User talk:Betty Logan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This editor is a Senior Editor and is entitled to display this Rhodium Editor Star.

A brownie for you![edit]

Brownie Neumüller Ferdinand cropped.jpg
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.

Notice[edit]

Raiders of the Lost Ark Thank you for you mail, Betty. I appreciate your interest in guiding me. Would you please insert the reference or note about the Secrets of the Incas as a point of interest to wikipedians as to the "inspiration" for the Raiders of the Lost Ark. I would then learn how to edit it properly in the future. Best, Wikender (talk) 18:04, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

i have added a reference to my change in Tim Burton page - please accept it. thank you so much --معتاز (talk) 03:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

how can i bring a reliable source ? --معتاز (talk) 03:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC) it's one of the sources existing in the references list of the page below

i have added a great reference this time to Tim Burton page. thank you very much. --معتاز (talk) 03:56, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Tim Burton is one of the best and famous directors. don't u know him or what ? ! --معتاز (talk) 03:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Rule of the shorter term[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Betty Logan. You have new messages at Talk:Rule of the shorter term.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

For your eyes only...[edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

FYEO![edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Merry Christmas[edit]

For Your Eyes Only![edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

The $750,000 question[edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

YGM[edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Definition of veganism.[edit]

By all accounts there has never ever been a definition of veganism that includes honey or bees products. Every definition of veganism that has ever existed, including on Wikipedia, means to avoid the use and consumption of animals products. Honey is an animal product is it not? Or do you count bees as a plant?

Happy New Year![edit]

Fuochi d'artificio.gif

Dear Betty Logan,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

Maximum break[edit]

Hi Betty! Since we don't have much free licensed pictures of maximum breaks, I see much advantage in adding one of those to the Wikipedia article. It's much more related to the article content than Ronnie O'Sullivan's head on top for example. Could you please restore this image? If you know a better position for it, I'm glad to follow to your instructions. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 22:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I will not be restoring your photo because i) it is poor quality; ii) it does not "show" a maximum break; iii) it is awkwardly positioned in the article and pushes down the tables, ruining the aesthetic of the list; iv) we provide Youtube links to most televisied maximums anyway, so anyone who wants to "see" a maximum is not short of choices. Betty Logan (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, wherever you see poor quality (it's sharp, big enough, and shows the last pot) but it's definitely the best free-licensed image of a maximum break and hence should be used in our article of that very same topic. Of course, it doesn't show the complete break but nobody would anyway expect that from an image. Besides, the YouTube video is not freely licensed (cannot be reused by our visitors) and doesn't show the full frame either but is instead of poor quality itself. Regarding the position which is indeed unfavourable, I asked for your help but as you refrain from doing so I'll put it under O'Sullivan's image as proposed. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 22:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Debbie Does Dallas[edit]

Before reverting a third time post on the Third opinion board and get someone to agree that there should be a full porn film on an article about a porn film. And find a specific policy relating to posting full media not just a censorship argument. I have no problem with the film being there if it can be supported by policy. So far it isn't. --Darrenhusted (talk) 22:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you go and read WP:NOTCENSORED. There is no policy prohibiting the addition of material that may be considered ponorgraphic in nature to a Wikipedia article. Your actions contravene established policy. What is more, since you have reverted three times in a 24-hour period, a fourth revert in the same period will result in your contravening 3RR. Betty Logan (talk) 22:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

On mixing list markup[edit]

I don’t know whether you’re aware, or how much of what I’m going to say you may already know, but colons and asterisks in wikimarkup both define lists; if you reply to a comment beginning with something like **: with a comment beginning with ::::, that terminates the previous list (and all sub-lists) and begins a completely separate list. This can be confirmed by looking at the HTML source in your browser, having a screen reader read it, etc. I can give more information if desired. Cheers. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 05:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

By the way, I’ve noticed that the infoboxes under #Film infobox deletions affected the title of this Talk page, if that matters to you. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 06:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Let’s try and resolve this[edit]

If you were serious about your threat to report me to ANI, could you please first try and help me to actually build a consensus? Because that’s what I’ve been trying to do. That’s been the whole point of my RFCs. This here guidance is inconsistent with policy and actual practice and here’s why, so hey guys, let’s try and improve it.

At this point, if you either can’t or are unwilling to actually discuss the problems directly with me in good faith, then I ask that we take this to the WP:dispute resolution noticeboard. If that’s also unacceptable, then please just stay out of it entirely and leave me and my edits alone, like an WP:IBAN; don’t bother me, I won’t bother you, everybody wins (or at least nobody loses).

