Jump to content

User talk:Betty Logan/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Welcome!

Hello, Betty Logan! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing!dougweller (talk) 05:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous


It's alright

No hard feelings. We all make mistakes, and that's why we have talk pages. In fact I probably make more mistakes than most regular editors. Keep an eye on the article. I believe it can grow into a great one, with great pictures too. Aditya(talk • contribs) 12:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

And, if possible, can you help me find images of other types of waxing? Aditya(talk • contribs) 12:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for being understanding. I have had a look for public domain images but couldn't find any, so short of getting a wax myself and photographing it...I will keep looking though. Betty Logan (talk) 14:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Project-level

If you are serious about including dietary information on all beer articles, I would suggest going to Wikipedia:WikiProject Beer and work out a standard as to its inclusion. If your sources are considered reliable enough there, that would at least centralize any discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Hoegaarden products

I have nominated Hoegaarden products, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoegaarden products. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. dougweller (talk) 20:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

January 2009

Please stop. If you continue to introduce inappropriate pages to Wikipedia, such as Hoegaarden products, you will be blocked from editing. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 20:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It is obvious that you copied a section from the Hoegaarden Brewery article for the single purpose of re-adding information to the encyclopedia that have previously been rejected by the community. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, meaning that you need to work with other editors on the talk pages of articles to achieve consensus before adding controversial information. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 21:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
How has it been rejected by the community exactly? No-one is actually willing to discuss it on the discussion page. I don't see that a consensus has been reached do you? Betty Logan (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Unless community consensus is that the information should be added to the article the only alternative is the status quo until the consensus is shifted. After information is removed from the article for the first time, a discussion needs to be initiated on the article's talk page. I've reviewed the information that you're adding and agree that the Hoegaarden Brewery article is the place where that information should be. The problem that people seem to have are the sources that you are providing. Let's go over to the talk page for the article and see if we can find out why these sources are being rejected. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 21:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
The sources on the Hoegaarden products article that was just deleted had different sources. I changed them when I transferred the product information over. I used the Vegetarian Society for that article. Would that be an acceptable source? Betty Logan (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I pulled the new sources and reworked paragraph from the other article and added them to the talk page of Hoegaarden Brewery for discussion. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 21:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Well thanks. I'm not an unreasonable person but no-one would say why the information was irrelevant, where it should go or why the sources weren't reliable. It was frustrating. I still think the sources were ok since they were effectively 'press releases', but the Vegetarian Society is probably a much stronger reference with it being an independent and national organisation Betty Logan (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
You're very welcome. I noticed immediately that while there was all of this edit warring going on that there was very little discussion about it, and it was quite clear that you were just frustrated with the whole situation. I don't think that the main problem with the information was that it is irrelevant. It's definitely relevant and worth having in the article. Some of the original reversions of your addition cited WP:RS as a reason, which is valid, as the original sources that you provided did not meet that guideline. Anyway, it looks like we have things headed in the right direction now. I feel I should ask, though, how familiar are you with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies on content such as WP:V, WP:N, WP:RS, etc? If you're not, as a new editor you should definitely give those a read and perhaps look over WP:5 as well. Let me know if you have any questions! Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 21:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm a new registered editor, although I have contributed to Wikipedia for most of 2008 as just an IP number, but that changes so it is impossible to keep track of anything you want to do on a wider scale so I thought it best to register. I will look over the links - I have been coming across many of the guidelines in recent days. My intentions are sincere in that I want to add information that I think will be useful to people and that they can have confidence in where it has come from. I'm just happy that there's finally a discussion so thanks for your assistance.Betty Logan (talk) 22:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Beer style, you will be blocked for vandalism. Removing or re-wording others' talk page comments is a HUGE no-no. You're already on thin ice. May want to be a little smarter with your editing. Tool2Die4 (talk) 21:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You're confusing me now. I haven't altered anyone's wording on their talk pages. You're going to have to explain more carefully what I'm supposed to have done. Betty Logan (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Right here. You can't just revert someone's addition because you don't like it. Tool2Die4 (talk) 21:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
His comments were in the wrong section. I started the head count for a vote. I'm not stopping him putting his comments elsewhere, just in the voting section. Betty Logan (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Still, the most you should have done was move the comment to the correct section, but you removed it outright. Also, Wikipedia works on consensus, not voting. Please read WP:VOTE when you have some time. Let me know if you have any questions and I will be happy to assist! Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 21:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Thankyou. I didn't realise it would be a problem. I guess I should have put it somewhere so I readily accept I'm at fault here but it wasn't a malicious attempt to deny him voicing his opinion. I will be more careful in future. I'm aware that votes don't count but they do help to summarise opinion.Betty Logan (talk) 21:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I just realized that you haven't been properly welcomed!

Welcome!

Hello, Betty Logan, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Finally, I know it can be incredibly frustrating learning all of the rules and customs, written and otherwise. If you need some help or advice, feel free to let me know! – ClockworkSoul 00:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hoegaarden product info

I would initiate a discussion on the article talk page and get people of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Beer involved. - Mgm|(talk) 10:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou. This is an issue that clearly needs to be resolved for all the beer articles so I will bring it up there. Betty Logan (talk) 13:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Your comments on talk:Beer style

Betty Logan, the statement you just made about user:Mikebe were over the line for personal attacks. I know you tend not to agree with positions -- I don't necessarily agree with what he says all the time either -- and you've locked horns with him on other articles (e.g. Hoegaarden), but unless you have some concrete evidence not to assume good faith then it's not appropriate to accuse him of having an agenda -- and even if you do, attacking him on the talk page isn't the right way to do it. --Killing Vector (talk) 01:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't seem like much of a personal attack to me... – ClockworkSoul 02:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
She was commenting derogatorily on the contributor not the content; that's a prima facie personal attack. --Killing Vector (talk) 06:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. I thought you (Betty Logan) had understood that we expect editors to be civil and assume good faith WP:AGF. I suggest you strike through your comments there. dougweller (talk) 07:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
How can you assume good faith when this sort of thing is going on:
  1. Talk:Beer_Judge_Certification_Program and [1]
  2. [2]
  3. [3]
  4. [4]
  5. [5]
In these edits Mikebe has removed references to BJCP. His edits on the beer styles article are clearly not limited to just the consideration of that article. I find his motivations questionable.Betty Logan (talk)
Of all the links you showed, why don't you tell people how many were reverted? The answer is none. Why? Because they were all legitimate edits.
Then we have the case of someone who has never written, edited or contributed to a beer article arguing about beer styles on the beer style talk page. Yes, that would be you, Betty. I find your motivations questionable. Mikebe (talk) 16:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

With regard to your recent contribution to Talk:Beer style, I find I must again object to your characterization. I am not a "partial editor", and declaring me to be so does not assume good faith; furthermore the set of people who support inclusion of the link do not own the idea of "impartiality". You are aware that this discussion is not "Mikebe versus everyone else"; treating it as such helps nothing and is unfair to Mikebe, to me, and to everyone else. --Killing Vector (talk) 19:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You are partial in the sense you are a regular beer article editor. That isn't a criticism - it would be the equivalent of me having a particular view on a snooker article. As regular editors on certain articles we approach them with an agenda. I am an impartial editor on the beer article, you would be impartial on the snooker articles. That's why we have the RFC system so impartial, objective opinions can be canvassed in such disputes. Betty Logan (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

