User talk:Betty Logan

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

Jamie Clarke

Betty can you remove Rhys from the above players wiki page please ?. WS lists him as Jamie Clarke as does the EBSA as he has won their playoffs to turn professional. his twitter account lists him as Jamie Clarke and Hermund from Snooker.org contacted Jamie himself and was told that he wants to be known as Jamie Clarke. Snooker.org are removing Rhys from their records. i hope you can help ?. regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.200.183.141 (talk) 13:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

It is not possible to do that because there is more than one Jamie Clarke on Wikipedia. See the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Snooker#Can_someone_remove_the_Rhys_from_Jamie_Clarke's_name_please. Betty Logan (talk) 13:06, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

of course its possible there are plenty of Mark King's also. we just need a Jamie Clarke snooker player. why cant we remove the rhys like we did in the sunny akani page ?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.200.183.141 (talk) 15:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

There is only one Sunny Akani so he can have the page. However, Jamie Clarke is used as an index for all the Jamie Clarke articles on Wikipedia, and there is no evidence the snooker player is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Betty Logan (talk) 15:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

can we change it from Jamie Rhys Clarke to Jamie Clarke (snooker player) then it would be much better ?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.189.174 (talk) 16:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

That is for the snooker project to decide, not me. Betty Logan (talk) 16:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Open Tour 2002/2003

Hi Betty I looked this up and World Snooker was in charge of the Open Tour until the end of the 2002/2003 season. You said it was the EASB that ran it. Open Tour was not classed as a pro-am it was treated like the modern day PTC'S were except they were non ranking events. I told you snooker historian counts these as non ranking events. Can we contact World Snooker to clarify this issue please ?. Regards 178.167.223.245 (talk) 23:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

All snooker tournaments that are not ranking events count as non-ranking events. That includes professional invitationals, pro-ams and amateur events, so being a non-ranking event does not necessarly indicate the event was run by the WPBSA. "The Cuesport of Professional Snooker" says that the EASB administered the tour in 2002/03, so if you have a reliably published source that says otherwise then please provide it here so it can be reviewed. Betty Logan (talk) 23:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

1982 in film

Hi, I find very confusing about this article [here] This is regard to an edit made by User:Maestro2016 on this [post] He added another box for "International market" and posted figures for three countries - India, Soviet Union, United Kingdom. For Indian movie Disco Dancer, he mentioned domestic grossing figures from its origin country + the grossing figures this movie made in Soviet Union according to his unofficial [calculations] which he made by himself. For Soviet Union movie Sportloto-82, he mentioned its country’s only domestic figure and UK film Gandhi-1982 he mentioned both Domestic and International figure. Why is that figures for North American movies in the 1st table are domestic figures [see] and for the International table, the figures for 3 countries are jumbled up both with both domestic and foreign grossing figures made outside of its country of origin. If you take for example, Jurassic park ‘s domestic figure is $359,197,037 but it made $357,800,000 outside North America with total worldwide gross of $792,910,554. This is more box office gross than the films mentioned in International table. Then why not mention this movie in International table? I feel only domestic figures should be mentioned for them just like North American table. Similar editing was made here [1973],[1967], [1966] I hope you look into this matter. --Chintu89 (talk) 11:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't make any sense at all. If the worldwide figures are not known then only the domestic figures should be used. Betty Logan (talk) 17:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

For comments at ANI. Sometimes I'm my own worst enemy, but what is done is done. Appreciate you taking a few moments out of your editing time for me. Thanks again! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: Don't worry about it Lugnuts. We all say and do dumb things from time to time and I have seen enough of you in action to know that the comments that were presented at the discussion are not wholly representative of your character. The problem with edit summaries is that we cannot go back and delete/strike them once we have cooled down a bit and reconsidered. Betty Logan (talk) 08:10, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Centuries

Trump and M. Williams now (after World Championship) have 533 and 439 centuries, respectively. That is what I saw (statistics shown on screen) and heard (from the mouth of commentators) during broadcast on Eurosport, at least. If they are mistaken, then I am mistaken too. – KWiki (talk) 09:59, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@KWiki: That's cool Kwiki. The problem though is that the centruy counts don't match up to the (outdated) sources. All you need to do is update the reference to something like Snooker World Championship broadcast, Eurosport, [time and date of broadcast] so editors & readers know you have got them from somewhere legit. Betty Logan (talk) 13:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

