User talk:Betty Logan/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 → Archive 10

FYEO!

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) 08:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Pirates of the Caribbean (film series)

Hi Betty, thanks for the correction. Should we maybe consider an embedded note? I only made the change since the value has been compromised a few times. Frankly it was unclear to me why the budget was $378M if 1) there are two sources, 2) one source doesn't indicate this value, 3) the other source is confusing. ? Regards, and a healthy, productive, happy new year to you! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The Box Office Mojo source is out of date as far as the budget goes. The $378.5 million figure is derived from the Forbes article, by subtracting the tax rebate from the total expenditure to get the net production cost. It is pretty confusing but I have provided a complete explanation at Talk:Pirates_of_the_Caribbean:_On_Stranger_Tides#Confusion_over_the_budget. Betty Logan (talk) 06:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Walkabout deletion

Hi Betty, I am wondering why you have removed the beginning and end scenes of the Walkabout film (featuring the brick wall and the Roulette expressions)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.225.130 (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

It is a plot summary, and the roulette framing device is incidental to the plot. See WP:FILMPLOT, which states "The plot summary is an overview of the film's main events, so avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, individual jokes, and technical detail." If someone wants to know the basic storyline the details you added will not increase their understanding of the film. Betty Logan (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Then let me test your statement "If someone wants to know the basic storyline the details you added will not increase their understanding of the film." - What is your (Betty's) basic understanding of the film? If you are unable to come up with the correct answer without recourse to the frame or to third-party interviews with the producer, then I suggest reinstating the frame. Looking forward to your answer... (Apart from this basic point, the detail of the ending is at the moment inaccurate, but we will discuss that next.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.102.141 (talk) 08:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I have given you an explanation for my edit and my talk page is not for discussing the article. If you wish to discuss the article further then I suggest you start a discussion at the talk page where other editors can contribute. Betty Logan (talk) 09:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
It is not acceptable to delete Wiki entries and then refer me to a general talk page - you have to take responsibility for your actions. Let me give you the first clue towards understanding the film: after the initial frame with the roulette phrase, you hear a mysterious, potentially erotic, panting noise. The camera then focuses on a class of harmless young girls, including the protagonist Aguttar, practising the pronunciation of the letter "H", hence the collective panting. Evidently an elocution class. Her RP pronunciation is emphasised at every opportinuty in the film (despite this being Australia). She and her classmates appear in neat school uniform. She then is shown with her family in a convential suburban setting at her home in a modest high-rise apartment. Betty, let me know if you want me to go on (I have better things to do on a Sunday, should you wish to be dismissive). Hoping for your cooperation, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.102.141 (talk) 12:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) IP, you've been told to take it to the article's talk page, not here. I suggest you do so, where it can get the attention it deserves, rather than the backwater of a personal talk page. FWIW, I agree that the brick wall and roulette expressions are not present in the film should not be present in the summary: they do not explain the plot, which is asummary of events, not an examination of themes. These should be explored further in a "Themes" section of the article, not in the Plot section. Either way, that is for the talk page of the article, not here. - SchroCat (talk) 12:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
May I just clarify a basic point when you say "the brick wall and roulette expressions are not present in the film". Do you mean (a) there is a film version of Walkabout where the opening scene has been cut out, and therefore you have not seen the opening scenes? Or do you mean (b) that you are familiar with the opening scene with the brick wall, roulette expression, the elocution classes, the city traffic, the family apartment, and picnic preparations, but you assume they are unimportant for the film plot/understanding the film? A short answer, (a) or (b), would be appreciated. (And if I do not receive encouragement from Betty, you will not hear from me again, neither here nor on a Talk page.). Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.102.141 (talk) 12:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Poorly phrased: I have now clarified my meaning, but my two points remain: 1. This conversation needs to be on the article talk page; 2. A plot section is a rather mechanical summary of the steps the film goes through: it is not aplace to outline or discuss the "inner meaning" of the film: that is dealt with separately in the article, and should be in a Themes section. - SchroCat (talk) 12:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, you had me worried for a moment. As for your concerns about an "inner meaning", you should address those, perhaps with Betty, in a Themes section. I am concerned with having the plot logically and consistently presented (trivial example: in the opening scene, Aguttar swimming formally with her brother in a swimming pool surrounded by high-rise buildings within view of the Ocean(!), while in the closing scene, Aguttar dreams of swimming naked with her brother and the aboriginal in a natural swimming pool in the outback - it is misleading to mention the latter but not the former. Although I grant the latter has more attraction for the average male viewer...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.102.141 (talk) 13:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I am not referring you to a "general" talk page, I am referring you specifically to the page where edits to the article are discussed which is where all editing discussions should take place. It not only opens up the discussion to other editors it also provides an archive record for future editors. By the way, while it's largely academic IMO SchroCat is partially right: while I can corroborate the "place your bets" line is spoken at the start of the film it is not spoken at the end, at least on the Criterion release. I checked my copy of the film and it is not there. You can view the end at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9w41F_f9cs and the voiceover is from The Shropshire Lad. Betty Logan (talk) 14:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I understood what you meant - the technical term is "passing the buck". On the other hand, I see your point: if you do not have a full version of the film ("Rien ne va plus" missing at the end) then perhaps you are indeed not the right editor for the Walkabout article. And since I have not had confirmation from you that you are interested in an explanation of the plot, I end here. Have a nice remaining Sunday.

