User talk:Betty Logan

This editor is a
Veteran Editor IV
and is entitled to display
this
Gold Editor Star.

SEMI-RETIRED

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

A brownie for you!

Armbrust has given you a brownie! Brownies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a brownie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. To spread more WikiLove, install the WikiLove user script.

RockyIV

Hello. You reverted an edit of mine on this article without any summary. That being said, in the process you also took out a line that has been there for quite awhile, and had nothing to do with my most recent addition. I appreciate the work you've done on the page, but if you are going to revert edits so quickly, please have the courtesy to provide an edit summary. Moreover, I really don't see how adding "subsequently" was controversial or not appropriate. Thanks.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 17:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem is, a lot of the stuff you have been adding is either original research or unreferenced. This doesn't really improve the article. If you have a source that says it is a "fan favorite" then by all means add it so that readers can corroborate the claim, otherwise it has no credibility. Betty Logan (talk) 17:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

2001 A space odyssey

Hello Betty, You revert the addition that I have put on 2001 A space odyssey page about "Influenced by artwork" telling that it is a Mix of WP:Original research and WP:SPS sources, but the sources that I referred to are publications by independant third parties, so I don't understand your action :

• The site http://greatfilmdirectors.com is not published by myself or by Georges Yatrides
• The booklet International Who's who in art is a publication done by the "organization and counsel sociecty for Plastic Art" In Geneva, Switzerland
• This publication itself refers to a book writen by Arthur Conte , A former french minister of culture ISBN code 978-2950704900

There is also numerous other references (books,websites,publications) that are speaking about the same topic that I can add, if these one are not enough.

Thanks for your feedback

There is a discussion about the material at Talk:2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_(film)#Yatrides_material. If it can be sourced to published research by experts then there should be no problem including it. "Self published" in this case doesn't refer to the editor that adds the material to the page, but any site or source that is not published by a professional organization. http://greatfilmdirectors.com looks like a fansite which means it is not an eligible source. Betty Logan (talk) 23:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

1973 in film

Hello, Betty. Please note that the "top grossing" section of each film year ranks films by total gross, not net sales or theatrical rentals. If the box office figure is unknown or is not verified by a credible source, then it is simply not included on the "top grossing films" list. Ldavid1985 (talk) 04:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The fact that a film's total box office gross is unknown does not disqualify it from the list when we can actually source where it ranks on the annual chart. It's misrepresentative and inaccurate. There has never been any criteria initiated on the chart stipulating films must only be ranked by their total gross. In fact, that chart was ranked by theatrical rentals up until a couple of months ago when you changed the figures: [1] Betty Logan (talk) 04:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

On second thoughts, the problem is easily solved by limiting the chart to the top 10. Betty Logan (talk) 04:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Betty. It's not necessarily misrepresentative or inaccurate to rank the films by gross (especially when the section of the article is concerned with "top grosses"). The film articles 1980 onward all rank the films by domestic gross (not theatrical rentals) which is why I revised the pre-1980 articles. This article I've read helped me clarify the difference between the terms "box office gross" and "theatrical rentals" when I first began editing these "____ in film" articles. And, due to the "rule of thumb" discussed in that article, I've reverted the page back to your original revision. Thank you for the clarification. Ldavid1985 (talk) 05:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate what you are trying to do, but I have serious misgivings if by converting rentals to gross it means we drop films where the gross is simply unknown. If the Devil in Miss Jones earned $15 million in rentals, that will be roughly around $30 million in gross, give or take a couple of million, so it is simply misleading to say Serpico is the 11th highest grossing film, when in fact we know this is probably not the case. Could you just imagine the absurdity if only the rental gross of Star Wars were known? We wouldn't drop it from the chart and promote the number 2 film to number 1 because it would make the chart inaccurate. Even when the gross is unknown, we should still try to make the chart placings as valid as possible. Betty Logan (talk) 05:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Rule of the shorter term

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

WikiThanks

WikiThanks

Thanks for your recent contributions! 66.87.0.15 (talk) 15:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Ra.One nominated for Featured Article

This notice is to inform you that I have nominated the article Ra.One for a featured article promotion. The nomination can be viewed here. Any comments are welcome at the article's or my talk page. Thank you. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 13:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Titanic (1997 film)#Critical reception for 3D

Ms. Betty, will you consider my points about the newest duplicate heading? 31.193.133.160 (talk) 20:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree with your sentiments, so I will look at reworking the section. Betty Logan (talk) 21:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

YouTube vs 2nd hand journalism

Hi Who can i talk to about this policy of preferring 2nd hand journalist accounts to first hand footage of snooker matches, I agree that the policy makes some sense but to apply it rigidly seems absurd. Snooker journalists make mistakes all the time. I would much rather see first hand material wherever possible.

I take your points on the Davis article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keefr (talk • contribs) 22:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Generally I think uploaded BBC footage on Youtube is probably reliable for the most part, provided it clearly shows what you are claiming. I personally don't have a problem with those types of sources, because I don't think it is very likely that someone will create fake and elaborate snooker footage. However, some editors do have problems with it since Youtube footage techically violates policy, and could result in the article being stripped of its "Good article" rating simply because it violates a technicality. The Steve Davis article failed to get a "Good article" rating because we used sources that Wikiepdia don't count as reliable, so to some extent we have to jump through the hoops and sometimes omit good information from the article. You can question the logic of making your article "worse" to get it rated "good", but that's sometimes how it goes. If you have a source, you can enquire about it at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Betty Logan (talk) 22:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with what you're saying. It is clear to me the YouTube policy is being misapplied in this case. It's there to prevent spoof videos etc. however as you say first hand footage footage provided by Eurosport or by bbc is unlikely to be spoof footage. How can I get this point across to Armbrust? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keefr (talk • contribs) 22:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not Armbrust that is the problem, it's the how the policy is worded and and what consequences that has for the article rating. If you think the policy is being misinterpreted, then you need to take your source to the reliable sources noticeboard to get a ruling on it. Secondly though, the Youtube footage you provided just showed Ronnie winning the Masters, it didn't actually show Neil Robertson talking about it, so it's kind of a moot point. Betty Logan (talk) 22:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your Davis point and I agree with your Robertson point. These are separate. I agree I have not provided good enough sources for these. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keefr (talk • contribs) 22:40, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Titanic merge

Hi Betty - much as I agree that a merge is the only sensible outcome of the discussion, it's generally best not to close a discussion in which you have participated. pablo 10:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't close it, it was closed by an ininvolved editor. After it was closed I archived the discussion and performed the merge so it looks like I did it but I didn't. If you check the edit history of the article and compare it to the times on the talk page you can see I just did the clear up work. Betty Logan (talk) 11:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry - I just saw your name in the close header and assumed you'd closed it. Ignore me, carry on ... pablo 11:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

It's ok, I should have made it clear when I archived the discussion that someone else had merged the articles. Betty Logan (talk) 11:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I've added a note. pablo 11:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

An award for you

Golden Wiki Award You are among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this past month! 66.87.2.96 (talk) 20:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The Trolls can't see the forest for all the trees