I hope we can actually work together, as I’m sure we’re both here with the same goal of improving Wikipedia… but if not, take care. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 05:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

There is a consensus, and that consensus is for not altering the MOS. You should respect the decision of the RFC and move on to other things. Betty Logan (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Betty Logan, please work with others. That above editor, 174.141.182.82, feels threatened by you. I am also concerned about your Sound of Music bent. It was eyeopening to me (didn't know before) that there was such a hard time to find a director. So I've painstakingly added it to Wikipedia along with references. Do not feel that it harms the image of the film. Just present it like it is. Thank you. Wowee Zowee public (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

Hello BL. Just wanted to let you know that you have not been mentioned by name but this post Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive269#forum shopping advice is about the situation that you have been involved in. I don't think a response is required but I did think that you should know about it. Cheers and have a good weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 00:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

It never stops does it! I suppose the good news is that with SOM locked up for a week it gives him enough time to get blocked on another article before protection is lifted. The bad news is that he could move on to other film articles. I suppose I will have to keep an eye on him, but I don't really want to engage with him unless it's absolutely necessary. Betty Logan (talk) 03:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Agreed! MarnetteD|Talk 03:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

HK film vandal returns[edit]

Since you've had past experience with this particular sockmaster, can you back me up on this SPI? Thanks. -- Areaseven (talk) 13:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I will take a look at it. Betty Logan (talk) 06:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

List of Highest Grossing Films[edit]

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.
Further discussion should take place at article talk page.

Re: this edit. Presently, the lead indicates that Titanic, Avatar and Frozen are stand-alone movies. Whether or not their sequels actually "exist" (been released) or not is besides the point. The fact remains that the Avatar sequels are in production and Frozen 2 has been announced. The lead should somehow reflect that, if it's going go so far as to address the franchise status of those films. The lead is somewhat misleading as is. If you don't like my edit, then fine... feel free to add your own. - theWOLFchild 08:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The point is that as things currently stand they are not part of a series as yet. We do not document the future per WP:CRYSTAL. Until the sequels are released and start earning money then for all intents and purposes they are standalone movies as far as the box office goes. Betty Logan (talk) 09:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps you should re-read WP:CRYSTAL, as it does not apply here. I am not "predicting" anything, but instead pointing out -with refs- that sequels to those movies are either already in production or have been officially announced. I'll say it again, it's misleading to tout these films as "stand-alone" movies in the lead. Especially Avatar, which besides the sequels being in production, was originally intended to be a trilogy. It was created as a franchise. These comments should reflect these facts somehow. - theWOLFchild 04:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
All of this is irrelevant as far as a box office article goes. Regardless of what plans James Cameron had for Avatar (and if it had flopped there certainly wouldn't have been any sequels) it was an original property at the time of release. The article is not particularly concerned with what James Cameron is or is not going to do, it is concerned with how much his films have grossed and the context for those grosses at the time they were released. As such, even if sequels are released that does not alter the fact that Avatar was an original property at the time so I have replaced the terminology to reflect that. Betty Logan (talk) 05:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
As far as Avatar is concerned, it's the first film of a planned trilogy, a trilogy that was planned from the outset. Therefore, it is not a "standalone film" There are refs to support this. I understand your very protective of this article, but it is not your article. You are now arguing your opinion against verifiable info. While Frozen is still debatable, Avatar is a franchise. - theWOLFchild 04:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
When Avatar was released there was NO OTHER AVATAR FILM. The article is not about whether a film is part of a franchise or not, it is about the various factors that contribute to a film's success. What happens several years after a film is produced has no bearing on the box office of its predecessor. I have made changes to avoid any further confusion so the situation has been adequately addressed as far as I am conerned. You are right it is not my article, but policy is on my side to revert changes you make to it per WP:BRD and WP:NOCONSENSUS. The reason those policies exist is because more often that not alterations are invariably not "improvements". However, if you are not satisfied with my response here or my revision to accommodate your concerns then you have the option of starting a discussion at the talk page of the article and getting input from other editors. Betty Logan (talk) 07:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
"I have made changes to avoid any further confusion..." - Which was all I asked for (and what I was doing with my edit as well.) With that done, there is no need to get upset, and start with all CAPITAL LETTERS, and citing policy after policy. While my edit was technically correct, we'll say yours is more correct, and leave it at that. I think we're done for now. Have a nice day. - theWOLFchild 12:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Cinemascore?[edit]

Hi Betty, I'm not 100% sure this is an improvement, but that's because I've not come across Cinemascore before. Is it better than the BFCA in this context? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Cinemascore is an audience poll and is generally acceptable as a reliable audience metric (since a reliable source controls the sampling strategy as opposed to user-submitted scores on IMDB etc). While there is an argument for incorporating it into the table (based on whether you regard an audience poll as a form of "critical reception" or not) I don't quite understand why the editor replaced the BFCA score instead of just adding another column. Betty Logan (talk) 12:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure either - and they seem to be doing it to other articles too (as well as incorporating some rather odd formatting to the tables he's working on). Ta for the explanation. - SchroCat (talk) 12:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I was going to restore the BFCA score but it appears the links have died and Wayback doesn't seem to have them archived. For what's it's worth it's probably best to leave it as it is unless we can source fresh cites. Betty Logan (talk) 12:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