You should attempt to discuss the dispute on the talk page with the editor involved before using WP:3O, so I removed it.--Otterathome (talk) 23:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

3rd opinion

Otterathome was wrong to remove your request for a third opinion. If you need one, let me know. Dlohcierekim 02:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, the article has been stable today so I will see how it goes :) Betty Logan (talk) 03:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud

I'm not selectively ignoring edits. I just didn't see that revision. Personally, I do prefer BCE, yes, but I don't go around changing it, I was just maintaining what I thought was the status quo, and I have not done anything to make you think I am editing in bad faith. --Killing Vector (talk) 15:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I will give you the benefit of the doubt this time. Betty Logan (talk) 02:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Embassy

If articles on encyclopedic topics are below the acceptable standard they should be improved, not deleted. Given your inexperience on Wikipedia I would suggest that you take time to understand the guidelines here before trying to apply them or offering advice on them to other editors. Please acquaint yourself with the Speedy deletion guidelines before tagging any more perfectly encyclopedic articles for speedy deletion. And please take time to look at other editors' contributions before reverting them.--Michig (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Well to be fair the article was created by someone who created lots of fake articles and none of it was sourced. My reasoning was that it was better to delete the article and leave the way for a fresh one. As it is it has had to be completely re-written and sourced so it's only the same article in name only. Unfortunately none of the other editorial contributions included references so the problems with the article had not been resolved in the interim. I wasn't prepared to work through it myself, and if you check the author's record it is virtually 100% vandalism so the alternatives were to leave unsourced possibly fake facts on the article, delete it all and leave a stub, or delete the article completely. Betty Logan (talk) 20:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Which editor are you accusing of vandalism? User:Arsenal 7192 who created a one-line article, User:Paste or User:Puddinglovessausage, who both expanded the article, or all of them? The article hasn't been completely rewritten since you tagged it for deletion by any means. If your concern was lack of references, you should have added an {{Unreferenced}} tag and allowed time for this to be addressed - deletion is only appropriate when the subject of an article is not appropriate for this encyclopedia. Speedy deletion is only appropriate when one of the accepted speedy deletion criteria is met.--Michig (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
It is not acceptable for an article to be completely unsourced. The information shouldn't be added in the first place. Reference tags are primarily there for when facts need to be resourced after links die but were referenced originally, or for facts which are regarded as general knowledge but should still technically be sourced, or when a pre-existing reference isn't ideal and really should be replaced. It's not a free-for-all for people to write what they want and then leave the sourcing for someone else to do. Here are some tips for you: i) was there a reference that did work but not now? if so then a citation marker would by some time for another reference to be found; ii) is the reference a questionable source, but considered to be reasonably reliable? if so then another reference needs to be found, but removing the information wouldn't really be in the interests of the article at this point when there is an indication it is true/accurate; iii) is the information general knowledge i.e. all the editors of the article agree it is true but there is no reference? if so then a reference is probably easy to find, but a reference marker will suffice until then; iv) is the information unsourced, has never been sourced, and not generally known to be true or not? if so then the information should be removed from the article and should never have been put in! Hope this helps :) Betty Logan (talk) 21:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
"It is not acceptable for an article to be completely unsourced" - that's why the {{Unreferenced}} template exists. Please feel free to use it.--Michig (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


Grand Prix 1995 (snooker)

Hi Betty. I've declined the speedy deletion request on that article as the incorrect information on that page can be easily corrected using this source, and reinstated the previous version's headings minus the incorrect information (unfortunately I don't have the time to insert the correct information myself). It should be noted that CSD:G3 only applies to blatant vandalism and hoaxes, not articles containing incorrect info. I'll keep an eye on the guy who created that article, and if necessary report him at WP:ANI or block him. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 15:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Ken Doherty

Please do not revert this edit regarding his cue, his website states in clearly in the Frequnelty Asked Questions, his site does not allow a direct page opening on FAQ, so go to the linked source given and then click on FAQ and there are about six small FAQ and the issue of his warped cue it there. Tommyxx (talk) 13:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You must provide a proper reference. If you can't link to the page directly you must include the section details as part of the reference so people can find the information, like people include page numbers in book references. Betty Logan (talk) 15:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I am editing in Good faith and am trying to put the reference link in, but am having difficulty, would would mind assisting please, have tried to follow Tommyxx (talk) 11:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Betty, looks great,Tommyxx (talk) 14:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

The Original Barnstar
Thank you for enforcing Wikipedia's verifiability policy! Chillum 00:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou :) Betty Logan (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppets on beer articles

Hi Betty, regarding the recent wave of reversions on Pale Ale and other beer articles, it's very likely that the user in question is a serial sockpuppet related to the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jojojohnson2/Archive case, which is the latest in a long string of verified sockpuppets doing these reversions. It's separate from the content dispute with those articles. --Killing Vector (talk) 20:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Well thanks for letting me know. I will make sure I check the article histories before making reverts. The most important thing is that the articles remain stable regardless of everyone's stance on this issue. Personally I don't think there will ever be a consensus on the BJCP issue, so it's probably best that the link isn't added to already existing articles, they are left on if they are already there, and left to the discretion of the author on new articles.
With the Beer styles article, I think the best solution there would be to include a section on some of the practical applications of beer styles, such as competitions and homebrewing and mention the BJCP in that context. That way the BJCP are only namechecked in a particular application in a particular context, and not as an authority on 'defining' beer styles. Betty Logan (talk) 22:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Pale ale

I notice you've been adding links to the BJCP again against the agreements made. Please don't restart edit warring when we'd finally got some stability in the beer articles. It's particularly irritating as you've never contributed to any of the articles yourself, except to mess with BJCP links. Patto1ro (talk) 19:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus, just you and Mikebe persisting in the systematic removal of the links. Until there is consensus on the issue the links shouldn't be removed from existing articles, and they shouldn't be added to existing articles. I suggest you refrain from edit warring until the BJCP problem is resolved. Betty Logan (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Mike was reverting new BJCP links that someone had added and was restoring the staus quo. Isn't that what had been agreed?Patto1ro (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
If that is the case then I won't restore the links, and won't for the moment. But I will be checking the article histories to make sure that the edit warring wasn't triggered off by the removal of the links. It's probbaly best if Mikebe refrains from making such edits given his history.Betty Logan (talk) 20:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

