan (talk) 18:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Blacklist tag removal (Steve Davis)

Hi Betty, I have removed blacklisted Cuetracker and Prosnookerblog references on Steve Davis' page as per here - [2] and re-sourced to BBC. Can you advise on whether it is correct to now remove the bot tags at the top of the article, set the "invisible" field to "true", or simply leave the tags in place as they are now? Andygray110 (talk) 23:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I would set the "invisible" field to "true" and leave it for the rest of the month. If the bot doesn't untag it automatically after a few weeks then I would just remove the spam tag. Betty Logan (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Done, and same also done with Alex Higgins. Thanks for your help as always. Andygray110 (talk) 00:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

You are welcome, Andy. You do a lot of great work on the snooker articles so I am happy to help where I can. Betty Logan (talk) 00:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

RFC to change film MOS

I opened up an RFC on proposed changes to the Film:MOS. You can vote on it here --Deathawk (talk) 05:02, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

MOS:PARAGRAPHS

Please read MOS:PARAGRAPHS before continuing to join paragraphs. I split these up because they were hard to read. If you can think of some more logical way to split them up, then I'm open to that. In fact, the section is long enough that I would consider dividing it into smaller sections to make it more readable. Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

The paragraphs are not hard to read. They are typical pargagraph lengths ranging in most cases 5–10 sentences. They may be hard to read on a tablet but Wikipedia is not written for tablets, it is written for resolutions of 1024 and more. Paragraphs should form a cohesive "thought" and introducing arbitrary breaks interrupts the point. Betty Logan (talk) 04:29, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I am not reading on a tablet and I find them hard to read. I don't know why you would argue with me that I went to the article to read it, and found the section very difficult to read. I think breaking it up into shorter sections would actually be more helpful as the section itself is considerably longer then average for Wikipedia articles. Also, I know what a paragraph is and I broke them up in logical places. You should really be willing to take advice from a second pair of eyes telling you that it is difficult to read. Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:34, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Personally I find your edits made the article much more difficult to digest because it broke up points. You did not introduce new paragraphs into "logical" places. I did not write the section, but the stucture of the section was better before it was broken down into more paragraphs IMO, which is why I rejoined some of them. A paragraph should cover a single thought: if that takes 3 sentences then the paragraph should be 3 sentences, and if it takes 12 sentences then the paragraph should be 12 sentences. The only logical break for a paragraph is when you move on to another point. Betty Logan (talk) 04:43, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

For example the paragraph you joined about Dixon showing the film to Woodrow Wilson at the White House, and the Supreme Court is two paragraphs. "Besides having the film screened at the White House..." - this is pretty clear that we have moved on to a new topic. It also serves the purpose of logically connecting one paragraph to the preceding one. Perfect place for a break. The paragraph about reactions from Americans is fine as one thought, now that I removed the second sentence - of course the first time I looked it, I did not think the author was that wedded to topic sentences so I decided to break it up instead of removing anything. Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

