User talk:Betty Logan

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

Merry Merry!

★Trekker (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Joyous Season

I wish that you may have a very Happy Holiday! Whether you celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Hogmanay, Festivus or your hemisphere's Solstice, this is a special time of year for almost everyone! May the New Year provide you joy and fulfillment! Thanks for everything you do here. Huggums537 (talk) 19:00, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Coffee/Holidays}} to your fellow editors' talk pages.

Rachel Green's Marriage to Ross Geller

In spin-off series Joey, Joey tells his sister Gina that all of his friends are married, meaning Rachel married Ross in the end after all. Shooting Spirit 007 (talk) 07:37, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Or it could mean that for some reason Joey no longer considers them friends. Unlikely, but not impossible. I haven't seen the show and I'm not sure what the context of this thread is. DonIago (talk) 16:35, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I have fleshed out the context of the dispute at Talk:Rachel_Green#Rachel_and_Ross_remarried?. Betty Logan (talk) 17:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I've commented there. DonIago (talk) 17:53, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

ANI discussion regarding removal of cites referencing Daily Mail and other "deprecated" sources

In joining the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:David Gerard violating Wikipedia:Deprecated_sources#Acceptable_uses_of_deprecated_sources, I intended an inclusion of the link to February's Talk:Don't Look Now#Daily Mail, but decided against linking it without your permission and that of the other two participants, David J Johnson and Erik. Having also considered linkage to last year's Talk:RoboCop (2014 film)#WP:DAILYMAIL, in which you and Erik likewise participated, I ultimately settled for this comment, but that thread was closed 13 minutes after I posted the comment. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 19:05, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@Roman Spinner: I have no objections to you citing either of those discussions, or quoting my comments directly. I always thought the removal of content at the Don't Look Now article was a gross misapplication WP:DAILYMAIL. Clearly the Daily Mail has been problematic in recent years when it comes to factual reporting, but I always felt the good intentions behind curbing its inaccuracies were misappropriated to purge it completely from Wikipedia. Betty Logan (talk) 23:57, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your kind reply. My outlook on this matter is the same as yours. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:19, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Betty's comments above. David J Johnson (talk) 12:35, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

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

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Superman in AIDES campaign.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:38, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Betty I hope you can help me with adding a source for Wikipedia

I have a source I want to add to Wikipedia and I have it saved as a PDF file and I have it saved to my Google drive as the original link is now gone so I was lucky to save it. The problem is if I add it as either a PDF file or from my Google drive to use as a source on Wikipedia it says my Gmail account has to be open for people to view the link. I don't want to have my personal email on Wikipedia. Plus as soon as I log out if I try and view the source it says log into your Gmail account showing my name again to everyone. How can I add this link to Wikipedia ?. There must be a way to do it is there ?. I hope you can help out ?. Regards 80.233.31.168 (talk) 12:54, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

You don't need to upload a PDF. Just cite the URL for where you downloaded it from. If it's a scan of a print source then just cite it as an offline source (remember to include the title, name of the author, the publisher and the date). Betty Logan (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

The website is closed down. I'm not sure I remember the URL. I had it saved on my tablet and sent it to myself via email to keep it. As the original site is closed I only have an email copy which I downloaded. By doing it your way nobody would see the page is that correct ?. It would just give a source with a name and dates. I want to show the article. How else can I add it please ?. Regards 80.233.31.168 (talk) 16:56, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

What good is an old URL if it has been shut down how can anyone verify the source ?.Thanks 80.233.31.168 (talk) 17:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

You would be better off asking at WT:CITE. I have never come across this situation before. Betty Logan (talk) 17:52, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

But the old URL is no good if it is closed down right ?. 80.233.31.168 (talk) 17:54, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Hi Betty, just wanted to drop a barnstar for you - I probably don't comment enough to the guys I know do a lot of great work, but I do appreciate all of your work. I hope everythig is ok with you in this new year. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ronnie O'Sullivan's first maximum break.webm

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ronnie O'Sullivan's first maximum break.webm. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello Betty

Hi Betty how are you doing ? I have a question for you please, will you reply when you get this ?. Thanks 89.204.232.97 (talk) 10:52, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I am doing to very well thanks, what would you like to ask? Betty Logan (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

New BOM issue

Hi, just to let you know there is a new (big) issue from BOM, $66 million added with no reason.... they went from this to this--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 02:23, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah it's clearly wrong because it is the initial release gross that has changed. Betty Logan (talk) 12:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Snooker season points/2020/2021

Template:Snooker season points/2020/2021 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bond girl, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vanity Fair.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Scottish Masters Challenge 1993