You wrote on my talk page: "Consider this a warning, and I hope I do not have to take further action." Who do you think you are? Why are you making threats to me? Mikebe (talk) 20:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not threatening you so please don't twist my words. I have caught you in the past removing teh BJCP links from articles and until there is a consensus that counts as vandalism. I am someone who thinks the articles should be run through agreement, and not by a cartel of bullies. Betty Logan (talk) 20:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I've checked through the articles and the BJCP has never been included as an external link on the Pale ale article so I will support your reverts on that article. The Rye beer article is a diferent story. The BJCP link was on the article for almost 18 months until Mikebe removed it without explanation. Considering he pursues an agenda of removing all BJCP links then the BJCP status on the article should be returned to how it was before his edit, since it his actions that have motivated an edit war on this issue. Betty Logan (talk) 21:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you mind me asking what your interest is in the BJCP? For someone who has never edited beer articles you seem quite attached to the organisation. Are you a homebrewer yourself? And what of your interest in beer. Do you belong to any organisations or have you studied beer? I'm a published beer writer and historian, member of the Britsh Guild of Beer Writers, CAMRA and many other beer consumers' groups, and have judged beers for Tesco and Beers of the World. Oh, and I'm writing a history of British beer styles in conjunction with the Further Education Director of the BJCP.Patto1ro (talk) 08:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Betty. I guess you must be very busy. I've explained who I am and my motivation. It would be nice if you could answer my questions. They do seem quite relevant to the current debate.Patto1ro (talk) 14:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not attached to the organisation, and I am not a homebrewer, and yes I am busy. I could similarly ask why you take issue against the organisation, but it's pretty clear that you won't concede any ground on this issue so it's pointless going in circles. Ultimately many editors feel that linking to the BJCP is valid and some editors disagree and there is seemingly no middle ground. Whatever your stance on the issue your view isn't any more valid than theirs and theirs isn't more valid than yours, so I feel that the only course of action here is to leave the decision to include or exclude the BJCP links to the discretion of the article authors - after all these articles are their work... Betty Logan (talk) 15:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thomas Edison

I noticed you removed a category showing Edison was a vegetarian, due to a lack of refs. I checked Google Books and found this 1908 biography that said when he felt "a little run down" after eating a lot of meat, he "turns vegetarian for a spell, returning to meat again when he finds it is necessary." There were also periods when he supposedly lived on milk and apple pie (yum!). So unles someone starts a "part-time vegetarian" category you performed a valuable service in removing the claim that he was exclusively vegetarian. Maybe someone could find a ref that he later gave up meat entirely, but the proof is up to those making an assertion.He was 61 years old in 1908, so his most productive years were when he ate meat at least some of the time. Another source from 1913, when he was 66, said "Mr. Edison has almost entirely eliminated meats." "Almost" falls short of justifying the categorization. Thanks again. Edison (talk) 15:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Quinten Hann

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Quinten Hann. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Tiptoety talk 22:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

That is some curious counting there. I see only one revert in the last 24 hours on that page by Betty. Considering the edit being reverted was the removal of sourced information by a a single purpose account I don't think Betty did anything wrong. Chillum 02:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Right, I was under the impression the warning template had been re-written to not specify so much 3RR as WP:EDITWAR. Also, at the time I issued the above warning, the other party had not been blocked. Tiptoety talk 03:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
It looks to me like just cleaning up after a non communicative single purpose account(read sock puppet) removed cited material without explanation. I suppose it could be seen as edit warring, but I don't think it is productive to do so. Disruptive edits by drive by users do need to be reverted after all. Chillum 04:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, it looks like I may have made a mistake here. I did look at the content of the revisions, but obviously not in enough debt. Like Chillum stated below, please ensure that you use better edit summaries in the future to avoid a similiar situation. Sorry for all the mess this has caused. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 05:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Advice

When reverting the action of a sockpuppet of a person who has previously been blocked it is good to use an edit summary like "Reverting disruptive edit by a blocked user using a sockpuppet to evade block". This makes it very clear to people who have not investigated the situation that you are not simply reverting blindly. I have seen you do a lot of good work enforcing policy, and I have also seen more than a few users be misunderstood while doing this sort of important work.

Keep up the good work, and don't get discouraged(or distracted) by this stuff. Chillum 05:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the support Chillum. I did take the issue up on the administrators board, and if I did handle it wrong then fair enough. I saw red earlier and maybe I've been too harsh on Tiptoety, but it would have been nice of Tiptoety to be more forthcoming about how it should have been handled. If I was just reverting then he'd have a strong point, but I had pursued other avenues, reporting the vandal for 3RR violations, applying for semi-protection and even tracking down sources for some of his claims, so what has infuriated me was that I was trying other things to make the article stable. I'm not particularly precious about the article, it's not even a great article, it's just that the edits were ridiculous. I had cut my reverts back to one a day as well so the article at least started the day in its pure form. The 3RR rule also prohibits edit warring so I appreciate that you can warn people who don't violate the rule, but the terms of the rule do clearly state that it doesn't apply to obvious vandalism. Anyway, the accounts have been banned, so hopefully that dispute is done and dusted. The Vegetarian list is coming along now, all unsourced names have been removed and I've started checking and copying across the sources. If I don't get banned we'll have a well-sourced list inthe next week or so!Betty Logan (talk) 05:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I was subject to a similar misunderstanding with an administrator when I was much newer here(I went by Until(1 == 1) back then). The administrator in question then was much more aggressive and rude. My enforcement of the sourcing requirements in an article was misinterpreted as disruptive editing. Sometimes people forget the spirit of the policy and get caught up in things. It passes. Chillum 05:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I've had a few conflicts and every single one has been about sourcing. It's hard getting the balance right I guess, especially on articles with lots of details, but I suppose every single factual detail should ultimately be able to be verified either through references or external links. Not everyone sees it that way though so these disputes will keep coming up, you've just got to stand your ground. Maybe I over-reacted tonight, but it actually got me the perfect result! Betty Logan (talk) 06:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Your comments at ANI

I have to say I'm very impressed with your behaviour at ANI. You managed to keep calm and be rational throughout the discussion, even though it was not to your advantage. You also accepted that you may be wrong and didn't go about shouting that you were perfectly innocent while the other guy was violating rules. We don't often see this kind of behaviour around here.

Chamal talk has given you a dove! Doves promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day happier. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a dove, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past (this fits perfectly) or a good friend. Cheers!

Spread the peace of doves by adding {{subst:Peace dove}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

BTW, the three revert rule and edit warring are different, though not unrelated. Hope to see you around Chamal talk 13:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Snooker nicknames

Thanks for all your work on this list, Betty. That's a lot of references, it's looking much better now. I have no patience for snooker websites myself, so I must commend your heroic effort! Good work! Flowerparty☀ 13:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Flowerparty, most of the links came from the same few sites so it was fairly painless to do. The worst ones are when you have to go on a scavenger hunt looking for refs. Betty Logan (talk) 20:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

OK

OK, I didn't know that. But not flag icons. WP:MOSICON. --Maru-Spanish (talk) 14:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, flag icons too. All the player articles use flag icons, so by changing it for just a few the articles become inconsistent. If you think the icons are being misused on the snooker player articles you need to take the case up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Snooker since it affects all the snooker articles. If everyone else agrees then they need to be changed for the entire Snooker project. Betty Logan (talk) 20:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, OK, that Wikiproject seems to be a sect LOL. --Maru-Spanish (talk) 01:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Judd Trump/English

