Jump to content

User talk:Betty Logan/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Rocky (film series) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • films; for ''Rocky V'', flashback scenes with Mickey were newly filmed with Burgess Meredith)

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

1998, 1999 and 2000 years in film

I would say that it's a good idea for the highest-grossing to go in the United Stes number-ones (with the cast included). Now then I think that the list on the international releases should also include the cast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.73.186.132 (talk) 00:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I have moved the US box office charts to the articles about US box office (the link is in the edit summary). The "XXXX in film" articles are not really the place for American charts since they discuss film in a global context, and we can't have a chart for every country in there. Betty Logan (talk) 06:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Dr No trailer.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Dr No trailer.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of 2002 box office number-one films in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael York (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The Lego Movie

Hi, Betty. Oh, I hope you're reconsidering that semi-retired thing. Wikipedia needs all the good editors like you it can get! Plus, selfishly, I personally enjoy collaborating with you!

If you have a chance, could you keep an eye on The Lego Movie? One fannish editor keeps adding obsessively, "The film received universal acclaim," a hyperbolic phrase that per discussions at one of the Harry Potter movies and elsewhere we don't use. In any event, stay well ... and warm, if you're not in tropical climes! --Tenebrae (talk) 21:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Tenebrae! Regards to the Lego Movie, if it is IPs that are causing hassle it may be better to ask for semi-protection for a week to just get it through the opening weekend. If it's a "name" editor then we can apply a little bit of pressure to get the message across. I'll watch the article but to be honest there is so much activity it will be difficult to track it. I'm happy to chip in with some reverts if required though. Betty Logan (talk) 03:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

English Patient

Betty Thank you for the input on the edit warring page. Another account with suspicious activity is username:A1Houseboy. Another editor saw that guy linked to WordWrightUSA as sock puppets possibly. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Edits at Kangaroo court

I assure you my edits at Kangaroo court were no kind of revenge. It was a pure good faith edit. An unregistered user had posted on User talk:Flyer22 that the reference provided no evidence that the term "Kangaroo court" is American. I read the whole content of that source and found out that the unregistered user was saying the truth. I request you to please stop making baseless accussations. I understand we had a problem at Gone with the wind (film) but this edit of mine at Kangaroo court is in no way related to that edit conflict at Gone with the wind film. KahnJohn27 (talk) 13:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of whether you meant well or not, she would be justified in interpreting your action as antagonistic since you have not edited that article before. The IP has raised their concern at Flyer's talk page, and Flyer herself is very capable of determining the merits of their point. If she feels she is incorrect in her edit then she can self-revert, and if she feels it should stand then she and the IP should be left to resolve that issue without extending a dispute to another article. Betty Logan (talk) 13:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)Regardless of the goings on in the edit history, a quick check of the OED shows the term is of American origins, with the first published reference in Philip Paxton's 1853 novel A Stray Yankee in Texas. - SchroCat (talk) 13:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Haha lol sorry I didn't read the reference clearly earlier. I only had noticed the first para of the definition of kangaroo court in the dictionary reference where it says slang of U.S. origin. However I have noticed many incorrect online dictionaries these days so we just can't take it as a reliable source because of being a dictionary. Where's the proof that is a slang of U.S. origin? And actually well it was there in the second para where it describes it's origins. I hadn't noticed this para earlier. I checked this info on other sites and it turned out to be true. I am really sorry that was extremely careless and stupid of me. I apologize for my mistake. I unneccessarrily reverted a correct edit. I apologize it was a mistake. KahnJohn27 (talk) 15:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Once Upon Ay Time In Mumbai Dobaara!

Hello Betty its time that you remove that {{Template:semi-retired}} template, you're pretty active, at-least in my opinion. Now thats not why I came to you, its because I wancha to check the articles critical reception (both music and film) and comment here. I would be extremely grateful to you if you do the needful. Thanks. Best, --Sohambanerjee1998 12:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Betty, thanks for responding. I have one question in my mind, would including more reviews from other reviewers reduce the undue WP:WEIGHT or do I have to trim those reviews? Note:I have requested article to be copyedited   Sohambanerjee1998   14:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
WEIGHT is subjective, but basically what it is there for is to make sure there is no undue emphasis on any single reviewer. Introducing more reviewers can help to address WEIGHT issues, but also reducing the amount of coverage given to just one reviewer can also help to address issues. Basically you just have to try and keep it balanced. Betty Logan (talk) 11:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh I see. Sohambanerjee1998 12:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Congratulations! You've worked hard on it so I am pleased it has passed :) Betty Logan (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Skyfall BO

This is a neutral notice of a discussion concerning this film's box office section.Spinc5 (talk) 03:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Deletion discussion invitation

Hi there! Since u have been a contributor to Bond-related articles, I thought I might notify u of an "Articles for deletion" discussion over at the Octopussy (character) article. I'd love to have your input! Survivorfan1995 (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion

Betty, TheRedPenOfDoom and Dr. Blofeld, do you remember weighing in on the discussion about removing budget, box office, etc. columns from a filmography: WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Director.2C Budget.2C Box office columns in Filmography, specifically Justin Timberlake videography. Was I wrong to consider that consensus to removing the columns? When I removed them from the table and even referenced that discussion, two editors that seem to claim WP:OWN of Justin Timberlakes videography reverted me and near edit warred with me and even warned me for disruptive editing on my talk page. Any thoughts? LADY LOTUS • TALK 16:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I do believe there is a consensus not to include the financial data (director is a bit more disputed) but ultimately an involved editor can't just claim "consensus" even if it is obvious there is one. If the other side still contends there is not a consensus you need to request a formal closure of the discussion at WP:AN/RFC. Betty Logan (talk) 13:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Quick query

Hi Betty, Could I ask your opinion on Talk:Licence to Kill/Archive 1#PG-13 in America? It was my understanding that we don't put in much information about ratings because they mean little globally (and let alone in the lead, let alone unsourced and let alone for a non production country). I can't find the thread that raises this question, so I may be wrong, and your thoughts would be most welcome. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I've added my comments. I don't think it's particularly relevant, unless of course there is commentary like we have for the UK-15 affecting the takings. Betty Logan (talk) 13:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

RfC

This is a neutral request for comment as a participant in a past discussion regarding a similar topic at Talk:The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug#Critical reaction and WEIGHT. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

An RfC that you may be interested in...

As one of the previous contributors to {{Infobox film}} or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!

This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 18:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Ben-Hur

Hi Betty. Remind me what the problem was stopping Ben Hur from being promoted to GA was? The lead clearly needs expansion but if you could highlight what needs doing I might give it a go in a few weeks. It looks pretty good on the surface. Can you also fill me in on the wiki background to it, I was told some time ago it was a contentious article our something.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's particularly contentious. I made some observations a couple of years ago at Talk:Ben-Hur (1959 film)/GA1 which is by no means exhaustive, but also some of which have since been rectified. The biggest problem at the time was really the structure of the article; it was a bit unwieldy but I sorted that out myself. Betty Logan (talk) 22:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
It surely looks comprehensive enough for GA! Needs mostly minor technical work and expansion of the lead. I should be able to get it up to GA. I've put the text in references into notes and have begun adidng the isbn and links to the books. One problem though is that some of them are reprints in google books, the Buford source for instance is 2009 in books and 2000 in your article. If I leave the reprints any chance you could locate the original isbn numbers of the books used? Or was it Tim1965 who added them? Should I ask him? I think it really helps for verification purposes that's all.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I never added any actual content to the article. I just restructured it slightly to make it more readable because it was written more like an essay at the time. That basically just involved going through and adding suitable shapter headings. The coverage is excellent though, more FA standard than GA. ISBN numbers are useful for verification but not required (if you have the author, title, year and edition) so it's not a big deal if we're missing a few. Betty Logan (talk) 09:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Vegans

Watching an interview with Ben Stiller, who says he is no longer a vegan. Not sure if there's a reliable source that backs that up, but it may be worth a look? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