Hi Betty, Please can you take a look at this discussion on my Talk page. It all looks highly dubious to me! Thanks, Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia changes

Hello Betty I want to talk to you about recent changes on wikipedia that i am concerned about. Can you reply to me on this talkpage please ? Thanks R 178.167.158.228 (talk) 16:27, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

You need to give a little bit more information i.e. article, what the changes are (preferably with a diff). Betty Logan (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I would prefer to talk in private as there are page watchers as you know. Can you email me at Dancahill2022@gmail.com thanks for your reply betty 178.167.158.228 (talk) 17:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Is that ok please Betty ?. 178.167.158.228 (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Betty can we talk in private please ?. 92.251.151.134 (talk) 10:31, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

If you want to discuss an article then you should do so on publicly visible pages. I am not going to engage in private conversations with strangers on Wikipedia without first knowing what it is about. Betty Logan (talk) 10:57, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

There are changes to snooker articles, events and pages that i am concerned about. You never seem to contribute to that sport anymore.92.251.151.134 (talk) 11:13, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I haven't been contributing to Wikipedia that much in general, other than what pops up on my watchlist. I haven't created any articles for ages. Over the last three years I have been engaged in legal action against the Government who want to steal my family's land and that is taking all of my spare time. Betty Logan (talk) 19:19, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I am very sorry to hear that. I am concerned about events and the way that event formats have been changed. Is there anyway we can discuss this in private please ?. Can you email me on that address i want to run a few things by you is that ok please ?. 31.200.177.198 (talk) 09:53, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I want to talk to you about the concerns that I have for snooker on here and I would like to hear your opinions because I know you are a very valued member of this site and community. Is that ok please ?. Thank you Betty 31.200.188.109 (talk) 19:48, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't discuss Wikipedia articles off-site. If you want to discuss concerns about a particular article then you should start a discussion on the article talk page. If you want to discuss snooker articles in general then you need to start a discussion at WT:SNOOKER. The whole point of Wikipedia is that editing decisions should be transparent. Betty Logan (talk) 21:35, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok but the question I want to ask you is, Do you think events like Power Snooker and Tenball should now be removed from the non-ranking events finals ?. Six Reds has been rightly added as non ranking events as they are recognised by the WPBSA and The WST Tour as non ranking invitational events so players that win these events are invited to the Champion of Champions. Would you agree Power Snooker and Tenball are stand alone Cue sports and should not be included in with non ranking finals sections. These are hybrids of other sports including pool and the scoring system in both games are off the charts compared to snooker, double points, double fouls and extra points for making 100 breaks, the scoring in Tenball was the same thing making scoring in the event a different game. can you just give me your opinion on these events please ?. 31.200.175.110 (talk) 21:01, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

That's really not what CNN said

CNN's statement about their sources is, "The groupings below are based on studies by the US Census, Pew Research and demographers Neil Howe and William Strauss." Since Pew uses 1981-1996 and the Census Bureau doesn't define generations, this apparently means Howe and Strauss use 1980–2000. Although a source further down in the Wikipedia article says that Howe used something else. "Studies often use 1981–1996 to define millennials, but sometimes list 1980–2000" is still wrong, since saying "often" and "sometimes" is meaningless if there are only three sources. Probably CNN's statement about their sources is just not true, but obviously we'll never know. Anyway, I've spent way too much time on this. I'm done. Dan Bloch (talk) 19:34, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

CNN has picked out these three sources probably because of the influence they carry. I don't know whether the dates they give come from just these three sources, or if they looked beyond them. I don't think it's really possible to say that CNN is "wrong" without knowing what their terms of reference were. We take the other sources at face value so I don't see the problem with doing the same here. Betty Logan (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Consensus for an edit

Hi, an user made this edit, but I disagree with it, I think it is not an important information, and maybe we should have a consensus for this. Also, some of that information are incorrect, because for example "Avatar" and "Star Wars I" were distributed by 20th Century Fox, not Disney, what do you think about?--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 10:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

And also the distributor for "Incredibles 2" is missing, "Titanic" wasn't distributed only by Paramount (but also by 20th Century Fox) and "Skyfall" wasn't distributed only by MGM (but also by Columbia), so I think we should delete this edit, there are many mistake--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 10:08, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

A consensus already exists for not adding a distributor column. It doesn't really make much sense in a global article where films typically have many distributors. Betty Logan (talk) 10:27, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, have a nice day--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 10:29, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

You too. Thank you for all your hard work maintaining the List of highest-grossing films. Betty Logan (talk) 10:34, 10 June 2022 (UTC)