I've left a comment at the talk page per your request. Actually, it's more of a question, as I'm not familar with or a member of the project, so I'm unsure as to the guidelines. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 14:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

SA flag and Perrie Mans

Please see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(icons)#Do_not_rewrite_history. The flag he played under was not the modern flag of SA. NB the flag is correctly rendered in List of World Snooker Champions. --Dweller (talk) 15:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The correct usage in the case of a 'dated' event would be to use the flag that represented him at that time. The 'old' style flag is the correct usage for the 1978 world championship. However, since Perrie Mans is a living South African citizen, the flag that represents him as a person is the current one so the current flag should be used on things like his profile, and lists etc. Betty Logan (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I can't see that indicated in the MOS. The reason why the MOS doesn't indicate it is that it's plain misleading. Let me give you an analogy. Say someone still living had won the title in 1976, whilst representing Yugoslavia and today his nationality is Kosovan. It would be daft to represent his flag as the Kosovan one, because it would mislead the reader into thinking that he represented Kosovo, at a time when the state did not exist. The correct flag is the one he represented in 1978, or you're (to paraphrase the MOS) rewriting history. --Dweller (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I already said that the flag that represents Perrie Mans in the context of the 1978 tournament is the 1978 flag. That's why his entry in the 1978 slot is accompanied by the 1978 flag. But the flag that represents Perrie Mans as of now is the current SA flag because he is currently alive and a SA citizen. However, the flag you changed was not the 1978 South African entry, it is the Perrie Mans entry (who is a current South African citizen under the current flag) who happened to be a runner-up in 1978. If Perrie Mans had won the 2009 world championship then he would have an entry for 1978 and 2009 - which flag would you advocate then? The table clearly relays the current status of all those players who are represented by their current flags, not the status of each win since that could be different for different tournaments. An article about the 1978 world championship should use the 1978 flag, and article that relays the current status of players should use the current flag. It can't be anymore clear. Betty Logan (talk) 16:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah. I think I might have got my cables crossed - if so, my apologies. I'll check it out tomorrow. --Dweller (talk) 17:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Well look, this is just my reading of how the rules apply. You could have a valid argument. If you still disagree, I suggest you cut and paste this debate to the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Snooker and see what everyone else thinks. I'm happy to go with a majority on this provided it's applied consistently and there is a general agreement on the issue. Betty Logan (talk) 17:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, please revise your last edit to include all the overlinking changes I made. Rename to "Records" if you like but take more care when reverting. bigpad (talk) 12:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Question for you

Would you be prepared to consider the following? You and I are playing a frame, and two reds have already been potted. You foul snooker me. So what is the highest break I can score from then on? How does your answer fit in with our Highest break following a foul heading which is immediately followed by the statement "The highest break possible is 155". Do you not think the "following a foul" words in the heading are totally misleading given that your computation here will show that the highest break I can make "following a foul" (two reds already gone) is much less than 155? Interesting. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 09:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Well if you think it's misleading change it to "Highest break possible with a free ball" or a "155 maximum break" or something. Alternatively you could just call the whole section "breaks exceeding 147" and have it as a two paragraph section. Betty Logan (talk) 13:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Why; Heavy Handed Ownership Behavior

did you revert my edit (without any explanation in the edit summary field to explain yourself)?--Ethelh (talk) 07:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You added unsourced information. Betty Logan (talk) 09:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Point to the rule that requires sources for all additions. All of those people were listed in their Wiki articles as qualifying in the categories. If you want to require a footnote for each person on the list, you must: 1) achieve consensus on that point; and 2) so note in the paragraph below the heading. Furthermore, proper form, if you believe a footnote is called for, is to add the appropriate template calling for one -- not delete the material.--Ethelh (talk) 12:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I am perfectly within my right to remove unreferenced material from Wikipedia articles, especially about living people. This is a longstanding protocol on Wikipedia, and the onus is on the editor adding the material to provide a source if challenged. Whether you know the rules or not, they will still be enforced. The "List of Vegetarians" article has been stripped down and all names on there have had sources added and those where sources couldn't be found were removed. If you add any more unsourced names to the list I will remove them. If you re-add them without sources I will you report it. That's the end of the matter, I am not going to argue all day with you. Betty Logan (talk) 13:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
If you want a source, the polite and appropriate approach is for you to put in notation that a citation is requested. Not for you to delete the source, as you have done. That is exceedingly heavy-handed. That is not "challenging" the source, it is deleting the information. And deleting accurate material without an edit summary explanation is even more so. 30 seconds of research in the very same source that the article already quotes could have given you the information for half of the names you deleted. It would be fine of course to delete contentious material from a living person's bio -- that is what the rules say. This is not contentious, and you were behaving badly to delete it, and especially to delete it without an edit summary. Good behavior would have involved your putting in a "citation requested" template. That would of course have been self-explanatory.--Ethelh (talk) 13:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
The regular editors on this artcile have done a lot of work cleaning this up. Names don't go on without a source and that's final. Just add sources in the proper way and there isn't an issue. Betty Logan (talk) 14:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you seem to have a sense of ownership about this article. That's not how Wikipedia works, however. Wikipedia content is collaboratively edited. Wikipedia contributors are editors, not authors, and no-one has the right to act as if they own a particular article, as you apparently feel. I understand that you feel very possessive about the material in this list. It is one thing to take an interest in an article, but this had turned into possessiveness, and you may well be overdoing it. I've added properly sourced names, citations even though this is not a contentious/libellous issue that would require citations, and yet you've edit warred and deleted the entries at [6]. I have restored them. If you persist in edit warring, I suggest that you seek third party input. There is absolutely nothing in what I have done that warrants your heavy-handed deletions.--Ethelh (talk) 14:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I have contacted a couple of administrators who work regularly on the article. I am leaving it to them to deal with since they're the ones who insisted on each named on the list being sourced. Betty Logan (talk) 14:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Note: Ethelh has form for adding unreferenced a material which then gets removed and then subsequently complains:

Also, when Ethelh does add references they tend to be shoehorned in as external links into the article text rather than adopting the proper referencing format which just creates work for everyone else. Betty Logan (talk) 14:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

If entries are added with sources, please assume that whoever added them may not be aware of how to properly format them - maybe a friendly message on that user's talk page advising them how to do it would be more constructive than reverting then describing their edits as lazy? The changes by User:Ethelh to List of vegetarians appear to be constructive addition of information which should be encouraged. It appears that nobody has yet pointed out to Ethelh on their talk page how references should be formatted. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate that and corrected them in the end to keep the peace. But there are a couple of points here. One, the first couple of times Ethel insisted on adding the information without references and wouldn't accept that sources are necessary. Secondly, Ethel has been here for a couple of years so doesn't really have an excuse for not adding references properly. Ethel added a couple in the correct format at first so clearly knows how to add references so I think all things considered it was lazy editing. That said you are right, I should have made the format explicitly clear to Ethel. Betty Logan (talk) 00:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Putting together a lynch mob

