User talk:Betty Logan/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Template:Lists of box office number-one films

Well done on providing a constructive edit adding the acronym rather than just sticking with your initial knee-jerk revert. 46.226.184.124 (talk) 06:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) - 46.226.184.124: Passive-aggressive much? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I took it as a back-handed compliment. The IP is generally more right than wrong in this case (on Wikipedia we generally prefer to write out full names rather than acronyms) but I believe the EMEA is a special case in this instance, since it is better known by its acronym (a bit like the BBC), and perhaps more clearly defined i.e. EMEA is a specific area, while Europe, Middle-East and Africa can be used to just describe a general region. That was why I originally reverted (although hardly knee-jerk), but ultimately I felt there was a compromise available to us. Betty Logan (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Help

Hi, I am wondering why you reverted my edit here: [1]. Steroid Maximus (talk) 04:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Frozen (2013 film) is a loose adaptation of The Snow Queen. See [2]. Betty Logan (talk) 05:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

List of box office bombs

My recent edit [3] to List of box bombs was reverted by ^theWOLFchild. In their edit summary, they wrote "look at the page title, then go to the talk page." I honestly have no idea what that means, and it does not explain why my edit was undone, and I feel that is important that I know the reason for the revert. (Otherwise I have no idea what the issue is). In addition, there seems to be a misunderstanding in the talk page about this issue. Could you please take a look at it here? I would really like to get this nipped in the bud as soon as possible before any further misunderstandings or confusion occur. Thanks. Wikicontributor12 (talk) 07:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Good Job & Thanks

		The WikiProject Film Award
		I, on behalf of the project, hereby award Betty Logan the WikiProject Film Award for his/her valued contributions to WikiProject Film. This is for the effort you put into the impressive new table for List of box office bombs. Cheers Awarded - theWOLFchild 21:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Ya might wanna

Hi Betty, ya might wanna add the non-existent Bane (The Dark Knight Rises) to your watchlist if you haven't already. If that article is created soonish, it would suggest to me that BFlatley is involved. Have a good weekend! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Caine, again

This discussion on the Caine Mutiny (film) talk page may be of interest. Coretheapple (talk) 21:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Inflation errors

Hello, thanks for noticing and attempting to correct errors generated by {{Inflation}}. However, the error is intentional. The error on List of box office bombs for example is caused by the page attempting to request a calculation of inflation for a year (2016) which {{Inflation}} does not have inflation data for. These errors are now generated because I changed {{Inflation}} to no longer falsely assume {{CURRENTYEAR}} (which results in incorrect calculations and incorrect statements), but instead rely on {{Inflation-year}}. It might be possible to add logic so that when a start_year of the current year correctly calculates an inflation of 0% for the period of 2016 to 2016, but doing this will just result in delaying the error until the year rolls around and the template needs to calculate inflation from 2016 to 2017 without any information yet available from either of these years.

Tl;dr: that particular error can only be corrected by updating the datasets with more data provided by reliable sources, or by fixing pages that attempt to use the template incorrectly. djr13 (talk) 01:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

PS, I'm currently working on providing much more helpful error messages! djr13 (talk) 01:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I have outlined the problem Template_talk:Inflation#Template_error_for_2016_date. Betty Logan (talk) 01:42, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi

Before reverting you again, i can only assume that you did not read my previous edit summaries. The movie was already introduced as spy-fi, I'm the one who added the category, that's all. The article on spy-fi has sources that lists James Bond as an example, so I don't know what this edit warring is all about when I clearly explained it in my summaries. Please read all edit summaries before engaging in a revert war.--Taeyebaar (talk) 21:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

And thanks.--Taeyebaar (talk) 21:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

You are the one who is edit-warring per WP:BRD. If you are reverted the onus is on you to begin a discussion on the article talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 21:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

So not only are you ignoring my edit summaries, but you are also ignoring my messages. The sources are already there on the Spy-Fi articles, which list James Bond as an example and which i told you for like the fifth time. You have a very weak case to go on ANI when you clearly ignored my messages.--Taeyebaar (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I replied to your message. Disagreeing with your message is not the same as ignoring it. Following the principles outlined at WP:BRD and start a discussion on the talk page and obtain a consensus for your edits. Betty Logan (talk) 21:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

[4]

Did you even read the article intro on the film before leaving the above edit summary? If you want to go on ANI, I'm all for it, but you'll have to be prepared to explain why you never bothered reading the article intro before removing the category and checking the link which is clearly reliably sourced, but continued to edit war anyways.--Taeyebaar (talk) 21:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes I read the article and I think it's poorly written and woefully under-sourced, and I will be nominating it for deletion shortly. Now you go and READ WP:BRD and do not post on my page again until you are prepared to follow the editing guidelines as they are laid out there. Betty Logan (talk) 21:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

While I agree it could do with better sources- I'll even look for some, it doesn't justify being removed.--Taeyebaar (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

List of children's films

I appreciate everything you do on that list. Now we have a bigger problem. Dcasey98 just reported us on that page. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 06:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. I am typing up an extensive outline of his disruptive editing as I write this. Just give me 20 minutes. Betty Logan (talk) 06:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Both of you have been far more disruptive. You ignore the criteria of that article, use unprofessional sources, vandalize the page, and harass me over talk pages. Here comes the block. Dcasey98 (talk) 06:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Your sources

You have failed to prove Harry Potter is a children's film series because it isn't. It's marketed to teenagers and adult fantasy fans. It's a coming of age series.

The P.hd in question doesn't say anything in his piece about what the films are, not to mention, such a source is not needed on a list of children's films. All your sources have been unprofessional or used improperly. They can be found on the teen films list. I removed the films because I saw they didn't comply with the rules posted at the top of the page, and I did the right thing.

PG-13 films and films marketed at teenagers are not allowed. Thank you! You will be blocked. Dcasey98 (talk) 07:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Dcasey98 (talk) 07:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Dcasey98 (talk) 07:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

AN3 case

Thanks for the heads-up on this earlier- it was all over by the time I woke up though (i.e., just now!). But the correct result. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 09:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

My additions

Hi! I'd love to know why you deleted my sourced additions. Should I add or change anything? Please let me know! HGfan07 (talk) 19:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Apologies for my previous post. But unfortunately, your source- IMDB- is not considered reliable, which means that the content, being unverifiable, has to be removed. Well done on creating an account though! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Dcasey98 sock blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

So I was right the first time. D'oh! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