By heck, these Hollywood stars are fickle aren't they? While obviously I believe you, it is problematic removing people when tons of sources say otherwise. Can you recall the name of the programme by any chance? Betty Logan (talk) 03:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
I certainly can: it was last night's The Graham Norton Show on BBC 1 (the first time I've watched the show, and probably the last!). Offered a vegan brownie by Jamie Oliver he fessed up to no longer being one. It'll be on the BBC iPlayer for another week, by which time he may have reverted to the diet! - SchroCat (talk) 05:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Betty,

You recently deleted an edit I made to the list of Vegans for Karyn Calabrese. Not only does the entirety of her page suggest she is vegan, not only is her entire brand built of raw veganism, but the source, which you said did not back up the claim, did in fact claim she was vegan, and has been for over 30 years. What makes you the authority? Mkpr (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

It is irrelevant what her Wikipedia page says since anyone can edit it. To add her to the vegan list you must provide a reputable source that explicitly states she is a vegan. The source you added does not back up the claim she is vegan, since it states "A vegetarian for decades, Calabrese is far from inflexible on the matter" i.e. the source backs up the claim she is vegetarian, not vegan, which is a different branch of vegetarianism. Betty Logan (talk) 22:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Space Jam

Requested protection for article.

Jdogno5 (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

"The administrator who reviews this request should be made aware of this 3RR report filed against User:Jdogno5. I don't recommend protecting the article since the disruption involves a single editor and can be resolved at ANI.": I did that to deal with the matter in a constructive way. You said that was something I could do that was considered alright. So a single editor doesn't matter?!

Jdogno5 (talk) 00:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Let It Be

Are you aware that you just wheel warred by moving the page? Bovine moved the page earlier, but Anthony Appleyard undid it after I contested it. Thus, by moving it again you've wheel warred. I hope you undo it before I seek redress elsewhere. Hot Stop talk-contribs 23:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I haven't a clue who you are or what your involvement is, and saw no contesting by you at the move discussion; however what I do see in the article history is someone moving an article to another title and listing it as "uncontroversial" when it directly violates the disambiguation guideline at WP:NCF. If you wish to move an article to a title that does not comply with the naming guidelines then I recommend you start a discussion on the talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 23:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Umm, it had been at plain old Let It Be (film) for many years before BB moved it today. If you can't get that basic fact straight, maybe you should reconsider. Hot Stop talk-contribs 23:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I am a bit confused. What exactly is the issue? Do you disagree that the page move does not comply with WP:NCF which states Do not use partial disambiguation such as Titanic (film) when more than one film needs to be disambiguated, or are you just objecting to me closing the discussion? Article renaming doesn't have to be discussed if it's a straightforward matter. I will re-open the discussion if you wish but it is unnecessary in this case. Betty Logan (talk) 00:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

What was wrong with what I stated?

Jdogno5 (talk) 03:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Space Jam editor

Thank you for your continued watch of the page and handling with that user. I don't know if I should be saddened or dumbfounded by the fact that some people just don't get it. In all the reverts and directing them to the talk, they just didn't understand what had to be done to work it out. Anyways, thanks for trying to make it work, even though it may have been extremely difficult, had the user cooperated, given the amount of WP:OR in the content they added. Regards, - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much everyone starts out a poor editor on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has rules coming out of its ass so novice editors are going to often get things wrong. I don't mind that, but presented with the right way and the wrong way then the editor has to make that choice themselves. Ultimately Jogno made the wrong decision and has to face the consequences. Hopefully, if he returns either by convincing an admin to unblock him or getting an new id he will try a bit harder to learn the ropes. Betty Logan (talk) 05:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Missing white woman syndrome

I have responded on the talk page. Thanks for notifying me. SQGibbon (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

No result of discussion

Closed. Discussion not going anywhere.

As you know the discussion did not reach any consensus here. What do you think should be done now? KahnJohn27 (talk) 12:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

If a discussion doesn't reach consensus then nothing happens, the status quo is retained. Betty Logan (talk) 13:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Of course I know that. But no consensus was reached because actually no one cared to discuss it. That's why I'm asking what do you suggest should be done now? Where should this issue be taken so it receives proper attention of other users and it can be properly discussed. KahnJohn27 (talk) 10:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
If you have an issue with the infobox I suggest you raise the issue at the {{Infobox film}} talk page which is where infobox issues are primarily discussed. Betty Logan (talk) 11:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Alright thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 12:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Reported the matter here. Also it seemed last time that you didn't even cared about discussing the issue. If that was so please do not do so again. It might seem that I'm blaming you but I don't know how to express myself in a more better way so it does not offend anybody accidentally. Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 13:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I have discussed the issue plenty of times with you. The fact that neither of the previous discussions resulted in a consensus is not my problem. Betty Logan (talk) 14:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
You only discussed it once at GWTW's talk page. You did not care to discuss this issue here. And might I say it wasn't even a discussion. All the editors including me just posted a single comment and no one cared to talk about it after that not even you. I don't wanna blame you but it seems you're doing on this purpose since if no one discusses there is no consensus which means status quo remains and thus the path of editing box office gross of re-released films which you prefer continues to be used. Regardless of everything your comment that "The fact that neither of the previous discussions resulted in a consensus is not my problem" is completely irresponsible and against ethics of Wikipedia. It is "your problem" and your responsibility (it's everyone's responsibility) to properly discuss an issue and try to reach a consensus. Had this issue been properly discussed and a consensus had been reached I won't have ever taken up this matter again however it did not happen so. The issue wasn't even properly discussed. KahnJohn27 (talk) 13:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Obviously I did care to discuss it at the Film project since I was the one who started the discussion! There is nothing I can do if editors choose not to participate in the discussion. And no, it is not my problem since I am not the editor attempting to effect the change; if you want to effect a change it is your responsibility to forge a new consensus per WP:BRD. I have participated in the discussion at the article talk page, the Film project and the Infobox talk page. In my experience if editors support a change they usually join the discussion; if not it's generally because they don't care. All I can suggest is that you notify the Film project of the discussion at the Infobox talk page and see if anyone else cares to contribute to the discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 14:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
To that I'll just ask one thing of you. Did you care to discuss it after your first comment? No you obviously didn't. You just started the discussion with a comment and well you were done after that because according to you it wasn't "your problem". KahnJohn27 (talk) 14:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
You don't really get it do you? I stated my case and left it open for others to comment. That is the point of requesting community input. The community didn't respond in any meaningful way so the discussion didn't go anywhere. Betty Logan (talk) 14:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
If you cared about the discussion you would have tried to ensure that it was actually discussed which you didn't. Even after that you would have taken the issue up again. The reason I couldn't post after my first comment was due to my university exams and also because the discussion was already abandoned before being started so I felt no point in trying to beat a dead horse. Rather taking up the issue again when I was free was a better idea since I would be able to make sure it was properly discussed. Had you cared about the discussion at all it would have been you doing that or at the least you would have made an attempt instead of shaking it off as not your problem. KahnJohn27 (talk) 14:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) KahnJohn27, No-one has to take part or do anything on Wikipedia, so calling that "completely irresponsible and against ethics of Wikipedia" is, I'm afraid, complete and laughable nonsense. Betty Logan has said she does not want to take part in the discussion: that is her prerogative, and you berating her here is unlikely to change her mind. You have informed her of the discussion so let it run its course and if Betty Logan decides to take part at some point in the future then so be it: if she doesn't comment, then it's not anything that needs to bother you. I suggest you just move away from this talk page and do something constructive while the infobox discussion continues. - SchroCat (talk) 14:21, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I did actually take part in the discussion! I posted one comment, no less or no more than anyone else involved in the discussion (including Kahn himself). He's berating me because it had a low turn-out and didn't resolve the dispute. Betty Logan (talk) 14:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I have made more of an effort to resolve this than you since I was the editor who started both of the initial discussions. What initiatives have you taken besides edit-warring? Betty Logan (talk) 14:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Yeah Schrocat they don't have to so tell me what's the point of discussion. What's the point of Wikipedia at all if no one cares about other editors' opinions. I cared about Betty Logan's and others' opinions that's why I discussed this issue with them. The users only posted one message and they were done like they don't care anymore. Hey you call that a "discussion". No, in fact that is a "complete and laughable nonsense". If no one cares about improving Wikipedia then what's the point of Wikipedia's existence? Also SchroCat you talk like your comment is constructive when it is actually you telling others what to do and not to do. I was only trying to make Betty Logan aware of her mistake. I don't want to get involved in that mudslinging again which happened on the discussion for adding Boxoffice.com as a reliable source. Also an ironic and sarcastic thing is that while you advice me do a constructive thing while the infobox discussion continues I have been doing constructive editing which you would have known if you knew about my edits in between the infobox discussion. The edits that I have made no body would have cared to make them. For example there's an entire section of Lee Kun-hee lying sourceless for years however no body even cared to look at it and atleast add that a citation is needed which I did. KahnJohn27 (talk) 14:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
KahnJohn27, This thread isn't constructive. You need to carry on doing whatever it is you want to do elsewhere without the need for badgering others on their talk pages. Move on and drop the stick. - SchroCat (talk) 14:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I think Betty Logan it's more like you started the second discussion and abandoned it after that and later said that if the issue was not discussed it wasn't "my problem". For your info I started the third discussion which you have infact overlooked and I am still discussing it. Also I have posted comment on User:Erik and User:Favre1fan93 for joining the discussion. And don't forget you too were part of the edit war even if you were doing the "right thing" by reverting my edits. KahnJohn27 (talk) 14:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