List of highest grossing film in United Kingdom

I edit that page after reading this article of The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/may/15/avengers-infinity-war-overtakes-dark-knight-at-box-office-is-it-uk-biggest-superhero-film ਬੱਬੂ ਬਰਾੜ (talk) 10:55, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I have reinstated it to the list, but if you had added the source to the article in the first place I never would have reverted! Betty Logan (talk) 11:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Adults Only, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page R18 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism on the Seniors World Championship site

Hi Betty. There is a Vandal on the world Seniors site. He keeps making the same edit from multiple ips and it is the only edit made on these ips which tells me enough. How can we stop this please ?. Regards 178.167.134.252 (talk) 12:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

You can place a request for "semi-protection" at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if a page is being vandalised by an IP hopper. There is no point blocking the IP numbers because they will just get another. Betty Logan (talk) 14:44, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Betty if you edit it or leave a note on the page it would be better. This person seems to think the Seniors Tour is associated with the main tour and and keeps changing it. I have pointed out the Seniors Tour is a tour in its own right like in golf but he won't listen can you leave an edit please ?. Regards 178.167.134.252 (talk) 20:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

He keeps saying main tour players are ineligible and keeps changing it. Does he not realise the Seniors is a tour in its own right ?. This is very frustrating. Can you put a semi lock and explain this to the person please ?. Regards 178.167.134.252 (talk) 20:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• "Open to any player not currently on tour aged over 40" (from pdf-file in 2017 article);
• "This tournament is only open to Amateur players not currently in the 128" (from pdf-file in 2018 article);

So, only amateur (non-tour) players were eligible to play since 2018. "Non-ranking events" is a terminology used for events with pro players (otherwise, Q-School, IBSF championships are the non-ranking events also). 46.211.133.186 (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I pointed this out on another talk page. The World Seniors Tour is a tour in its own right it is not linked to the main tour. The legends 6 to 8 of them play the qualifiers in the tournament proper after they qualify. You seem to think this has something to do with the main tour it does not. It is like the senior tour in golf. Editors and moderators on here class them as non-ranking wins on the Seniors Tour 178.167.134.252 (talk) 22:30, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• They were "non-ranking" until 2016 only when they were organized by World Snooker and eligible for the main tour pro-players. Since 2017, seniors events were organized by Snooker Legends, not World Snooker even, and open for the amateur players only, per cited references. 46.211.110.147 (talk) 22:31, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

The World Seniors Tour only started last season you are having a real problem understanding that. 4 events Jimmy White and Ken Doherty they are main tour players they played in the final of one of the Seniors events. The Seniors Tour was created by Jason Francis of Snooker Legends you are missing the point. It had nothing to do with the WPBSA Buthe they are joining forces with himy this season OK? . 178.167.134.252 (talk) 22:44, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• It's a pity for you, but Mark Davis, Jimmy White and Ken Doherty didn't play in 2017 and 2018 because they were not eligible for that year's editions, as it was exclusively for non-tour players, per sources. "Ranking" events are played with Top-128 pro-players (and included into the world ranking), and all "non-ranking" events (Masters, Champions League, Champions of Champions, Hong Kong, Haining) are played for same Top-128 pro-players (with the addition of some wild cards). 46.211.121.242 (talk) 22:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

But you are not listening the World Seniors Tour was set up since then what are you talking about ? 178.167.134.252 (talk) 23:00, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you start a discussion at the World Seniors article and then notify the Snooker Project at WT:SNOOKER. Having looked at the page I disagree that the editor is vandalising the article; however he is breaking the WP:NOCONSENSUS policy so this needs to be resolved through discussion. Basically one of you needs to start a discussion and then other editors can contribute to it. Betty Logan (talk) 22:50, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Betty we all discussed this on the Snooker talk pages that World Seniors Tour events should be non-ranking events. You were happy with that am I right ?. I checked it today ? 178.167.134.252 (talk) 22:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• They should be "non-ranking" until 2016 (when organized by WPBSA with the participation of some pro-players). But since 2017 this events are for amateurs only. 46.211.121.242 (talk) 23:00, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