The third paragraph addresses the screening at the White House. The President and the Justices were present at the same time, so it is not really a logically divisible point. It recommend reading the paragraph guide at http://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/paragraphs/. The main point is that if you think about a paragraph in terms of size you are thinking about it the wrong way. A paragraph being long is not necessarily a reason for breaking it up. Betty Logan (talk) 04:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I understand but prose is not the only concern, readability is a factor. So many studies have shown the importance of white space for readability. Personally, when I am reading and not editing I scan articles - I don't read them like a novel (and I came to this article to read, because I am reading a book about the Klan right now) - I think one issue is the overall lack of Wikilinks in the section. I added one by creating an article for it. The tone of the lede is also extremely positive for such a negative film, that the critiscm of the film seems buried in that section. I don't think it was intention, but subheadings may help here. Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:03, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I have asked SchroCat if he would mind taking a look at the paragraph structure. He has numerous FA articles to his name, and he may be able to strike a compromise. As for the lead itself, the film is not negative, it is simply controversial due to being racist. That does not detract from the fact it is arguably the most important American film ever made, in terms of film-making innovation, its impact on the industry and its unprecedented commercial success. Betty Logan (talk) 05:10, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree and it is my fault for scanning the article quickly. The last paragraph of the lede is usually a very prominent placement in an article. I think for a film that has been the subject of a tremendous amount of critical literature, a subheadings under "Responses and Reception" discussing that background would be suitable - it is discussed not only in reviews but for it's impact on the Klan and I could not find a clear section about that, which is what I was looking for. I think a section about this should be added. Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:15, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I think creating a couple of sub-sections would be a good first step.. The critical reception can probably be separated from the responses. I will WP:BEBOLD and implement that. Betty Logan (talk) 05:33, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@Seraphim System: I have made some structural alterations. Are they going in the right direction for you? Do you find they have improved readability at all? Betty Logan (talk) 05:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's more organized and less overwhelming now, thank you. Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, you are both right. A paragraph should not be judged by length, but should be the length it takes to discuss a point. Readability is also extremely important when putting together an article and walls of text should be avoided if possible. I like the changes that have taken place so far (breaking the long section into sub-sections, rather than breaking single-point paragraphs), and I think that goes a long way to helping things. I didn't find the paragraphs too long to read but (and this is Inman a tablet). To overcome the feel of a wall of text, I've found that adding images breaks things up and aids the feel and readability, so I'd be tempted to drop in some free images in there. Hope this helps, but if you want more input, please ping me. - SchroCat (talk) 08:38, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Where does it say not to edit guidelines?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

IPs question has been answered. Asking it in another ten different ways isn't going to get a different answer

---

Hi. Unless I’m mistaken, you never responded to this post about WP editing policy. You’ve said that guidelines should not be altered without first gaining support. Policies like WP:WPEDIT and WP:PGCHANGE say this isn’t necessary. What is the backing for your position? Thanks. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 18:40, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I did not say that. I said they should not be altered without WP:Consensus, which is a policy. And there has been extensive discussion on the talk page regarding the changes you wish to implemement and your suggstions have not gained support, but you keep going ahead and altering them regardless! It's poor form. Betty Logan (talk) 22:50, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I’m not sure how you’re differentiating “support” and “consensus,” but yes, you did in fact say that. Anyway, I’m aware that editing against consensus violates policy, but editing without consensus—editing to achieve consensus—is actually condoned by policy, such as what I linked above. Which edits of mine are you thinking of? Because unless I’m mistaken, at the time of most of my edits (and some, even afterward), there was little to no discussion from anyone else about the particular changes. But speaking of poor form, if you intend to revert multiple edits without discussion (as you did leading up to the RFPP), please be sure to address them all in your edit summary. Otherwise, it leaves the impression that only a partial revert was intended, and the full revert was mistaken. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Implicit consensus is enshrined in our WP:BEBOLD guideline, but when it is obvious from talk page discussions (mutliple in the case of this guideline) that several editors have made it abundantly clear that they do not wish to see the guideline altered then there is no consensus for changing it. In such cases implicit consensus does not exist and you should observe WP:NOCONSENSUS. The article has been semi-protected because of the ongoing disruption, as evidenced by the multiple reverts in the article history. I am sorry if that upsets you but semi-protecting a page is an entirely reasonable step to take to prevent further disruption. Betty Logan (talk) 06:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Again I ask, which edits, which alterations, are you referring to that had been previously discussed? Are you talking about when I was iterating to try to find a compromise solution that works? (That isn’t disruption; please don’t toss that word around.) Or do you mean there was a blanket consensus against any editing of any kind? If so, such a stance seems antithetical to how Wikipedia works; local consensus to freeze editing cannot override editing policy. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 07:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The article would not have been semi-protected if there had been no disruptive behavior. We are all in the same boat here: I can no longer edit the page logged out either. Betty Logan (talk) 09:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware the page was semi-protected due to unsubstantiated claims of disruption. I am not aware of which actions of mine we’re discussing, which is why I’m asking you to give me an example. As far as I am aware, my behavior consisted of proposing and making new changes in order to provoke discussion so we could try to find common ground, which does not match up with what you’ve described. DIsruptive behavior includes “repeatedly disregarding other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits,” which I experienced rather than committed. Leading up to the PP request, the changes I made had nothing to do with anything previously discussed to any extent. So, to be absolutely clear, my question for the last three posts has been this:
What are you talking about? What behavior was WP:Disruptive, and where did I actually do it? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 16:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The disruption is evidenced by all the recent reverting on the page. It had become unstable, and that is unhelpful for a guideline. Semi-protection seems to have solved the problem. If anyone wishes to make further changes while logged out they can use the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Betty Logan (talk) 01:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Please explain how the normal process of proposing changes, and then implementing them when no objections are raised, constitutes disruptive editing, or else please point out where I did otherwise. The reverting was done by logged-in editors who frequently opted not to engage in discussion regarding any objections, which is a sign of a disruptive editor, so this accusation coming from you (as one of said reverters) continues to frustrate and confuse me.