User page[edit]

Betty, I was shocked to see your name in blue at WT:FILM. Face-tongue.svg Of course it was because of vandalism! You can use a speedy deletion template to delete it and restore the red. I think {{Db-u1}} would suffice. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm now Betty Blue :( It's happened a few times though and will happen again, so I'm not sure there is much point getting it deleted yet again. Besides there is a stigma attached to red links (i.e. socks, SPAs etc) so maybe I am better off being blue. Betty Logan (talk) 12:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
You said before that you like it red because you see your name pop out, right? You could update your signature to use a color template to use one of the red colors, not empty-red, but a different shade. You are back anyhow! :) Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Hurrah for the return of Red Betty! - SchroCat (talk) 15:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

David Gray[edit]

Before you rush to accuse people, perhaps you should WP:AGF. "Video is random because it does not identify David Gray as the subject and is NOT the official stream of PATTAYA PEOPLE MEDIA GROUP. Some fraud." is not accusing any editor of fraud, it is quite clearly talking about the Youtube account. I believed it was a "fraud" (perhaps "fake" would have been a better word), because it is not the official account of Pattaya People, and had no owner information on it. This one is the official account. However, you have corrected me and demonstrated that their website uses this other account also.

This does not resolve the problem with this being on the David Gray (snooker player) article, because the Pattaya People video does not mention David Gray, snooker player, but instead David Gray (not an uncommon name), tourist. Associating the snooker player with the tourist is original synthesis at best. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 18:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

It is your prerogative to challenge a source, but it certainly was not clear that you were applying the phrase to the source. Regardless, the video is accompanied by other sources which also include a statement by Gray's manager, so it satisfies me that the subject of the video is the snooker player. If you have further reservations I suggest you discuss them on the article talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, combining sources. That's what original synthesis is. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 19:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Synthesis is when you draw a new conclusion not inherent in either of the sources and the section does not "combine" sources to arrive at any new conclusions. It is quite acceptable to use multiple sources to cover a single event. But like I said earlier, my talk page is not the place for discussing article content; I was not the only editor to revert you so it would be better if you started a discussion on the article talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 19:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

YGM[edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

- SchroCat (talk) 20:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I've responded at the article; sorry about the delay but I only just checked into Wikipedia ten minutes ago. Betty Logan (talk) 21:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

list of highest grossing low budget films[edit]

why did you remove it is an interesting facts about films and it is part of highest grossing films what wrong with that section of the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krishnachaitan (talkcontribs) 15:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

As I said in the edit summary it was mostly WP:Original research that conflated worldwide and domestic grosses. You may have provided sources for the grosses, but there is no clear criteria for what is a "small" budget. Gone with the Wind, a low budget film? News to me, considering it was the most expensive film ever made at the time. You even had films with $10 million budgets down, and I imagine most films in the world cost less than $10 million. Ultimately the article is about the highest-grossing films irrespective of how much they cost to make, and the chart you added is not consistent with that scope.

Furious 7 and List of most expensive films[edit]

I just want to ask why you removed the Furious 7 row from the tables in the List of most expensive films. Just want to understand why. The Emperah (talk) 18:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I haven't, I just corrected the budget to $190 million. The source you used was more than a year old. All the recent sources since the film's release put the budget at $190 million. See http://www.google.com/search?q=furious+7+$190+million. Betty Logan (talk) 18:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. Didn't notice that, even when I was comparing revisions. Stupid me. The Emperah (talk) 18:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
It's cool. There are no stupid questions! Betty Logan (talk) 18:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

TROTK[edit]

The highest grossing film of the Tolkien's Middle-earth section on the list should say The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, because there are two entries in that section: The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit, so, writing just The Return of the King as the highest gross, can mean that it comes from The Hobbit entrie. I know it's a minor detail but it is a fair technical point. DCF94 (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Well we can restore the full title but the text size should be the same otherwise it just looks weird. Betty Logan (talk) 18:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Isn't a way we can make the whole table bigger so the text can fit in a single row? DCF94 (talk) 20:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
The chart fits dynamically to the size of your computer screen. So on my pc monitor (1600x900) it all fits on a single line with space to spare. I think it also fits on a single line on a 1366 monitor too (which is what I designed the templates on), but on my ipad (1024x768) the title is on one line and the gross is on the second. Since there is no spare space in the other columns I don't think there is a way to get around that on smaller computer screens unless you make the table go off the side of the screen like at Snooker_world_ranking_points_2014/2015. However, I might be able to do that by going into the templates and hardcoding the column widths rather than letting the monitor itself set the column widths. If you would like me to try that I can take a look at it but ultimately the space has to come from somewhere. Betty Logan (talk) 22:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