Heads up: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smiley589 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Smiley589. To be honest though, I suspect most reasonable editors will agree that claims about living people should be sourced.Betty Logan (talk) 00:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Not here to lynch, but to clarify and opine. I was one of those tagged, but after 20 something thousand edits on my part, it is difficult to search out what edit of mine you might have reverted, or what edit of any other editor you might have reverted. The thing called a "diff" is a great aid to memory. As for requiring a footnote for membership on a list, it is not always required if the article about the member has the references needed to show they qualify for the list, and the list membership is not really a matter of opinion, but in some cases I see the merits of requiring a reliable source to show a person (especially if living) belongs on a particular list. On List of fat actors, since renamed List of overweight actors in United States cinema, I have placed a citation needed template next to names or removed them, since pranksters are likely to put names that clearly don't belong on there or it might be just their opinion. Sidney Greenstreet or Fatty Arbuckle had obituaries or other references referring to them as "rotund character actor" or the like, since that is what the list was supposed to include. If the list were simply "Actors in United States cinema" then the articles would likely have references to make it clear they qualified. Edison (talk) 03:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I dispute the assertion that it's acceptable to not include references for a claim if there are references on other articles - as it is Wikipedia articles themselves are not credible sources so the point doesn't stand even by Wikipedia's own rules! If all you want is a collection of names then you can create a category, and a category of vegetarians does indeed exist. The list is an article in its own right and all the names added should be backed up by a credible reference. There are several reasons why this is the case: the main one is that of convenience. When there are hundreds of names on a list it becomes impossible to verify who has references and who doesn't. People don't want to check through every article to find the references. Another reason is that someone might want to print out the list so it's a good idea that it exists as a self-contained article. Claims about living people have to be backed up by a reference anyway, so if there is one on anotehr article I don't see the big deal about copying it over. Surely you see that a list that clearly gives a reference for each name has greater integrity than a list that doesn't? Betty Logan (talk) 07:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

From WP:V: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Adding unsourced material is fine if you think it is not likely to be challenged. However once it has been challenged it can be removed and should not be returned until a reference has been found. That is policy. Chillum 18:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Also lists require the same sourcing standard as any other article, having references in the article it links to is not enough as Wikipedia is not a reliable source. From WP:Lists: "Lists, whether they are embedded lists or stand-alone lists, are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others." Chillum 18:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding citations

Hi. On the whole I appreciate and support the work you have done enforcing our verifiability policy. However in regards to edits like these, there is nothing wrong with using external links as references. It is preferred to use <ref> tags but that is not required. You are welcome to replace external links with <ref> tags, however that is a stylistic issue. The presence of the reference is enough to meet our verifiability criteria even if it is not in the same style as the other references.

I do agree with you 100% that policy does not allow for wikilinks as a citation and that any challenged fact needs a citation. External links are however a valid form of reference and removing information because an otherwise valid reference is in the wrong form is harmful to the article.

It is possible I have misunderstood the matter so please feel free to correct me if I am incorrect about anything. Please keep up the good work you do here. Chillum 13:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your comments, I didn't realise that. That was only part of the problem though - the editor only added the links in reluctantly after several attempts to add the information without citations. Betty Logan (talk) 14:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I am very glad you convinced someone to find citations. When you show someone how to contribute well then you end up helping Wikipedia even after you walk away from the keyboard. Chillum 15:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


Ulster Banner

Hi Betty, please read the above article for some further information on why we do not use the Ulster Banner as the Flag of Northern Ireland. It's a bit of a mine field alright but if you have any questions just ask me and I will try to help. regards --Vintagekits (talk) 14:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at the Snooker Project. I would appreciate you taking the discussion there because removing the flag has huge repercussions across all snooker articles. It is best to decide on a universal course of action rather tahn making arbitrary changes all over place. If we have to change it itwould be best to use a bot but if editors have started removing the flag it makes the process much more difficult. Betty Logan (talk) 14:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

re:Queen Sofia

thanks. I've added it. If you know some more about these people, and can confirm if they are indeed pesce, that would be helpful. Here's the list: [13] w.tanoto-soegiri (talk) 17:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Alex Higgins

Hi there. Sure, will keep an eye on the above re "British". I see a small edit war already re nationality (what a surpise!). All the best, bigpad (talk) 22:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Audrey Tautou

Thank you very much! ;-) --Willtron (?) 13:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Citation Barnstar

The Citation Barnstar The Citation Barnstar
My appreciation for your efforts of adding suitable references to the List of vegetarians. Also, my apologies for bothering you with unusable sources. Kayau (talk) 14:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC) By the way, Miss Logan, can you give me some advice on my article, Otto Undercover? Please! Kayau (talk) 14:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou for the barnstar!

I think what you need to to do is establish the books' notability - awards they have won and been nominated for, book sales, and any discussion of them in the national press or book magazines or TV interviews. Some of these articles may be of use:

http://archive.womansday.com/home/11284/q-a-with-rhea-perlman-rhea-perlman-on-her-family-and-career-page2.html
http://www.nymetroparents.com/newarticle.cfm?colid=8130
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/culture/2007/03/03/2007-03-03_kid_lits_new_star_-2.html

Betty Logan (talk) 01:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Editing for a living

Hey, if you want to get paid for writing articles, there's always Mahalo.com... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Administrator

I see that, after seeing you so many times at the List of vegetarians, that you seem to be pretty familiar with Wikipedia policies. Therefore, I would like to nominate you for administrator. Do you agree? Kayau (talk) 14:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Lol thanks for the vote of confidence Kayau, but I'm happy enough just being an editor for the time being. Betty Logan (talk) 14:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
'For the time being'? By the way, please archive your talk page. It took ages to load. Kayau (talk) 00:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I will look into archiving and see how it's done. Betty Logan (talk) 07:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

This article really needs your help!

I have noticed a very badly cited article, Piano. Judging from your experience in the List of vegetarians, I'm sure you can improve it. Will you please help to cite it correctly? Thanks a million. Kayau (talk) 12:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I will look at this article a bit later on. I don't know anything about pianos so I will have to google it. Betty Logan (talk) 07:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
If you would like to google it, please do, but remember that the problem with the article is the references, as I've written above. Kayau (talk) 08:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Bubble Tea

Kayau (talk) has given you a bubble tea! Bubble teas promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a bubble tea, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy drinking!