But you said recent reverting; are you talking about my partial restoration after you seemed to mistakenly revert more than your edit summary indicated? I thought we’d already settled that; see the end of yesterday’s 6:40 comment. If that’s what you’re talking about, then it was a misunderstanding, not DE. Raising your objections on the talk page (where the changes were first proposed) would have also helped immensely. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:38, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ANI, User:Michael 182

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Michael 182, WP:DE to award list articles. AldezD (talk) 17:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Why did you undo my fix?

Hi Betty, I recently stumbled upon a broken wiki page, and spent some time verifying the syntax to figure out why it was broken. It seems that you reverted my fix: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Valerian_and_the_City_of_a_Thousand_Planets&oldid=prev&diff=798715890 I believe this was a mistake, so I'll try to fix it again. Thanks! jan (talk) 01:06, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

 Actually, it seems that the Infobox was later re-fixed by someone else. Everything is in order then. Have a great day!
 jan (talk) 01:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jan.Keromnes: The infobox was not broken by me, it was broken by the editor before you, who deleted content: [3]. Following your fix I restored the content: [4]. Your fix was only reversed because I reverted the edit that caused the problem. Betty Logan (talk) 01:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Betty Logan. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

WPBSA/EASB Open Tour 2003

Hi you have the above tour down as a pro-am. I have contacted Snooker Statistician Clive Everton and he says that these events were non-ranking in the above year. I can forward you on the conversation to prove this to you ?. Will you change the above status of these events with this evidence ?. Regards 178.167.155.123 (talk) 12:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

They were non-ranking because they were organised by the EASB and not by the WPBSA. We have been over this so many times now. The proof is the reference supplied in the article. Betty Logan (talk) 15:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

No please read the introduction of the Cuesport Book of Professional Snooker the complete record and history it says the WPBSA and EASB split in 2003-2004 season. This does not include the 2002-2003 season which you have included as pro-am please read the introduction for yourself !. Will you view this please it is clearly stated and Clive Everton has stated that the 2002-2003 season were non-ranking events. Will you view this and amend please ?. Regards 83.136.45.2 (talk) 17:49, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Jesus H Christ. This is the sequence of events:

• 2001/02: WPBSA (professional) start the Open Tour. They are in partnership with the EASB (amateur) at the time and permit amateurs to compete.
• 2002/03: The EASB take over the Open Tour. As part of the partnership with the WPBSA they permit professionals to compete (Hayton, pp. 182–183)
• 2003/04: WPBSA and EASB partnership ends. Professionals are barred from entering EASB Open Tour as result of the split (Hayton P. iii)