Just want to say the only reason I commented was because I saw you had changed your mind a bit back and forth as you found new links. You're most probably correct: I've been in the "discussion" too long and can't see the logic any longer. You're also the first to actually question my logic, and explaining why, instead of just saying "I'm wrong, I'm a kid, I don't know anything, and that there is nothing to discuss." So I guess it all got kind of repetitive and too personal. You're also the first to look at the move request from an outside view when the article page wasn't being modified back and forth. For the a refreshingly clear point of view I thank you! (Even if you should decide you change your mind again if you find something new.)
Anyway, rambling aside, thanks for those two excellent links you provided. They can come in handy. -Laniala (talk) 10:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

2010 South Kyrgyzstan riots

Hello! The article on 2010 South Kyrgyzstan riots has been suggested to be merged with 2010 Kyrgyzstan crisis which is a broader topic. Why can't we have a separate article on an ethnic riot in which over 400 people died and more than 400, 000 people were displaced? Can I manually remove the suggestion? Nataev (talk) 07:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure you've got the right person? You would be better asking an admin about this, but the article has been tagged for merging since November 2010, and merge discussions are usually decided in a week so I would say that it is ok to remove the tag. Betty Logan (talk) 08:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I just needed an opinion from an experienced user. I have removed the tag. Nataev (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi, Betty. Thank you for doing such a fantastic job keeping the Titanic (1997 film) article tidy while I was away. My brother should not have been posting to the article talk page or contacting you about the article, but I also thank you for helping him to help the article. Flyer22 (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It was fine; I agreed with him anyway so it's not like it caused me any trouble. It actually gave me a discussion I could link to, since some editors seem to want a fresh sub-section for every new paragraph. Betty Logan (talk) 06:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Ring Cinema & ANEW

Hi. While I disagree with your assessment at this recent 3RR report, I appreciate your attempt to give context to User:RC's edit warring. So, perhaps you can impress upon him the importance of collegial editing -- and that his bullying behavior is detrimental to WP. I believe this incident is indicative of larger problems with his editing as he continues to bully other editors at film articles, like The Godfather. In my follow-up response at the report I pointed to 2 posts on my talkpage from another editor involved in a dispute with RC. I don't know what level of overall contributions he has contributed to the film project, but nothing is worth putting up with such a disagreeable attitude. If his talkpage comments at No Country.. are any indication, he has discouraged at least several other editors from contributing. That is a net loss. No single editor is more important than the project. El duderino ^(abides) 07:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not really my place to instruct an editor on how to conduct himself in talk discussions. All I can suggest is that if you have disagreement that you can't resolve between yourselves, then post an RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film; if one editor is isolated in his viewpoint he will be quickly overruled. Betty Logan (talk) 13:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Passion of the Christ

Ok guys we've added more references/cites & even softened some points but our points are in the historic record for both changes & the point at the beginning about Catholics questionning where we added "some" is just modifying another opinion which by the way you said were irrelevant. Tell us what was wrong with using Reilly, Weigel and Nagle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.128.44 (talk) 14:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

With regard to the section on the 'devotional writings' just putting a Jesuit's position from the Jesuit magazine 'America' leaves an incredible slant. First off his view of the movie was as a film critic not a theologian. Second every Catholic knows that 'America' and the Jesuits are so anti magesterium that a balanced article would conversly quote the other side which I did w/ a quote from the Cardinal Newman Soc. I assume the author of the magazine quote was taking advantage of laymen, non-Catholics & ignorant Catholics. Either way the deletion of a legit quote doesn't seem Wikipdiesh or can I also assume that my source isn't considered legit? If so please recommend a more palatable reference.

Regarding the section on ancient languages used under the 'Controversies' section, now this is totally in the relm of purely objective facts of history. As a phd in Roman history and the work I cited, it is well known that Latin was used, albeit in a limited manner which is what I changed the wording from "improbable" to 'limited'. And not only is it well established that some Latin was used in doing business w/ Rome but it's safely assumed Christ himself was semi conversant. To lable this as a controvery belies certain misleadings of the general laity to heap on so called issues w/ the movie from various academic and clerical fields that just don't exist in an effort that through shear weight the public can be brainwashed. Please tell that at least on this totally objective, well established fact on language this can't even be corrected. I'll contact the other administrator as well about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.128.44 (talk) 06:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Please resolve these issues at Talk:The Passion of the Christ. User talk pages are not the place for discussing article content. Betty Logan (talk) 14:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Titanic box office

Hi! I noticed you've been quite busy lately with the Titanic article. Concerning boxofficefollower.net, it has a source for the data published: news.mtime.com for which there is a link after each chart that goes to the page that shows the grosses. The only differences are that it is in Chinese (easily translated by Bing, Google Chrome etc.), it is not a chart, so boxofficefollower.net makes it into a chart, and the grosses are in yen, so boxofficefollower.net converts the grosses to US dollars. I don't think there is a reason for mistrusting the source. I think it's OK to use the data from boxofficefollower.net. What do you think? Spinc5 (talk) 12:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo provides figures for the Chinese box-office too, so I don't see the point in using another source when we can just use BOM. BOM may lag slightly but they update every week so I don't think that is such a problem. Also, by sticking to the BOM figures all the different grosses add up to the totals in the box-office summaries which is preferable IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 13:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Modest Barnstar
		In recognition of all the work you’ve done lately! 66.87.0.212 (talk) 20:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

NPOV

Please sign your remarks at WP:NPOVN. I had to look at the history to work out who wrote it. Barsoomian (talk) 16:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

It is fairly obvious it was an oversight, and given the amount of time I have given to helping you and Gothicfilm resolve your dispute, then a simple reminder is probably the order of the day. Betty Logan (talk) 06:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

List of vegans

Hi Betty Logan, could I ask you, please, to stop reverting at List of vegans? It has been going on for some time. I have every respect for you wanting to keep the list free of nonsense (i.e. I don't mind some OWN), but you're also removing people who are vegans, removing acceptable sources, and reverting people's choice of images or formatting. So the page is not developing as it needs to. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Just noting here that your response was to leave a template on my talk page. [2] Look, if you keep reverting people at that page, I'll report it to the editing-warring noticeboard. I'd very much prefer not to do that, but you seem to have been reverting everyone and anyone for months, and extending this even to reverting me at the RSN. I'd very much prefer to work with you on the list, rather than against you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I saved you the trouble. You are ruing in the article by going against the consensus on the styling and using poor sources. Betty Logan (talk) 02:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

If anyone has any further views on this, then I have opened a case at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#List_of_vegans. Betty Logan (talk) 06:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

SlimVirgin dispute

I'll see what I can accomplish.—Kww(talk) 03:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but really, what is the point? These procedures should be mandatory, I shouldn't need an admin to stick his neck out. I really appreciate you coming to my rescue, but I've been to AN3, dispute resolution, the main admin board, and all I wanted was a fair discussion to set the direction of the article with somebody impartial deciding what the consensus is. That should be the norm in a consensus based project, I shouldn't be having to go from board to board from admin to admin just to get that. These procedures should be in place, and dispute resolution should be mandatory when there is a dispute, otherwise what is the point? It just seems so obvious to me. Maybe I've made a few mistakes along the way, but the net effect was always positive on the articles I developed. My main collaborator on the snooker project has gone now, and I think maybe things have just run their course. I've always put a lot of stock in wikiprojects, having somewhere where editors can bring their issues and can find someone to give them a fair hearing. If people aren't willing to submit to and to support a fully impartial review process, well I don't really see my place in something like that. Betty Logan (talk) 04:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I hope you have a change of heart and mind over your decision; either that or I really hope that you miss it too much in a month or so and come back to us—you are too good and balanced an editor for us to loose, especially because of the actions of one or two mindless idiots! I know where you're coming from, however, as I've found out with my recent adventures into admin territory! All the best and I hoe you'll re-consider. - Gavin, aka SchroCat (^ • @) 07:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I can give you a very good reason not to leave. Your contributions outway the inability of one admin to do the right thing on your behalf. Leaving ony serves to show that they win and ecourages others to use this tactic or sililar to drive others out. You can't win everything but you can fight for your right to continue discussion if your concerns are not addressed. If the other side refuses to discuss, there seem to be policies that would address this.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