The only reason Jimmy White and Ken Doherty did not enter into the Championship is because they were already qualifying through the main tour. You are not getting away from the fact you think it's tied to the main tour. What will your answer be when the WPBSA runs it next year . 178.167.134.252 (talk) 23:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Plus it's called the World Seniors Championship on the World Seniors Tour not the amateur tour.178.167.134.252 (talk) 23:07, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• Jimmy White and Ken Doherty were not eligible to play in the seniors WCh in 2017 and 2018 because they were available for amateurs only. Who knows what will be in the future. Read WP:CBALL first. 46.211.121.242 (talk) 23:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• It is good you guys are talking but will your PLEASE take the discussion to Talk:World Seniors Championship. You need other editors to weigh in and they can't do that on my talk page! Betty Logan (talk) 23:15, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Betty can you just tell me if you view the Seniors Snooker tour as non ranking events wins please ?. Regards 178.167.134.252 (talk) 23:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• Betty can you just tell us if you view the World Seniors Championships in 2017 and 2018 as amateur events? 46.211.121.242 (talk) 23:28, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

They were Senior Tour events which were created by Jason Francis in 2017 with other events so why all of a sudden would these two be amateur and the others senior non-ranking titles makes no sense ?. Regards 178.167.134.252 (talk) 23:32, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• First, there were no any Senior Tour during the 2017 WSC. Second, both regulations for the tournaments clearly says: "This tournament is only open to Amateur players not currently in the 128..." 46.211.24.228 (talk) 23:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• I would describe them as Pro-Am since Snooker Legends took over. The events were open to anyone over the age of 40, include amateurs. Also, I would like to point out that not being on tour doesn't necessarily make you an amateur. If you still have WPBSA membership but are not on the tour you are still technically a professional player. For example, Tony Knowles was unable to play in amateur events because he refused to resign his WPBSA membership. On the other hand Darren Morgan resigned his WPBSA membership and was therefore allowed to play in amateur events. Unless the likes of Stephen Hendry and Dennis Taylor have started playing in amateur events then there is no evidence they have reverted to amateur status so I believe it is wrong to describe the World Seniors as an "amateur" event. Betty Logan (talk) 23:37, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

So will we leave them as non-ranking as they were in previous years? . It was agreed at the start including by yourself that all Seniors events were non ranking events wins. You can view the talkpage ?. Regards 178.167.134.252 (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• Only one question else. How they were "pro-am", if "this tournament is only open to amateur players", per regulations ? 46.211.24.228 (talk) 23:45, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

  Entry and qualification was only open to amateurs, but that doesn't mean only amateurs played in it. According to this the "all-new World Seniors Tour will give amateur snooker players aged 40+ the chance to battle it out with the likes of Stephen Hendry, Jimmy White and Dennis Taylor." That is kind of ambiguous, because players like Hendry and Thorburn were given automatic entry, and I don't see any evidence of them playing in other events carrying amateur status. Betty Logan (talk) 23:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

They are not pro-am either. Do you understand why Francis put the word amateur in he wanted people to play legends on a Seniors Tour for senior players can you not get that. You are thrown by that one line in all of this 178.167.134.252 (talk) 23:49, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• I don't know what he want and you want. I don't want to know it even. I read the regulation of the tournament. Also I can see the standings with only amateur (non-pro) players included. If the rules says amateur tournament then it is amateur. Othervise, it's a your WP:OR (original research). 46.211.24.228 (talk) 23:56, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Even Betty pointed out amateur players can play the legends in Special Senior Tour events they are not amateur and only you thinks they are. 178.167.134.252 (talk) 00:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Betty why throw pro-am out to really complicated things this was consented to including yourself that it was to be called non ranking instead of creating another section to add these finals ? 178.167.134.252 (talk) 23:55, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

These tournaments are either pro-ams or invitationals with an amateur leg, or they are full amateur events (if you can prove to me that Stephen Hendry is now officially recognised an amateur by his NGB). "Non-ranking" status is basically an WPBSA concept and this isn't a WPBSA event anymore. Betty Logan (talk) 00:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Invitationals I say Betty the General Cup was a non ranking events. The WPBSA are running this next year with Snooker Legends and the will be non-ranking ranking invitational events. Will I put in non ranking events (Amateur legs). ? 178.167.134.252 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• Wrong idea also. Snooker Legends have no any "ranking events", so they have no any "non-ranking events". Their WCh are eligible for non-tour (amateur) players only, per regulations. 46.211.112.72 (talk) 00:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Surreal Barnstar
	Had to do this… couldn’t resist it. You’ve done a magnificent job on the time you’ve spent editing and protecting Wikipedia. I hope and pray you succeed greatly in your life. Surge_Elec (talk) 21:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

New Page Patrol?