You started the third discussion after I suggested it and also in which I have responded. And no, I did not edit-war: I followed the BRD cycle by following up a revert with discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 14:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Read my comment I only asked you where I should start a new discussion so it recieves proper attention. Just because I said "what I should be done now?" doesn't mean I had no idea what to do. I was going to start a discussion myself whether you responded to my comment or not. If my comment confused you then I'm sorry but I was only here to ask you where a new discussion should be started. KahnJohn27 (talk) 14:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Your reverting of my Gone with the Wind edit

I'm a bit perplexed by it. You said Leigh receives second billing in the film. Seeing as you have no reason to make that up, I'm assuming you're correct. However, screen billing isn't used unless the poster doesn't list actors, according to Template:Infobox film. Why are you skipping the first part of the "cast list" policy? Corvoe (speak to me) 03:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I have left a comprehensive response at the article talk page. On reflection I agree that it is probably better to leave out the uncredited names, but I have also addressed other aspects of your edit. Betty Logan (talk) 03:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

No more discussion

Since nobody has cared to discuss about the thing about the box office gross of re-released films I think there's no use in further taking up the matter since it seems apparently the community is not interested in it and still picking up despite will be foolish. But still even though I had a few complains with you over the issue you still discussed the issue and showed cooperation. Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 08:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry you didn't get the level of discussion you wanted. However you should be commended for at least pursuing a discourse. Betty Logan (talk) 21:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 09:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Snooker season 2014/2015

It would be nice if you could take a look at Snooker season 2014/2015. IPs are removing sourced information from the article, and I can't do against it for a while. Armbrust The Homunculus 22:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I've replied at the talk page. I've added the article to my watchlist so I'll intervene if the reverting starts up again. Betty Logan (talk) 09:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

New Hollywood

I propose that we add the director's name with each movie. This helps the reader to see the role played by notable directors. What are your views on this proposal. I think it adds to the article, as it helps the reader connect movies with the notable directors.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 14:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't oppose it in principle since there is some value in it, but I think if you want to add more information then it needs to be a bit more stuctured, like a title/director/year three column table. You could make it sortable and then readers can sort it by director or year. Betty Logan (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Warnings left for an IP user

I came across your AIV report for User talk:121.208.159.27. I went ahead and blocked the IP again, but I wanted to comment about the warnings you left. When leaving warnings regarding vandalism, there really isn't much point to leaving more than one warning within a 1-2 minute period, nor much point to leaving multiple warnings at the same warning level. It just makes the page difficult to read, and I doubt it makes the IP any more likely to pay attention to the message. —Darkwind (talk) 16:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry if I made it more difficult for you. I figured out quite a while ago that the IP wouldn't heed any warnings but I was more concerned about leaving an accurate record for the admin examining the case. If it re-occurs I will just leave a list of articles on his talk page in future. Betty Logan (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Snooker sources

As we established that Cuetracker, Snooker info et al are (a) unsuitable as sources and (b) differ even from each other, is there something that we should do regarding all the snooker pages (players in particular) which use these sources? The Ronnie O'Sullivan page for example is classed as a 'good article' yet contains multiple refs to Cuetracker. I don't mind the work but am I right to go through replacing inaccurate yet precise information with maybe less precise but verifiable stuff? Btljs (talk) 07:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

There is always a chance that an alternative source can be found so we shouldn't change information unless it is absolutely necessary. It might be a good idea to tag all occurrences of CueTracker with {{Better source}} and leave it a month so that editors will be made aware of the issue and have some time to find another source. Betty Logan (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Thank you for watching the anti-fur video, removing another non-vegan from the list of vegans, and leaving a comprehensive edit summary. Edwardx (talk) 17:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

List of snooker player nicknames

Could you take a look at the article. An user is insisting for changing Steve Davis' nickname from "Interesting" to "Steve "Interesting" Davis". Thanks. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I've left a comment at the talk page, Armbrust. Betty Logan (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for copying me in, Betty. I am presently very busy at the moment with some teaching/lecturing, but I appreciate your intercession. I may come back to you on this later, though. I will try to put something in on the talk page. FClef (talk) 18:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello,

Could you give me a little insight into reverting my Ten Commandment changes? For instance, I thought putting the Ten Commandments template on theCatholic doctrine regarding the Ten Commandments article aids in reader navigation. And the intent of placing Homer vs. Lisa and the 8th Commandment in Ten Commandments category groups that article with other modern interpretations. What do you think is the best use of the Ten Commandments template and category? Thanks! RevelationDirect (talk) 14:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Basically navboxes should be bidirectional i.e. a navbox should only be added to an article if that article is included (or added) to the navbox. As WP:BIDIRECTIONAL states Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional. For instance, if you wish to add the {{Ten Commandments}} navbox to the The Ten Commandments (1956 film) you ideally need to create a media section in the navbox and add the article to the navbox. The logic behind this is to group links together so readers can navigate between them. For example, if we assume that a reader is interested in the 1956 film then it is reasonable to assume that they will be interested in other Decalogue media (such as the 1923 film or the 2007 film etc); however, by just adding the navbox to the articles without adding the articles to the navbox doesn't actually help the reader navigate between the media which defeats the purpose. Your underlying idea is a sound one, it just needs to be approached right. If you need technical assistance at all then I am happy to help with that. Betty Logan (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh, okay. Your concern is more precedural/navigational rather than about the underlying topic. I'm going to make another pass at this based on your input. If you have any further concerns, just drop a note on my talk page so we don't inadvertantly engage in an edit war. Thanks again. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The Ten Commandments Accolades section

Hi. I have modified the accolades section in the article from a wikitable into paragraphs because I have added more information which can't be properly displayed in a wikitable. Besides, the Wikipedia Manual of Style states that a film's awards can be also written in prose.--V. Villalvaso 00:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:$1Billion Films

Template:$1Billion Films has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.

(As you have made a few edits to this template, I thought you may want to comment.)

--Fru1tbat (talk) 18:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Question of curiosity.

I'm new here and while looking through the FAQ section of Wikipedia, I found this question in the section relating to blocks:

"Q If I made an account on Wikipedia on one IP address but opened it on another, would that create problems? E.g. If I attempted to open my account on an IP address that had been completely blocked (no editing, no creating new accounts e.t.c.) but I haven't received a block for anything that I have done under my username, will I be blocked on that IP address? If so, is there a way to appeal it?":

I am curious myself about what is being asked here. Just saying, If I attempted to open my account on an IP address that had been completely blocked (no editing, no creating new accounts e.t.c) without knowing so but I haven't received a block for anything that I have done under my username, will I be blocked on that IP address? If so, is there a way to appeal it?