For editors that are wondering why I left

Background

There was a content dispute at Talk:List_of_vegans#Reverting, with User:SlimVirgin in which she claimed she had a consensus. I challenged that interpretation. As you can see from that discussion, I was quite open to accommodating her wishes in regards to the structural format of the article, and myself and another editor had previously initiated a discussion last year to implement changes which would have removed the templating format that SlimVirgin disliked. It is curious as to why there was a complete breakdown in discussion at the article, since I only insisted on two things in that discussion:

1. Since the existing format had been installed by consensus, we should have a full discussion involving all the article editors to establish a new consensus, before making any changes to the structure.
2. The discussion should broadly encompass the whole direction of the article.

I thought this seemed reasonable. We should have a discussion, we see what everyone agrees to, and in a couple off weeks we can start to implement these changes. What happened then becomes curious. SlimVirgin suddenly decides she has a consensus (the only editors being involved in that discussion at that point being myself and Muleattack.

I took this issue to the edit-warring board, following her reinstalling the changes after I had reverted them, where the case was taken up by User:EdJohnston. Due to the continuation of the controversial edits, I thought dispute resolution would be a more productive process so filed a DR case also: [3]. I then returned to the 3RR board and requested that I would prefer to see the 3RR case closed. EdJohnston contacted SlimVirgin and asked her to co-operate in the dispute reosultion process, noting that he did not believe she had a consensus for the changes she was undertaking: [4]. She still insisted she did, and refused to participate in DR. EdJohnston closed the case noting that neither of us had a consensus, and that we should both refrain from reverting. He also advised me that ANI was an option to me.

I decided to pursue the ANI option, requesting administrator intervention to compel SlimVirgin to participate in dispute resolution: [5]. I received a response from another administrator, User:Jehochman that my complaint was invalid and I was "forum shopping". At this point I felt totally disillusioned with Wikipedia, but in the end the system proved that it still worked to an extent, thanks to another administrator and reviewer who looked in the case; however, no editor should be left to the mercy of friendly administrators, the safeguards should be part of the process.

The questions

First of all, in all of this it does not actually matter who was right and wrong between SlimVirgin and myself. The process of consensus editing assumes a balance of right and wrong opinion, within a debate, and across every editor's editing interests. What matters is how right and wrong is determined, and I believe this is where Wikipedia went spectacularly wrong in this case. The most central issue is who determines the consensus? If all the editors involved agree, then great, no problem. If this is not the case, then Wikipedia needs mechanisms that decide consensus impartially.

1. Why did SlimVirgin insist on making changes after a discussion that involved only three editors? Why did she not contact all the editors involved in the previous discussion setting the previous consensus? Why did she initiate these changes so quickly, and not give it a week say, given that the structure of that article been stable for over a year? Whether her eventual edits were right or wrong, this behavior is not consistent with stable editing. As an administrator she should have been aware of this.
2. Why did she insist she had a consensus? A consensus cannot be claimed. The outcome of the 3RR discussion was that she had not obtained a consensus. Considering that the administrator who had taken on the case had judged that she did not have a consensus, and requested she participate in the DR process I had initiated, why did she dismiss the administrator's findings and request?
3. Why did EdJohnston only forbid reverting on the article while closing the case? Since initiating structural changes are not actually reversions, the sanctions would only have applied to me if I had reverted her. Since SlimVirgin had refused to participate in dispute resolution, and he had judged she did not have a consensus, why didn't he simply prohibit her from initiaing the changes, or even editing the article until she complied with a process that would have resolved the issues?
4. Despite the 3RR board being the legitimate board to report edit-warring, and EdJohnston pointing out that opening the DR case was actually the most productive step I had taken in trying to resolve this issue, and then advising that filing my case at ANI was an option that was open to me, why did User:Jehochman then say my complaint was not valid and that I was forum shopping. Surely the correct course of action would have been to at least familiarise yourself with the case, and what the admin at the 3RR case had considered legitimate further action for me to take.
5. Why did User:Ched Davis accusing me of canvassing, due to me taking the case to 3RR and then initiating a DR case, and also for requesting a third opinion for a selction of sources at RS/N. As I explained at 3RR, after filing the edit-warring case I felt that dispute resolution would be a more productive option, so I started that case, and returned to the 3RR case asking for a close of the edit-warring case. EdJohnston did not consider this canvassing, he seemed to consider it the most productive step up to that point. As for the RS/N request, I do not see how this is even relevant. The 3RR/DR case was a direct response to dispute over an interpretation of consensus and SV undertaking structural changes to the article. While the RS/N case related to some of her sources, the motivation for filing that case was so I could determine if there was a case for removing them. They are completely different issues. The RS/N case was upheld in regards to many of the sources, and also in the case of the source that SlimVirgin restored to the article; but RS/N was about the validity of the source, 3RR/DR was about her conduct in restoring the source. Two entirely different problems.
6. Why did User:Ched Davis suggest other options, such as WP:3O, an RfC, WP:CENT and WP:MEDCAB after just censuring me for "canvassing"? We had a third opinion anyway from EdJohnston, who determined she did not have consensus. An RfC is only going to work if the editor is willing to accept there is not a consensus, and is willing to wait to obtain one. And really, why are these acceptable when dispute resolution is not? What is dispute resolution for if not for resolving cases such as these? Since by that stage I was at my third board requesting assistance, would sending me off to yet another board really have achieved anything, or would I have been just chastised again for "forum shopping"? Why not just instruct SlimVirgin to participate in the open DR case?

The findings

The central problem here was that I was not offered a process in which the consensus could be impartially determined. It is the primary function of the administrators to facilitate consensus editing i.e. for this to work then they should provide processes so that in disputes a consensus can be impartially decided. It is worth noting that I was not offered this process of impartial review until I encountered a fourth administrator, User:Kww. In a case like this an administrator should ensure that an editor involved in a dispute is provided with a mechanism for the consensus to be impartially judged.

• Being an admin, SlimVirgin would have known she was not editing using methods compliant with consensus. She displayed such a warped misunderstanding of the process I question her suitability as an admin. An admin should not be claiming a consensus after a few hours of discussion between three editors, with one editor clearly opposing her proposal and another unhappy with it.
• EdJohnston basically washed his hands of the case. Before closing the case he should have insisted on a process that ensured that consensus would be impartially reviewed. As an admin, this is his job! Dispute resolution offered us such a process, and while he cannot compel editors to participate he can certainly prohibit further editing on the article.
• What can be said about Jehochman? He was rude, insulting, assumed bad faith about me as an editor, and clearly had not familiarised himself with the specifics of the case. While Ed at least tried but ultimately didn't handle it too well, this admin was negligent. What was the point of his comments? If you really cannot be bothered to look into the case, then just keep your obnoxious comments to yourself.
• Kww – the fourth admin involved in this case, and the first to impose impartial review.

