Jump to content

User talk:Betty Logan/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Avatar and Frank Herbert

Betty Logan,

User:Glycoform seems to have a point about this Jesus Incident issue, though it just doesn't feel right to have a reference to a chapter in a book to prove that there are similarities between Avatar and The Jesus Incident. It would be much more preferable to have a newspaper article, magazine column, or some reliable source to support his claims. Tell me what you think on my talk page. Thanks-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 02:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC))

Basically the problem with his edit is that it is WP:SYNTHESIS because he's drawing conclusions from separate sources i.e. Dune and Avatar. I'm too tired to discuss the issue with the editor now so I'll explain it more fully tomorrow on the Avatar talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 03:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Harry Potter films

I would appreciate it if you would not bombard me with warnings. I am in the process of sorting this situation out with an admin as I have stated on the talk page of the article, so I would like no further interruptions. Thank you. Hallows Horcruxes (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I am obliged to warn you about edit-warring, and I am obliged to inform you there is an investigation into your case. If you don't want the messages remove them, but I am just following the procedure. Betty Logan (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

RE: Avatar discussion

Hi Betty, thanks for seeking my opinion. Sorry, I've been away for the last couple of weeks. Having read the discussion on the talk page, I would tend to agree with the points that both yourself and Cinosaur were making. I take it the issues regarding the Frank Herbert reference have been resolved?--Forward Unto Dawn 05:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I think so, it seems to have settled down. If you abandon your post again I'll have you shot! Betty Logan (talk) 06:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
:-) Hahaha, I read you loud and clear!--Forward Unto Dawn 10:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

List of people who accepted Golden Raspberry Awards

Thank you for your input on this list. Any help cleaning the article is appreciated, since my attempts seem to result in complaints at this point (for the record, I couldn't care less about "winning" an argument, I just want to see the article cleaned up. Thanks again! Yaksar (let's chat) 03:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It's probably best if you ease up on the "cleaning up" for a few days and let the discussion on the talk page run its course, since there seems to be some issue about the scope of the article, and see if a consensus forms for the direction of the article. I personally won't be editing the article while I am participating in the discussion as a "third opinion" otherwise it invalidates my viewpoint as an objective one. However, once the discussion comes to a conclusion I will be happy to help "clean up" within the limits of what is agreed. Betty Logan (talk) 04:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I don't think you have to worry about being the "third opinion", that discussion seemed to end after the user tried to report me. But I understand your desire to stay objective, and thanks again for your input. Yaksar (let's chat) 04:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this is right?

I believe it's protocol to inform editors involved in a dispute when there is action being taken, so I just would like to point out Talk:Acceptance_of_Golden_Raspberry_Awards_by_recipients#RfC:_Removal_of_sourced_info to you. Yaksar (let's chat) 20:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Your barnstar

The Socratic Barnstar
For your invariable sobriety, rationality, eloquence, and remarkable listening skills in discussion – something reminiscent of the Socratic style – I present you with this barnstar. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 10:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Terminator

I'm seriously "this" close to venturing into wiki-ettiquette alert territory. Which is to say that the willful density on display has me about to throw all politeness out the window. So I think I'll just beg out of that conversation now and continue reverting as required. Keep up the good fight, yo. Millahnna (talk) 03:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Good call, Betty. I was just thinking the exact same thing myself but but have decided to step back from editing the section for fear of being drawn into an edit-war. Somehow I doubt the neutral wording will appease the problem editor, though. He seems hell-bent on pushing the statement that the entirety of "the media" got this thing wrong, even though he can't directly source that claim. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
It's about as neutral as we can make it now. If he reverts it again there are essentially two options left: wait and see if ANI get on to it, and if they don't we can drop an RFC at the Film project. Betty Logan (talk) 05:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Betty Logan. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alvin and the Chipmunks (film series).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RoI sports

Just wondere what was your rationale for making this edit, given that there is an ongoing discussion on the talk page and that to did not leave an edit summary. Would you like to self-revert and join the discussion? Fmph (talk) 07:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I made any controversial edits, I didn't realise a debate was going on. An IP had vandalised an article on watch list so I checked out his other edits and they were all vandal edits, so I reverted the article to the last clean version. I've obviously been careless, would you like me to revert my edit? Betty Logan (talk) 07:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
That might be best. On second thoughts, it might be simpler to filter out parts of those edits. OK. Just leave as is, and I'll take it to Talk. Thanks Betty Fmph (talk) 12:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