MOS:FILM RFC reverts[edit]

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.
IP has agreed to get a third opinion

From your edit summary here, it seems like you may have missed, at the very bottom of the survey as of this writing, my !vote for that very alternative. And any new participants may not read beyond the subheading and be unaware of any proposed alternatives. Also, there is no ambiguity between “Support” votes for the primary proposal, and votes that specifically call out support for an alternative. I assume you wouldn’t intentionally bury an alternative to your proposal, so please reconsider this revert (assuming that @Tsavage isn’t opposed to the addition). —174.141.182.82 (talk) 01:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be under the impression that the RFC is community property canvassing further wording proposals. It is not: it is a question I am putting to the community. If you have a preference for some other wording then simply oppose the proposed revision as Tsavage has done. Betty Logan (talk) 03:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually, an RFC is an opportunity for the community to discuss an issue, including alternative wording not included in the initial request. That’s what I’ve been told when I’ve claimed ownership of RFCs I started, at least, and I can’t find any such restrictions in WP:RFC. Maybe we should get a third opinion here, but from my experience, other editors are well within their rights to visibly propose alternatives in “your” RFC (but not to edit your existing text). —174.141.182.82 (talk) 03:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I have never seen an RFC altered or extended except for neutrality reasons, and that clearly isn't an issue here, so feel free to get a third opinion. Betty Logan (talk) 03:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, depending on how “neutrality” is defined… the request represents only your desired outcome, and you did remove an opposing proposal… but I think that’d be a much broader definition than is typically used in such contexts. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 05:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
The RFC represents both possible outcomes equally i.e. to implement the wording change I proposed or to not implement it. If I had included my reasons for implementing the change then it would not be neutral, which is why I purposefully allocated my reasons to the survey section. Also, I did not remove any proposal: Tsavage made an alternative proposal and you tried sneaking it into my proposal and I reverted that, which is not the same as removing an alternative proposal, so I would appreciate it if you did not misrepresent my actions. If the alternative proposal means that much to you then there is nothing to prevent you formulating an RFC where it can be fully considered on its own merits. An RFC is very basic concept with a very basic structure and protocols, so I would appreciate it if you stop wasting my time and observe the standard practice. If you are not happy with the wording of the RFC then take it to some board and get a neutral admin to revise the question because I am getting tired of this. Betty Logan (talk) 05:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

My last edit conflicted with your close, so I just copied my reply, refreshed, and pasted it at the bottom without realizing you’d closed it while I was typing. I’m not sure if that was clear before you removed it, but please take it into consideration. Anyway, awaiting third opinion… —174.141.182.82 (talk) 06:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

About your Third Opinion request: Whether or not the addition of such alternatives is or is not a good idea is a moot point because this edit removing that alternative is a clear violation of the talk page guidelines which strictly prohibit the removal of other user's posts on talk pages (except an editor's own talk page), other than for a laundry list of exceptions which do not include this situation (the "Off-topic posts" section comes close, but doesn't quite make it because, first, an alternative is not really off-topic and, second, that section is really pointed at the topic of the talk page not a particular discussion on the talk page). The proper responses would have been, first, to seek permission for its removal (perhaps in the form of starting a subsection elsewhere in the RFC, second, to try collapsing it with {{collapse top}} and bottom, and then, third, to make a case for everyone to ignore it but leave it in place. As a person who's primary activity here is doing dispute resolution, I certainly appreciate the need to keep decision-making discussions focused and on track (and, indeed, for DRN and MEDCOM we have policy to help us do that), but if there's support in policy for removing other editor's posts to keep a RFC focused and on track I'm unaware of it and this smacks of page ownership, though please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Perhaps the TPG or the RFC page need to be amended to permit such control, though that probably ought to involve a good deal of community debate following the procedure set out in the Policy policy. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Interesting...I thought it was generally considered bad form, if not a policy violation, to modify an RFC in such a manner, but I can't find anything about that at WP:RFC. That said, I would hope editors can agree that modifying an RFC once it's been posted can confuse the issue and is probably best avoided unless it's made clear that the scope of the RFC has been altered.