Skyfall revert

Hi, Betty, I just wanted to ask about your revert of my edit to Skyfall. It's not clear to me which "note" you referred to in your edit summary—could you please clarify? Skiasaurus (skē’ ə sôr’ əs) 17:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah sorry, the note is in the infobox next to the gross figure (I knew there was one somewhere), rather than the section you altered. Either way, there was a discussion last year resulting in the decision to avoid the use of "billion" in the article due to the ambiguity of the term in Brit English. Betty Logan (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Rachel Green

Erm, don't you think it is high time the article is protected to prevent this mass of non-constructive edits? I'd say a PC protection fits the bill. Fleet Command (talk) 10:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "PC" protection is, but the disruption is ongoing and something probably needs to be done. Betty Logan (talk) 10:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
My apologies. PC stands for "pending changes". It protects the article against changes of the unregistered and recently registered users. They can edit the article but their edit won't go live. It is like semi-protection (SP); except SP stops them dead in their tracks. The thing is: I was hoping we could get PC permanently; admins don't usually enforce permanent SP on articles. Fleet Command (talk) 16:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Well we have three months of semi-protection now. If the problem starts up again after the protection runs down we can look into this pending changes thing. Betty Logan (talk) 16:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I've added some more reasoning and evidence that the common name for Star Wars (film) is actually the extended title.

Take a look at it yourself, sometime? Haha. Anyways, how can we use a historic film-conservative reference for saying it is a reliable source for common usage? That's biased because you'd expect AFI to list Star Wars Episode IV A New Hope as Star Wars. Is it not? And I seem to be the only one using many sources for common usage but I keep getting oppositions based on "No, the common usage is just Star Wars." Am I not getting evidence consideration? Cheers. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 20:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Film infobox deletions

The image size for film infoboxes is 220px, and captions are useful. Please note an anon editor has been making great progress in adding to some obscure sci-fi films. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 09:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC).

If the default image size is 220 pixels then obviously you do not need to set the image size to 220 pixels! WP:IMAGESIZE clearly advises against setting the image size stating "do not use px without very good reason". For most people setting the image size to 220 pixels is exactly the same as not setting it, but in the case of users that have custom settings then setting the parameter overrides a user's custom defaults. This may cause accessibility problems on devices with small screens, or people with poor eyesight who set the text to a higher point size. Unless an image needs to be a different size to the default the parameter should not be set. Betty Logan (talk) 09:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
The choice of small images for infoboxes that invariably were the only ones available for film projects led to editors trying to "stretch" the image to make it easier to see rather than exploding it in a second view. This discussion took place a looooooong time ago. See: setting the default size. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
You'll see that Betty was one of the participants of that conversation, which confirm that the DEFAULT SIZE is 220px, meaning that the imagesize parameter does not need to be set to 220px: it over-rides people's preferences, and causes all sorts of problems in terms of WP:ACCESS. - SchroCat (talk) 15:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't really see what relevance that discussion has on this matter. If you need to make an image larger then that the option remains available. What doesn't make sense is setting an image that has a default size of 220 pixels to a "hard" size of 220 pixels. The only people who that will affect is people who purposefully have their images set smaller. Why would you want to set the size to 220 pixels for people who effectively said they don't want 220 pixel images? Let's take a basic example: is there any discernible difference on your monitor between the two images below? As you can see, setting the image size to 220 pixels makes absolutely no difference to the typical user. Betty Logan (talk) 15:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Side by side comparison
Plan 9 from Outer Space
Image size set to 220 pixels
Plan 9 from Outer Space
Image size set to default