Listef (klat) 10:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Betty Logan (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This is a purely punitive block not a preventative one. In total I made three reverts at one article and one revert at another, so hardly excessive. All involved editors (myself and Depauldem) were blocked a full six hours after the reverting had stopped and the dispute was being fully discussed at Talk:Avengers:_Age_of_Ultron#Disruptive_changes_to_the_budget. If you check the talk page you can see that ALL recent activity regarding the dispute is on the talk page, so it is pretty obvious that blocks were not necessary six hours after it stopped. This is simply a block for the sake of a block and all it is actually doing now is preventing the discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 15:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Unblocking per discussion below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Stifle: Please provide your input on the unblock request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• I am not going to unblock as I wouldn't have blocked in the first place if I thought it was unjustified. The purpose was to de-escalate the situation which involved blind reverting by both users and using edit summaries in lieu of proper discussion. Whilst I'm aware User:Betty Logan reported this to WP:AN3, it is my view that User:Betty Logan has experienced a WP:OUCH moment.
  I'm not precious about my blocks or other admin actions, however, so if User:Newyorkbrad or another admin feels it was an overreaction or no longer serves a useful purpose, they have my permission to undo. Listef (klat) 15:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Obviously you would not have blocked me if you did not think it were warranted. But you say that you blocked because there was reverting "in lieu of substantial discussion". The point here is that the situation de-escalated itself: the edit-warring stopped and there has been substantial discussion since the last revert. It is obvious from the pattern of recent activity that the reverting had stopped and there was substantial on-going discussion on the talk page, and had been for several hours at the time of the block. So are you saying that this block is punitive rather than preventative? Betty Logan (talk) 15:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Stifle, thank you for the quick response. Having reviewed this situation, I am unblocking both editors, substantially per the reasons set forth by Betty Logan. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Thankyou. Betty Logan (talk) 15:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Betty Logan. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 17:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

David J Johnson (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

WPBSA Open Tour

Hi Betty i asked for a link to view this article for myself you only gave me your opinion about it. I want to view the link ?. So why cant the 02/03 Open Tour be classed as professional if the WPBSA and the EASB did not split until the following season ?. Are these events not similar to the PTC events ?. A pro-am is an event where a player gets a 21 start. That did not happen in this event. PTC events are not pro-ams.

I have explained this at Talk:International_Open_Series. To cut a long story short the EASB is an amateur body, and amateur organizations do not organize professional tournaments; they organize amateur events and pro-ams. Betty Logan (talk) 23:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I know what they are but they did not split from the WPBSA until the 03/04 season when they became amateur. so my point is should they be regarded the same as PTC events prior to this shall we say ?.

This is not the place to discuss article content. If you want to respond do it at the article talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 23:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

where is that please i am new to this can you give me a link thank you ?.

The links is here: Talk:International_Open_Series. I ma not being funny with you, but all article discussions should be at the article so other editors can contribute to the discussions. Betty Logan (talk) 18:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Betty i left a comment regarding the international open series on the link you gave me. Will you have a look please. Thank you

John Higgins World Series of Snooker wins

Hi Betty i am a snooker statistician myself. Can you change Higgins 2 wins in these events back to non-ranking please. Chris Turner's site clearly lists these wins under the "Invitational Events" banner. I have 7 other sources which also list it under this section. I dont know how to add references to wiki though. I can give them to you if you want ?. I also have email evidence from clive everton who classed them as non ranking. Chris turner clearly states which events are pro-am. So can we go with his source please ?. Regards

I have initiated this change. Betty Logan (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Betty thank you. Can you change the Non-ranking wins back to 15 please ?. You did not update it. It is still on 13 thank you very much. I appreciate it. Regards

User talk:109.151.65.218

I've moved the list to Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/109.151.65.218 so if you had the IP page on your watchlist you may want to add the new page. Peter James (talk) 22:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Avengers: Age of Ultron

Hi, Betty. Since you've been one of the editors involved in the discussion on this talk page, I thought you'd want to be alerted to a brewing edit-war on the article. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: Take a look at #Blocked and I think you will appreciate why I will be limiting myself to talk page discussion at that article from now on. I received a punitive block from Stifle which was revoked a few hours later on the grounds that he violated Wikipedia:Blocking policy, but even so I have no wish to stick my neck out again. I would strongly urge you to request page protection at WP:RPP since there is a progressive discussion on the article talk page. I will post further comments there shortly. Betty Logan (talk) 00:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Can one of you two explain what the actual issue is to me? I cant work out what people are arguing over. I gather someone wants one figure in the infobox, others want a different one? 'Budget' is universally used to indicate 'how much is available to be spent' and in films/media will always include as part of that, any rebate that will lower the costs later. Papers etc always report 'budget' in that sense, unless they specifically cite net costs (where the amount has had any rebate removed to reflect the true cost) and that is generally only in articles that are specifically geared towards financial discussion (profitability of a studio/film and so on). Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

"'Budget' is universally used to indicate 'how much is available to be spent'" - Which is open to interpretation. If you google the budget for Batman v Superman you will see it is pretty much universally reported as $250 million, but without the tax rebate the "cost" is rumored to be as high as $325 million. The issue is that editors should be drawing their interpretation of the "budget" from sources, not imposing their own. Betty Logan (talk) 13:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Unless there is a source that explicitly says otherwise, any tax rebate would be included as part of the budget, not an additional amount of top. So if X paper says the budget was 250 million, the budget for the film was 250 million including rebate. If the source says the budget was '250 million excluding a tax rebate of 75 million', then the budget for film production is 325 million. Really not sure why this is an issue as sources are usually fairly explicit when talking about rebates, costs and budgets in context. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, from having a brief look at the BvS articles out there, it looks like the 250 million figure is production spend rather than 'budget' in which case any rebate (under UK terms) would be out of that, rather than the complete budget - which would include stuff like marketing (which isnt eligible for a rebate) which has bumped the alleged budget to 400+ million. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The budget for Batman v Superman is supposedly $250 million. The "cost" could be as much as $325 million if you don't allow for rebates and tax incentives. Both those figures exclude the marketing spend, which came to a further $150-160 million in this example. You can get the breakdown at The Hollywood Reporter. Warner's net expenditure on producing the film was $250 million and this is what most sources are reporting (although the total cost could be as high as $325 million). So basically the crux of the debate is which figure should go in the infobox i.e. 250 or 325. Betty Logan (talk) 13:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

(EC)Meh, this is arsing infoboxs again. So taking into account the figures here and here (from the two more reliable sources) the ultimate production spend was 250 million. However thats taking into account rebates/incentives. The true production budget would have been higher, and with marketing thrown in on top the film budget would top the 400 mil mark. This can all be explained in prose, but is not possible in an infobox. Which really should state 250-410 million according to the sources available at this time. As it is not clearly defined that 'Budget' in the infobox is referring specifically to cost to make the film (Production budget), or cost to bring the film to market (Film budget). And this is why I detest infoboxs. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Although I may be incorrect regarding the budget field, is it clearly listed in the template what it refers to? Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