I'm assuming everyone here meant well; my recommendation would be that the additional proposal be posted as a clearly new subsection below the existing material. Interested editors will then have the option to strike their earlier opinions accordingly if they feel it's necessary. Or it will at least be more clear which editors were responding to the original proposal versus what the amendments reflect. DonIago (talk) 15:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

And I'm not so sure how I'd feel about having a policy-based right to do so, Don, now I've thought about it for awhile. At DRN and Medcom the person controlling the discussion is a neutral party trying to keep the discussion on track and who has an obligation to insure that no one's position is slighted. Having such rights in a RFC where there's no neutral party simply invites someone to manipulate the discussion in favor of their preferred point of view. (I'm not suggesting that happened here; I have no doubt that Betty was just trying to keep the discussion on track.) Some limited control allowing refactoring might be okay, but even that could be easily abused, I'm afraid. I think that it's important to remember that, at the end of the day, RFC is really nothing more than another garden-variety talk page discussion with two exceptions: first, the ability of the requesting editor to frame (hopefully narrowly) the initial point to be discussed and, second, a mechanism to invite the broader community to weigh in. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
@TransporterMan I have made some adjustments to the structure of the RFC in response to your comments here to accommodate the alternative proposal, but I maintain it is essential to make it clear which proposal the surveyed comments relate to which has required some refactoring. Most of the surveyed opinion has only considered one proposal, so this really needs to be clear so editors can make sense of who is discussing what. As a neutral in this perhaps you would be kind enough to review my changes to ensure they are consistent with policy or at least consistent with the spirit of fair discussion. I really don't see what advantage can be gained for either party adding a secondary proposal at such an advanced stage but if you could review it I would be grateful. I would also be grateful if the IP from now on observes the spirit of the RFC process. Betty Logan (talk) 17:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
@Doniago: Do you mean a subsection between the initial post and the survey? Or a subsection at the bottom of the survey? I assume the latter, but that brings me back to my concerns about visibility—participants don’t always review anything beyond the “Survey” heading before responding, so it could be easily missed. And inserting a subsection between the two would surely confuse matters the way Betty described, even with clear timestamping. So neither seems ideal, to me at least. Edit: And Betty’s solution of multiple subsections (and surveys) seems to allay these concerns. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 17:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I did mean the latter, but I think we have to hope that anyone invested in the RFC will be on the lookout for significant changes whether or not they're at the very bottom; I certainly watchlist the pages of any discussions I'm interested in and check back regularly. If Betty's solution satisfies you, that's good too. In the end my main concern is simply maintaining a clear record of what was said before any changes versus what was said once the changes had been made, to avoid any unintentional skewing of previously-expressed opinions.
Of course, if all else fails, while this may not be the most welcomed option, you could let the RFC run its course and then make your proposal.
Best wishes for everyone involved with this! DonIago (talk) 17:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Don and since the IP editor has not objected further, I think all is fine. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

James Bond talk page[edit]

Hi, Betty Logan. I have several citations for James Bond as an anti-hero. Please see Talk:James Bond (literary character). Thanks, Kinfoll1993 (talk) 09:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I know you're busy, but SchroCat and I cannot come to an agreement on the Bond page. I am not trying to categorize him as anti hero necessarily per the page anymore, but I think we can mention it somewhere in the article since we have reliable sources (books, newspapers, magazines and otherwise; even a quote from Bond author Raymond Benson himself) supporting it. We also disagree on film Bond, but I think it could be mentioned at least within the article, as you said for the literary Bond-as "an interesting angle", without necessarily placing him under "Category:fictional antiheroes". We have a quote by Goldeneye director Martin Campbell saying that Bond is an antihero, but SchroCat is against it b/c he considers it minor (this is all on the talk page; it's a lot). I just want a third opinion here to help ultimately settle this if you are willing to chime in again. Kinfoll1993 (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm preparing dinner so I'll try and get around to it in a little while. Betty Logan (talk) 22:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Italics for series titles[edit]

Given your recent contribution to the discussion regarding James Bond, I'm letting you know about a new discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Titles § Italics for series titles seeking clarification of the MOS to avoid further confusion. Please feel free to comment there. sroc 💬 19:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Cod[edit]

"Codswallop"?! I love it! Face-smile.svg Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I gladly second Cyphoidbomb's sentiment! MarnetteD|Talk 17:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello again BL. Speaking of codswallop how can this be a FAQ when the same person asked and answered. As I'm sure you noticed the only edits other than A's are cosmetic and formatting. IMO until outside comments have taken place it should not be used in merge or CFD discussions. Ah well, I hope that you have an enjoyable week. MarnetteD|Talk 23:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Iris cat.jpg

For your steadfast attention to detail and correctness. But please don't troll my students. Instead of reverting their edits en masse, think about how you can teach them something by identifying specific problems. Show them some wikilove.

Matthewvetter (talk) 00:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Then please stop encouraging your students to troll Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia not a classroom. Also, please try setting an example to your pupils by observing WP:CONSENSUS, WP:BRD and WP:AGF. Betty Logan (talk) 00:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit on Universal Production Deals[edit]

Could you want to edit this section on the Universal Studios#Production deals page?