Spread the awesomeness of bubble teas by adding {{subst:User:Download/Bubble tea}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Hi, Miss Logan. I have see your heated argument with Hans Adler at the Manual of Style. It is all right, really. I've made even more mistakes in one month than you have since you went here, despite the fact that I have been here since 2006. I dare say you know more about Wikipedia than I do. I hope you will, from now on, maintain a neutral view on this topic, and please do comment about this if you wish to. I hope that PrimeHunter's answer and Hans Adler's arguments have not hurt your feelings too much. Thank you ever so much for your attention. Kayau (talk) 06:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

No that's quite alright Kayau. I didn't know the rules about foreign languages, but Hans wouldn't let it drop even after we had sorted out the google translation which allows everyone to understand the reference. Personally I think Hans should help people who ask about rules, and check whether they are doing the right thing because that's the best way for Wikipedia to work. I think Hans is a very bad person. Betty Logan (talk) 07:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
To my very own subjective opinion, I think you should forgive Mr. Adler. You should also talk about that in his talk page so that he will not cause this kind of troubles again. And by the way, you've learnt the disadvantages of posing the same question in different places! Kayau (talk) 08:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANEW

Hi Betty, Your latest comments at WP:ANEW go a very long way towards erasing the annoyance I felt at what I thought an obvious unfairness. Thank you for making them. It wasn't so much that you got caught up in an edit war, that's easy to do in the heat of the moment. It was the calculation involved in waiting that one extra minute that set off my injustice detector. That led me to be brusquer (more brusque?) than usual, so I'm sorry for that. Hope all works out well on the article. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The dispute is resolved now because of a licence issue. It's ok though, you were to right pull me up on it, so I have no problem with you being 'brusque'. I was a bad girl! We live and learn right? Betty Logan (talk) 17:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Avatar release date

Please stop changing the release date to December the 16th. It's only being released in Belgium, Egypt and France on the 16th, the USA release date is the 18th, along with nearly every other major market.

Setting it to the 16th will confuse 95% of the people viewing this page, especially seeing as the popular new international trailer is advertising the 18th.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamaur (talk • contribs) 09:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not a matter of confusion, Wikipedia is not promotional material for the film. It's a factual statement. The film is released on December 16 as verified by Fox's global release schedule in the accompanying reference. Betty Logan (talk) 10:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Good work listing multiple release dates - my first response to the above comment was made without paying attention.
Thank you. Gamaur (talk) 15:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
That's ok. If everyone can live with it in the current version then it is sorted. It is important to include the premiere date though. I added the Australian and New Zealand dates for completeion since they were involded in production. Betty Logan (talk) 15:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Reply to message

I haven't been editing snooker articles on here for a while so haven't been keeping up to date. The debate is old now but if you have any other queries let me know, as I see you have done a lot of work on snooker related articles. Samasnookerfan (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm definetly in favour of keeping the flags for individual countries, rather than all as 'British'. Samasnookerfan (talk) 19:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes so am I. The IBSF uses the flags of the home nations to represent players so I don't see why Wikipedia shouldn't either. It wouldn't make sense to have players representing Scotland and England represented by the Union Jack because that would lose the distinction that the governing body itself makes. It makes more sense for Wikipedia to adopt the usage of the game itself, but there is a lot of agenda pushing outside of the Snooker Project. Betty Logan (talk) 20:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Particularly as the marjority of players are from England, Scotland and Wales having individual flags makes a lot of sense. Samasnookerfan (talk) 12:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

List of vegetarians

I　have started a discussion at the help desk which started as a question as before. You may want to comment at Wikipedia:Help Desk#Featured Lists. Thanks. All the best, Kayau (Talk to me! See what I've done! Sign my guestbook!) 10:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

EW warnings

What was the purpose of this? I had just warned the user and had thrown out his AN3 report against the other edit warrior; I don't see why he needed to be warned again (especially with a template warning). Helping mediate disputes is great, but I don't see how rubbing things in users' faces is really necessary... I hope you just hadn't noticed the other warning yet. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 19:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't feel the action you took was appropriate in this situation. Upon viewing the dispute it looks very much like one editor attempting to add something to an article without a consensus, and then telling teacher on the other editor. The editing policy for Wikipedia is that editing is done through consensus, and if you want to add information to an article, the onus is on you obtain a consensus. I feel that 'threatening' both editors for edit warring is slightly incongruous when it basically follows directly from another editor's breach of Wikipedia editing policy.Betty Logan (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
User:Ethelh has since been banned for using sockpuppets to subvert consensus. The other editor was perfectly within his right to revert her edits and shouldn't have received a warning for edit-warring. I do wish mods would study the situation a bit more before throwing around warnings like confetti. Betty Logan (talk) 21:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Consensus, and your version of it

I noted your comment above that "editing is done through consensus, and if you want to add information to an article, the onus is on you obtain a consensus." That will be the day. No-one needs consensus to add information to an article (provided it is relevant, neutral and sourced). Can you better explain what you mean? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 04:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Everyone and anyone needs a consensus to edit Wikipedia, because whether something is relevant and sourced is a viewpoint. If people disagree with what you are trying to add to an article on the grounds that it is not relevant or properly sourced then there is no consensus for adding the material. Betty Logan (talk) 06:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Rubbish. Everyone and anyone does not need a consensus to edit Wikipedia, so please don't lecture editors with misinformation. As you mightn't have read Wikipedia:Be bold, here's an excerpt -- "Wikis like ours develop faster when everybody helps to fix problems, correct grammar, add facts......". Got that? Add facts. No-one needs your permission or my permission to add facts. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 09:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Editing is done by consensus on Wikipedia. Yes anyone can edit, but ultimately only within consensus. I am sorry if you feel like I am lecturing you but you are clearly uninformed. I suggest you read up on editing policy: WP:CON. If you cannot agree on what is to be added then it doesn't get added since there is no consensus to include the information: "Consensus is one of a range of policies regarding how editors work with each other, and part of the fourth pillar of the Wikipedia code of conduct. Editors typically reach a consensus as a natural outcome of wiki-editing. Someone makes a change to a page, then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to leave it as it is, or change it. When two or more editors cannot reach an agreement by editing, consensus is sought on article talk pages." If you can't agree about adding information then you make a request for independent advice, you don't keep adding disputed content and edit-warring. Betty Logan (talk) 09:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
So you couldn't defend your position, but went off on a tangent to fudge the issue. We see that a lot when people are backed into a corner. Let me remind you of what you said to another editor, which I took issue with. You said ".....if you want to add information to an article, the onus is on you (to) obtain a consensus." That is hogwash. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 20:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
That was in the context of one editor trying to add "challenged" material to an article so I warned him. If it is not challenged then the consensus is to retain the material. If it is challenged then there is no consensus to include the material. Either way, every single edit is subject to consensus. I hope this has helped clarify matters for you. Betty Logan (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
More hogwash. You told an editor he needed consensus before adding information to an article. That is anathema to the basic principles of Wikipedia, and it is noticeable you will not address that point. Tell you what, how about I watchlist your edits for a while and bring to your attention any other misinformation you might post? That could help clarify matters for you, and would be in the interests of Wiki too. OK? Incidentally, why did you make this unhelpful edit? You changed the link so that English went to the disambiguation page instead of English language it was intended to go to. You didn't give an edit summary, so you can clarify this matter as well. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Trans4mers was a vandal who vandalised every article he ever edited. He didn't have a consensus to do that so I had him banned. His edit made "English" link to the disambiguation page rather than the English langauge page and then a wikibot came along and relinked it to the English language page. So to revert the edits of Trans4mers I had to revert the actions of the bot. You will actually see my first revert was a mass revert but I noticed that removed pertinant information, so I had go through each edit individually to make sure the legitimate information that was added later was not removed. If you bothered to check my last edit you will see that the link you are whining about is back to its natural state. Betty Logan (talk) 22:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