The solution

It is very simple, if an editor is involved in an editing dispute, the first administrator to take up the case should ensure they are placed into a process that ensures an impartial review of the dispute. Palming them off from board to board, and closing cases without an obvious process in place for pursuing impartial consensus is just not acceptable. If you take SlimVirgin out of the equation, Ed was the first weak link. We had a process available to us with the open DR case, and he could have insisted on her participation as a condition of her further involvement with the article. Ultimately this was left to Kww to impose, but the 3RR board is usually the first port of call, many editors aren't familiar with all the avenues for resolving disputes, so an administrator who feels that consensus is not clear in a case should ensure that further involvement in an article is a condition of being part of a process in which the consensus can be impartially determined. I had to go through three boards and four administrators to get there, and even then I think I hit lucky with the admin. The processes on Wikipedia are clearly not working if it takes that many admins to get an impartial review of a problem.

Most of my time on Wikipedia has been spent in article development and peer reviewing, and I haven't been involved in many contentious issues, possibly 3/4 in as many years. As a consequence I have never really required admin intervention on an article, in fact this has been the only time I have. I have been staggered at the frustrating level of inaction I have experienced over this weekend. It's an experience I am no hurry to put myself through again, so that's why I'm calling it quits. Betty Logan (talk) 21:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Replies

Betty, I'm torn here. On the one hand, I really think this is a case of "least said, soonest mended." On the other, I also feel the need to defend myself. And on the third, I don't want to look as though I'm ignoring you.

Suffice to say, there was a minor disagreement that is easily resolved. You don't want the colour-coding either, so that's not an issue. You think the source for Heather Nicholson wasn't good enough, but did you notice I'd added a second? [6] So I'm guessing (or at least I hope) that's not an issue anymore either. Perhaps you want to discuss sourcing standards for the page in general. If so, I'd have no problem working on a set of parameters with you.

Bottom line: please just come back and start editing again. I'm sorry you got so upset about it. Part of the problem is I think you misunderstood the idea of the dispute-resolution process, or if not misunderstood, turned to it too soon. The point is not to intensify disputes, which can happen really easily if too many boards are involved at once. So in this instance, the first place to discuss was the talk page and to do that for several days if necessary. Then if issues remained perhaps ask for mediation, or choose just one of the boards, or an article RfC, to ask for more input. But to report two editors to several boards within a few hours causes people to feel swamped. When I see that kind of thing happening, my instinct is to withdraw, because otherwise we're reduced to a forest fire of "he said, she said," which makes everyone look bad.

So, please – accept this olive branch, consider taking a couple of days away from the page to get some distance (as I'm doing), then come back and let's work on it together. I'm not a huge fan of lists on Wikipedia (or at least I wasn't), but it would be fun to take this to FL status. I've looked around at some recent FL promotions, and I'm really impressed by the quality. So it would be a new Wikipedia experience for me, and I'd be really happy if we could start afresh and do it together. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't buy this. SlimVirgin onlly apologizes when the heat is on. This case has blown up in her face and now's she's scrambling, but you're not the first and you won't be the last. So many editors driven away by her. Don'tBelieveHere (talk) 07:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I do believe this teacup is broken beyond repair. So many beautiful teacups dashed to the floor carelessly over the years. Are there any left in the set? Would anyone appreciate their beauty if there were? Is this a place where beauty and creativity can be held in the hand and appreciated? Any more? Was it once such a place? Rude hands, mistakes, and carefully chosen places to dash hopes... →StaniStani  02:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I just came to tell you that WT:NPOV is discussing the NPOVN backlog and found this debate I had only observed tangentially. Sad to hear. My takeaways are: (1) There is no impartial rule for determining consensus. Sometimes we have a metaconsensus that there is no consensus on the basics. Everyone decides what they think consensus is. It's built by (long) discussion and is not forced. (2) There is no forcing another editor to behave a certain way. Staying in the dispute-resolution track is always optional and misbehaving is always a tempting alternative. Trying to force resolution on an editor does take the long multiadmin route. (3) These first two principles are relatively fair for the libertarian Wikipedia community, but they do require great creativity. (a) When you first find yourself first facing a new instance of "that type" of editor, the type you come to recognize only through experience, instead of letting yourself behave typically, back off and be very circumspect in interaction. Start documenting everything and being unstintingly polite. Certainly back off from your hopes and dreams about balance in the articles and look for other areas that can be tweaked more easily. (By "that type" I mean the type that you, whomever you the reader are, believe to be the class of editors that require special treatment; no more.) (b) Once you're in the thick of it despite plan (a), overcommunicate your expectations. Indicate the one or two pages you anticipate the dispute should continue on, with almost every interaction where the other editor proceeds on a different page. If there is a lot of movement, indicate your desire not be called a forum-shopper for following the advice given. This won't prevent you from fallout dealing with "that type" of editor, but it will give you the good graces of the community. These principles also scale IRL. I appreciate your help bringing the discussion I was involved in to a sufficient conclusion. JJB 21:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC) Oh, and as to 3RR: the brightline is, restrain yourself so that you never ever have more than three edit sets to an article in 24 hours, where a set is any number of your edits surrounded by other people's edits. If you see that you've gotten to 4 edit sets of any kind in any 24-hour period and there's any hint that anyone whatsoever is offended, make the first attempt to distance yourself from 3RR, immediately, such as by self-reverting or distinguishing your content as completely new (nothing whatsoever built on any prior content) or mentioning your desire not to breach 3RR at talk. This brightline should formally protect you if you're working in good faith no matter how gross the charges; the exception, Rouge Admins at AN3, does involve a little pain and is dealt with by more community-based means of course. JJB 21:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I've only just come across this but I'd like to add that this same thing has caused me to retire from Wikipedia as well. Especially as my final complaints were left unanswered and then the automatic archiving of the chat was changed to an unnecessarily short period for which I can only assume was to hide the discussion. Muleattack (talk) 23:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mule, I'm sorry to hear that. I've stuck around to do some assessing and template work (it's relatively stress free), but I have well and truly washed my hands of that article now. The plain simple fact here is that if SlimVirgin was not an admin she'd be serving a block by now the way she has basically ignored the concerns of two other editors. Two editors choosing to do something against the wishes and judgment of two other editors is simply not a consensus, no matter how she dresses it up. I was particularly incensed by her accusation that we had "done nothing", particularly given the fact we had attempted to convert the list to a sortable table six months ago, only for it to stall due to her objections. Archiving certainly shouldn't be filing away ongoing discussions. I feel guilty about bailing, but you can see what happened above; I wanted to go through dispute reosultion to resolve the issues, but she wouldn't do that and no-one was prepared to compel her, so there isn't really much we can do about it. Betty Logan (talk) 00:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Mmm...relaxing tea...