Michael Demiurgos (talk) 07:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Sock Puppetry

I understand I am being accused of sock puppetry.

Where do I go to respond to that? On the talk page or project page for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jdogno5?

Michael Demiurgos (talk) 12:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

What is happening now? Just trying to understand what is going on.

Michael Demiurgos (talk) 00:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Is that a joke? Did Jdogno5 or I do anything that would be considered "terrorism"? Guantanomo Bay? For trying to express your opinion on the internet? Doesn't that go against the 1st amendment of the USA constitution?

Michael Demiurgos (talk) 13:44, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I removed Betty Logan's previous comment because it was inappropriate and could have been interpreted as a legal threat. Please don't make such comments on Wikipedia. -BZTMPS ★ · (talk? contribs?) 13:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Quite right: no sense of humour needed on Wiki. We're all far too serious and important for that sort of thing. (Legal threat? What absolute nonsense!) - SchroCat (talk) 13:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Obviously this user didn't take it as a joke! BZTMPS ★ · (talk? contribs?) 13:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
This user is the subject of a sockpuppet investigation who is one posting away (on Talk:Space Jam) from being labelled a troll. - SchroCat (talk) 14:05, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for filing the edit warring report for this editor BL. I also noticed your edits updating the SPI report. I suspect you noticed that it has gone stale. It might be because "Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry" stated that they would look into it further four days ago and has only made one edit to WikiP since. Do you think a post at ANI will get things moving again? Best regards. MarnetteD | Talk 03:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
I have left a note at User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry's talk page asking him to conclude the check. A the time I made the report the editor had only made a handful of edits and there was nothing conclusive so I think he just left it running to collate bit more evidence. Michael Demiurgos is currently blocked so we can probably pick it up after the weekend. Betty Logan (talk) 13:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the update and all your work in this situation. MarnetteD | Talk 18:00, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

How was the last revision I created for Devil in popular culture a synthesis of published materials when both of those issues of "Venus" (Marvel Comics) showed that Loki (Marvel Comics) has a demonic nature to his being?

Michael Demiurgos (talk) 13:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

It is SYNTHESIS because having what you interpret as a "demonic nature" is not the same as veriably being a demon. If you want to add claims, you need secondary sources that explicitly make the claim. Betty Logan (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

"Veriably": What does that mean? Forgive me if I sound like an idiot for asking.

Michael Demiurgos (talk) 00:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:Verifiability, WP:Reliable sources and WP:Original research. If you can't get to grips with these policies perhaps you should find another hobby. If you have questions about those polcies ask on the talk pages or at WP:HELPDESK. Betty Logan (talk) 12:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Angela Cartwright edits

If I made a mistake, I sincerely apologize. I was just trying to make the sentence grammatically correct. As it is, it equates to: "Danny Thomas, as a little girl of the 1950s, starting, etc., signed Cartwright to play his daughter...." In other words, the introductory clauses should modify her (Cartwright), not Danny Thomas. But I could be wrong in this, and if so, I apologize. Also, I apologize for not signing my edits. Grammarspellchecker (talk) 02:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Could you link to my edit please. The edit history at Angela Cartwright says I have never edited the article. Betty Logan (talk) 03:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Cult film Animation section

Hello, I was wondering what was wrong with a sentence I added to the end of the Cult film Animation section on the movie The Thief and the Cobbler.

Thank you in advance, Elixe54 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elixe54 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

As I explained to you in the edit summary, if you are going to describe something as a "cult film" then you must provide a source that discusses it explicitly in those terms. Betty Logan (talk) 00:10, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

3RR

How do you feel about this wording:

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits with no intervening edits, that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as an edit-warring violation. See below for exemptions.

--Mark Miller (talk) 23:21, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

That seems fine. I just think it is important to make the wording explicit. Betty Logan (talk) 23:27, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Agreed.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:30, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

FLC follow up

Hi. Hope you're well. Thanks for making comments on our FLC (Link to article)(Link to comments), they were really useful. We have made all the changes except changing the infobox colour but Corvoe has explained why that hasn't been done as of yet. I was wondering if you were satisfied with changes we have made or whether you feel more needs to be done on the FLC to garner your support which we are very open to. Cowlibob (talk) 14:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I have left my "stamp of approval". It's a good list, I think it will pass. Betty Logan (talk) 16:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your support! It's much appreciated. Cowlibob (talk) 18:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Just wanted to say thanks

for multiple undoings of vandalism on Motion Picture Association of America film rating system. It's not easy to put up with stuff like that, so again, thanks.

70.97.195.40 (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The editor is heading for a block the way he is going. Unfortunately articles like that one with "naughty" words will always attract vandalism. Betty Logan (talk) 05:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Info share

Hi Betty, I was looking into UK-based IP vandal who keeps adding weird "who died in 1988 last year"-type content. I first spotted them at All Dogs Go to Heaven. While looking into their antics, I saw this edit which was followed by your reversion and comment "Continued disruption by IP hopper". Was curious if you had any more info about them (have they been doing this for a long time? Do they have any other editing behaviors that would help identify them better? etc.) So far I've seen three IPs, 5.64.190.63, 5.64.187.87, and 90.218.173.182. They are all static IPs, and they geolocate either to the city of Cannock in England, or Stafford England. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately I was not aware of the disruptive behavior on a wider scale, just at the Transformer article. Obviously due to the IP hopping it is impossible to block the editor so all that can be done is to watch the articles they regularly hit and then revert it when it happens. Betty Logan (talk) 14:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Ally Burguieres

Just a note to tell you that an article you PRODed and was deleted by me, has been restored as a "contested PROD" (User_talk:Ronhjones#Artist_Page). I can only advise that WP:AfD is now the only way to delete.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

WP Film in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Film for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 22:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Re Rocky

With sincere due respect, here is another citation that may be more agreeable to you:

Actually, Medavoy says what sold him on Rocky was an agreement to cross the profits of the film with those of the studio's guaranteed hit New York, New York. By doing this, Medavoy says the profits from Martin Scorsese's musical would, in effect, pay for the boxing dud. "Of course," cracks Medavoy, "Rocky wound up paying for whatever losses we had on New York, New York," which tanked.[1]
  1. ^ Nashawaty, Chris (2002-02-19). "EW: The Right Hook: How Rocky Nabbed Best Picture". Entertainment Weekly.

For what it's worth, the New York, New York page has had that citation to bolster the same point for a while.

Actually, I find it euphemistically amusing that several specious "citation needed" paragraphs are left in there whilst mine was speedily deleted. A "citation needed" would've sufficed, in my very humble opinion. :-D –TashTish (talk)

That source is fine, but this could have been avoided if you hadn't attributed the claim to a source that did not back it up. Your edit was reverted not because it was unsourced but because I doubted its authenticity. Betty Logan (talk) 06:00, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough, but I still fail to see how unsourced anecdotes are allowed to remain, such as Talia Shire's casting being insisted upon by the producers or which body parts were injured during filming, some merely with [citation needed] tags, while others that are actually sourced are reverted. Methinks, again humbly, that completely unsourced conjectures should be reverted, while sourced ones—despite their suspicious validity—be given more benefit of the doubt. Anyway, just a random thought. –TashTish (talk)
The notification system notified you of my revert and prompted you into correcting your edit, which is the best outcome for the article. I would not take issue if someone reverted me along similar lines. I don't think unsourced content should be allowed to slide—I am actually a stickler for good sourcing—but if I cull the information from the article manually then it will very likely be permanent, since the editors who contributed it will not be notified like you were. If someone decides to take this article on and develop it then obviously the unsourced claims will have to be removed. Betty Logan (talk) 06:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
All true. Thanks 4 ur answers. –TashTish (talk)