Do I see a difference? yes. The issue was actually raised by another editor, and I followed his advice as to sizes. However, it's not worth the pixels as there are more important things to do such as adding to other articles. Thanks for the conversation. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

If you see a difference then your preferences must be overriding the default settings. Try logging out and viewing the images then. Betty Logan (talk) 16:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

When I joined the Wikywackywunderland a gazillion years ago, the default must have been much lower for thumbsizes. When I changed it to 220px, then the images come out the same. As I said before, not intending this to be a deal breaker, I was merely trying to help an anon who seemed to be on a tear in regards to improving obscure horror and sci-fi flicks. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Well I am pleased we have managed to get to the bottom of this misunderstanding. No hard feelings. Betty Logan (talk) 11:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Gone with the Wind text at Margaret Mitchell article

Hey, Betty. Given your work on the Gone with the Wind (film) article, and knowledge of that series, you might want to examine this matter where I reverted Blueyedmesiah (talk · contribs). Flyer22 (talk) 21:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Well it certainly steps well beyond paraphrasing what is already there, so you are right to revert it. There is no doubt Gone with the Wind is revisionist, so unless the editor returns there isn't much to discuss really. Betty Logan (talk) 03:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Barbarella music

Hi, Betty. Apparently the IP's change at Barbarella (film) was good faith, compare the source. I've written a note to them. Bishonen | talk 16:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC).

Will you please explain to me why...

...my edits were reverted? Thank you! 108.47.207.75 (talk) 00:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED will explain why I reverted your word alterations, and WP:Verifiability will explain why I reverted your addition of Coraline (film). Betty Logan (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

What is a “series subject”?

Hello. Please answer my questions at WT:NCF#Confusion of terms? regarding the meaning of “series subject” and the difference from a name, and whether it reflects actual usage in Wikipedia titles. Thanks. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 22:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I have explained it clearly already and am not going to keep repeating myself at the discussion. The RFC hasn't gone your way so you obviously don't have a consensus to implement the changes you want to make. You should move on now and work on something else. Betty Logan (talk) 02:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I don’t think you have—or if you have, you did so without ever using the word “subject.” The examples you have given of “series subject (film series)” included Batman (1989 film series), where “Batman” is used as the name of the series; Harry Potter (film series), where “Harry Potter” is used as the name of the series; and Bourne (film series), where “Bourne” is either the name or a partial title match for the series, or both. In short, your examples of unnamed series all have names. That’s why I have repeatedly asked for clarification on the meaning of “series subject.”
So let me simply ask: Is Series subject, to you at least, simply an alternative term for Series name? If not, what’s the difference? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 09:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

If you’re going to insist on citing Batman as an unnamed series, please respond to my claims that it’s named Batman. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 10:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, I don’t get it. You’re not even denying that they have names; you’re just acting like I never even refuted the claim. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 11:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

IP, time to drop the stick and walk away. There is an open RfC to which your comments should be confined. Your actions on this talk page have crossed the line into harassment, which is not acceptable. - SchroCat (talk) 11:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I wasn’t intending to harass, just trying to make sense of the situation. My apologies. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 11:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Neutral notice

There is an RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Request_for_Comment whose outcome could affect WikiProject Film. You may wish to comment. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Debbie Does Dallas

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)

Maximum break

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)

On mixing list markup

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

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

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

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

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 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.

Cinemascore?

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

Betty, I was shocked to see your name in blue at WT:FILM. 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

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

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

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 (talk • contribs) 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

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

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

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 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.

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)

Italics for series titles

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)

James Bond talk page

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)

A kitten for you!

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)

Cod

"Codswallop"?! I love it! 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)

Edit on Universal Production Deals

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

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?

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

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)

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.

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

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?

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)

User: 82.155.98.249

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)

Tefkasp

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

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

  1. ^ "Weekend Box Office Index, 2000". Box Office Mojo. Retrieved August 19, 2007.
  2. ^ Box Office Mojo Weekend Charts for 1993, weekend 1 to 52. Retrieved 2007-11-2
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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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.

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

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?