Hi Betty...while I certainly disagree with some of your views here, I've not for a moment questioned that you were operating in good faith and were doing what you believed was best for the project, and I certainly believe losing you as an editor is a loss to the project. Can't say I blame you...I was shocked when that 3RR filing resulted in a note that you might also deserve a block. Hope you'll come back at some point. Doniago (talk) 14:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Templates

I am no longer involved in article development, but if you need technical assistance in regards to a template I authored or developed then I will help where I can. Many of the snooker templates need to be updated every season, and with User:Armbrust indefinitely blocked I appreciate this could cause a problem. Leave a message for me and I will check in before the new season starts. Betty Logan (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

A few days ago I decided, that if O'Sullivan wins the World title, then I retire from retirement. And now I'm back. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 22:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I took your name off the Snooker Project so you will need to re-add it. I think you should consider reducing your workload though; one example of how you might do this is to just have one article per season for the Players Tour Championship such as Players Tour Championship 2011/2012, and just externally link to webcited results for each PTC event at WWW Snooker. Obviously it is your decision, but you shouldn't let Wikipedia take over your life. Betty Logan (talk) 23:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Hoodwinked

Hi. I see that you have retired from Wikipedia editing, however I have also noticed that you are still active to some degree. A while back you helped me out by assessing the article Hoodwinked! and giving me suggestions on how to improve the article. I believe that I have addressed these issues and was hoping that the article could be reassessed. I posted it on Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Assessment#Requests for assessment, but it seems that it might take a while to get an assessment from there, and I was wondering if you would be willing to help me out. If not, that's fine. I don't mind waiting. I just thought that it would be worth asking. :) --Jpcase (talk) 01:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm retired from active article development, but I've been sticking around to make sure that everything I have done doesn't regress back into the primordial soup. However, if no-one reviews your article by the weekend I will do it for you. Betty Logan (talk) 18:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!--Jpcase (talk) 18:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks again. The article is up for Featured Article status now, and it certainly never could have gotten this far without all of your help. If you have the time to take another look at it, and to show support for the nomination or to share further suggestions on how to improve the article, it would be greatly appreciated. Jpcase (talk) 19:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I know you're retired, but...

Next time you're popping by I'd appreciate your opinion on something that I know you've written about before: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Infobox issue : USA distributors of foreign films. Many thanks, if you get the chance! - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input on this point—it's a shame it seems to have ended up unresolved again. I suspect that the question will come up again and again in future! - SchroCat (^ • @) 22:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

X-Men: First Class (film)

Hi. I've restored the plot to WP:FILM guidelines length, which Robert Gustavson had plot-bloated. Just wanted to give a head's up since we're both discussing with him on the article's talk page. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Plot bloat is the single greatest problem on the film articles; I fully support any efforts to bring them within the guidelines. Betty Logan (talk) 14:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

If you're not retired, a reassessment of X-Men: First Class (possibly pointing out possible GA issues as well) would be nice to hear from you. Thanks. igordebraga ≠ 04:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I'm retired from article writing, but I can do a bit of reviewing, it's less stressful. I promised Jpcase above I would do Hoodwinked this weekend, so the GA review may well start before I get around to it. I'll try to get on to it in a couple of days though. It looks like a pretty thorough article and I don't think there will be any serious issues, but one that jumped out is that some of the reference dates use different formats i.e Failes, Ian (2011-06-16). "Making mutants for X-Men: First Class". fxguide.com. Archived from the original on November 29, 2011. Retrieved 2011-10-29. There are several sources like that which need to be sorted i.e. just one date format should be used in all references. Also the Yamato source (Yamato, Jen. "Rose Byrne on Bridesmaids, X-Men: First Class Sequels, and the Films That Made Her Career". Movieline. Retrieved 2011-10-01.), currently ref 17, seems to be dead. Betty Logan (talk) 02:43, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	I have gone through a lot of your contributions. You happen to be an original editor, team-effort editor, tireless editor. Therefore, I think you truly deserve this Special Barnstar. Surge_Elec (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Country description infobox

Hi Betty, not much has been replied to out information on re-phrasing the infobox. I'm pretty bad writing rules to make sure everything is good, so would you be able to try and stab at it? I need to clear up some confusion with people who still aren't 100% on the new rules for that section. If you can't, that's no problem either...you just seem generally pretty good at these kind of things! Thanks!Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not actually sure what I can do. The problem with the country guidelines is that they are very protracted and over prescriptive. The reason they are like that is because no-one really agrees on how the field should be used, so the guideline was re-written so the field would only be used in clear-cut cases. Personally I don't have a problem with using the equivalent field on the AFI/BFI sites, but Ring Cinema obviously does and so does Gothic Film, who don't think a film produced as a 4/5 country co-production really carries a national identity. I mean, Ring isn't opposed to just the rewording he is opposed to its sentiments. Generally my view on this if editors can agree on a country then that's great and it should be sourced, but if editors don't agree it is probably best just not to use the field and cover it in the prose. It is an ambiguous field. Maybe we have to have to consider renaming it to something more specific, such as "copyright nationality" or something, which you can get off the credit blurb at the end of the film. Betty Logan (talk) 04:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

But wasn't there already consensus for it to be changed? It's just needs re-wording because right now it's not even what I suggested. I don't mind contrary opinions but they don't seem to be really based on anything other then "well, I don't like it". There's no school of thought surrounding their ideas, none that I can see anyways, and it just frustrates me that for a infobox based on the wiki's film project, that we can't even base it on industry standards of labeling countries. Well, I don't know. Your better at sorting these things out than I am. Thanks for helping!Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to pester you again....

I know you're sort of trying not to get too involved in certain things, but can I ask your advice on this whole distributor thing again? It involves the same editor as before and the same issue as before, this time with Atonement (film), where we again have three distribution companies listed:
Universal Pictures (worldwide except US and France)
StudioCanal (France)
Focus Features (US)
To my mind it looks wrong having so much info in that field (especially when there is no US release date etc in the rest of the box). Am I barking up the wrong tree on this, or is MaryChan right in adding this info? Thanks (again and as always!) - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Coo lumme - it's all gone to project talk again for another circular argument that doesn't advance us terribly far forward! - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I was just getting around to replying, so I left my comment there. It's a shame the other discussion fizzled out, because it clearly needs to be resolved. I think I have pretty much convinced myself now that only the home distributor and distributors that undertake an international operation distributing the film should be listed, since most films maybe only have one or two international distributors with locals distributing it in the remaining territories. An international operation is inherently more notable than a local operation regardless of the territory, so I think inclusion should really be based on the scale of the operation. Betty Logan (talk) 16:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Cheers for that—much appreciated! I'd tend to agree with you, although with the caveat that, rather like WP:FILMRELEASE, it included domestic as well as international. I'm not entirely sure why I feel it should be added, but maybe it's because if a film is contributing to its nation's cinematic history, then the distribution element of that should also be noted alongside the largest player. Either way, I'm not too over-fussed about the domestic element as long as the US distributor isn't included on European films for no other reason than "just because"! - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Licence to Kill

Hi Betty, Can you have a look at a couple of recent edits made on Licence to Kill for me? (I've already reverted twice, so can't do any more) If you think the edit is ok then let me know and I'll let it stand. There's some nonsense on the Talk Page about it too. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted the IP. They don't provide a source to back up the claim the equipment is rare, nor do they provide a source to establish its relevance to the article. The fact that they name a brand as well makes me question its legitimacy; looks like an attempt to slip some advertising into the article. The addition looks pretty pointless to me. You should give him his token edit-warring warning and shop him if he does it again. Betty Logan (talk) 16:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

GA concerns.