List of world number-one snooker players

Hi Betty! Could you take a look at List of world number-one snooker players? Nergaal is insisting to day measurements for the duration of the #1 status in violation of WP:OR. Thanks. Armbrust The Homunculus 17:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Since there is no link showing a table of #1's in history then the list is not OR. But if a reader wants to compare how long Higgins has been #1 versus O'Sullivan then it is OR. Nice logic. Nergaal (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Or the Per frequency part is totally not OR by those standards. Nergaal (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I have started a discussion at Talk:List of world number-one snooker players#The addition of "Days" to the world number 1 calendar. Betty Logan (talk) 20:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 3 July

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Changes Undone to Movie Articles

The modifying that I did that mentioned that "No Children 17 and Under Admitted" was undone on two articles. Can you please explain that? Angela Maureen (talk) 20:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe the question should be why did you change it? The source used in the articles says "No One 17 and Under Admitted". Your edit made the wording inaccurate. Betty Logan (talk) 20:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
The reason for modification is many MPAA officials and audience members interpret the rating as "No Children 17 and Under Admitted". Also, the C in NC-17 means "Children". NC-17 was changed to its current meaning somewhere around the mid 1990s. Angela Maureen (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Factual accuracy is the primary consideration here and the MPAA currently uses the "No One" nomenclature. The MPAA obviously have their reasons for altering the wording. If there is some historical context for altering the wording then that would be an interesting addition to the article, but it's not our place to re-interpret the MPAA certificate for them. Betty Logan (talk) 21:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Apology

I previously used to be WARNER one and have since reincarnated myself to be more friendly, useful, cooperative, less nationalistic and all together a better editor. I have identified you as one of the editors that I have wronged in the past which is why I urge you not to consider my previous actions in the future as I am completely different. I would like to be friends so we can hopefully collaborate in the future. If you understandably still don't want to colabarte and/or see my new side then that is 100% fine. Just please leave me a note here so I know for the future. THANKYOU! --Warner REBORN (talk) 17:23, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

It's good that you have decided to turn over a new leaf. However, if you look at some of our interactions (such as on the Avatar article) I didn't actually oppose all of your conclusions, just your methods. I am sure we will get along fine provided you follow the WP:BRD cycle. Betty Logan (talk) 13:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

"English" vs. "British"

I noticed you reverted my edit on the Naomi Watts page. This is not new and has long been a common issue on Wikipedia. English people are labeled "British" while people from Scotland and Wales are called "Scottish" and "Welsh". This is extremely unfair treating the English so differently. A similar thing has recently happened on the Andy Serkis page. I will not change until discussed as I wish to be reasonable. Please respond. Thank You WARNER one --9999 (talk) 19:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

You're actually claiming this to be discrimination against the English when in fact it is the English who have for centuries now discriminated against other parts of the British Isles? That's like saying feminism is discrimination against men. veganfishcake (talk) 00:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I actually agree with your reasons here i.e. Sean Connery is Scottish, Michael Caine is English etc, but the situation with Naomi Watts is unsual. She has a British passport but doesn't solely identify as "English". I have left more detailed comments at the Naomi Watts talk page and I also urge you to reader her comments fully in the source too. Betty Logan (talk) 19:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Clarification.

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.
Please restrict messages on this talk page to questions and comments about editing.

Hey, I would like to know why you thought it was relevant to mention that I live about 50 miles away from the football club I support when you reported me? I used to live near the football club and I moved away from the area, what's that got to do with anything I have been doing on Wikipedia? veganfishcake (talk) 18:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

How do you mean? I'm pretty sure you weren't blocked for supporting a football team; in fact your extended block was due to a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Veganfishcake/Archive. Anyway, I replaced the image at the veganis article and changed the caption so hopefully this solution is acceptable to you. If it is not then please take the issue up at the talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 19:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
No, but when you reported me you made a point (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=616512537#User:Veganfishcake_reported_by_User:Betty_Logan_.28Result:_24_hours.29) about me support a football club about 50 miles away from where I live, as if it was relevant to the decision to block me or not. I'll quote what you wrote: "The editor supports Fleetwood F.C. (a UK football club) on his user page while the IP operates out of Longsight UK, with Fleetwood and Longsight situated just 50 miles apart.". I would just like clarification as to why you wrote that. I'll contribute on the talk page as I was not given a chance to do so over the last few days before you made the decision to change the picture. veganfishcake (talk) 22:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi, can I please get an answer to this? Thank you veganfishcake (talk) 11:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Sound of Music

Hello, Ms Betty Logan,

I noticed you removed my edit of the chapter on the film Sound of Music and historical facts. I guess it must be because I did not log in properly. Will do so next time. I live and work in Salzburg, just 100 metres away from Nonnberg Abbey. The wikipedia entry on the musical and the film 'Sound of Music' is naïvely written and makes little mention on the austrian/german language films which inspired Rogers and Hammerstein to write the musical to start with: the most seen films to date in austrian history are the films about Maria von Trapps life in 1956 and 1958. But today, Salzburg gets hundreds of thousands of visitors every year from around the world who would like to see where the Hollywood musical was filmed. The Hollywood film gets the blame for telling the story incorrect, though. I do not see why my edit to the article was wrong? Please explain (this is Wikipedia). Myself, I enjoy both the austrian films (there were two!) and the musical, but it was the austrian film which took liberties from the actual story: the Hollywood film just copied the austrian one. I don't think my additions did any harm or told a wrong story: I stand to be corrected if so -but please explain first. John, Salzburg, Austria — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.165.128.116 (talk) 08:01, 28 July 2014 (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.

FLC review request

Hi. Hope you're well. Corvoe and I nominated Gravity's accolades page for featured list a couple of weeks ago. I was wondering if you had some time to review it. It would be really helpful. Link to the article [1] and the FLC [2]. Cowlibob (talk) 11:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I will look over this for you this weekend. I took a glance and it looks fine so I doubt there are any major issues. Betty Logan (talk) 07:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I just saw this. Thanks for looking at it! Cowlibob (talk) 22:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Motion Picture Rating System

I've reverted your latest version. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment

On the one hand, your post to WP:AN was a reasonable approach to the table having been broken. On the other hand, it was reasonable for another reason than you expected. There was very little possibility that you would be given permission to breach 3RR, but, since WP:AN is watchlisted heavily, you would be likely to get another editor to make the change for you, since 3RR doesn't apply to other editors. If the change had been simple vandalism, 3RR would not apply, but it appears that it wasn't vandalism, but a good-faith error by the other editor, compounded by making improper changes to the table. If the other editor resumes editing the table when coming off the block, please go back to WP:ANEW and request a longer block. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:42, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Will you please stop changing the ratings? you only signed up to make ratings wrong. The NC-17 means adults only, don't believe me? see Blue is the warmest color trailer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.139.135 (talk) 17:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

List of highest-grossing films

Please explain to me:

1. What sources based box office franchises James Bond, Superman, Star Trek? Where did the box office $190400000, $80200000 and $36700000 for Superman II, III, IV? Or James Bond franchise? Unless Boxoffice and The Numbers are not reliable sources? I did this changes to these sources. I don't understand.