{outdent} Just a belated 2 cents from a passerby: Kaiwhakahaere is 100% correct on this. [[[WP:IAR]] is policy. WP:CONSENSUS is too, but the other (when used properly) trumps it (along with every other policy), and always has. The point you are missing, Betty, about consensus is right at the top of WP:CONSENSUS: "Editors typically reach consensus as a natural and inherent product of editing". This would be impossible if consensus were required in order to edit, obviously! You can't put the cart before the horse. See also WP:BRD. If you can demonstrate that someone like Trans4mers is in fact a consistent vandal, then deal with him/her/it/them in normal vandal-fighting ways, not by spreading disinformation about how WP is edited, please. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI discussion you may be interested in

See here [14] - I've started a new subsection about accusations of wikihounding (Ethelh calls it wikistalking) against you, I thought you should know about this. Dougweller (talk) 13:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I have had a couple of altercations with Ethel in the past but both issues have been fully resolved as far as I am concerned. Ethel accuses every single editor she comes into conflict with as being me, so in actual fact she is accusing me of wiki-stalking and being a sockpuppet. In most of these cases it is obvious from the outset this is not the case because I have no common contribution history with the accused editors. Ethel often adds relevant information to the articles, but is very forceful with her contributions which can destabilise articles and is sometimes reluctant to provide sources. The last thing that discussion needs is me wading into it since it has become heated enough but I will keep an eye on it. Betty Logan (talk) 16:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Just as a point of note, Ethel has form for accusing people of wikistalking. I'm not the first, there is an editor called User:Sift&Winnow who she accuses here. She accuses four more editors as being me here. Betty Logan (talk) 17:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
User:Ethelh has been banned for using sockpuppets so hopefully this matter is closed. Betty Logan (talk) 21:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

why????

[15] I don't see the problem SPLETTE :] How's my driving? 03:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

She didn't play Jill Mason in the play, only the film. Betty Logan (talk) 03:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, okay. I missed that. Thx SPLETTE :] How's my driving? 03:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I think Hu12 was out of order by blacklisting the links and there is a discussion about it at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Abuse_of_admin_privileges_by_User:Hu12 Betty Logan (talk) 18:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I have given my view. And I have requested that the ban be lifted on the three articles that legitimately use BJCP links. Thanks for letting me know about the discussion. SilkTork *YES! 20:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Thankyou :) You are far more eloquent than I am. Betty Logan (talk) 20:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I had the same concerns when I saw the blacklisting. There are definitely some legitimate links that need to be whitelisted. --Ronz (talk) 20:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

A quick note of thanks for risking your nose commenting at Talk:Roman Polanski (it's been a semi-dangerous place to poke noses in since September 27 when Polanski was arrested). No particular reason to use the nose metaphor, rather than toes in the hot water, or elbows up ... etc :) ... Just in a nose mood tonight. lol Cheers. And Happy Thanksgiving (if that's a non-offensive holiday for you.) Proofreader77 (talk) 07:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Have a happy Thanksgiving ("offensive holidays"...that concept is new to me!!). I'll keep checking in on the Roman Polanski article. My only goal on that article is to keep it stable, so feel free to accept or reject any views I express there. Betty Logan (talk) 19:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
(re "offensive holidays" ... I assume there is a subset of the fraternity/sisterhood of turkey lovers ... who find Thanksgiving problematic. You can never be too careful in WP. :) As for RP talk, let no one deflect you from expressing your views -- it can be an exhausting page, and testiness happens. I.E., rest assured you are welcome. Cheers (again). Proofreader77 (talk) 19:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

BLP

Addition of non-controversial facts to an article on a living person without a source is not a violation of WP:BLP in need of reversion. At least two of Snooker-loopy98 (talk · contribs)'s recent snooker bio edits can be verified externally simply with simple Google searches (the sources are arguably not worth citation, though; at least I don't like to cite sources that "webby" unless the author is well known to be reliable). Not all of that editor's contributions are great, but they don't all deserve to be reverted, either. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC) PS: I've backed up your note at that user's talk page, and invited the user to join WP:SNOOKER where hopefully we can guide the editor a bit. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

This isn't about not including a source, it's about removing information that I believe for the most part is incorrect. If someone adds a birth place without a source as they have done on many articles I will leave it if I do not know it is incorrect. However I removed edits that were made by an editor who I knew for a fact had made lots of inaccurate edits, and whose edits were reversed by editors on other articles i.e. I had no faith in this editor. Just because one or two of them might turn out to be correct is not justification for leaving lots of inaccurate facts in the articles. The only other option open to me was to just reverse the edits I knew were wrong but I was dissatisfied by that choice because I knew I would be leaving lots of incorrect edits in the articles. You either trust my judgement in regards to this editor or not. If not I'm perfectly prepared to go back through his edit history and reverse all my edits where I don't know if his edit was correct or not, which is clearly what you must ask me to do if you don't think I should have removed them in the first place. Betty Logan (talk) 02:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Here are some of his edits:

Ronnie Barker - Bedford changed to Biddenham [16]. Britannica says Bedford: [17]

Philip Williams (snooker player) - Swansea inserted [18]. Global Snooker says Llanelli [19]

Fred Davis (billiards player) - Birth place changed from Whittington Moor to Newbold [20]. Briannica says Whittington Moor [21].

Robin Hull - Ranua, Finland insterted [22]. Global Snooker says England [23].

Mike Dunn (snooker player) - Lincoln inserted [24]. Global Snooker says Middlesbrough [25].

Marcus Campbell - Drylaw, Edinburgh inserted [26]. Global Snooker says Dumbarton [27].

Darren Morgan - New Quay inserted [28] and Armbrust has since corrected this to Newport and confirmed by Global Snooker [29].

Bjorn Haneveer - Ghent inserted [30], since corrected by Armbrust to Turnhout and confirmed at Global Snooker [31].

Alfred Burden - Marylebone inserted [32], Global Snooker says Paddington [33]


That's just from his first day of editing, and just those I could confirm at Global Snooker. There are several others that are confirmed to be correct, and others that Global Snooker didn't record the information for which I suspect would break down into the same correct/incorrect ratio. Coupled with the reverts performed by other editors then clearly this editor cannot be trusted to make factually accurate edits.