Notice

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)

Norway ratings

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)

For you consideration

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...

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

Film names

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)

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Everytime I see something in some lists, betty is always there to defend and check the stuff. thanks for this work, I also changed my perception about some topics, thanks for providing input in the right direction. Thank you very much, really appreciated! huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 06:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

"Rape Addict"

Hello Betty, Just to inform you that the Northern Ireland "rape addict" has surfaced again with the same nonsense on The Searchers Talk page and Chato's Land - this time editing under IP: 109.151.68.104. I will inform Ponyo of this seriously disturbed person's re-appearance. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 21:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Great catch! I have duly logged the IP at 109.151.65.218 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Betty Logan (talk) 08:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello Betty, to let you know that the "rape addict" is again block evading, this time under IP:31.54.250.79 on The SearchersTalk page.

I have reverted and informed Ponyo of this latest block evasion. Can I please leave you to log this latest IP on the list you compiled? Best, David, David J Johnson (talk) 17:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks David, duly noted by Marnette on the editor's permanent record. Betty Logan (talk) 15:29, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

BFlatley

Hi Betty, please let me know if BFlatley resubmits the problematic plot summary at The Dark Knight (film) again. He kept IP-hopping and asserting ridiculous plot bloat at List of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012 TV series) characters, so I am already aware of him. Thanks, and have a delightful day/eve/morn! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I will do that. I see you've given him a warning so hopefully he will stop now he knows he's on thin ice. Betty Logan (talk) 00:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Cowboy Bebop: The Movie

Thank you for pointing things out over at Cowboy Bebop: The Movie. I kept telling them that they only assumed it was a TriStar release by only looking at the Home Video logo and not the whole image. That argument was a waste of my time zone and I didn't get any sleep no thanks to them. After their last assumption about me, I decided to quit Wikipedia after editing some more pages. Harsh? Yes, but it hurts when no believes me. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 21:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

FYI

In case you missed it: Wikipedia:Peer review/Maximum break/archive1. Nergaal (talk) 17:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about it. I will have a closer look at the comments tomorrow. Betty Logan (talk) 18:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The Deletion to Quality Award

The Deletion to Quality Award
For your contributions to bring List of highest-grossing films (prior candidate for deletion at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highest-grossing films) to Featured List status, I hereby present you the Deletion to Quality Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! — Cirt (talk) 02:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

gwtw

Excuse me, but shouldn't somenone add a succession template to this article to show it is one of the films that have won both female acting academy awards? Mrs Miniver article refers Mrs Miniver as the first film to achieve this. Thank you.--2A02:582:70BD:7E00:4871:E0F9:B701:6AC2 (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Steve Jobs

Betty, would you mind reading through this discussion and weighing in if you get time? You're typically a neutral voice in a lot of these, and I always appreciate your viewpoint, even when it significantly differs from mine. Might even be a good idea for a neutral party to start a Support/Oppose section at this point, which would include both of Erik's suggestions as options to show approval for. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

It is pretty late in my time zone so I will read through the discussion tomorrow and post my comments then. I hope the delay won't cause too much inconvenience, but if I do it right now the discussion probably wouldn't get the attention it deserves. Betty Logan (talk) 00:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

What constitutes no consensus?

Betty Logan, I admit that my last revert was a bit petty, but it was an expression of my frustration with a situation where I have been consistently acting in good faith and getting a complete lack of respect from this editor. You can search all you like in my edit history and not find anything to compare with this. Maybe If I describe the situation to you, you can help me understand how better to deal with it.

My involvement with this infobox began when I suggested at WikiProject Bibliographies that this template is not a desirable addition to bibliographies. One editor agreed with my view, but another said that they see "great value" in it. And that was it. In my experience, this is a typical outcome of discussions of infoboxes and navboxes - hardly anyone responds and if even one person likes it, whether they have a good reason or not, it is unlikely that the template can be removed.

A couple of years later, I joined this Featured list review where I saw this template again. I opposed promotion on the grounds that the template violates the Manual of Style in more than one way. I didn't think it unreasonable - a featured list should be in complete compliance with the Manual of Style, and that should include any templates on it. After all, it would be trivial to achieve compliance - just remove the infobox! Instead of a reasoned discussion of the MoS, I basically got WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, a number of ad hominem attacks, and a suggestion that I "go to the MoS and complain there about the IB" (why would that be an appropriate forum?). Then the review was closed.