2. Why Batman franchise have Catwoman?

Thanks, KIRILL1995 (talk) 17:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

All the sources used are all listed at the ended of the article in "Franchise sources". Box Office Mojo and The Numbers are fine as a rule, but sometimes we use other sources because i) they are incomplete ii) in rare cases better sources (such as with older films) are available. As for the reasons for each franchise here they are:
  1. The Superman figures come "George Lucas' Blockbusting" written by Alex Ben Block because neither Box Office Mojo or The Numbers list worldwide figures. If you actually look at those sites (as opposed to the Wikipedia articles) you will see they only list the American grosses which means they are missing global data. BOM only has US data for Superman 2-4 so that is why we use the book for this franchise. Replacing the current numbers with those from BOM means we would only have domestic totals in some cases.
  2. All the Star Trek figures come from The Numbers site to be consistent, since Box Office Mojo does not list worldwide grosses for all the films. Some of Box Office Mojo's data differs slightly by a million here or a million there, but in the absence of not knowing which source is more accurate then it's probably better to use the same source for all the data.
  3. The older James Bond figures (up to Dalton) come from the George Lucas book since Box Office Mojo does not have them for the older films. The later figures (from Brosnan onwards) uses Box Office Mojo. We used to use The Numbers for the James Bond films but we discovered it was inconsistent with many books about the James Bond films, so the James Bond project decided to use the book instead. You can fully read that discussion at User_talk:SchroCat/Archive_4#James_Bond_grosses. You can see a comparison of all the different figures for the Bond films at User:Betty_Logan/Sandbox#Bond_grosses.
  4. As for Catwoman, it is included because it is part of the Batman franchise even though Batman himself does not appear in the film. It is a spin-off from Batman Returns (Michelle Pfeiffer's Catwoman appears in a photograph) so exists in the same continuity. As a rule we include all spin-offs (see Supergirl in the Superman franchise, Puss-in-Boots in the Shrek franchise, The Scorpion King in the The Mummy franchise, The Clone Wars in the Star Wars franchise, and the upcoming Fantastic Beasts in the Harry Potter franchise).
I hope this helps to explain why we use certain sources over the others. Betty Logan (talk) 23:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh no...

hmmm.... here we No again, doctor? - SchroCat (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted this. I recall the ruling at Commons being explicitly clear that we could only host the file here. Betty Logan (talk) 17:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Betty Logan, hey thanks for semi-protecting the motion picture rating system, there were many vandalism which violates the 3RR code. and the PG does not have an age. Its for all ages with parental guidance. but any who thanks for sorting it out later man BasicallyIdowrk — Preceding unsigned comment added by BasicallyIdowrk (talk • contribs) 11:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

A tip

I've got the source for the new Frozen numbers now, but it's good Wiki-etiquette to leave a message on someone's talk page rather than a revert, which is considered a harsh action only to be done only when necessary. When in doubt, talking is much preferable. Dralwik|Have a Chat 02:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

... for you insight and clarity. . Schmidt, Michael Q. 10:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The Rocky Horror Picture Show

(Betty, in the past you have been good at taking a neutral look at disputes on this article so I am copying the same message I posted to the Film project in hopes that your good sense can help this before it gets out of hand)

An editor has pointed out an inconsistency in the soundtrack listings of the film in our articles. There is also an inconsistency in the listing in the primary source that seems to be a blatant mislabeling. How should we proceed with any changes? We need to form a consensus one way of another.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposed move

Hi Betty, I suspect this may already have come across your radar, but in case it hasn't, this may be of interest for you. - SchroCat (talk) 10:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed it actually (it's on my watchlist but an archive bot is the last edt) but I've added my comments. I don't think there is much danger at this stage. Betty Logan (talk) 08:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


Wizard of Oz

The national release date for The Wizard of Oz was August 25th.. You are putting the date for one of it's three minor release dates. You also did not put a reference and removed my reference when you reverted my edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordjoshua420 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Trek: Axanar

As the article on Star Trek: Axanar can be seen as TOO SOON for its own article, I gave the situation some thought, some research, and created one on Prelude to Axanar in my draftspace. As Prelude has coverage it can be seen to meet WP:NF and, as it has been released we have no worries about WP:NFF. That said, I invite you to visit and consider the section at Prelude to Axanar#Planned feature film as a suitable redirect target for the much smaller,less comprehensive, and poorly sourced Star Trek: Axanar when I move my draft to article space. What'cha say? Schmidt, Michael Q. 09:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I will fully support that solution, Michael! Good work. Betty Logan (talk) 14:29, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
After a few final tweaks, the draft has now been moved to Prelude to Axanar. Have a great day. Schmidt, Michael Q. 14:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Gone With The Wind

Why did you revert my "dubious" marker? The existing text is inaccurate, as watching the opening of the movie will demonstrate. One minute into the opening of the film, as the opening credits appear on the screen, the names of the four principal actors are shown, so, contrary to what the text of the article, they do receive top billing, and there is nothing unusual. The items referred to in the text occur later on in the opening. I attempted to insert a You Tube video that shows the opening credits, but Wikipedia does not permit the insertion of You Tube videos.John Paul Parks (talk) 01:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I reverted you because you didn't provide any explanation for the tag—either in the edit summary or on the talk page as you said you had. You can watch the opening credits at [3], which includes the billing credits and cast lists. Betty Logan (talk) 01:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC) EDIT: I don't quite understand what you saying, because the article does say that the principals get top-billing. Betty Logan (talk) 01:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

talkback

Hello, Betty Logan. You have new messages at El duderino's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

here

Hello Betty, Not sure if this is in the right place. Forgive me for I am new. In regards to my edits on Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. I am sourcing this page http://blog.mysanantonio.com/dvd/2005/11/harry-potter-the-goblet-of-fire-book-to-film-comparison/ .. When I try to do it on my phone it does not save properly. When done from my computer it instead references Jk Rowling book series. How do I fix this problem because there are more things I'd like to add to that page. Thank you for your help and patience lordjoshua420 (talk) 13:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Lana/Larry issue again.

Dear Betty,

You guess it. It's the same trouble on the Matrix article. I might need a bit of your help convincing people there. Just thinking about the trouble gives me a huge headache already. Anthonydraco (talk) 15:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Harry Potter:Goblet of Fire I keep adding this as the source http://blog.mysanantonio.com/dvd/2005/11/harry-potter-the-goblet-of-fire-book-to-film-comparison/. Though after the edit is saved the source keeps referencing Harry Potter Series by JK Rowling. Please help me fix this issue [[User:lordjoshua420 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordjoshua420 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I strongly urge you to stop reverting and gain a consensus on the talk page for your additions. You have already been blocked once for edit-warring in the last week, and another incursion in such a short period of time would result in a lengthy block. You have actually broken 3RR, but I am going to cut you some slack since you are a new editor. Betty Logan (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I sourced my last edit and the information I edited is accurate i don't understand why you are removing my edit. I provided a source http://blog.mysanantonio.com/dvd/2005/11/harry-potter-the-goblet-of-fire-book-to-film-comparison/. Is there something I'm still not doing correctly? lordjoshua420 (talk) 14:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your disruptive edit on the Missing White Woman Syndrome article.

Refer to the talk page of the Missing White Woman article. AChildOfTwoCultures (talk) 16:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Think you for proposing the step that I should have proposed ages ago: now passed by consensus, and a better, less fraught talk page ahead of us all! – SchroCat (talk) 06:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Your welcome! To be fair it probably wouldn't have passed if either you/Cass/Blofeld had proposed it on impartiality grounds. No-one should have to put up with that kind of haranguing for two years though—it would have driven me around the twist!

Personal Attack in Merge War

On the one hand, there is, as you note, a merge war in progress, and the merge is being reverted out of process. On the other hand, your claim that one of the editors is a "pathological liar" is a very strong personal attack, and you could be blocked for it when the merge warrior is blocked for the merge war. Please do not make personal attacks. (The matter of the editor's block log is not a personal attack, although it is a bit stale, but WP:NPA is an enforced policy.) Robert McClenon (talk) 15:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough Robert, you make a sound point. I have struck out the "pathological" bit but I reserve the right to point out dishonest claims pertinent to the discussion itself. Betty Logan (talk) 16:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Motion picture rating system may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Statens medieråd (the Swedish Media Council is a government agency with the aims to reduce the risk of harmful media
  • -->

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I AM WILD EDIT

Just in case there was any doubt about his actual age, the fake signature he pulled with his latest sock was actually pretty hard to spot. Meters (talk) 22:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Let's hope it will "lights out" for him! Betty Logan (talk) 04:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

FYI

Hello BL. Remembering your work on this User:Betty Logan/BRD enforcer I thought that you might find this Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 116#WP:BRD as essay of interest. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 18:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I suggested making it a policy/guideline once before at the village pump too and it was kicked into the grass. I don't really understand the logic: if edit-warring is a policy breach then technically breaching BRD is a policy breach too so I don't see the problem with setting it in stone. It would certainly make life easier if editors were compelled to follow BRD, but I guess the reason it never gets the support is that there are too many editors with too much to lose if everyone is forced to play fair. Betty Logan (talk) 13:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Motion picture rating system: Swedish "från 15 år" rating

You have reverted my edit of Swedish "15" age rating, but there is in fact a "från 15 år" rating.