I am still not sure we have addressed every concern on GA. The only one I can think of is you mentioning the comparisons of the other film in the film series and still some citation problems that we might not have done. Let me know of the others thank you. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 14:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Left some comments on the article talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 15:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

RSN Help!

Hi Betty, I'm, really sorry to come knocking asking for your opinion again, but I have a rather troublesome editor trying to cause waves at the moment (I think there is a personal agenda going on and he's about one more posting away from an ANI complaint at the moment. One of the two issues I have with him relates to a self-published work he's the Talk background, which went to RSN for comment. Only one editor has commented to date, confirming that the source is acceptable. Can I ask your independent opinion on whether you would consider this work to be reliable, based on the points I've outlined at RSN? Many, many thanks as always… - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I've temporarily reverted the edit, because good source or bad, you don't pull an entire section from an FL rated article unless there is a consensus to do so. I will take a good look at the source and post my opinion at the RS/N board. Betty Logan (talk) 21:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The source isn't particularly strong, but I think it is acceptable for what is essentially an "in universe account", which has been recognized as an authoritative account by the copyright holders. I've reverted Jack a couple of times and asked him not to remove the section again pending an outcome at RS/N. I'm not going to be dragged into an edit war, but this is why I've decided not to develop articles anymore on here; if admins won't get off their assess and put a stop to disruptive behavior on Featured Lists and Articles then one has to question whether it is worth the effort of developing them. If editors want to challenge content then there are many avenues open to them: various noticeboards, project pages, dispute resolution, and if opinion goes against you then you have to live with it I guess, but until then the FL/FA graded version i.e. the peer reviewed state should be enforced as the status quo. Betty Logan (talk) 01:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out. I've always known Griswold was self-published, but with the IFP endorsement (not to mention their connections with the forward) it raises it from fan-fiction to something more concrete. The academic citation is just the cherry on the cake. I saw you edit to JS (since deleted with the summary "she wasn't paying attention, apparently. 2 people make a consensus now? This should be fun") He's a real charmer and has something personal against me, I think: that is the only reason I can think of for some of his actions on this and the other matter. I suspect this will rumble on a little longer before he finds some new toy to play with. I knew why you left before, but not really appreciated the rationale fully until now: you have my sympathies and understanding! - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

And another request!

Sorry—I know I pester you too much, but it's your own fault for knowing everything and being incredibly fair and balanced! I was looking over the Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (film)#Accolades article and saw an award for the film from Felix, the in-house student newspaper of Imperial College London. It got me thinking a little more generally about the nature of awards and who decides and on what basis. When it's lined up against the Academy Awards, BAFTAs, London Film Critics Circle Awards etc etc, then Felix looks kind of out of place, as it's not known for its specialist film coverage or deep insight into film-making etc. Are there any guidelines you know of which would point towards which accolades are preferred in such a list? Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 14:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

It's a judgement call really. The Film Project doesn't really offer any guidance, but I took part in a similar debate when the issue came up at a Harry Potter article, when people were adding the Wizard's Academy best film award and all that shit: Talk:Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows_–_Part_2#Non-notable_awards. I tried to put it into the context of other policies i.e. awards from national (BAFTA, Oscar) and international bodies (Golden Globes) are generally notable, while regional and magazine awards generally are not, except in cases where their notability is established by being reported in independent reliable sources. I would say that awards issued by a student paper are almost certainly not notable, unless the result was reported in other reliable sources. Personally I would say ditch it (if you decide to retain it though "Dicember" needs to be corrected in its entry). I mean, it's basically a form of film criticism isn't it, and generally we wouldn't cite reviews from student papers. Betty Logan (talk) 15:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I was thinking along the same lines as you, but wasn't entirely sure why I thought it was out of place (if that makes any kind of sense!) Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

And another...

Hi there, Thanks for putting the shell round the criteria—it looks much better now. I wonder if I could ask for a suggestion on a section title for the Ian Fleming article (or even any thoughts as to the section itself!) It relates to the "1945–1953" section, which is something that came out of the GA review as it was originally a bigger "Personal life and death" section which was split in two. The problem with 1945-1953 is that some things, such as his book collecting, fall outside the dates. Would "personal life and interests" suit?

The reason for the nit-picking is that I want to take this through the FA procedure (once I get Thrilling Cities sorted out!), although I'll need to do a bang-up copy edit on it too—even though that's not my strongest suit! Sorry I seem to be asking 1001 things from you at the moment, but I'll try and limit it to 2 or 3 a week in future! ;) – Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I think I would have called it "Postwar years" or something to that effect (as per T. E. Lawrence) to remove the date specificity. I know some things fall out of that range but it roughly covers events in that period of his life. Betty Logan (talk) 20:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Another approach would be the Winston Churchill approach, where they cover his personal life, military service and political career separately. That approach would work on the Fleming article by substituting the writing career for the political career. Betty Logan (talk) 20:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Cheers for these: I'll have a spin over them in the morning to see what fits best. I've just made it a little more generic for the time being with "Personal life and interests" sort of in line with Churchill, but I'll see how I feel about it in the morning! Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 21:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Snooker world ranking points 2012/2013

I have seen you have began to create the article, but please don't forget, that according to this every player outside the top 64 begins the season with 0 points. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 01:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know about that. World Snooker doesn't exactly make this easy does it? I have to add in the rest of the tour qualifiers so I will sort it out tomorrow. Betty Logan (talk) 01:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Snooker stance.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Snooker stance.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 10:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

WP Snooker in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Snooker for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 16:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

A Matter of life and Death

No, don't worry: I'm not being overdramtic - it's only ther title of the film... Could you have a look at a small situation that has arisen on A Matter of Life and Death (film) for me? I did a number of edits yesterday on the article (it's in very poor shape and deserves better treatment) and found that 3/4s of them were reverted today by someone claiming to have "stewardship" of the article. I'm not that fussed by most of them as he's already made up my mind not to even bother editing further, but the question of WP:FILMRELEASE has come up again as not only is the UK release there, but also the US and LA ones! He claims that as FILMRELEASE is a guideline, it does not need to be followed and that, '"should" means that it is not mandatory', as he puts it. The editor is being an utter idiot over all changes and seems to think that stability (ie not allowing any changes at all) is rpreferable to having something worthwhile. - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I've had altercations with this editor before, the most recent being the Powell and Pressburger article ironically. He doesn't have a collaborative approach to editing, and if I go over there and take your side I guarantee we will end up in an SPI witch-hunt, after he goes through our edit histories and compiles a list of every single article we have in common. If you "meddle" with his articles too much you can expect a tit-for-tat retaliation on the ones you regularly edit too. Obviously you can get your edit pushed through by raising the issue at the Film Project. Everyone there will say yeah follow the guideline, but please realize that he perceives the Film project as one big tag-team, so even then he will probably only accept a decision from outside of the Film Project, and even then someone he hasn't had a disagreement with. Personally I think he should be booted off Wikipedia. I'd probably let it go if you are not actually intending on getting it up to GA standard and putting it through a review, because he will pretty much resist every single change you try to make; if you are determined to push the edit through then prepare yourself for a world of pain. Betty Logan (talk) 09:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks: I was worried you were going to say something like that! I've never had such a large amount of edits reverted in one sweep and for absolutely no good reason but that an editor doesn't like them. I was hoping to get this article up to GA as it's such a wonderful film, but with idiots like that sitting on them, life is too short! - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, that article has bigger problems that the FILMRELEASE violation. When I assess for the Film project I never insist on guideline adherence for 'Start' and 'C' class article anyway. I think sometimes the guidelines can hinder the natural development of the article, and coverage and sourcing is more important in the early development stage. Betty Logan (talk) 09:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