Yeah, I jumped the gun on you. Sorry. I've looked into his edits more and more myself, and they are off-kilter. I'm not sure they are malicious, I think he/she/it is simply relying on personal belief/memory (apparently poor) and/or sources that are not reliable. I have seen the editor make legit, good edits, they just seem to be, eh... uncommon. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I've given this some thought and I think you're right and I'm wrong. I was acting in the best interests of the articles at the time but I should have given the editor more consideration. In hindsight I think if you are going to completely remove someone's edits - even if there is strong justfication for it - you should at least discuss the matter with other editors first, and probably even an admin. It just seemed a simple solution at the time with him only having made a few dozen edits but I did step beyond my remit as an editor. I think the editor is misguided rather than a vandal. Including sources for birth places is overkill, but if he returns maybe we can get him to include his source url in the edit summary so at least we can quickly check the info. If it starts up again I will only revert the stuff I definitely know is wrong and bring the matter to you - at least that way any decisions will get a second opinion. Betty Logan (talk) 01:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Chris Small

To be honest, I have no idea, what was wrong with my edit in this article. I removed a section, that was in my eyes ridiculous. Who could be interested in this kind of information? "He has two daughters that i know, one called danielle and the other natalie, both them are absolutely stunning." In the german Wikipedia such nonsense would be deleted. So did I in the english Article of Chris Small. --Kryston (talk) 11:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I reversed the wrong edit. You are absolutely correct, it shouldn't be in teh article. Betty Logan (talk) 11:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Weirdly enough, I did the same thing! Snooker-loop98's the one who put the wisecrack in that article. I've left him a level 3 warning. While some of his edits were okay (if needing sources) he's already triggered some other warnings this month. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

edit summaries

Hi- I'm going through requests at WP:RFPP right now, and one thing that stuck out when I looked over the page history of Avatar is that you aren't using edit summaries. When reverting vandalism or unsourced changes or the like, please use the edit summaries. If nothing else, it makes it easier to pick out the "good" versus "bad" edits. Thanks, tedder (talk) 02:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, sorry about that. Usually it's just to restore sourced information that has been removed rather than actually changing information - if you check List of most expensive films where I've made alterations rather than restorations you will see I do explain my edits. I will offer full explanations for all my edits on the article if it makes it easier, especially since it is volatile. Betty Logan (talk) 09:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

2012 release dates

Betty you are absolutely right about that. The "International" messed me up. I deeply apologize if I disrupted the article in any way. --Mike Allen talk · contribs 20:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That's absolutely fine Mike. Sorry about losing your gross update too, but it's ok now. It's not your fault since the "first" release should be clearly identified but someone had changed it to "international" in the meantime, so it wasn't labelled correctly. I changed it back to "premiere" to make it clear. Betty Logan (talk) 21:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Hmm I did have the cast bolded (like actor as character) since WP:FILMS does support that when you have descriptions next to them -- to make it easier to read. Did you remove that or someone else? --Mike Allen talk · contribs 21:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I haven't made any alterations to the cast. I've just checked it didn't get caught up in the revert, but this is the extent of the changes between your edit and mine: [34]. It's probably an anon IP, they play havoc with changing the format, removing references etc. Betty Logan (talk) 21:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh I know, don't get me started on anon IPs. :-\ --Mike Allen talk · contribs 22:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

For your continually constructive work on the Avatar article. It is my view that the both of us deserve a free ticket to the premiere. Regards Gamaur (talk) 04:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, in the end I had it semi-protected, the amount of rubbish going into the article was ridiculous. Betty Logan (talk) 11:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
At least one case of vandalism came from a close friend of mine who noticed my involvement and found it amusing. I missed it but it was something to do with a possum. Gamaur (talk) 18:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Avatar

Hey, im sorry about my edit to Avatar i thought that the film opended worldwide on the 18th and that the date the article stated was a mistake. Once again, im sorry and it will not happen again.Cheddarjack (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

If it was a genuine mistake that is ok. But please do check the reference if you are going to alter something. Betty Logan (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I am glad you came and talked to me, I just submitted an edit on there regarding the lead. The release dates on the infobox are generally okay, before, it was not neat. Regarding the release date and the year in the lead. Typically, movies on wikipedia have the release date in the lead. I know that this movies release date is contriversial, however, stating the origional release date, priemere date, the UK date, and the USA date is what films tend to do (I am talking about Harry Potter movies, Twilight Movies, The Dark Knight). Personally, when reading the guidelines, there isn't anything that says "DO NOT PUT RELEASE DATE IN LEAD", it only says the year is required. So many films see adding the release date to the lead as "summerizing" the film, a way of adding more information. If we keep it as uncontriversail as we can in the lead, I do not see how not adding the release date could hurt. ChaosMaster16 (talk) 20:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
I personally don't have a problem with including release dates in the lede, as long as all notable dates are included. We can't select the date that just applies to our country becasue that would violate NPOV. My suggestion was based on the fact that if we took it out then it wouldn't be an issue. If we agree on the dates to be included then that's fine. Betty Logan (talk) 20:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's keep discussion on Talk:Avatar (2009 film) so others can see and weigh in. I asked at WT:FILM for additional opinions and am letting the "American-British film" label stay until others weigh in. Erik (talk) 14:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The talk page of WikiProject Films is for notifying others of discussions going on elsewhere. Please do not continue the discussion in a different place from where it first originated. I will respond to your concerns at the film article's talk page. Erik (talk) 17:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Please do not remove my comments from Project Talk Pages. Betty Logan (talk) 17:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
When there is an ongoing discussion at the article talk page, it is perfectly appropriate for Project managers to move the post to that page. Please stop edit warring over a post to a talk page. If Erik had not done so, other managers would have moved it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I daresay other Project managers would only have done so if his comment had been limited to just a discussion notification rather than furthering the discussion. What he did was express an opinion and make a point which I was perfectly entitled to respond to. I'm perfectly entitled to restore my reply to a non-neutral comment on a talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 17:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I simplified the notification. Erik (talk) 17:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

When you post a question or comment to a Project talk page, you are in essence soliciting opinion based on style guidelines and policy. Every post is an opinion. Because you didn't agree with the response (which was to move the discussion to the article talk page), doesn't give you license to edit war. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I didn't object to him moving my comments, I objected to him expressing an opinion on the subject at hand, and then removing my comments but leaving his up. His comments were far more than just a 'notification'. He made a point that I responded to. He then DELETED my response and left his comments up. Betty Logan (talk) 17:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Let's move on, please. I moved your comment to the film article's talk page and responded to it there. I also edited my notification at WT:FILM to be more straightforward. Let's get back to the topic at hand. Erik (talk) 18:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate that Erik. The reason I didn't restore my comments at the WT:FILM was because you altered your comments and 'removed' the opinion. I agree the discussion should take place in one place, but felt your original comments furthered the discussion. The only problem I have had with your conduct has been resolved through your own actions, so no hard feelings here. Betty Logan (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Betty, editors clash from time to time. Conflict is a normal part of Wikipedia. I've had my share of run-ins with other editors in my years here. Wikipedia is a big place -- there is a lot that can be done without needing to report every trouble. (Believe me, there are some vicious editors that warrant discussion at WP:ANI. We three -- you, me, and Wildhartlivie -- are not them.) Erik (talk) 02:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

See reply

at Talk:Avatar (2009 film)#semi-protect_due_to_fan_cruft?. Thanks. 67.101.6.234 (talk) 02:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Betty Logan (talk) 03:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry XMAS


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

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Armbrust (talk) 21:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

You've actually put a smile on my face today...


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

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Happy Xmas to you as well. Hopefully all this ugly business with Wildhartlivie will be cleared up soon. I don't know what your dispute with him was about but I can imagine; I just won't tolerate being spoken to in that manner! Interesting that it's women that have received the brunt of it. Betty Logan (talk) 20:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Betty_Logan/Archive_1&oldid=1142888621"