Hi Betty Logan,

I've recently been looking for editors to invite to join New Page Patrol, and from your editing history, I think you would be a good candidate. Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; we could use some additional help from an experienced user like yourself.

Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. If you choose to apply, you can drop an application over at WP:PERM/NPR.

Cheers, and hope to see you around, — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 21:21, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

re: 1925 in Film (revision)

If you use the "accessdate=" parameter, it is REQUIRED that you have a URL filled in. If not, the article will show up in an error report which is where it came to my attention. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pages_using_citations_with_accessdate_and_no_URL As best I know, the problem can be remedied (in this case) by either changing (page= to url=), or removing the date from the "accessdate=" parameter. Gene Wilson (talk) 22:38, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks for letting me know. I have removed the access date. I still think it is better to just link the page number because most of the book isn't actually available online i.e. it's just a Google page preview. Betty Logan (talk) 23:04, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Swedish every on Motion picture content rating system

I know this is your personal talk page and not the talk page for Motion picture content rating system. But you seem to be the most active there, plus that you seem to be more knowledgeable about the structure, so I wanted to contact you directly.

I have tried understanding how the table is supposed to work, but I can't really understand how it works. Swedish rating 15 is black for 11–14 and red for 15–21, which I understood as black messaging there are conditions that are applied whilst red isn't. But looking at Turkey, this isn't the case. Here the 15+ and 15A are both 15–21. So following how it is on Turkey, Swedish should be Btl 0–6, 7 (red) 7–10, 11 (red) 11–14, 15 (red) 15–21. – But if you do want to add the information of when a rating first is allowed even accompanied by an adult, I still think my version does the job. Because currently, why isn't there a black 7 from 0–6? Why is there a red 11 from 15–21 when no other rating is stretching beyond the next rating? The same is done on Norway where the red 12 is going beyond 15, but ends at 18. On Denmark, the purple 7 goes beyond 11 and 15, where 11 could have been two rows like the Norwegian 18. I also don't understand the alternating colours, the chess pattern, that is used on Norway and Sweden.
Liggliluff (talk) 02:06, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Let's take the United States as an example: G and PG have no age limitations so they start at 0; PG-13 carries an age recommendation so the the purple bar for PG-13 starts at 13; the R rating has a conditional restriction for audiences under 17 (i.e. audiences under 17 have to be accompanied by an adult) so the red bar starts at 17, while NC-17 prohibits audiences under the age of 18, so the black bar starts at 18 i.e. the bar starts at the age upon which the rating is based.

In the case of Sweden's "7" rating, children under the age of 7 have to be accompanied by an adult, so this is represented by a red bar starting at 7 (just like the US R rating is represented by a red bar starting at 17). By changing it to a black bar starting at age 0 you are essentially telling us that children that have not been born are not admitted (note how no other black bars start at age 0)

In some cases, the ratings have more than one condition attached. For example, in Sweden the 11 rating prohibits admission under 7, and also requires that children under 11 are accompanied. Because the rating has two conditions it is represented by two colors: a black bar starting at 7 (meaning that children under 7 are not admitted) and a red bar from 11 (meaning that children under 11 should be accompanied). These two conditions are applied in tandem. The problem with your alteration is that you split the 11 rating over two rows making it look like two separate ratings, which makes it more confusing than it already is. Since it is a single rating with two conditions it should be kept to a single row. In Turkey's case, 7+ and 7A are actually two different ratings, not a single rating with two conditions.

I concede it's not a great visualisation technique but it's the best we can do to represent ratings that have two conditions attached. To try and limit confusion these types of ratings also have a hoverbox explanation, so if you move your mouse over "11" in the Sweden entry it will tell you how the rating works. Due to the limitations of the Wikipedia software I can't see any other way to render the information in a bar chart, but perhaps we can make this clearer in the key at the top. Betty Logan (talk) 02:23, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

The Birth of a Nation poster

Would you say a consensus has already been established regarding the poster for The Birth of a Nation yet, so we can change it back? 24.18.128.102 (talk) 01:36, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

It's customary to give these things a few days. It looks like the impartial editors are supporting your position though. If there hasn't been a significant third-party objection by the end of tomorrow I'd say it would be ok to change it then. Betty Logan (talk) 12:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

FYI

Just wondering if you were aware of this...? - ^theWOLFchild 23:01, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

These pages are being discussed at Talk:List of box office bombs (2000s). I should warn you though, it's like talking to a brick wall. Betty Logan (talk) 23:10, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I see what you mean... it just kind of goes on and on, with no decision in sight. I started a straw poll to try and get things moving. Feel free to add your !vote. Your opinion carries a lot of weight in this subject area. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 01:50, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Infinity War Genre Problem

Okay but you gotta change that for its sequel.Shayaan Raza (talk) 15:42, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Regarding film production companies

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Regarding film production companies. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:20, 10 August 2018 (UTC)Template:Z48

Should there be Wikipedia articles devoted to movies that bombed at the box office?