So I decided to look into how the infobox could be improved. I made up a new template in the sandbox. Although the stuff under the hood changed a lot, that was just to convert a custom-built job into something based on a standard infobox. The visible changes were to remove section links (in compliance with Purpose of an inbox) and to replace the rainbow colors with a single color (per Style, color and formatting). You can see the difference at Template:Infobox author bibliography/testcases. Before doing that, I started a discussion, posted a notice at the two most relevant WikiProjects, and waited a week. I was not surprised that no one responded, because it only affects about fifty lists and most people don't care. Then I made the changes, and it was another week before I was reverted. WP:NOCONSENSUS doesn't say anything about what to do if no one has responded after a reasonable length of time. How long would you wait before making the change?

I am generally willing to discuss changes, but I am tired of being bullied by this editor. I don't see any sign that they want to have a civil, respectful discussion based on the Manual of Style, and I don't particularly relish being stuck alone in this discussion with them. Frankly, I would rather just drop the whole thing, were it not that I don't think that bullying should be rewarded. So what would you have done differently and how do you suggest that I proceed? RockMagnetist(talk) 01:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate it is frustrating when someone reverts your changes (we've all been there), but SchroCat states that he will expand on his reasons "shortly" at Template_talk:Infobox_author_bibliography#Proposed_changes. If he only became aware of the changes today I think you should wait and see what he actually objects to first. It is not reasonable to expect him to provide a full objection within a couple of hours, but hopefully he will follow up on that within the next few days. Betty Logan (talk) 02:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
I would have said that it is not reasonable to revert a change if you're not ready to say why. However, I will await developments. RockMagnetist(talk) 02:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

BFlatley

Hi Betty, I've blocked BFlatley for 2 months. If he resumes the nonsense after that I'll indef him. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

A deletion discussion you may be interested in

An RfC you were recently involved in (RfC: Filmography navboxes) is being discussed in a Templates for Deletion discussion (TfD Template:Anthony Marinelli). Please excuse this unsolicited contact, and avoiding WP:CANVAS, all of those involved in the RfC discussion (for, against and comment) are being notified.

Again, I apologize for the intrusion -- seeking clarification. Cheers! -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9Talk 08:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Please do not aggravate the dispute

Please do not further aggravate the million-billion dispute by edits such as this and this. Thank you. Please consider this a formal warning and advisory to help calm the situation. Samsara 17:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

SPA tagging

According to Wikipedia:Single-purpose account#Who not to tag (SPA tagging guidelines), users who should not be tagged include "A user should not be tagged as an SPA just because they only have a handful of edits. While all users with one edit are by definition an SPA, users with as few as 3 or 4 edits are not necessarily SPAs if those edits are in a diverse set of topics and do not appear to be promoting a "single purpose." Could you therefore explain to me why you restored here an SPA tag against just such a user, that I had deleted with an edit comment pointing you to WP:SPATG where you may read the above quotation for yourself? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:SPA states the SPA tag may be used to visually highlight that a participant in a multi-user discussion has made few or no other types of contribution. Since the debate necessitates an interpretation of the guidelines it is not reasonable to expect editors with just a handful of edits to be aware of the relevant guidelines or correctly interpret them, so I believe a tag is in accordance with the tagging guidelines. Would you care to explain why you violated WP:TPO? Betty Logan (talk) 12:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
The sentence you quote is a broad and imprecise statement in the lead. The detailed sentence I quote is a specific injunction in the main body of the article and is intended to flesh out the details of that imprecise statement. Let us agree to differ on that, then. Oh, yes, and you had violated TPO on my post so I just took it that you were happy with that approach to discussion. Aren't you? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
When I have altered or removed something you have written? Betty Logan (talk) 14:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
These alterations to my post containing the table:[2][3] — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
There is no rule prohibiting an editor for editing something another editor has written (and if you want to be pedantic over it I technically didn't actually alter anything you wrote anyway, I just added a couple of tags next to something you wrote). The rule specifically states: "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning...". I did not alter the meaning of your table in any way, whereas you actively censored a point I was making. Betty Logan (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, I would say that by adding meta-content to my simple table you changed my meaning. But I am sure you have had enough of me on your talk page. 'Bye. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
We finally agree on something. I would rather share a needle with Charlie Sheen than continue this discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 19:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Timestamps and YouTube

I do not know how to put a timestamp for the Kat Von D YouTube video without shortening the URL. The latter gets the link blocked on Wikipedia. --Rose (talk) 03:24, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

@BloodyRose: Give me the time and I will find a way to add it. Betty Logan (talk) 04:17, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
At 18:35 she says "It wasn't until I became vegan". --Rose (talk) 04:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Northern Ireland "rape addict" - again!