You're right - it's a total and utter mess, which is what I was trying to improve. FILMRELEASE was the obvious first battle to try and gain ground after all the ridiculous reverts he's undertaken. - SchroCat (^ • @) 10:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

List of highest grossing films is incredible

Love how important it is (very high view) and how long and well researched and constructed. Also, nice to have a scattering of tables and text. Something different in construction from the norm. Kudos! 64.134.168.97 (talk) 06:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Cheers! Obviously I can't take all the credit, but I did write a lot of the exposition and tracked down loads of refs :) Betty Logan (talk) 09:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

List of vegans

After a quick look, I'm not going to hold out much hope that I can accomplish anything. It's bedtime. I'll look at it tomorrow with fresh eyes.—Kww(talk) 02:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

There's no hurry, I'm not actively involved with the article anymore. I'm just a bit cheesed off to see her doing the same thing to another editor. Betty Logan (talk) 02:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

It may be a good idea to talk to Muleattack first; I'm not sure it's really my place to speak out on article I have actively withdrawn from, but he sounds pretty fed up. The obvious thing to do would be for him to just go and edit other articles but I don't see why he should considering he's been contributing to that article for as long as I've been around. Betty Logan (talk) 03:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Ben-Hur

Hey! Nice to see you contributing (and don't give that "semi-retired, little contributions" stuff). In the review, you talked about inconsistency in references. Just to point out, consistency in references is not needed for a GA; that is a criteria for FA. But yes, there are definitely other problems too. Perhaps we should ask for the nominator's view? i don't really want to close this so fast. Cheers! ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 05:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Banging head against brick wall... referencing/sfn problem

Hi there, yet again I come to you with a hanging head and a question about my own ineptitude. I'm sorting out a few issues at the Peter Sellers article and going through the referencing firstly. I've dropped a number of the references into sfn, but when I click on them it's not dropping me down to the relevant part of the biblio. (See Ref 4 - Lewis 1995, p. 9. for an obvious one - it should drop down to the Lewis book, but isn't) I know I've missed something obvious, but I can't for the life of me see what it is! Could you show me the error of my ways once again...? Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Doh! Thanks very much—as always! - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

It's easily done. I remember once spending ages trying to track down the same problem. What I do in these cases is copy a working one over from another article and then alter the sfn and bib entry field by field. There are also two citations in the "Articles" section causing a ref template error at the bottom of the page too. Betty Logan (talk) 17:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I was trying to slowly ease them out altogether as they are peripheral at best, but hadn't noticed the error message. I've eased them out a little more quickly than expected... - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Heads up

Since you've edited/looked after some of the vegetarian articles, as well as the Pescetarianism article, I felt that you might want a heads up about this: Talk:Vegetarianism#The "Not to be confused with veganism" distinguish tag. Flyer22 (talk) 21:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Why not just revert it and see what happens, as per WP:BRD? Betty Logan (talk) 21:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I did revert at the Veganism article, directing people to the discussion about it. I felt that I should start a discussion to explain my reason for objecting and/or reverting the edits, especially to avoid a WP:Edit war. When reverting something that I feel the editor is likely to revert me on, I've found that it's best to take the matter to the talk page instead of just waiting to see if the revert will happen. The editor has responded already, and has explained why he made the edits. Flyer22 (talk) 23:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

List of henchmen/allies articles

Hi Betty. As I'm sure you know the "list" article(s) you prodded (SchroCat talk page link) were deleted. I prodded most of the remaining "list articles" yesterday. Niemti has started a discussion here. - Fanthrillers (talk) 18:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

List of James Bond villains

Hi Betty, Just a question about headings, particularly about the List of James Bond villains article. I reverted what I think is an incorrect edit (the heading was "Ian Fleming" then pointlessly changed to "Ian Fleming's" and now the even worse "Ian Fleming's novels"). Despite being asked to go to the talk page, the other editor thought it best to start reverting and edit warring instead. I've pointed out BRD and MOS:Headings on their talk page, but they just don't seem to care. Am I right in thinking that the original headings are the correct ones and the new versions are just all wrong on so many levels? Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll have a closer look later when I have a bit of free time, but the bottom line is anyone who wants to change the status quo on an article should start a discussion and get a consensus. Pushing through edits when another editor challenges them clearly violates BRD. Betty Logan (talk) 13:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I told him that and asked him to go to the talk page. He reverted. thanks again, as always: you are a beacon of calm and sanity (and vast amounts of knowledge)! - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your input (as always)—it was much appreciated and I've implemented your suggestions in the article. - SchroCat (^ • @) 14:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Dalton & Bond

Hi Betty, Can I ask for a little input from you, when you get a chance? The gist is here with the main bulk of the points (and my subsequent comments) in Fanthrillers' sandbox? Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The Wild Child

Is it truly necessary to turn editing into a headache? Some of us are on our own schedules thank you very much and do not require someone looking over our shoulder and poking around.--206.188.36.191 (talk) 01:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Eh what? The article was submitted for assessment so I have tagged some of the more serious areas that need addressing to get it the next level. If the article had not been submitted for assessment then I would not have reviewed and tagged it. If you did not want the article to be reviewed and issues highlighted because it interfered with your schedule then it was your prerogative to withdraw the request, and I would not have reviewed it. I gave up MY free time because an editor submitted a request for someone to look over it. However 206.188.36.191, I notice you have submitted several requests yourself, so since you disagree with how I undertake assessments then don't worry about it, I will leave your requests for other editors to deal with. Betty Logan (talk) 02:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Martial arts films disruptive IPs

Hi BL. Thanks for filing the SPI that got the recent IPs in the 90 range shut down for a while. This has been an ongoing problem for months now and the IPs have been all over the place - here is one from a totally different range 2.222.145.217 (talk · contribs) as an example. The one thing that is consistent is that they all locate to Burton-on-Trent. All requests to change or warnings to stop are ignored. User:Ponyo has been helpful in stopping this person but he is away for the time being. You may have already been aware of some of this but I wanted to pass this on in case you weren't. Thanks for your time and for your vigilance. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 16:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

When the IPs are that apart obviously IP blocks aren't very effective. A range block would obviously take out the whole of the Midlands in the UK, and blocking each IP has very limited effect when the ISP obviously dynamically allocates addresses. I think we're going to have to start looking at indefinite semi-protection for the articles where the disruption is sustained. Betty Logan (talk) 07:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Titanic (1997 film) plot section