Active producer deals

Former producer deals

Distributor deals

References

  1. ^ Fernandez, Jay A.; Borys Kit; Pamela McClintock (October 27, 2011). "The State of the Studio Deals: Who's Doing What Where". Hollywood Reporter. p. 2. Retrieved 16 July 2012. 
  2. ^ "Batman Producer Legendary Moving to Universal From Warner". Bloomberg (Bloomberg L.P.). July 10, 2013. Retrieved 2015-05-11. 
  • It seems that Spshu reverted you because you didn't provide a source for your edits. If you do that I am sure that Spshu will stop reverting you. All claims in an article need to be sourced per WP:V. If I went and added that content back without a source my edit would—quite rightly—befall the same fate. Betty Logan (talk) 02:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Ireland[edit]

What is the Ireland ratings on The Others and The Watcher in the Woods. Look it up at the Parents Guide section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.83.192.127 (talk) 12:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

You could try http://www.ifco.ie/website/ifco/ifcoweb.nsf/web/home?OpenDocument. Betty Logan (talk) 07:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

TV-PG?[edit]

What are G-rated films that are rated TV-PG in the US? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:0:8500:472:D575:4156:167D:32C5 (talk) 22:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Sound of Music[edit]

While the timing of the removal from the World War II films category struck me as a bit pointy, after reflection I didn't revert it myself. The film ends in 1938, shortly after the Anschluss; World War II is considered to have started 1 September 1939. Is the convention that any film featuring Nazis is a World War II film? Or what is the demarcation? Does Cabaret qualify? 2600:1006:B12C:E4B8:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

It seems you are right. I have not seen it for a long time, and my memories of it mostly consist of songs and German soldiers chasing the Von Trapps. If the film ends in 1938 then I agree it technically should not belong the category. Betty Logan (talk) 17:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

User: 82.155.98.249[edit]

Hello Betty, I hope you don't mind, but I have added another IP address to your note regarding the "editor" who seems to want to remove rape references from film articles. I have left notes/warnings on all the Talk pages used, but strongly suggest that this activity might very well carry on from anon IP addresses in Northern Ireland, UK. The only action we can take at the moment seems to be to watch the films that are being vandalised. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 19:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

(tps) This person has been around for several months now David J Johnson. Their ideas about what is and is not rape are convoluted to say the least. This edit summary makes me wonder if they even watch films or TV shows. Since the IPs keep changing the only thing other than continued reversion of their edits is WP:RFPP. Even that may not catch all of their edits as they seem to go to new shows/films after a couple months. Betty, you may have other ideas so any input you can add will be of value. MarnetteD|Talk 19:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't mind at all, David; if you find any more feel free to add them to the list. There is not that much we can do about an IP hopper. If we ship him off to AIV he'll be back on within days, if not hours. We could perhaps get semi-protection for the articles he repeatedly strikes, but it's a lot of hassle. All we can do is revert him when he shows up I suppose. That's not what concerns me the most though: weird edits I can handle, but this editor has some dangerous views about sex and rape and it wouldn't surprise me if they are a sex offender in real life. The police need to check him out and put his DNA on file IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 19:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello again Betty, I have sent you a private email. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 20:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I have added the latest addresses at User talk:81.155.98.249. It would be wise to keep the list updated so there is an accurate record of the addresses he operates under. Betty Logan (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello Betty Logan. This is a message to tell you why I'm removing content which is objectionable from the films and TV programme - Lawrence of Arabia (film), Robin of Sherwood, The Magnificent Seven Ride and Licence to Kill.[edit]

Rape is non-consensual sex and sex is generally associated with love and emotions, not with violence. Sexual violence is impossible. For films and television programs, it's not likely to be acceptable, it's questionable, it's morally violent. Besides, there are no rape scenes - except one in the director's cut of Lawrence of Arabia. Why does Lawrence get raped? In The Magnificent Seven Ride, when Chris finds his wife dead, what does he mean 'Did they use her?' and why does he say 'Raped, killed and left for the buzzards.' He would've said 'Did they torture her?' and 'Beaten, killed and left for the buzzards.' Sexual violence/rape is not associated with the Robin Hood legend and not with the James Bond franchise. 81.155.98.249 (talk) 19:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

FeardotCom[edit]

Do all people hate FeardotCom? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:0:8500:472:975:F420:5F3D:8598 (talk) 18:10, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you have a user page?[edit]

Even I have one. And you're obviously a more senior member than I am. Pagen HD (talk) 09:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, you are not actually required to have one; it's not like I am barred from having one. I guess I have never felt the urge to have one, and also my name appears in red in article histories which I find helps me review my recent edits on an article when I scroll through them. Editors can pretty much claim anything on a user page anyway, so it's always best to review their user rights. Betty Logan (talk) 17:12, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Tefkasp[edit]

Could you want to revert on the "List of 2000 box office number-one films in the United States" page? So, Tefkasp, please stop reverting you.