Hello Betty, To inform you that our "rape addict" has again surfaced under another Northern Ireland, UK; IP 31.54.250.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). With a mass of "edits", all have been reversed by various editors - although there is one on The Searchers Talk page which is concerning. I have reported this to admin, Ponyo who has dealt with this disturbed person before. I am seriously concerned by this person and wonder if there is any further action to take? Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 21:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't see what else can be done on Wikipedia. He hops IPs and edits across a wide range of articles and there is nothing else we can do to combat that. At best he's an incovenience to us, but it's very likely he's a serious risk to the people he interacts with in the real world so hopefully the police will catch up with him soon if that is the case. Betty Logan (talk) 00:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Good Job

Well done for your editing in 2015 in film.And I am not lying to you. The other users of Wikipedia should follow your steps and do the same the same thing as you did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.86.255.196 (talk) 18:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't really approve of "your" version either, but the latest table was worse so I chose the lesser of two evils. I have commented on both tables and put forward two alternatives which you can comment on at Talk:2015_in_film#Table_format. Betty Logan (talk) 19:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

DRN Comment on Animation

Thank you for your comment at the dispute resolution noticeboard on animation. Do you want to be listed as a party to the case? If not, your comment is accepted simply as that of an experienced editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I am not a party to the case. I was simply offering a potential solution. Betty Logan (talk) 19:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Maximum break, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Neil Robertson. 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) 10:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Distributor listed as production company?

Hi. A strange edit in Bridge of Spies brought my attention to other recent DreamWorks produced titles, like Lincoln, and this specific edit, which led me to this RfC back in 2013. Isn't this practice of putting a (local) distributor on top of the list of production companies actually kind of (very) problematic? In both cases of Bridges of Spies and Lincoln, Disney is not one of the production companies; it's just the distributor (under Touchstone label) in North America. You don't find any mention of Disney (or Touchstone) in German posters of Bridge of Spies for example; its distributor in Germany is 20th Century Fox. Shouldn't Touchstone be removed in the Lincoln article from the studio list and other similar articles? Raamin (talk) 04:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Well to be fair that RFC cannot be used as a basis for anything since it was closed as "No consensus". I don't really understand the rationale for adding Touchstone to the list of production companies: neither the AFI nor the BFI acknowledge Touchstone as a production company for Lincoln, for instance, although they do acknowledge it as a distributor. You can find more guidance on which distributors to include at WP:FILMDIST. If you want an explanation though you would be better off raising the issue with the editor who made the edit. Betty Logan (talk) 08:25, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
It would be nice to hear the opinion of Jedi94 here. Especially now that someone is constantly putting Touchstone in the list of production companies of Bridge of Spies, without any reliable source, and brings Lincoln as the reason. Raamin (talk) 15:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
If you have a problem with one of his edits it would be more appropriate to raise the issue with him on his talk page or start a discussion on the article talk page where other editors can weigh in on the issue. Ultimately I am not an admin so he does not answer to me, nor can I compel him to do anything. That said, most problems can be resolved by communicating with the other editor and I see no good reason for bypassing that part of the process. Betty Logan (talk) 16:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
In the case of the Disney-distributed DreamWorks films, having Touchstone Pictures in the production company field has always been a wild card. Touchstone isn't really a co-producer, as Disney's capacity in the production side of DreamWorks' films is just with studio production services and financing from the distribution deal (with the exception of The BFG). I typically have always put Touchstone in that field though because I don't think it should be overlooked. If we can agree on it though, I'd be open to removing Touchstone from the production company fields in the DreamWorks/Disney film articles, and mention Touchstone in the article's prose just as it already does. As for the distributor field, I strongly argue that only Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures should be included there as that is the actual company that is distributing the film. Additionally, WDSMP is directly credited as distributor in both the films' onscreen credits and poster billing blocks (example). ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 03:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't know which one of these is more suited for the distributor field, WDSMP, Touchstone Pictures, or WDSMP (Touchstone Pictures) [the lable added in parentheses]; but I strongly recommend to remove Touchstone from the production company field in the infobox and mention its role in the article body, because it cleary contradicts reliable sources like AFI and BFI. I think this is ok, Jedi94? Raamin (talk) 01:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I'm fine with removing Touchstone from the production company field and mentioning it in the article body. That's the best way. WDSMP should be solely be in the distributor field, since that is the actual credited distributor (Touchstone is only a label of WDSMP). We can perhaps add a footnote describing that, but I think the information in the article body is sufficient enough. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 13:13, December 13, 2015 (UTC)