The simple answer if if people will visit the page, there should be a page. Purist level two would be to say if enough people visit the page to make the crowdsourcing effect accurate, there should be a page. After all, it takes a certain number of eyeballs to evolve away bad edits. The other way to see it is how influential the topic/movie was. But it’s hard to argue that anything with a wide release, a twenty million dollar budget, and three hundred people involved in making it isn’t influential enough to allow a volunteer to write a paragraph about it. All major motion pictures are part of the zeitgeist.

If it doesn’t make its money back at the box office it is a bomb. There are films that were box office stinkers but were money makers in secondary markets of home video and games for various and sundry reasons. BornonJune8 (talk) 12:00, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

My talk page is not the place to challenge the deletion of an article, and editing an archived discussion won't get you anywhere either. If you think the decision was flawed in some way you should either discuss this with the closer or ask for the decision to be reviewed at WP:DELREVIEW. Betty Logan (talk) 00:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#The New Adventures of Pippi Longstocking sources

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#The New Adventures of Pippi Longstocking sources. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:19, 18 August 2018 (UTC)Template:Z48

Boxoffice politcs

I'm not going to argue it. I found a source that contradicted what was posted & used it. If you've got better sourcing, or better info, I'll happily let you use it. I'd just like for there to be some agreement on what is & isn't the "box office" of a film for a year, or ever, because nobody seems to have a damn clue. I certainly don't anymore. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:43, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

TCM

Hi Betty. I did some digging, and found this thread, which lead me to this. Should work now! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:13, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Lugnuts, that works for me. I have proposed it as a fix at the TfD. Betty Logan (talk) 17:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Difference

Mind if telling me what difference between age recommendation (e.g. PG-13 in US), age half-prohibition (e.g. R in US) and age prohibition (e.g. NC-17 in US)?Zenkaino lovelive (talk) 01:16, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

PG-13 is an age recommendation, R is a conditional age restriction, and NC-17 is age prohibitive. Betty Logan (talk) 01:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I asked about functionality. In other words, how they are practically applied differently.Zenkaino lovelive (talk) 02:08, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Well it depends on the medium (for example, TV may require a password or the broadcast may just include a warning), but for theaters PG-13 is basically unrestricted in functional terms (although some theaters have their own policies). For R you will need to be accompanied by an adult to be admitted to an R-rated film if you are under 17. You won't be admitted to an NC-17 at all if you are under 18. Theater chains may have strict policies like ID cards, others might be more relaxed about enforcing the ratings (theaters are not obliged to enforce them because the MPAA is a voluntary code). Betty Logan (talk) 02:21, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Mind if telling me if all restricted ratings are all-okay for older audiences? For example, I wonder if all 12A-rated (UK) films are all-okay for 12+ or if all 15-rated (UK) films are all-okay for 15+.Zenkaino lovelive (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Metropolis (1927 film)

Thanks for your revert on my change of poster size -- not being sarcastic, it gave me a clue that someone my thumbnail setting had gooten changed from the standard 220 down to 150, which explains a lot of what I was seeing. Without your edit summary, I probably wouldn;t have realized. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't quite understand the explanation BMK, but I am pleased it is sorted out. Betty Logan (talk) 21:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Source is confusing

Source [1] and source [2][3] is confusing. [4] says "M" is set at 16 but [5][6] says "M" is set at 10. Therefore, what is followed?Zenkaino lovelive (talk) 09:37, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

None of this is confusing because it has already been explained to you at Talk:Video_game_content_rating_system. But here is a final summary:

• [7] is the official label set by the film censor which gives an age recommendation of 16.
• [8] is a blog and does not prescribe an age. It simply makes an observation that a lot of literature popular with children over 10 gets made into films rated "M". That does not meanall M rated films are suitable for 10-year-olds. Furthermore, the blog makes it clear that the author's "views do not represent those of the Chief Censor or of the Classification Office."
• [9] and [10] are both wikis and are therefore not reliable sources per WP:USERG. The reason they state the age of 10 is because you altered them a few hours ago: [11] and [12] (which is a classic example of why we don't allow other wikis as sources!).