David Yates and Harry Potter film series

Hello. :) I was reading the Harry Potter (film series) talk page and there was a discussion about nominating it for GA status. Well, I am more than willing to have a bash at resolving the reference formatting problem. On the topic of GA, I have nominated the David Yates article and all I need now is for someone to review it. Would you be willing to take a look at the article to see if its any good and, if you think it is, would it be possible for you to have a go at reviewing it (it should be in the Theatre, Film and Drama section)? That's if you have time of course. I am not permitted to review the article because I have worked on it for some time. I am desperate to get this into GA status as I think it's a good looking article. If you can't help, no worries. Thanks. :) Hallows Horcruxes 09:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I've never actually reviewed an article for GA status and I'm not overly familiar with the criteria, so it wouldn't feel appropriate for me to either pass/fail the article. However, I will take a look at it either today or tomorrow and peer review it to check the sourcing, balance etc and see if there are any automatic fail points. It looks well referenced and formatted so that's usually a good sign. Betty Logan (talk) 13:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the help. Hallows Horcruxes 16:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I have contacted User:Geometry guy about a review of the article and he has agreed to carry out a final assessment of it, providing that you have written a 'detailed peer review comment' on the GAN review page after peer reviewing the article. I hope this is Ok. Hallows Horcruxes 18:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
That's ok. I'll do that, and he can have the final say. Betty Logan (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
You have more than demonstrated an ability to review GANs already. Many thanks for your help! Geometry guy 20:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I hope you are still watchlisting the review. My thanks and compliments remain unchanged. This case already illustrates the importance of checking the quality of the sources and how they are used. GA reviewers sometimes skip this aspect, as it can be very difficult to check the sources. However a few spot checks (comparing the source material to the text) can be invaluable in finding problems. If you take this seriously, you can become one of GA's best reviewers. Geometry guy 23:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
The assessment is still on my watchlist and I still keep checking back. I do feel guilty for getting his hopes up when there are obviously still problems. There are lots of things I overlooked, so I'm paying attention to how the checking proceeds and what I should have looked for. In the areas you write in you develop an instinct for what sources are valid, inbalance in the coverage etc and can pick up on it by just giving it a good read through. My mistake here was expecting the problems to jump out at me like they would on a subject and article I know. Once you're out of your comfort zone and don't have that familiarity with the topic I guess you need a more methodical approach to find the problems. I will be following this through to the end, it's interesting watching the whole process. Betty Logan (talk) 02:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Betty Logan. You have new messages at Talk:Bikini waxing.
Message added 13:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

6-Red WC articles

I have reverted your redirection and speedy deletion request of the 888.com championship article. Per my comments at AfD, this is not the way. Please first move this article to an alternative title per your original suggestion e.g. 888sport.com Six-red World Championship and then move the Sangsom Six-red World Championship. That way the history is not lost and if desired the 888sport.com Six-red World Championship and 2009 888sport.com Six-red World Championship can be merged properly. Let me know if you need help with any of these tasks. Regards, wjematherbigissue 09:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks, that is what I will do. Betty Logan (talk) 09:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
It's done now, and I've suggested an article merge at the new article page. There are some links that need to be sorted out, but I'll sort those out once the outcome of the article merge discussion is known. No point going through the links now just to change them all again in a week's time. Betty Logan (talk) 09:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
All links sorted for the 888.com tournament (I think) – there aren't that many. Will have to wait for WP software to purge the WC navbox template links before I can be sure. I also left my comments with regards to the merge proposal. wjematherbigissue 10:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Bette Logan in Meet Mr. Jordan or Betty Logan in Heaven can Wait?

FWiW, I always been meaning to ask, did you take your wikiname from "Betty Logan" in Heaven Can Wait? Bzuk (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC).

It's actually my middle name and surname, but I went with it in on Wikipedia for the connection to the 1978 film. Betty Logan (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Titanic

why do not agree? please explain some?--Bakhshi82 (talk) 11:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The question isn't whether I agree or not; there is a discussion about the content you are trying to add on the talk page, and as of yet you failed to obtain a consensus. Betty Logan (talk) 11:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Between the three films Titanic has more candidates my freand, be reasonable.--Bakhshi82 (talk) 11:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
If you think the current version is not true or reduce its value buddy i have no urge in this matter, Titanic don't need to exaggerate, this is a visual masterpiece and i sow this movie more than three hundred times, i wanted to help the article only for better recognition. one more subject, i think terms like enormous is a little puerile. sorry any way!--Bakhshi82 (talk) 13:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Please don't change again until an agreement reached, thanks.--Bakhshi82 (talk) 12:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks my dear for the notice, i thank you infinitely and hope to be eminent--Bakhshi82 (talk) 13:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Agreement has already been reached. It's you who keeps going against it. Flyer22 (talk) 17:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Trying to understand why you deleted one of my contributions.