As I understand it the infobox figure excludes marketing costs (which are an ongoing thing), but yeah, it's a piece of information that is context sensitive and the infobox doesn't really allow for that. Betty Logan (talk) 14:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I went and took a look. Its production budget excluding marketing according to the template info. To quote directly "This is the cost of the actual filming". So for BvS given the disparity over rebates, the infobox should read a range from 250-325 with an explanation in the prose. 250 million *excluding* rebates is clearly not the actual production budget, because then only 250 would have been spent on the film. As we have a good RS that indicates the production spend was higher and mitigated by tax incentives/rebates, that should be used as the upper range, as that was the 'cost of the actual filming'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

That is generally the way I am leaning too, although I am receptive to other compromises. I think there are too many abstract discussion going on so I began an RFC on a test case yesterday at Talk:John_Carter_(film)#RfC:_Which_figure_should_go_in_the_budget_field_in_the_infobox.3F where we have a range of options available to us. I think your suggestions would probably serve more use there as part of the debate because ultimately we can't form a consensus on my talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 15:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Bets. I didn't see that discussion, but I'll go there now. At the infobox RfC, I've just endorsed your and I think one other editor's suggestion of having two lines, one for gross budget, one for net, so that all prominent RS views are represented.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Hokey smokes, Bullwinkle: I think we've reached a compromise at the Infobox RfC! And nobody's doing anything until you come in and give it your blessing or your tweaks or your additional comments. Thank you for being the calm anchor through all this!--Tenebrae (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer

I placed pending changes protection on Rachel Green and added this flag on your account, so you can accept or decline edits. If you don't want it, just let me know. Widr (talk) 06:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

FYI

Hi BL. Just wanted to let you know that you forgot to sign your report here. I know you'd have seen it eventually but I wanted you to be able to fix it ASAP. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 22:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

May 2016

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• of music specifically written for the feature film versions culled from episodes of the series ('''One Of Our Spies Is Missing''' and '''The Karate Killers''' are particularly strongly
• the second actor in American television to star as the same character in two separate series. (The first had been [[Frank Cady]], who played general store owner Sam Drucker on ''[[Petticoat

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambig tool?

Hi! What a crazy couple of edits over at science fiction! May I ask what tool you were using for disambiguation? I think I want to avoid it. ;-) — Gorthian (talk) 00:06, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I looked at some of your other contributions using that tool; most are fine, some are not (!!). I hope you can go back and fix them—it's easy to find them: they're the edits adding more than 19 bytes. (I'm glad you were just doing the same edit over and over!) And please, let the tool owner know about this behavior. Cheers! — Gorthian (talk) 00:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Here it is: https://tools.wmflabs.org/dplbot/dab_fix_list.php. You type in the name of a disambiguation page and it lists the articles that link to it along with a "fix" option. It's supposed to make cleanup easier after an article move. I fixed around a hundred or so links with this tool and this 'quirk' seems to have happened on about half a dozen of the fixes. Most of them were fine like Spy fiction, but occasionally it seems to add completely random bits of text such as at The Avengers. There doesn't seem to be any pattern to the malfunction. I think I've got them all though. Betty Logan (talk) 00:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

That looks very similar to an excellent tool that used to be maintained by Dispenser, before all the tools moved to Tool Labs. I used that a lot, when I was doing work with WP:DPL. I hope it hasn't been causing grief for other users. Thanks for cleaning up! — Gorthian (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Stop wasting my job

Nicknames I added to some snooker players aren't fake or unsourced, they come from this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfWTEIHK89E 151kbar151 (talk) 11:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

@151kbar151: The only person who has wasted your time here is you, and you have wasted some of mine too. Surely you are familiar with Wikipedia's policy of WP:Verifiability? All claims need to be sourced, and if you do not provide citations for your claims to articles then you are in no position to complain about people reverting your actions. If you are capable of posting links on my talk page then there is nothing to prevent you doing it at the articles where you are adding these claims. Secondly, two of my reverts involved reverting your edits to the Ryan Day article in which you changed his nickname from "Dynamite" to "The Dynamite", and even the video you link to here shows clearly that his nickname is "Dynamite" not "The Dynamite"! So if you want to perceive editing Wikipedia as your "job" then please do it properly. Betty Logan (talk) 22:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

MPAA Rating Wording is Incorrect

The wording on the MPAA Ratings were incorrect. Cold War America has the ratings worded incorrectly. According to another book I read, Roadshow!: The Fall of Film Musicals in the 1960s :

1969-1970: G: Suggest for General Audiences (all ages) M: Suggested for Mature Audiences (parental discretion advised) R: Restricted. Persons under 16 not admitted unless accompanied by an adult. X: Persons under 18 will not be admitted.

1970-1972: G: All Ages Admitted (General Audiences) GP: All Ages Admitted (Parental Guidance Suggested) R: Restricted (Under 17 Requires Accompanying Parent or Adult Guardian) [MPAA uses this wording since 1970] X: No One Under 17 Admitted.

1972-1984: G: General Audiences (All Ages Admitted) PG: Parental Guidance Suggested (Some material may be inappopriate for children) R: Restricted (Under 17 Requires Accompanying Parent or Adult Guardian) X: No One Under 17 Admitted.

ACMEWikiNet (talk) 01:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

References

I have left a reply at Talk:Motion_Picture_Association_of_America_film_rating_system#MPAA_Rating_Wording_is_Incorrect. Let's keep the discussion there in case other editors wish to contribute. Betty Logan (talk) 02:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Olivia de Havilland

Hello, Betty. I hope you are doing well. I am preparing the Olivia de Havilland article for WP:FAC nomination and would appreciate any feedback if you have the time. You can add your comments to the peer review page. Regards, Bede735 (talk) 21:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

@Bede735: I'll make time for it, it looks fantastic. That said it will most likely be the weekend before I get around to it, so I hope that's ok. Betty Logan (talk) 02:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Betty. Your feedback at any point would be welcome. Bede735 (talk) 02:49, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Snooker Shootout should be changed to non ranking section

Hi Betty now that the Snooker Shootout has been upgraded to a Ranking event all previous editions should be changed to Non-ranking status and here is the reason why.Next season where will the Winner and Runner-up of the final be placed ?.The result will go into the Ranking finals section for both players am i right ?.you will not be putting the winner and runner up of the 2017 shootout in the variant finals section will you ?.if that is the case with the tournament being played to the same rules as in the previous 6 seasons,if it counts as a ranking final next year it should be a non-ranking final for the last 6 years.i have contacted World Snooker,Sportsradar who provide the data for live scores and snooker statisticians and they all view this as a non-ranking invitation event.its only a few people on here thet think differently.i hope to hear from you.regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.183.51 (talk) 17:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. World Snooker catgeorically classify the Shoot-Out as a "alternative form of snooker" in the rulebook, so that is how it should remain. An editor claiming to have contacted World Snooker is no substitute for the categorization they present in their rule book hosted on their own site. Betty Logan (talk) 18:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Betty in all fairness it does not call it a variant in that section at all,it is a bit like the shot clock in the premier league some different rules.i have a question for you.what section will you be placing the Winner and Runner-up of the 2017 shootout will you be placing them in a ranking event final section or a variant event final section ?.if you are placing it in the ranking final section then you have no argument at all to placing the previous 6 editions in the non-ranking section as it is played to exactly the same rules ? regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.183.51 (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