List of vegans

If you think that the fact that you're willing to edit war more than you're guessing I'm willing to edit war means we can have whatever version of the article you prefer, you're wrong. You're removing sourced material based on your own views. Two people have added this name, you're the only one who has removed it. You're now at your third revert. Take it to the talk page or drop it. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Would you please clarify why WP:NOCONSENSUS does not apply to your preferred version despite the fact that two editors have voiced their objections to your edit on the article talk page? Also, I don't take kindly to admin making veiled threats and advise you to review WP:INVOLVED. Betty Logan (talk) 17:20, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
First: I haven't threatened you, veiled or otherwise. Second: Had you actually looked at WP:NOCONSENSUS, you would know that it has nothing to do with the current situation, as there is (or was, when you were making your reverts...) no discussion on the topic at all- with or without consensus. The section you're linking to is concerned with discussions which "result in no consensus to take or not take an action". This is not a situation of that sort. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:35, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
This is what the policy states: "...a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." There is a discussion and a lack of consensus, ergo you have breached policy. Also, it should be pointed out that you have also made three reverts so it's bit rich of you to come to my talk page to tell I had better "drop it" on that basis. Presumably if another editor comes along and reverts you, then you will follow your own advice and "drop it"? I bet you won't. Betty Logan (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm not arguing with you about this. As you now apparently accept, that policy is about when there has been a discussion which has not resulted in a consensus. There was no discussion (one with consensus or otherwise), and so that policy did not apply. Now we find ourselves in a position in which, instead of us having a discussion which could result in a consensus, I'm having to explain to you what the policy that you are linking to says. That's beyond stupid. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:08, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
"I'm not arguing with you about this." Your definition of arguing seems to be as wonky as your definition of veganism. Betty Logan (talk) 18:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
I think that comment falls under the banner of "petty point scoring". I have explained why you are mistaken about the policy you're citing. You are doing your best to ignore that- much as you seem to want to ignore other things I say. For example, I have already said that (like you, it seems) I would not personally describe Grimes as a vegan. The point is that what you and I personally hold/would say does not determine what goes in the article. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga#RfC:_Anime_films_and_production_companies

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga#RfC:_Anime_films_and_production_companies. Thanks. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!


May 2016 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls or vandals!

All the best

Gavin / – SchroCat (talk) 16:19, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

MarnetteD|Talk is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec15b}} to your friends' talk pages.

Make sure to click on both pictures to see them full size Betty Logan as they will give you a chuckle. May your 2016 be full of joy and special times. MarnetteD|Talk 03:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Hello Betty Logan: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Frankie talk 15:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Thank you...

...for your "Thank you." I really do intend to try my best to turn over a new leaf -- we'll see how successful I am. In the meantime, I hope your holiday season has been, and will continue to be nice, and that you have all good things for the New Year. BMK (talk) 22:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou BMK. I believe good intentions are always a good start. I hope you have a good Christmas too. Betty Logan (talk) 05:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Betty Logan. You have new messages at Sport and politics's talk page.
Message added Sport and politics (talk) 12:44, 21 December 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I'm not quite sure what the point is of closing a discussion and then inviting me to comment at it. Anyway, I think your warning was well earned. You changed a link to one tournament to that of a completely different tournament. I appreciate you made a mistake with your first edit, but I pointed out in the edit summary there are two entirely different tournaments with the same name and you promptly reverted me. If you are confused by the situation then try asking me about it. If you think there is a problem then start a discussion about it. But all reverting does means that one tournament is duplicated in the table (with erroneous information) while another is completely eliminated from it. Betty Logan (talk) 07:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