How many times do I have to explain this to you? The same book you keep quoting at me explicitly states that the WPBSA ran the open tour in 2002/03 during which amateurs were permitted to enter, the EASB ran the open tour during 2002/03 during which professionals were allowed to enter, and in 2004/03 professionals were barred following the split. Why do you keep quoting one part of the book but dismiss the other part of the book which contradicts your viewpoint? I even scanned in the pages earlier this year so you could verify this yourself but yet you persist in refusing to accept the EASB ran the tour in 2002/03. If you put much so much stock in what the Hayton book says about the split in 2003/04 why do you keep refusing to accept what else the book says? Betty Logan (talk) 19:04, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I am a Catholic do not use Jesus Christ's name in vain. Show a little bit of class and respect. I am told by all other sources that the 2003 events were non-ranking events. Clive Everton has confirmed this for me and is replying to me again after Xmas when he digs out back issues of Snooker Scene. Surely he would know as a Snooker historian no ?. I've noticed you have been proved wrong on here before and you struggle to accept that at times and seem to think Wikipedia is your plaything.but it does not work like that.178.167.207.115 (talk) 20:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I have contact info for Clive maybe you should try him for yourself178.167.207.115 (talk) 20:08, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it's about time you start abiding by Wikipedia's policies, principally WP:Verifiability? Any event that is not a ranking event is a non-ranking event by definition, and since nobody is arguing it is a ranking event then this in itself is irrelevant. The question here is whether it was run by the WPBSA or by the EASB. The source that you keep quoting clearly shows the event was run by the EASB in the 2002/03 season, the year before they split with the WPBSA. I have provided you with page numbers and even page scans, and yet you choose to disbelieve the source that you keep quoting to me. Tell me this: if you believe the Hayton book is correct in stating the EASB and WPBSA ended their partnership in 2003/04 why do you not believe the same book is not correct by saying the EASB ran the tour in the 2002/03 season? I have asked you this several times now and each time you evade the question. You can't have it both ways. If the Hayton book is reliable for the 2003/04 date then it is also reliable for the 2002/03 season. Betty Logan (talk) 20:44, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not evading it I got no scans does it say they are pro-ams ?. Who cares if the EASB ran it Snooker Historians like Clive Everton are calling them non-ranking events not pro-ams. He said they were open and non-ranking what is wrong with that ?. Does the book state pro-am ?. 31.200.137.180 (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Alternate history films

I considered Category:American alternate history films possibly includes films about fictional history also, as well as Back to the Future Part II which already included in the cat just for example.--Twilight Magic (talk) 03:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Please note that categories have to be supported by sources per WP:CATVER, which states: "Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." If sources can be found supporting the claim that these films are "alternate history" fiction then by all means add them to the categories but they shouldn't be added based on editorial judgment alone. It is very iffy in the case of something like the Terminator films and Twelve Monkeys which are set in the near future, relative to when they were made. I don't really see on what basis these films can be classed as "alternate history". Back to the Future 2 is anomalous because despite being made in 1989 it is a continuation of the first film which was set in 1985, and it creates an alternate 1985, so it probably does qualify in that regard. It would be a stretch to say that the other two films in the series are "alternative history films" though. Betty Logan (talk) 03:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

20th Century Fox

21st Century Fox sold their film and TV assets to Disney, the 20th Century Fox label exists under Disney now, they're no longer a separate label. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnknownAssassin1819 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Fox has only changed ownership. It has not ceased operating as a studio, and the MPAA still list it as a member. Betty Logan (talk) 19:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Fox is under Disney now, how can you even call it a separate studio? The MPAA site probably wasn't updated yet, remember, Disney still has to implement Fox into their company, it's not completely merged into Disney, but it definitely isn't a separate studio anymore.UnknownAssassin1819 (talk) 23:47, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