Now will you please stop pushing this issue. The New Zealand classification board is more than capable of defining its own ratings, and on the label they prescribe an age of 16. If you continue attempting to alter the age without obtaining a consensus I will have no choice but to report the behavior as disruptive activity. Betty Logan (talk) 09:48, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Interstellar, sexism in character names

In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Question_about_name_usage_over_at_Interstellar_(film) you state that you sympathize with the issue of potential sexism in calling all adult female scientists (Murph Cooper and Amelia Brand) just by their first name ("Murph" and "Amelia"), while in the same context calling all their male counterparts by their last name. You stated "we shouldn't obfuscate plot details to correct the inherent sexist bias of the subject". I agree it would be obfuscating to call "Amelia Brand" just "Brand" (as the credits do), but I consider using "Murph Cooper" and "Amelia Brand" (the proposal under discussion) both a necessary disambiguation as well as respectful. --Vigilius (talk) 14:03, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I haven't sympathized with calling all adult scientists by their first name, I have sympathized with one instance of it because it resolves potential confusion arising from two charcaters sharing a name. If the Amelia Brand character were male my answer would have been the same. Betty Logan (talk) 19:11, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 30

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Motion picture content rating system, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Office of Film and Literature Classification (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Superman in AIDES campaign.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Superman in AIDES campaign.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 05:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Production companies in infobox

Hi Betty, could you weigh in on this topic here? I think its relevant to your interests and you seem to be pretty level headed when discussing it. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga#Request_for_Comment:_Is_it_relevant_to_list_all_production_companies_or_just_main_animation_studios_in_the_infobox_of_film_articles? Thanks! Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:19, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Christopher Robin

Can you please check if Christopher Robin bombed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:197:C180:13A5:C1E9:EACF:B975:4CCF (talk) 19:35, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I doubt it—it made 2.5x its budget. Betty Logan (talk) 23:39, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Betty, I see your version is actually much better, my apologies. Have you blocked me from editing? That wouldnt be so cool 2 days before the championship !! I was going to leave a message saying I was pleased with the new version, start using that myself.

James Kevin McMahon (talk) 12:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

@James Kevin McMahon: You are welcome James. I haven't blocked you because you haven't done anything wrong! I just reverted you because there is a much better way of adding archived links, and that probably just automatically triggered the notification system. Betty Logan (talk) 12:57, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Your last revision on List of vegetarians

Betty, as a senior editor you should know Wikipedia does not work by a random 2-1 majority rule but by reliable sources and consensus building. I recently found out that there is a whole book dedicated to the claim Hitler was not a vegetarian. I believe you are very much personally involved in arguing there is no dispute and urge you the second time to leave this matter as it is. Or we can ask for Wikipedia:Mediation.

Sincerely, 08:20, 16 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mateo (talk • contribs)

Yes, Wikipedia works through building consensus. So far you have not established a new consensus to alter the article so you should respect the editing procedures as outline at WP:STATUSQUO and WP:NOCONSENSUS. Please note that WP:NOCONSENSUS is a policy. Betty Logan (talk) 08:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I see that i have to dig deep on this one. But because i regret implying you are not acting in good faith, i do feel obliged, before going to a mediator, to show you that there was never a consensus regarding the definition of Hitler as a vegetarian, and that this is yet another evidence that he is a disputed case.

So up until 2013 there were many cases of people moving the dictator off the list altogether and you and others restored him to the disputed section. The first time i found someone moved the dictator from the disputed was [in june 2013]. The edit summery claimed that all the "major biographies" say he is. You know that this is not so. At least two prominent biographers of Hitler actually claim the opposite.

Secondly, it never reached consensus. In 2014 alone this edit was reverted at least 5 tims. [[13]] [14] [[15]] [[16]]. The last one added some sources and created a large debate on the matter, and these cases continued [[17]] over the years.

So unlike your representation of events, the current situation of the article relies on an inaccurate fact, never got to a consensus, is disputed in the biographies of Hitler.

There are so many different evidence that prove this dispute is not settled, with opinions outside wikipedia claiming so.

So i ask you one last time, politely, to remove your adamant protection of this unbalanced situation and return this case to where it belongs - in the disputed section.

10:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)