The talk back was not an invitation to comment but an invitation to read the reply. I also reject claims of me making a 'mistake' there should be no 'right' and 'wrong' here and 'mistake blaming' is not welcome, just keep comments to the talk page of the article. You are clearly a very blind individual when it comes to someone challenging the status quo you have decided is the 'correct' version. I see no point seeking out a user and asking about a subject, that smells strongly of ownership. Also expecting a user to ask you about something confusing shows how little ease of access to the article is being expected.Sport and politics (talk) 10:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

If changing a link so it links to the wrong article (in this case an article about a completely different tournament that simply shares a name) is not a mistake then I don't know what is. Betty Logan (talk) 10:32, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

RFC at 2015 in film

Hi Betty, looks like Barek may be swamped and can't start the RFC. Any thoughts for how it should be phrased? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:58, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

There isn't a huge hurry here, since it is only a style issue. My suggestion is to leave it a couple of weeks and get xmas and New Year out of the way. Nobody is going to participate in an RFC over xmas since they will be swamped by other commitments. Betty Logan (talk) 21:42, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Paragraphs!

Just among us Tutnams, if you are going to make a long winded argument like you did here,[4] paragraph breaks help to keep people's eyes from glossing over. I suspect you had good points (although, again, my eyes glazed over). Feel free to revise your remarks as needed! -- Kendrick7talk 05:14, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

How many paragraphs does a single sentence require?? Betty Logan (talk) 07:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

And now for 2016

A view of Lake Bondhus in Norway, and in the background of the Bondhus Glacier, part of the Folgefonna Glacier.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 18:20, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to an RfC

This is a neutral notice for you to join an RfC at Star Wars: The Force Awakens given your work at the Film project. The RfC is regarding if a title including "Episode VII" should be considered an alternate title to the film. The RfC can be found here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

User page (II)

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)
 Done Regards SoWhy 18:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Beaten to it! Jenks24 (talk) 18:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, this is the person who has made a big contribution to the List of James Bond Films page. I had worked hard on all of my edits because it needs an infobox and my edits in order for all information to be up to date. The info previously was outdated and lacked any current status of the franchise whereas other franchises contained updated info. Please don't delete or undo any of my edits or else I will undo your changes as well like I did a couple of hours ago. So please don't delete anything. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.206.28.243 (talk) 01:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

New comment from 162.206.28.243 re: List of James Bond films

Hi, this is the person who has made a big contribution to the List of James Bond Films page. I had worked hard on all of my edits because it needs an infobox and my edits in order for all information to be up to date. The info previously was outdated and lacked any current status of the franchise whereas other franchises contained updated info. Please don't delete or undo any of my edits or else I will undo your changes as well like I did a couple of hours ago. So please don't delete anything. Thanks.

Hello, I have cited my sources and base my inflation theory was to gather the grosses of all the Bond films and calculate the inflation prices by using an inflation calculator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.206.28.243 (talk) 17:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, this is the person who has made a big contribution to the List of James Bond Films page. I had worked hard on all of my edits because it needs an infobox and my edits in order for all information to be up to date. The info previously was outdated and lacked any current status of the franchise whereas other franchises contained updated info. Please don't delete or undo any of my edits or else I will undo your changes as well like I did a couple of hours ago. So please don't delete anything. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.206.28.243 (talk) 01:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

About the page I edited and apology

I am sorry for adding an infobox and for interfering with your talk page , you told me it was diabolical and unnecessary where in my perspective was quite the opposite. All was I trying to do was to update the page so the facts are updated to this year and make a positive contribution to wikipedia. I am a 007 fan and an expert on 007 (James Bond) and the movies who got carried away and got provoked. Now, I feel spympathy for my actions. Where can I to put my updates for the Bond Franchise on Wikipedia especially for the grosses adjusted to 2015 inflation so the whole world will see without interfering with another article? Also, why can franchises on here such as Mission Impossible or The Fast and Furious have infoboxes, but Bond can't? (162.206.28.243 (talk) 05:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC))

If you want to discuss a specific article then please use the article talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 10:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Betty Logan, see the List of Bond Films talk page for the apology, thanks. So that you can reply to it too. (162.206.28.243 (talk) 19:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC))

Happy New Year, Betty Logan!

Happy New Year!

Betty Logan,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks both for your contributions to Wikipedia and also for being a valued friend and colleague. Very best wishes to you! --Tenebrae (talk) 19:57, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Dschslava (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Betty_Logan/Archive_6&oldid=1142888636"