Betty, will you help me out by restoring a bit of text? The text in question is mentioned at User talk:Nandt1#Titanic (1997 film) plot section. Nandt1 is okay with the text being restored, but seems to be done with the issue. 31.193.138.223 (talk) 03:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I can do that, is it just a straight revert of this edit? If it is let me know and I'll revert the edit, if not, then please tell write out here the text that is to be replaced and what it will be replaced with. Betty Logan (talk) 09:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

As I'm sure you saw, Nandt1 took care of it. But thanks for being willing to help. 31.193.138.223 (talk) 16:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Betty Logan. You have new messages at Dougweller's talk page.
Message added 12:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dougweller (talk) 12:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Batman film gross

Hey I updated the TDKR gross on the highest grossing film list article but I didn't do it yet on the franchise due to not quite sure how to figure out what the gross of franchise yet. Although it could be just because the lack of knowledge of math decimals on my part. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 22:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

To update the franchise table you just have to plug in the number in two places, and the template does the rest: [7]. Betty Logan (talk) 23:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Good to know. But what I really meant is figuring out something like $3,569.9 supposedly equaling to $3,575,468,308. Is there somewhere I am missing on the source that says that the estimates with out using decimals or do I estimate by determining how much that is? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The Box Office Mojo source rounds each amount. If you look at the BOM franchise summary you will see The Dark Knight is listed as having earned $1003.0 million, but if you click on the film you can get the full amount to the dollar which is $1,003,045,358. The full amounts are typed into the chart and then the templates just add up the grosses. We are not actually sourcing the franchise totals because they have rounding errors, we are are using the franchise summaries as an index for the film totals, and Wikipedia's own arithmetic function does the adding up without the rounding errors. Betty Logan (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I can see where the individual film's gross can be. So the templates add up each of the individual grosses on their own is what you are saying? If that's true that's neat. :) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 17:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hi, Betty. I would like to owe you an apology if I have caused any trouble over at ANI. As I did not intend to harass Niemti, this was not a case of wikihounding, as both User:Bbb23 and I were concerned that Niemti has not made his case about it, but it was only a matter of two editors butting heads a lot. As User:Sergecross73 pointed out in the ANI, both of us have different theories and interpretations of our policies and guidelines and we have not broken any policy or done anything warranting any sort of discipline. While we're still waiting for other administrators and users to respond (no admin-shopping or block-shopping was intended when I contacted a few of the administrators about this matter) and trying to come up with a solution, I think the beneficial solution is that Niemti and I should avoid each other a little more if possible so that things do not even escalate to something that actually belongs at WP:ANI for now. I have sought very helpful advice and opinions from various administrators about this situation and whether some of the edits are appropriate, and no canvassing was intended. However, if there's a serious breach of a policy, or if there is any concern about Niemti's behavior or edits, I will defer the matter to User:Berean Hunter, an administrator who is well aware of the situation, or to drop a line on the relevant WikiProject. Would this be a good idea for now? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

It's completely up to you, I don't think the case against you has been substantiated either. The problem with promising to "avoid" him is that might mean you won't be able to edit the articles you want to edit if there is a large overlap between your editing areas. I don't think disagreeing with Niemti over an interpretation of policy is a sufficient reason for avoiding him, because ultimately one editor has to be correct and the other wrong. I think provided you don't choose to edit articles by searching his contribution history and don't watch his talk page then by definition you can't be "wikihounding" him. If you get involved in disputes with him simply because you watch or edit the same articles then that isn't wikihounding. Betty Logan (talk) 10:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I just wanted to make sure that we clear up that misunderstanding over at ANI. In truth, I actually want to edit the articles that I want to edit, as disagreeing with Niemti over an interpretation of a policy is not a sufficient reason. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 11:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Definition of a snooker pro or am?

Hi Betty, saw your revert from yesterday with your explanation of Swail still being a pro. I agree with that. Where do you get this info from? Can I look up his membership somewhere (WPBSA)? There is a talk going on, on the german WP (I started it) after I red your comment. And I think this definition should be equal on all of the WPs. It is the WPBSA who makes you a pro or am, not the WP, right? Would be glad for explanation and/or help. --LezFraniak (talk) 16:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Amateur and professional status is determined by whether you belong a professional organisation i.e. whether you are a member of the WPBSA or not. Joe Swail is still a member of the WPBSA as you can see at [8]. Every member is included on the ranking list, whether they are on the tour or not. As you can see, players like Ray Reardon and John Parrott are still members, so are still professional players. Jow Swail is listed at 150, so despite dropping off the tour has not resigned his professional membership. Darren Morgan on the otherhand went back to playing in amateur events after dropping off the tour, so had to resign his WPBSA membership effectively making him an amateur again so he could enter IBSF events. Since Joe Swail still holds professional membership he will be prohibited from entering all amateur events such as the IBSA, EASB etc. Players often retain their professional membership so they will be eligible to enter the "non tour" leg of the world championship, which amateurs can't do (which was the rule John Parrott and Tony Knowles entered under earlier this year). It's a "hard rule", if someone is on that list they are a professional player. Betty Logan (talk) 16:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanx a lot for the great explanation. That does help a lot. Greetings. --LezFraniak (talk) 17:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Contra: What about all those (old) WPBSA-Members, who participate every year at the world championships (for fun), e.g. Del Smith. They are members, but surely no pros anymore. Another example from the WPBSA official site: Swail, who got to the World Championship semis in 2000 and 2001 as well as the Welsh Open final in 2009, has plummeted to 65th in the world rankings and faces a fight to retain his professional status. From here. So also the WPBSA talk only about the main-tour-players as pros. --87.122.25.105 (talk) 07:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

See also: Competing as an amateur, the Ulsterman beat the likes of Shaun Murphy and Barry Hawkins to reach the final, before being denied the trophy by Selby. from here. --87.122.25.105 (talk) 08:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Talking about IBSA and EASB you could say: pros and wpbsa-members are not allowed to participate. --87.122.25.105 (talk) 08:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The report discusses Swail "competing as an amateur" because he entered in the pre-tour rounds along with all the amateurs, but in reality the evidence suggests he is not an amateur. Let's examine the evidence:

1. Swail is eligible to enter the world professional championship but not eligible to enter the amateur world championship, or indeed any amateur event run by an amateur governing body.
2. By your reasoning that Swail is an amateur, then that means some amateurs cannot enter the amateur events but they are allowed to enter the professional world championship.
3. If Swail resigns his WPBSA membership he will be eligible to enter amateur events as Darren Morgan has done.
4. If Swail enters the world championship and wins it then by your logic an amateur player would be the world professional champion.
5. Swail still formally has a world ranking issued by the world professional governing body.

The arguments seem compelling to me he still holds professional status despite dropping off the tour. Betty Logan (talk) 12:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

hey boss!! i dint refer the link boss becoz itz yesterday somebody changed in the main page(1,041,088,380) so only i've made it as a mistake else i should not have done that itz changed in d main page so i tried to change and i'm new to wiki.......:D — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oirpacid.01 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The Cabin in the Woods

Hi. I am thinking about getting The Cabin in the Woods up to GA status. I have started a discussion at Talk:The Cabin in the Woods#GA push and announced it on the Wikiproject page. Would you be willing to help me get the article up to GA status? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind peer reviewing it for you but other than that I don't know anything about the film. Betty Logan (talk) 14:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)