It is only the English-language "Statens Mediaråd" page that doesn't explicitly mention the "15" classification.

On the Swedish-language page it is mentioned as "15-årsgränsen", and that a movie can fall under this for two reasons, if submitted for classification and not approved for children, or if not submitted for classification: http://www.statensmedierad.se/Aldersgranser/Aldersgranser-for-film/Aldersgranserna/

It is mentioned (in English) as "The age ratings are “all ages”, 7, 11 and “not approved”, the latter resulting in a 15 rating.": 

http://www.statensmedierad.se/Om-Statens-medierad/In-English/Film-Classification/

The "från 15 år" rating is used in the "Statens Mediaråd" Film Database, and is explained on this page: http://www.statensmedierad.se/Om-Statens-medierad/In-English/Film-Database/

And Swedish cinemas write "från 15 år" or "15 år" on their schedules and advertising: http://extra.sf.se/pdf/SE/SE.pdf

Bo Johansson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.135.31 (talk) 19:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I reverted because you changed information so that it contradicted the source. You say the English version is inaccurate and the native Swedish source says there is a 15 rating? The only problem though is that I can't read Swedish and Google translate leaves a lot of room for misinterpretation. Obviously I would like to ensure the information is correct, therefore I have a couple questions:
  1. What is the difference between a "15" rating and the "Not approved" rating?
  2. What is the difference between "Not approved" and "unrated"?
Betty Logan (talk) 11:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

1. As I understand it, the age limits are set by law (SFS 2010:1882), these are "all ages", 7, 11, and 15 years. Mediarådet's task is to check if films are harmful to children, so they can approve a film for children of all ages, from 7 years, 11 years, or not approve it for children. If they don't approve it, the 15-year limit applies. http://www.notisum.se/rnp/sls/lag/20101882.htm

2. The 15-year limit applies for films that have been submitted to Mediarådet and not approved for children, and also for films that have not been submitted to Mediarådet. The last category might be called "unrated".

Bo Johansson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.135.31 (talk) 18:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I am going to make the corrections in line with your comments. I will also add in the native Swedish source too and we will see how it works out. Betty Logan (talk) 09:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

RM notification

Since you have participated in at least one Requested Move or Move Review discussion, either as participant or closer, regarding the title of the article currently at Sarah Jane Brown, you are being notified that there is another discussion about that going on now, at Talk:Sarah Jane Brown#Requested move #10. We hope we can finally achieve consensus among all participating about which title best meets policy and guidelines, and is not too objectionable. --В²C ☎ 16:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Guardians of the Galaxy - Box office

This is a neutral notice for a discussion about the box office section of this film.Spinc5 (talk) 16:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

I appreciate your comment HERE, but I wonder how we'd address his (likely) asking again about my not having seen this Kannada film, my reliance on the good faith edit of another user (whom I presume watched the film), and how WP:FILMPLOT and WP:PLOTSUM#Citations presumptions seems to conflict with WP:NOR. Again, thank you, Schmidt, Michael Q. 12:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

If he were saying the plot summary isn't accurate then you would need to be in a position to discuss the content then (which would require watching the film) but that isn't the reason for his edit. You disagree with his rationale that the summary isn't sourced, so you are entitled to revert on that basis. In regards to NOR, watching a film and summarising the content is essentially no different to reading a book or a newspaper article and summarising the content, which is basically the whole point of Wikipedia. Betty Logan (talk) 23:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Something similar to your proposal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Consensus#Proposal --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Ring. I will take a closer look this evening. Betty Logan (talk) 16:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you're monitoring this. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 3 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Same thing as months ago

Well, I though it was good to be back after several months. But now the same editor who drove me away before with his repeated "fuck offs" and the admin who says it's OK to tell other editors to fuck off are it again. I just wanted to explain to my friends here, in case this is goodbye, that I was minding my own business, not even thinking about that foulmouthed person, and just trying to put it behind me. But within days of my return he's on my talk page, poking me a stick. And the admin is saying, literally, that if I don't like being told "fuck off" that all my past good work means nothing and that I should leave Wikipedia.

I don't know what my future is here. I've started an ANI here, and hopefully something will come of that. I just wanted to let some of the good and responsible editors here know, and that if they're interested in following what's going on, that's the link. I am disheartened as hell. --Tenebrae (talk) 10:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Betty. That means a lot. I value your contributions and collegiality a lot, and I appreciate very much your standing up for me. Honestly, I did not think it was controversial or wrong to ask not to be cursed at. I'm not sure the admins involved represent the best of Wikipedia. But you and my other good colleagues do! --Tenebrae (talk) 20:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Reversions on Spirited Away

Hi, could you explain why you reverted MOS formatting edits by me and bot, as you are not new to Wikipedia I assume that you are familiar with WP:MOS. Oh wait! you are a senior editor. That means you are more experienced than me . Anyway I use a tool called Advisor.js to format articles according WP:MOS style. I hope you have a good explanation to your reversions. Thank you--Chamith (talk) 08:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

And there is one more thing, according to WPCleaner there was a Template programming element error in the article, so I let the tool fix it.It created a mess in the ref section. I guess that's why you reverted my edit. But other edits are perfectly fine.Dreaworks is not the correct name of the animation company, their official trademark/name is DreamWorks. I don't see anything useful in this edit. I think what you wanted is to fix that template Template:Mainichi Film Award - Animation Film Award. It's Ok, I fixed it manually without changing other edits. If there is only one mistake in someone's edit try to fix it manually, without reverting all the other good faith edits. Cheers --Chamith (talk) 08:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I reverted the edits because you had obviously used an automated tool that had introduced at least two template errors into the article that I could count. It didn't look to be working right or hadn't been used correctly, so I thought it was better to revert the whole edit. I could have manually fixed the errors but there were quite a few changes and I could have easily missed something. Generally automated tools are not a great idea unless you are doing something specific on wide scale. Many of these "fixes" which seem harmless on surface can actually break stuff, such as links etc, so it is always wise to check each each fix manually. Betty Logan (talk) 18:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Century break (snooker article)

Hi, not sure why you undid my edit on the Century break article. Ronnie O'Sullivan now has 758 century breaks, and I even updated the reference to a reliable website, Sky Sports. The link is here, and it's in the 7th paragraph. Feudonym (talk) 02:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

It is obvious isn't it? The table is structured as 50 century increments, apart from the world record set by Hendry. Betty Logan (talk) 04:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Ah I see. Sorry, I didn't actually look at the rest of the table, and the fact that it says 'Threshold' instead of 'Total' or something – my mistake. I guess I must have assumed that as I'm so used to that convention being the norm. Having said that, I find it a puzzling way of doing things and I personally disagree with it. Just out of interest, when O'Sullivan one day, inevitably, eclipses Hendry's record, will Hendry go back down to 750 as that is the previous threshold? Very bizarre. Feudonym (talk) 05:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
The main reason for using thresholds is because the data keeps changing and it is difficult to keep accurate figures. Most of the data becomes outdated as soon as it is entered. Even Ronnie's 758 is out of date because he played two more matches after that report. In the case of Hendry I'm not sure what will happen once Ronnie overtakes it. My guess is that it will be retained due to the fact i) it was an important world record, and crucially ii) Hendry is retired so it won't change. Betty Logan (talk) 06:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
OK, but I still think it is not at all difficult to update the figures, maybe the top 10 players, if not daily then at least weekly, and have an "As of [current week]" heading at the top of the table. It is done for other sports all the time, football from personal experience, usually in near real time, let alone daily. If Hendry's figure is retained then the format is made redundant. Feudonym (talk) 04:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Trust me, it is. We used to do it that way but they were always out of date. The only reason Ronnie's count is being updated regularly is because he is closing in on the record, but try finding John Higgins' current count from a reliable source. Betty Logan (talk) 05:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Audience response proposal