As you point out, Disney still has to incorporate Fox into its own operations. Until that happens it will continue operating as a subsidiary of Disney, producing films and distributing them, and while that continues it will most likely remain a member of the MPAA. All your sources show is that ownership of Fox has changed; it does not show that they have stopped operating as a company or stopped making films, and it does not not comment on their MPAA membership. The MPAA will do doubt update their website when Fox resigns their membership as a independent entirty. Until that happens you are making WP:CRYSTAL assumptions. Betty Logan (talk) 11:08, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello Betty Logan: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Tenebrae (talk) 17:35, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Same goes for you too, Tenebrae. Whenever I see your name pop up on my watchlist I know I don't have to bother checking the edit! Betty Logan (talk) 18:32, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays

From Stave one of Dickens A Christmas Carol Old Marley was as dead as a door-nail. Mind! I don’t mean to say that I know, of my own knowledge, what there is particularly dead about a door-nail. I might have been inclined, myself, to regard a coffin-nail as the deadest piece of ironmongery in the trade. But the wisdom of our ancestors is in the simile; and my unhallowed hands shall not disturb it, or the Country’s done for. You will therefore permit me to repeat, emphatically, that Marley was as dead as a door-nail. So you see even Charles was looking for a reliable source :-) Thank you for your contributions to the 'pedia. ~ MarnetteD|Talk 23:13, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• You have a good one too (same goes for MarnetteD). Betty Logan (talk) 15:54, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Heddwch ac ewyllys da

		Compliments of the season Wishing you all the best for 2018 — good health, sufficient wealth, peace and contentment
		Cheers! ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones The Welsh Buzzard ‑ ‑ 18:16, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Hello there! Shearonink (talk) wishes you & yours the the very best of the season!
Whether you celebrate Christmas, Diwali, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Festivus (for the rest of us!) or even the Saturnalia, here's to hoping your holiday time is wonderful and that the New Year will be an improvement upon the old. CHEERS!

Share these holiday wishes by adding {{subst:User:Shearonink/Holiday}}~~~~ to your friends' talk pages.

Shearonink (talk) 20:36, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Reversions

It's kinda rude to just revert my edits instead of making some attempt to reach a middle ground. Some of the stuff you reverted didn't have anything to do with the source you provided. We're all on the same team you know? Jozsefs (talk) 06:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I included edit summaries for both reverts and added in a citation, and there is no "middle ground" when it come to WP:Original research. For further explanation as to why your edits were problematic please see the article talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 15:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Dude it's considered rude to revert good faith edits instead of working on a compromise and you know that. I've been here for years and my edits are always in good faith, having someone come along and stalk my edits and revert them is discouraging me from further participating in this website after many years. I don't know why you have to behave in such an intolerable manner towards your colleagues. Are you trying to run good faith editors off the website? What does that accomplish? Jozsefs (talk) 23:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Reverting is a perfectly acceptable part of the editing process, and a completely necessary action when those edits violate the WP:Original research policy. My edits are completely in line with WP:BRD which I suggest you go and acquaint yourself with. You made bold edits, I reverted them, and I have given you comprehensive reasons in both the edit summaries and on the article talk page. What's more, after removing your interpretative analysis from the plot summary I have made a good faith attempt to incorporate some of your other edits. As far as I can see the good faith is running in only one direction here. If you are not happy with the current state of the article I suggest you join the discussion on the talk page make your case there. Betty Logan (talk) 23:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

You're not even going to acknowledge that reverting is an abrasive technique when used on experienced editors, and that there are much more gentlemanly ways for experienced editors to resolve a difference in vision? I don't mind another editor fine tuning my work, or discussing differences with me. But you're just rampaging around like a bull in a china shop, stepping on colleagues toes. Chill out dude Jozsefs (talk) 23:54, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

An experienced editor would not add WP:Original research to articles, nor would they remove useful wikilinks or obfuscate terminology. If you look at the article you would see that I have actually retained many of your edits, but I suspect your idea of a "compromise" is one where I step aside and let you do what you want. Betty Logan (talk) 00:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)