In all fairness that is your interpretation. The rule book does not call it a "non-ranking event". It calls it an "alternative form of snooker" and groups it with the 6-red format. The Masters is a non-ranking event but that isn't listed as an "alternative form of snooker". You seem to be under the misunderstanding that Wikipedia in some kind of snooker fansite. It is is not. Everything we put on here has to be verifiable through a source, and the source here is the rule book. Betty Logan (talk) 19:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to an online editathon

You are invited...
	Women in Entertainment worldwide online edit-a-thon Host: Women in Red June 2016 #wikiwomeninred

--Ipigott (talk) 10:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

Warcraft

Warcraft was just release today. How do you know it made $70 million when your a citizen like me. And the actual release according to its own Wiki page says it's released June 10th, 2016. $160 million is just the budge for the movie. Pirates Of The Caribbean made $ 365.5 Million box office with a lower budget like $150 million. So $70 Million is not really accurate if the movie isn't released yet.2602:30A:2E0D:8A50:49C0:16D6:9A4D:6D6A (talk) 01:45, 7 June 2016 (UTC)Razor19022602:30A:2E0D:8A50:49C0:16D6:9A4D:6D6A (talk) 01:45, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article says it made $70 million, and it uses this source: [5]. According to IMDB it was released last month: [6]. Betty Logan (talk) 07:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Film categories

Following the discussion at WT:FILM, please find the discussion here about umpmerging the year/genre film categories. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The Force Awakens

I see that you reverted my edit that The Force Awakens was out of theaters. I didn't see a place to reference this, but my information came from this site: http://uproxx.com/movies/star-wars-force-awakens-domestic-box-office/ TdanTce (talk) 17:40, 7 June 2016 (UTC)TdanTce

Your source is referencing the domestic box office whereas the article documents global box office. Box Office Mojo dates its figure to June 5, so I think it is reasonable to assume it is still playing overseas given that the last update was just two days ago and the figure is still being updated. Betty Logan (talk) 18:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Good point. For future reference, is there a standard way of determining when a movie is out of theaters? When BOM stops updating regularly? TdanTce (talk) 03:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)TdanTce

Box Office Mojo dates its foreign updates (usually on a weekly basis), so once they stop updating the date then it is porbbaly out of theaters. The highlighting doesn't need to be pulled off the minute it stops playing because it has two main purposes: to let readers know the gross is subject to change and to remind editors to check for updates. It is better to have a non-playing film highlighted rather than a playing film not highlighted and not getting updated. Betty Logan (talk) 09:57, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of highest-grossing films in the United Kingdom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spectre (film). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

James Bond

Appreciate your comment on SPS, but that is not correct. James Bond article should reference the Danger Man antecedent. I found the best ref I could of the connection. PLawrence99cx (talk) 20:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I have left comments at Talk:James Bond#Danger Man. Betty Logan (talk) 23:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

James Bond (film series)

Hi Betty, just fyi: I'm sure I'll be reverted on this shortly. – SchroCat (talk) 17:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Very bizarre, it basically duplicates another article. I've added it to my watchlist in case it escalates. Betty Logan (talk) 18:37, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Gone With the Wind Edits

The point I was trying to make is that Ellen suggested Savannah, and Scarlett refused it. Ellen then said, "well, Atlanta, then." At this point, Mammy gives Scarlett the evil eye. I think the prelude, of Savannah, suggested and rejected, aids understanding how Atlanta came to be selected.

As for Rhett's bid of $150 in gold, I think any reasonably educated person would know that $150 in gold was a large amount of money in 1862, and it just adds a bit of color to the article to specify the amount of the bid.

I know, I know, we don't need an article the size of Gone With The Wind.John Paul Parks (talk) 03:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that I don't think these details contribute all that much to an understanding of the overall story arc. Whether it's $100, $150, $200, I don' think it makes much difference; all we need to know is that the bid was a large sum of money and more than what anyone else was willing to pay for her. The same goes for Savannah; what matters is that the second act of the story takes place in Atlanta so it just needs to be clear in the plot summary that Scarlett goes to Atlanta. The plot summary is already over the recommended length so any further work undertaken on the plot summary should be aimed at tightening it up rather than expanding it. Betty Logan (talk) 03:56, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

List of films considered the best

Fair enough, I'll reference it better or drop the item. Thank you for reviewing my edits! gidonb (talk) 04:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

innapropriate

Hi , I find it highly innapropriate and rude that you would post about me and insult me for changing a genre on a film. I would have preferred if you would have gave reasoning as to why you feel the genre I added was incorrect rather than threaten to can my account and warn other users to watch my editing. I received your personal message about the genre and decided I would no longer change it and you still went on to post that message , I feel insulted and would kindly ask you remove that post. Hotndead (talk) 19:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

It is inappropriate to go around disrupting articles by altering genres. There is a name for this type of editor: genre warrior. Obviously legitimate editors sometimes have genuine disagreements over genre classifications and the proper way to resolve this is to start a discussion on the talk pages. Unfortunately you seem to be an SPA—a single-purpose account—that has made no contributions beyond modifying genres. Thus far your presence is wholly disruptive with no redeeming qualities. I would very much welcome being mistaken in this regard, but so far you have not provided me with a valid reason to retract my comments. Betty Logan (talk) 20:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Snooker Shootout

On the World Snooker website the above event is classed clearly as a 'Ranking Event'. Can you tell me where it is classed as a Ranking Variant ?. It clearly does not state this anywhere it is just called a Ranking event just like the world and UK championships. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.167.165 (talk) 12:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

It states it in the source I added. The official rule book states that Six-reds and Shoot-Out are "alternative forms of snooker". Betty Logan (talk) 14:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I have contacted World Snooker and they have told me they have defined the Shootout as a Non-ranking not a variant event from the period of 2011-2016. I want to forward it on to you to prove it. Is that ok ?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.194.37 (talk) 15:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not ok because that's not how Wikipedia works. If World Snooker have altered the rules of the event then they will update their rulebook in due course and the changes can be implemented then. Betty Logan (talk) 15:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with rule books the Premier league had different rules and it was always called a non-ranking event.you just seem to want to go with your opinion and not listen to anyone else even though they have painstakingly researched snooker events for no gain like I have done. For this event you have created it now as a 'Variant Ranking event' even though it clearly states on the World Snooker website it is just a 'Ranking event'.So with Wikipedia dealing in facts and we have it now as a written fact.we should go with world snooker since you are so happy to go with their rulebooks wouldn't you agree ?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.194.37 (talk) 15:41, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

World Snooker's site does not state "it is just a 'Ranking event'". It states it is a ranking event on its calendar and it states it also a variant event in its rule book. They are not mutually exclusive. And Wikipedia deals with verifiable sources, not "facts" as editors perceive them per WP:TRUTH. If World Snooker change teh rules for the Shoot Out then presumbly this will be clarified in advance and the article will be updated in due course. Betty Logan (talk) 16:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Betty Logan. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 22:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

David J Johnson (talk) 22:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Snooker world ranking points 2013/2014

You were reverting things faster than I could figure out. Takes two to edit war.