# Date Film Gross[1] Notes
50 December 17, 2000 What Women Want $33,614,543 What Women Want broke Scream 2's record ($32.9 mil) for the highest weekend debut in December.
I will able to say "List of 2001 box office number-one films in the United States": "Ocean's Eleven broke Titanic's record ($35.4 million) for the highest weekend debut in December." wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.160.1.6 (talk) 04:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
It seems you are been reverted for not supplying a source, rather being wrong. Per WP:BURDEN you are required to provide a source if you restore content that was removed on the grounds that it was unsourced. Box Office Mojo has a chart of December's top openings which you can use. As you can see, it will corroborate that What Women want broke Scream 2's record and that was subsequently broken by Ocean's 11 and Fellowship of the Ring shortly thereafter. You can copy in the following citation:
<ref>{{cite web |title=Top Opening Weekends by Month: December |work=Box Office Mojo |url=http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/weekends/month/?mo=12 |accessdate=June 1, 2015}}</ref>
Betty Logan (talk) 05:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Labor Day catalog[edit]

Could you want to revert on the "List of 1993 box-office number one films in the United States" page?

It goes like this:

# Weekend end date Film Box office[2] Notes
32 August 8, 1993 The Fugitive $23,758,855 The Fugitive held the record for the highest weekend debut in August.
36 September 6, 19934-day weekend The Fugitive $17,239,413 The Fugitive held the record for the highest Labor Day weekend gross of all time.

References

Do you think on "16th Golden Raspberry Awards": It said "Per Razzies tradition, both the nonimee announcements and ceremony preceded the corresponding Academy Awards by one day." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.160.1.6 (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Did Tefkasp reverted it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.160.1.6 (talk) 01:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Links to the Margaret Herrick Library inventory[edit]

Thanks for your note. There is actually content linked from the catalog records. For example on the record for "Character drawings from the WIZARD OF OZ," if you click on "Production Art inventory" you will get images of the drawings. I thought this kind of content would be useful, supplemental information for Wikipedia users. Please let me know if there is a better way to expose this content on Wikipedia. It is typically copyrighted, so placing it directly on the page would not work. Sharon at Margaret Herrick Library (talk) 15:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)Sharon at Margaret Herrick Library

Ah, I see. In that case the links meet the criteria. Just ignore my message and I will restore the links I removed. Please accept my apologies; it's just that we get a lot of link spam on the articles so they have to be carefully vetted to make sure they are useful. Betty Logan (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Completely understand about the spam. If you have any tips for avoiding the appearance of spam, I would appreciate it. For example, would it be better to put more descriptive text in the link? Like "(Images available)" or something like that? Sharon at Margaret Herrick Library (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2015 (UTC)Sharon at Margaret Herrick Library
I don't think there is a problem as such; I was just careless. If I had studied the link more carefully—which I really should have done—then I would have spotted that it linked to a resource. It was early, I wasn't fully switched on. On the plus side all your links are back now. Betty Logan (talk) 15:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Ok, thank you! Sharon at Margaret Herrick Library (talk) 21:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Mangled references[edit]

can you fix the references you mangled in this edit? if you search for 'matrix reloaded' you will see the error in the reference list. Frietjes (talk) 13:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@Frietjes. Thanks for point that out. I seem to have inserted another entry into the middle of a reference. I haven't a clue why that happened since I wasn't even working on that entry so had no reason to touch it. I can only assume it was a browser or server glitch. Betty Logan (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Worst film ever[edit]

Could you please add "Alexander (2004)" in the 2000s section of List of films considered the worst page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:0:8500:D72:7C90:F774:FB0A:5EFF (talk) 14:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

What is preventing you from doing it yourself? And for that matter is Alexander objectively considered one of the worst films ever? That would require sourcing. Betty Logan (talk) 15:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

CCA[edit]

Did any of the DC imprints like Helix, WildStorm, the manga imprint, CMX, the Minx imprint, Piranha Press and Paradox Press, did not submitted to the Comics Code Authority? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:0:8500:D72:C976:320D:7CB0:3D91 (talk) 00:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The Deep End of the Ocean[edit]

Could you add The Deep End of the Ocean, The Princess Diaries 2: Royal Engagement, Grown Ups, and Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2 to the List of films considered the worst page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C8:C001:8A3A:DDBD:9312:3CD3:9208 (talk) 01:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you consider that has rotten ratings on Rotten Tomatoes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C8:C001:8A3A:D821:22A1:6FC9:756E (talk) 01:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
A low RT score is not indicative of being one of the "worst films ever". A film could pick up mostly 2-star reviews and get a score of 10% without being atrociously bad. Betty Logan (talk) 01:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Greatest Razzies film[edit]