Hi. I saw your reversion of my addition of user ratings to Dracula Untold and followed your note to MOS:FILM, which I hadn't previously read. Now duly informed, I have questioned the section of the guideline that disapproves of these particular user stats, in the form of a guideline change proposal. Cheers. --Tsavage (talk) 03:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

What are the standards by which a link can be used for reference when it contain the text of an article being referenced? I have looked at several sites to find one that would be able to replace the dead guardian link. I fear you would revert all of them back to the dead link. Dairyfarmer777 (talk)

I will be leaving input at the vegetarians page in a few moments so it will be best to not add anything until I have left my comments and both you and Martin Hogbin have a chance to respond to them. Betty Logan (talk) 23:05, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Frozen

If it's still playing then show proof and add it as a source. KahnJohn27 (talk) 05:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Forget it I already found it. However the last weekend (Dec 12 -14) hasn't been added which might indicate the film has stopped playing. KahnJohn27 (talk) 06:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Also one most important thing. It isn't "still playing" in UK. It's a re-release therefore can be listed as currently playing. Look at the source yourself. KahnJohn27 (talk) 06:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I know what the source says, I added it. And yes, it is still playing and will be throughout the entire xmas period. Betty Logan (talk) 07:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
You're mistaken. According to the source the film stopped playing in July 2014. However started playing again in last week of November. It's not "still playing" but it's a "re-release". KahnJohn27 (talk) 07:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Also it's actually a special sing-along version release and not a normal release [4]. KahnJohn27 (talk) 07:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
No, I am not mistaken. It is still playing. It is besides the point whether it is a reissue or not. The only reason last week's box office results haven't been added yet is because it takes Box Office Mojo a few days to update foreign box office. This week's box office may not be added until after xmas but that doesn't alter the fact it is still playing. There is just a bit of lag in the updates, that is the only reason last week is not listed on Box Office Mojo. Betty Logan (talk) 08:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Titanic was re-released in 2012 so you can't call it "still playing". Sing-alongs of Frozen have been released in other countries too. A re-issue is not "still playing". The film had already stopped playing in UK in July 2014 acc. to BOM. KahnJohn27 (talk) 08:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
If Titanic's reissue had already been added to the box office and someone had updated the source to reflect that, then it would be entirely correct to state it is "still playing" relative to the currently documented stage of its release. A quick check of the source would have confirmed to you that the film was playing as of the start of December. Now I understand you made an honest mistake, but you've got your answer, so let's not waste any more time on this unproductive discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 08:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

"Notable" awards

Hi Betty, I'm brushing up List of accolades received by The Imitation Game, having split it off from the film's own article. Am I right in remembering that we only tend to include in the list those awards from organisations that have their own article? (and thus I can happily delete Aspen, Chicago and the EuroCinema Hawaii Awards, along with a few others?) Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that is correct. It was certainly my position in a discussion on the subject but I can't recall if there was ever any resolution. Anyway, have a nice Christmas yourself! Betty Logan (talk) 09:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Liver dumplings

Liver dumplings are not vegetarian... — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeoLi1234 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Please conduct article discussion at the article talk page, not on my talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 03:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Re edits to Yardley of London and Perfume Encyclopaedia

Out of curiosity, what makes the Encyclopaedia of Perfume unreliable? Has their unreliability been confirmed? As far as I've been able to tell they are no more or less reliable than print sources, and at least seem pretty straightforward, plus it's not an individual person, but a team of people working together... Mabalu (talk) 22:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

It is not up to me to disprove reliability, it is up to the person who wants to use a source to prove its reliability. As it stands the dates provided by the source contradict the information given by another valid news source, so one of the sources is clearly wrong. The other source is a legitimate newspaper, so what makes the Encyclopaedia of Perfume reliable? Who publishes it and what is their background? Is there any professional oversight? If these two questions cannot be answered satisfactorily then a source cannot be proven to be reliable. Betty Logan (talk) 02:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
The thing with perfume dates, is that they're all over the place. Newspapers repeat what they're told by the company PR, and for a while, English Blazer (the focus of the edits) had an EXTREMELY fake history behind it that was being pushed by publicity, etc - claiming that it had been around since the 1950s even though it was demonstrably BS. I've found the Encyclopaedia REALLY useful for basic date info and other info, such as types of fragrance, etc - they usually make it clear that a date is an estimate. You can find "reliable sources" giving dates that go ALL over the place for this particular subject.... Mabalu (talk) 23:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
That doesn't make the encyclopedia a reliable source though, it just makes it useful resource for checking stuff. If there are other reliable sources giving other dates then they should be incorporated into the article. Betty Logan (talk) 02:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Merry

A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!


May 2014 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls or vandals!

All the best

Gavin / SchroCat (talk) 09:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

 BIGNOLE  (Contact me) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:HH2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

To you and yours

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
Merry Christmas Betty Logan, blessings and best wishes for 2015!
MarnetteD|Talk 19:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Twelfth Night

Hi - did you read the talk page? It's pretty clear that there is no definitive date for 12th night, and the article needs to reflect this. I have meant to fix this for a long time, but your edits spurred me on. Does the Shorter OD really say 5th with no caveat? That's odd if it does, as the 2nd edition of the Oxford Dictionary of English, the big single volume, gives the 5th first (see my edit summary). If you think the article is wrong, please use the talk page to discuss it rather than simply revert me, as there are multiple sources that show the different dates. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 13:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dougweller, I didn't realize I had reverted anyone on Twelfth Night (so I apologize if I undermined any work you had done). The Twelve Days of Christmas has undergone a few re-writes and there was some Twelfth Night material that was better suited to that article, so I re-wrote the lede around the sources that were available. I didn't realize there was an issue at the article. The Oxford Dictionary of English definition was present in the article prior to my edits so I just stuck by what it said, so in all honesty I do not know if it really says that. The quote from it seemed fairly exact though. Betty Logan (talk) 14:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Ah, I must have misread something. You didn't undermine anything I'd done. I don't have the Shorter Oxford, but the very large single volume version says "Twelfth Night" noun 6 January, the fest of the Epiphany. That first line is what is called the "core sense". The next line, which in OED speak is a "subsense" and is written in a smaller font says "Strictly, the evening of 5 January, the eve of the Epiphany and formerly the twelfth and last day of Christmas festivities". Dougweller (talk) 14:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I have looked over your re-write and have no major issues with it. It seems to fairly represent the sources (to the extent I can judge them) and incorporates what I added in too. I wouldn't be surprised if other editors alter it in the coming days though so let me know if you need any input on the talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014

You've annoyed me a great deal, don't corrupt my talk page again. Corabal (talk) 18:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Gone as far as to involve someone else to back you up on here now, you are pathetic. Corabal (talk) 19:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Man up and address my points at the article talk page rather than sulking on my talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Accolades

Hello Betty, I've been working on Frozen-related articles and would like to ask you something. The film's music was recently nominated for a number of Grammys, and I'm wondering if they should be included in the film's accolades page, or just mentioning it in the soundtrack article would be enough. With regards, —ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 16:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I honestly don't know, but Skyfall#Accolades includes a couple of grammy awards. Personally I would add them and then if anyone removes them it can be discussed further on the talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 18:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

What'cha think

about this... the longest article I've written to date and a fine way to wind up 2014: The Centrifuge Brain Project. Schmidt, Michael Q. 22:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

It's good, you've been quite busy this Christmas! Keep up the good work and Happy New Year. Betty Logan (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Dear Betty Logan,
HAPPY NEW YEAR!!! Thank you for your consistently excellent work through the years. Last year was a hard one, both physically, thanks to medical ailments, and on Wikipedia, thanks to a plethora of Wikitrolls. Colleagues like you make staying here worthwhile. Here's to a better year to all!
--Tenebrae (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Betty_Logan/Archive_5&oldid=1200994918"