You cannot use Wikipedia as a reference. Cannot use Wikipedia as link when you are pointing to a particular version.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Snooker_world_ranking_points_2010/2011&oldid=477134565 1] is not allowed

[[Snooker world ranking points 2010/2011|1]] is allowed.

Articles evolve... errors get corrected, new info is added, vandalism is removed.

Majority of times I see these its because someone put bad info or vandalized a particular version. I check for new ones everyday and fix them. There are no cases except when the article is talking about a specific version. Jimbo said on his talk page is an example. Bgwhite (talk) 23:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I think you probably still don't understand the purpose of these links. They are not being used as sources. They are being used as a frozen snapshot of the rankings at that time: [[Snooker world ranking points 2010/2011|1]] is pointless because all it does is link to teh current version of the article i.e. rankings at the end of the season. By removing them all you are doing is depriving readers of seeing how the players were ranked at that time. If permalinked versions of articles are prohibited in articles then I would like to see a policy stating that as a fact. Betty Logan (talk) 23:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

The lead -- attractiveness as part of notability

Hey, Betty. When you get a good chance, I'd greatly appreciate you weighing in on this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:42, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriate conduct

It takes two people to edit war, Betty, and given your rude, officious and petty conduct revealed on your history (including this talk page) it's clear who started this - YOU. Articles are not your exclusive property and it is the format on the vast majority of film articles on Wikipedia to include both a plot summary and a cast list. Please be consistent about formatting, and go to every film page on the site, and edit the cast lists. You seem to have plenty of time on your hands. Prestbury+2000 (talk)

It is the editor who reverts a revert who starts an edit war, and you started edit-warring with another editor over the same issue before I became embroiled in this. You have now reverted THREE editors over teh same issue, so maybe that should tell you something. I suggest you review WP:BRD and participate in discussions if you wish to initiate sweeping changes to articles. Betty Logan (talk) 21:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Adding a simple cast list to an article is making a "sweeping change"??? Posted on the article talk page: Again, separate sections for plot and cast is ***established practice*** on this site, even for advanced articles, including featuring notable names (whether in Italian genre cinema, or otherwise). Just about every other Fulci film on this site has a separate plot summary and cast list. Also, the separate sections are more aesthetically pleasing. I'm sitting here laughing, thinking how outrageously petty and insular this is.... If you're attempting to chase new people off this site with your attitude, you're doing a good job. Prestbury+2000 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Just another point.... it is YOU who is edit-warring - over nothing - as you have followed me across this site and deliberately reverted edits I have made to films across a number of genres, while all I've done is to add some consistency to the articles. It is YOU who is trying to impose a particular practice, it is YOU who does not participate in discussions and simply reverts the edits of others (read your own edit history). Prestbury+2000 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

And while I'm on a roll.... check out this little gem from you above: "It is inappropriate to go around disrupting articles by altering genres. There is a name for this type of editor: genre warrior. Obviously legitimate editors sometimes have genuine disagreements over genre classifications and the proper way to resolve this is to start a discussion on the talk pages. Unfortunately you seem to be an SPA—a single-purpose account—that has made no contributions beyond modifying genres. Thus far your presence is wholly disruptive with no redeeming qualities. I would very much welcome being mistaken in this regard, but so far you have not provided me with a valid reason to retract my comments. Betty Logan (talk) 20:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)"

Your arrogance, insularity and rudeness is utterly appalling. Prestbury+2000 (talk)

I'm afraid it is "your arrogance, insularity and rudeness" which is "utterly appalling". Your have already passed the 3RR rule, which could see you blocked from editing. You appear to be a new editor and are certainly not following Wikipedia conventions: comment on content and not other editors and discuss on article Talk page. Please reconsider your attitude and comments now. Thank you, David, David J Johnson (talk) 21:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

AGAIN, David, I have displayed absolutely none of those behaviours, and adding a simple cast list to achieve consistency in formatting across the board (whether others disagree with it or not) is hardly "making sweeping, unilateral changes" as Betty Logan attests. I realise that there are some individuals for whom Wikipedia is more or less their life, but this small-minded approach is just ridiculous and I simply cannot be bothered. Interesting that you recommend contributing to a talk page when editors like Betty Logan simply arbitrarily revert edits with no prior discussion. In other words, the two of you are projecting like mad. Your behaviour is laughable, and the above "genre warrior" tirade from BL shows just how far up his/her own anus, he/she really is. Editing articles (indeed, I've created two in basic form) might have been fun, but if you're going to have to deal with this nonsense just for adding a cast list and then revert edits from the likes of Betty Logan because they are petty and facile (which they are), then forget it. Prestbury+2000 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Treating WikiP as a battleground is not the way to go P. Your personal attacks do nothing to further your arguments and you will want to read WP:ASPERSIONS before proceeding further. You should also learn to sign your posts as well. MarnetteD|Talk 22:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

God, grow up Prestbury+2000. It's been a long time since I have seen such an infantile hissy fit on Wikipedia. You have made edits to multiple articles that three editors have opposed, so it's not just me. If you had followed WP:BRD and had discussed the issue with the first editor who reverted you like an adult chances are you would never have encountered me. After a third editor reverted you really should have stopped reverting and taken on board the point that not all articles have to be structured the same. If you plan to stick around on Wikipedia then you are going to have to drop the attitude. Betty Logan (talk) 22:26, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Spirited Away

Dear Betty,

You removed my comment about "Spirited Away" because it was "unsourced." Apart from the fact that I'm in the film industry and am a member of ASIFA, my information is correct and the source is my own two ears and my own two eyes--I saw the subtitled version when it played the now-defunct Beverly Center. Further, I confirmed with a friend at Disney that this was done here and in other cities because they were planning an Academy campaign and knew that many members were picky about seeing foreign films--even animated ones--in their original language. I do not add items lightly and without absolute conviction that they are factual, and this should be restored.

Best, Michael Schlesinger aka Cadavra8Cadavra8 (talk) 17:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't doubt you, but on Wikipedia we documented published fact, not things we know are true. Please review WP:TRUTH. 21:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, but this raises an interesting question. I thought one of the purposes of Wikipedia was to be a source of information that was not readily available elsewhere--and by extension, things that are not "written down" elsewhere. If something is not worthy of publication unless it's "written down" elsewhere, then aren't you merely duplicating the effort? I once had a truly Kafka-esque exchange with an editor who insisted that a film being released on DVD as well as being listed on the IMDb was not proof that the film existed. I'm well aware of "Truth" but sometimes a thing simply hasn't been documented because there was no reason for it until there was one. (You may recall the scene in "A Few Good Men" where Tom Cruise asks a sailor how he knows where the mess hall is if it's not written down in the handbook. He replies that he didn't need to read where it is; he simply followed everyone else.) Rules must be obeyed, yes, but if they become too rigid, they ultimately can become harmful.