What are the greatest Razzies Worst Picture-nonimee or Worst Picture-winning movie? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C8:C001:8A3A:8F9:19AE:7B01:5B55 (talk) 02:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd think The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn: Part 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.251.97.126 (talk) 02:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Filmography[edit]

Just stop. Table now like on pages about other actors.--Alrofficial (talk) 19:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

You should stop per WP:BRD. So far the guidelines you have quoted are not applicable since neither address row-spanning. If you wish to change the structure of the table I suggest you stop edit-warring and provide me with a policy or guideline based rationale. Betty Logan (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Sudden Jurassic World change?[edit]

Why did you change Jurassic World to number 9 when it is actually number 8 on the list? Patrickc1193 (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

As I explained in the edit summary the trackers give different figures so I have added Universal's own figures instead. Betty Logan (talk) 21:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Earl King Jr.[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Earl_King_Jr.

Since you have been involved in the past with some of this dispute, perhaps you would like to include your opinion. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 17:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Regency[edit]

Did many of Regency's movies originally distributed by WB will transfer to Fox on August 11, 2015?

Source here: [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C8:C001:8A3A:E5D8:84E4:A8DE:679F (talk) 05:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

This list on Fox's titles did include Heat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C8:C001:8A3A:18BF:F822:801B:C2C8 (talk) 17:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Was the Fox titles include L.A. Confidential?

Norway ratings[edit]

Norway's rules changed on 1 July. New age limits here. Please undo your reverts. 92.221.169.49 (talk) 21:51, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

You have messed up the table. You can see I am currently editing it. Betty Logan (talk) 21:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Table looked fine on my end. Red means restricted unless accompanied by adults which is the case for 6, 8, 12 and 15. Brown for 18 green for A. 92.221.169.49 (talk) 21:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
If you look at how the previous entry was coded up you would see that is incorrect. Betty Logan (talk) 21:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Do what you think is right with the new rules, but I think my version matched the key above the table. Re Warnings (not the best source, but hard to source a negative): "Begrept (sic) fraråding opphører. Medietilsynets praksis med å gi anbefaling om hvilke aldersgrupper filmen er egnet for opphører." which googletranslates as "The term dissuasion ceases. Media Authority's practice of giving recommendation about which age groups the film is suitable for lapses."92.221.169.49 (talk) 22:04, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I am well aware of the source says. Will you please just leave me to get on with it. Betty Logan (talk) 22:07, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
It looks fine now. Your initial edits, which I noticed as they were happening by chance, were unexplained reverts hence the misunderstanding. 92.221.169.49 (talk) 22:38, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
That's ok, don't worry about it. The coding is pretty complicated for two rows hence why it took me a little bit longer than usual to "fix" it. I should have perhaps labelled my reverts but they were just transitional and I wasn't expecting the interruption. Thanks for updating the categories anyway. Betty Logan (talk) 22:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

User page (II)[edit]

Hi. Just so you know, Alvandria created your user page (nothing malicious) and then asked for it to be G7'd a minute later. Seeing as you want to keep your user page a redlink and this sort of thing seems to have happened before, I just thought I'd offer to salt it for you so only admins can create it. Up to you though, no big deal. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

@Jenks24 I would appreciate that. Betty Logan (talk) 18:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Regards SoWhy 18:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Beaten to it! Jenks24 (talk) 18:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

For you consideration[edit]

Hello BL. I am glad that you and Ponyo caught the new IP of our old problem. I had a thought about where the IPs are being tracked. We have been keeping track of them here 81.155.98.249 (talk · contribs). I am wondering if it might be better to move them here 109.151.65.218 (talk · contribs) since that is where Ponyo's message is regarding blocking this person no matter what IP they use. Another possibility is a WP:LONGTERM page could be started - though I haven't seen one with just an IP in its title. As you are the one doing the bulk of the legwork on this I will leave it up to you. I hope that you have a pleasant weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 22:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

It's a good idea to keep a full record in one place so I have transferred the log over to the page the editor was indeffed on. Betty Logan (talk) 09:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
It looks good. Thanks for your efforts. MarnetteD|Talk 14:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

My life may have just gotten more interesting...[edit]

User talk:Doniago#Adminship - Someone's made a horrible, horrible mistake. :p DonIago (talk) 14:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Film names[edit]

Hi Betty, I am trying to move a page from the American title of a British film over to the original British name (See Talk:Malaga (1960 film)#Requested move 14 August 2015). I'm sure I've seen a page that says 'screw common names (as Google sources tend to be US-centric), go with th original name'. Can you point me the way of the guideline? Ta SchroCat (talk) 19:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Well there is IAR, but that is the only "screw the rules" rule I know of. However, I think there is a more appropriate argument available which will obtain the desired result so I will throw my hat into the discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 21:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)