Thanks for your attention, Mike aka Cadavra8Cadavra8 (talk) 00:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

All Wikipedia does is duplicate content from other places. It is a "centralization" project, in that it collects information from many different sources and presents it in a single place. This is all any encyclopedia does. You won't find content in encyclopedias that is not available elsewhere. Betty Logan (talk) 00:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Historical romance

Do you think it actually means a romantic work with a period setting? Or does it mean something else? Based on your answer, this category may also have to be reworked. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I am slightly confused by your question. What else would it mean, other than a romance film with a period setting? Betty Logan (talk) 16:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I mean that at first I thought "romance" here may mean love-related. But Wiktionary describes a "romance" as a "story relating to chivalry; a story involving knights, heroes, adventures, quests, etc". So I thought I misinterpreted "historical romance". Similarly, scientific romance does not mean a science fiction love story; instead, it is an archaic term for science fiction. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, I see where you are coming from. Yes, I am familiar with the archaic definition of "scientific romance" and I did not realize there was a "historical romance" equivalent. I agree this is a problem because we are conflating definitions. Maybe the category needs to be changing to "Historical romantic drama films" or "period romance films" to distinguish them from the more archaic term? I think you should perhaps raise this issue at WT:FILM since it's a categorization problem and could affect quite a few films. Betty Logan (talk) 17:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Studio name

This IP is changing the name of the studio. --Marvellous Spider-Man 01:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

The editor has been blocked and the edits reverted. Just for future reference, even though I am very opinionated I am not actually an admin and cannot block editors. If this happens again report the offending IP at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Betty Logan (talk) 22:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Just so you know

Hi BL. I know your watchlist will have made you aware of the stuff on the talk page for the list of children's films talk. I wanted to let you know that I did get this filed before heading off to sleep. If I left anything out please feel free to add to the report. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 05:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Harry Potter films

The Harry Potter films you claim are child friendly are almost all rated PG-13, 12, M, PG-12, 14 in Brazil, Peru, Chile, etc, are not marketed to kids (they're marketed to teens and adults, a far more mature audience than films like Star Wars, which has sippy cups and Disney Channel cartoons, and Marvel, which has the same, yet you won't allow any of those films on the list,) and they're all flagged on Allmovie for violence. So why do you keep insisting that these are films for kids? Fantastic Beasts isn't marketed to kids at all, is rated PG-13, and has a main cast of adults.

These films don't belong on this list, and I've noticed that you have had problems with this before, but at least can we use better sources like text and the like. I've read numerous online periodicals and texts on Google books about Children's film and literature, and almost all of them mention The Hunger Games, Star Wars, the Superhero genre...I don't know why Harry Potter has to be the odd one out, sitting amongst films like "Babe: Pig in the City" and "Despicable Me". I mean, do you seriously think Fantastic Beasts is marketed to the same audience as "Finding Dory"? It's not, so it shouldn't be on this list. Sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heyman27 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I missed this since it was posted at the top of your page. I almost removed it but, as it is related to my post above, I thought I'd let you see it and then you can do with it what you will. MarnetteD|Talk 05:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I will leave some comments at the SPI. Betty Logan (talk) 14:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

European Open (snooker)

Hi, Betty! It's not the same thing. It is called the European Masters, according to http://www.worldsnooker.com/tournaments/european-championship-2016/. Please find me a RECENT source where they say it's the same with Malta Cup. Creepy pasta (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

The Malta Cup was the European Open while it was held in Malta. The European Masters is the European Open, and since it is no longer held in Malta then it has been rebranded for obvious reasons. Even the European Open url directs to the European Masters page: http://www.worldsnooker.com/tournaments/european-open-2016/ Rebranded tournaments are not uncommon in snooker. Betty Logan (talk) 16:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

It says European Championship, not European Open. Please provide source where it's said that. http://www.worldsnooker.com/tournaments/european-championship-2016/ It's only a supposition of yours. Until it isn't announced that, we should have own page. Sorry but this is the truth. Whenever they announce it, you can say it's European Open. No problema. Creepy pasta (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

The supposition is that World Snooker use the "European Open" name in one of the urls that takes you to the European Masters page. If it were not regarded as the European Open then they would not do that. Betty Logan (talk) 17:07, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

But that redirects now to the European Championship. First, it was announced in the Romanian press that it's called European Championship, now it's billed as European Masters. http://www.worldsnooker.com/tournaments/european-open-2016/ -> http://www.worldsnooker.com/tournaments/european-championship-2016/. There is no European Open anymore. Moreover, I think she should have a clear source about it's lineal. Creepy pasta (talk) 18:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Imo we shouldn't link this yet to the European Open. Because we could be wrong. Let's link it after if they announce this. Creepy pasta (talk) 18:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Current champions, they say: NONE. Not Shaun Murphy. http://www.worldsnooker.com/tournaments/european-championship-2016/ Creepy pasta (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Wiki loves women montly contest- September

	Wiki Loves Women- Monthly Contest (September)!
	Hello, this is to notify you about a monthly article writing contest organized by Wikimedia User Group Nigeria in collaboration with Wiki Loves Women to increase the coverage of Nigerian women on Wikipedia! The theme for the month of September is Women in Entertainment. See the contest page here. Thank you. Delivered: 12:52, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Pete's Dragon

The film has now made over $113 million.[7] I just don't see how it could've lost over $64 million on the page with the List of box office bombs. That number might be smaller now, but it couldn't be that high. Sb1990 (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

It looks like a very reasonable projection to me, based on the fact that the studio only collects half the box office and summer blockbsuters usually cost in excess of $100 million to market. For instance, Rise of the Guardians grossed $306 million on a budget of $145 million and Dreamworks filed a writedown of $87 million. Either way, we don't have an editorial prerogative to disagree with sources. If there are other sources out there proclaiming it a hit or saying that it won't lose money then we can use those to update the article. Betty Logan (talk) 17:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Re:AN/I

I'm posting here because, barring further input, I think that thread has run its course. However, I think I owe you any updates with regard to the situation. At this point all I would be able to do would be threaten sanctions and I don't believe that would help reach anyone's definition of success. I agree that the matter merits monitoring and I will make an effort to do so. Another editor has reached out to the user in question and I'd like to wait for any reaction. I also am of the mind that even good faith attempts can be disruptive and I would expect the user to respond to good faith inquiries. I believe this is the point that User:Iridescent was attempting to make. Admins can not make someone do something. At best, we can persuade folks that certain actions would be in their best interest. Experienced editors possess that same capacity, and in many instance the experienced editor has a better chance because the admin flag can alienate some users. I hope I can count on your help with this matter in the future. Thanks for your patience, Tiderolls 21:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

That's fine, I will assist in any way I can. I am ok with engaging with editors over specific edits or a specific article, but in this case I was taking issue with virtually every edit the editor had ever made so it just seemed it would benefit from more eyes. Betty Logan (talk) 21:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

AfD

FYI: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Masters (snooker), closure. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Edits at content ratings articles

Hello Betty Logan,

I don't really feel like reverting 126.155.0.231's motion picture color codes was really that necessary. All I feel that they did was a color merge, and I think after doing it a couple of times, I think they knew that it may be raising WP:ACCESSIBILITY issues with the contrast. Even though they knew that they might have been "edit-warring", they might not have known about the whole consensus building thing. What is was they did is this: 1. Changed the green to lime (All ages) 2. Changed the purple to brown (Prohibited) 3. Changed the blue to black (Adult content) 4. Changed the black to purple (Other) 5. Changed the purple to pink (Video game rating system, prohibited) I'm not exactly sure about what they were doing on the video game system, because red to pink to purple does not really get the whole color merge thing to feel very smooth. I wish they would tell us what it is they were doing. I hope this helps. 220.141.164.205 (talk) 07:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Non-notable awards

Hi, Betty. An issue has come up at Talk:List of accolades received by Star Wars: The Force Awakens, and I'm hoping you can help me track something down. Sometime in the last couple of years, WP:FILM reached consensus that non-notable awards, defined as those without Wikipedia articles, would not be included among film articles' accolades. Yet for the life of me, I can't find this specified in WP:FILM MOS. Do you have any recollection, and can you help find this? --Tenebrae (talk) 23:32, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I think I found it. We reached a consensus, though it wasn't a formal RfC. I've just addressed this at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#Formalizing a consensus we've been operating under if you'd like to take a look and maybe comment. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:05, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Screw you!

Screw you!, do that one more time, I will report you! 174.192.14.103 (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Can you be a bit more specific about how I have upset you? Betty Logan (talk) 20:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh I see, you are the editor making the changes at Who Framed Roger Rabbit. I have left comments at the talk page explaining the problem and I would appreciate it if you didn't delete them. All you have to do is provide a source that backs up the claims and I will be happy for you to reinstate them to the article. Betty Logan (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I was trying to fix it, but you kept on reverting it while I was trying to finish it! 174.192.14.103 (talk) 20:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

To be fair you already had an opportunity to fix the problem, but if you have the sources available now then please post them at the discussion I have started on the article talk page. If they check out we can add the information! Betty Logan (talk) 21:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Right, look... I'm sorry for losing my temper there, I didn't mean too. I just that sometimes when I fix sometime on an article, I get a little annoyed when some one reverts it back and forth over and over when I try to correct it. but no worries. By the way, if you have a chance, can you fix a mistake I found on there if that's ok? 2600:1000:B02C:4F18:151:AB49:3C3B:F856 (talk) 21:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Well sure, provided it is a mistake. If you want to make an actual content change obviously we need a source for it. Betty Logan (talk) 21:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

It's not that, I was trying to remove a typo in the one of the sources in the "Casting" section when it was added, and before he protected the article until October 26. The source next to "Sting" has an "f" in it by mistake, I was wondering if you can remove that typing mistake, please?, I was trying to remove that before it got protected. 174.192.23.237 (talk) 21:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

OK I've fixed the link. Betty Logan (talk) 21:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! =) 174.192.23.237 (talk) 21:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Color contrasting on content ratings articles

I have lately been using the snook.ca color contrast checker to check the contrast of the table colors in content ratings articles. So far very few of the combinations have met the WCAG 2.0 AA level. Is there any way that we could probably fix this without losing the color difference between pornographic films and normal "exclusive restriction" categories? In other words I am looking for an 8-color scheme to use in the articles with WCAG 2.0 AA compliant contrasting. I hope you can help me. SlitherioFan2016 (talk) 07:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Bond films

I want to know if it would be appropriate to add Weapon of Choice, which surely can't be the only fictional Bond film, and if there are more we could start a section of those. It was made in 1964 and starred Sean Connery, according to an episode of Timeless (TV series), and included characters based on people from that series who met Ian Fleming when they traveled back in time.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:06, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that would be more appropriate for a "James Bond in popular culture" section or article. Betty Logan (talk) 13:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Right, but where?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:12, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

It depends how much work you want to do. If you have enough material you can create an article like Cultural impact of Wonder Woman, but if all you've got is single item of information I would probably stick it in List of James Bond parodies and spin-offs. Betty Logan (talk) 18:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I looked at that but it won't work there. In the TV series it was a serious movie and one of the characters commented it might have been Connery's best work.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

It's not a serious movie because it doesn't exist! A TV show is parodying the Bond films, so the correct way to document the information is to list the TV show and explain how it parodies the Bond films. Betty Logan (talk) 22:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

That's not the definition of parody. I don't know how to make it clear that in the world of Timeless, it is a serious film. It looks like we just don't have an appropriate place for this information.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

It is irrelevant whether it is a "serious" film or not. As far as facts go it is simply a cultural reference and belongs on a list of cultural references, not on a list of James Bond films (which documents real media). If an appropriate article does not exist then you have two choices as I see it: i) consider whether a film that does not exist is notable enough to be documented on Wikipedia; ii) create an article that documentes cultural impact along the lines of Cultural impact of Wonder Woman. That article did not exist either until somebody actually discovered a need to create one. Betty Logan (talk) 18:20, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

This coming from

	This coming from
	Never mind the car? Where's the road? Road, road, road, road, road, road, road, oh, sonny. Jason elijah (talk) 04:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

John Higgins finals section

Betty someone has made a mess of Higgins non ranking wins section saying he has 20 non ranking wins when 17 are listed. Also a few runners up finishes are missing if I give you the info can you add them ?. As it is a locked page I cannot edit it ?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.254.106 (talk) 22:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Add it to the article talk page and I will take a look at it. Remember to include your sources though! Betty Logan (talk) 08:37, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Special Barnstar
		Thanks for your quick reply at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force. Very helpful and it's appreciated. Kaayay (talk) 06:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Contrast checker

At the talk page Motion picture rating system you stated you were using a color contrast checker to create the contrasting table. Would it be okay if I just asked which contrast checker you were using, and where did you find the contrast ratio? (e.g. 2.96, 1.11, 1.87 etc)

Please answer my question in the clearest way possible. That would be much appreciated. SlitherioFan2016 (talk) 07:17, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Shaun Murphy Non ranking event finals

Can you add a runner-up finishes to this section. Murphy was runner-up to Mary Gray in one of the early WPBSA Open Tour events in its first season. I can't edit it. Will you add it ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.207.12 (talk) 16:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done Betty Logan (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Betty can you change the finals total to 19 it's now 10 titles and 9 runners-up, you forgot to change it. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.160.241 (talk) 22:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Darth Vader

Hi, Betty Logan. Can you take a look at the Darth Vader article? While there are ongoing discussions at Talk:Darth Vader regarding the depiction section in the article and wordings and I've already asked around at WT:FILM and other users (such as User:EEMIV, User:Oknazevad and User:TAnthony) for their input on the article, I'm thinking if we can possibly work on the article as well to get it up to GA status and voice your thoughts about this. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Betty Logan. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 21 November

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

• On the Maximum break page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Re: Please don't alter reference formatting (List of highest-grossing films)

Yeah, that was the WYSIWG editor's doing. I guess it's buggy, I only changed article wording, to past tense. --Dqeswn (talk) 14:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed you did that as well and I don't have a problem with that. Reference formatting may seem like a non-issue but there are tons of references in that article and they are much easier to maintain/debug if they are formatted in the order they render, especially if I have to word search. Betty Logan (talk) 15:08, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Century Break

Please allow me at least a few minutes to correct my mistake without reverting the edits. MattSucci (talk) 16:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@MattSucci: That is what the "preview" button is for. If you wish to update the statistical data please make sure you provide sources and please also observe the editing notice which proscribes fansites (such as Cuetracker) and blogs (such as Prosnooker Blog). Betty Logan (talk) 16:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I apologise for not having checked the given references, I simply assumed they would have contained the correct info + I'm not the most capable of editors, but I do try my best and always in good faith :-) MattSucci (talk) 16:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I will add a more adapt ref.MattSucci (talk) 13:28, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

I have started a new Request for Comments as requested by you. I was wondering whether or not you would like to participate in the discussion. Thanks. --SlitherioFan2016 (talk • contribs) 06:01, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

• COMMENT It is possible to make an 8-color scheme accessible to the color blind. I have started a new RfC, and hopefully this one should run quite smoothly. I was only wondering whether you would like to post your opinion there. SlitherioFan2016 (talk • contribs) 06:16, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

• COMMENT A discussion that we left half-finished has been brought to my attention since the ANI notice. I was wondering if you would like to discuss with me there about the color scheme. I also added a new comment here and was wondering whether you would like to duscuss that with me as well. Cheers from SlitherioFan2016 (talk • contribs) 07:57, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

  The RFC was the discussion. The issue has been settled and there is a consensus to use the color scheme I proposed. Betty Logan (talk) 21:11, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Determining the country of production for TV series?

Hello Betty. I know that you work on fllm articles. Possibly TV as well? Have you seen any past debates like the one at Talk:The Crown (TV series)? They are discussing whether the series is British or American. One would think that this issue would have come up before and led to a guideline somewhere. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: These types of discussions come up all the time on film articles and some advice on resolving such disputes in this context can be found at Template:Infobox_film#Country. I will add some comments at the discussion to try and guide it in the right direction. Betty Logan (talk) 20:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you join this discussion

An editor has left a comment about motion picture rating colors. I invited you to do so because I can see that you are very good at choosing the right colors and color schemes for articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.96.61 (talk) 07:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

• COMMENT I have seen a proposed color scheme at the link provided above by 1.129.96.61. I was wondering whether you would like to join the discussion. SlitherioFan2016 (talk • contribs) 07:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Colours

Hi Betty I see you are very good at picking colours for tables. Would you like to join this discussion? I very much appreciate your help. Thx!!--120.17.58.180 (talk) 23:57, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

All the best for 2017!

Hello Betty Logan,
Enjoy the Winter Solstice and the Christmas and holiday season.
Thank you for all your good work during 2016 in maintaining, improving and expanding Wikipedia.
All the best for 2017! Cheers, — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  16:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Help with Twinkle

Would you mind helping me with reversions on Twinkle? Some of your edit summaries say "(Reverted to revision Number by User (talk) Your edit summary or reason for revert (TW)) and sometimes it says "(Reverted Number of Edits Reverted edits by User (talk) Your edit summary or reason for revert (TW)).

What causes each of the edit summaries? Think you can help me? SlitherioFan2016 (talk • contribs) 05:39, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Twinkle provide two types of revert: Rollback, which reverts the edits of a particular editor (and results in "Reverted X edits by...") and Restore, which reverts to a particular version (i.e. "Reverted to revision X...". Betty Logan (talk) 20:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

But see here, there is [rollback (AGF)], [rollback], and [rollback (VANDAL)]. When would I use each type of rollback? SlitherioFan2016 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Use normal rollback if you want to personalize the edit summary. Only use the vandal rollback if it is clear vandalism. I don't use the AGF rollback because it needs to be clear why you are rolling back the edits. Betty Logan (talk) 22:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! SlitherioFan2016 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

One more question, when I use the rollback tool, does it automatically revert all the consecutive edits of that contributor, or do I have to select the edit/s I want to revert? --SlitherioFan2016 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Merry

Season's Greetings, Betty Logan! At this wonderful time of year, I would like to give season’s greetings to all the fellow Wikipedians I have interacted with in the past! May you have a wonderful holiday season! MarnetteD|Talk 16:20, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• @Gareth Griffith-Jones and MarnetteD: Thanks chaps, you have a good one too! I suspect the annual madness will be keeping us all busy on here though... Betty Logan (talk) 04:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!

Hello Betty Logan: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, SlitherioFan2016 (talk • contribs) 07:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Season's Greetings!

Hello Betty Logan: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Tenebrae (talk) 09:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

• @Tenebrae: All the best, I hope you had a nice day. Betty Logan (talk) 13:23, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Color scheme consensus

Hello Betty,

Sorry to bother you, but I want to ask how is it I obtain a consensus first for the color schemes at content ratings artciles? My two attempts at an RfC were declined by you and you keep telling me to gain consensus before altering the scheme. I feel confused by this and I just want to know what to do. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year from SlitherioFan2016 (talk • contribs) 10:49, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @SlitherioFan2016: You may discuss (at the article's talk page), but what we do not want is yet another RfC; and what we certainly do not want is for you to make multiple changes to the article without prior discussion - whether you self-revert or not. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:39, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:49, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Back at you Bzuck...hope you had a nice xmas! Betty Logan (talk) 10:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Admin of Content rating systems

Shall I know what are your favorite Talk Pages?--207.204.187.102 (talk) 18:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Betty Logan, do you think that 207.204.187.102 (talk) and SlitherioFan2016 (talk · contribs) might be related? --Redrose64 (talk) 21:39, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

There has been a lot of suspicious IP activity on this class of articles that coincided with SlitherioFan's arrival, but in this particular case I don't see a shared MO or any common edits between Slitherio and the IP. I am keeping my eye on it though :) Betty Logan (talk) 10:36, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Redrose64 What are you talking about?--207.204.175.249 (talk) 16:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)