I recently added Krist Novoselic to the list of American vegetarians after I came across the information by chance. My entry was soon deleted by, if I'm not mistaken, you, with stated reason "Circular source i.e. source uses Wikipedia."

The place where I found this information was http://www.search.com/reference/Krist_Novoselic#_note-2. This page in turn cites Azerrad, Michael. Come as You Are: The Story of Nirvana. Doubleday, 1993. ISBN 0-385-47199-8, p. 55 for this piece of information (not Wikipedia). It's not that I find the entry of Krist Novoselic in the list of vegetarians to be so important, but I am new to Wikipedia and I want to take this opportunity to learn from my mistake. So, can you give me some more accurate explanation of why you deleted my entry? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wawawemn (talk • contribs) 22:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

That article is a copy of the Wikipedia article so it's a circular reference, which is prohibited. All Wikipedia articles are supposed to get their information from other sources, but even when they do you still can't use a Wikipedia article as your source. You can use the source the Wikipedia article uses directly, but only if you have verified it. Betty Logan (talk) 22:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


Thanks for your fast response.

The part about Krist Novoselic's vegetarianism is not in Wikipedia's Krist Novoselic article. The only explanation I can think of regarding why you say this is that it used to be, in an older version of his article. If such is the case, I apologize. I have not read the source article (the Come as You Are book) myself, so I gather I can't use that one. But there's another book that talks about this that I have personally read so I'll use that one to redo my contribution. Thanks for the clarification. Wawawemn (talk) 22:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Articles on Wikipedia change all the time so content comes and goes for a variety of reasons, but the policy also applies to articles that source Wikipedia even if they don't explicitly transclude content. If you have another source then by all means add the content back to the article, but please make sure it complies with Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Betty Logan (talk) 23:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Unexplained reverts

Looking through your contributions I notice that there are many cases in which you have undone an edit without explanation. This makes it impossible for other editors to know why you objected to a particular contribution, and (in cases like this one) is potentially confusing to new users making good faith edits. Please try to add edit summaries to all your edits in future. Thanks, NotFromUtrecht (talk) 17:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

There are also many edits where I include an edit summary. Edit summaries are really only required when they are asked for, and advisable when the reasons are not self-explanatory. It's ultimately an issue of personal judgment and preference, and I actually think edit summaries are counter-productive in most cases because they might discourage editors from checking the edits themselves. Betty Logan (talk) 15:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Changes with no explanation actually encourage editors to assume that they're vandalism, especially when made by an IP or by a red-link. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Which is a good thing, because anyone can hide crap behind an edit summary. Such an assumption would hopefully encourage editors to check the edit. Betty Logan (talk) 15:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Without an edit summary, a user would be inclined to revert it with, "No explanation for changes." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think they would be inclined considering the fact that the majority of edits on Wikipedia don't include edit summaries, and from my personal experience I haven't found that to be the case. Personally speaking, I'm inclined to find out what the edit involved on articles I watch. Anyone can write anything in an edit summary, so it is better to check the edit than take it on face value. In the particular case that was brought up here, the IP had made a sequence of edits adding unsourced content. I reverted his edits (about half a dozen or so), leaving an edit summary for his first edit. I didn't include edit summaries on the subsequent reverts, prefering instead to leave an outline of editing guidelines at the IP's talk page: User talk:86.42.5.217. I think I took adequate action to communicate my concerns to the IP editor, and on those articles where I didn't include an edit summary it's very clear from checking the edit that I removed unsourced content that had just been added. Betty Logan (talk) 16:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Obviously there is value in inspecting edits themselves rather than taking edit summaries at face value. But I don't agree with your argument that the reason for each edit is in someway self-evident, and will become immediately clear to anyone who examines the page diff. How was I supposed to know that the reasons for this unexplained revert were that 'from [your] past experience' 'Some editors think that "above $150 mil" includes $150 mil, so it is better to be explicit'? That's your personal opinion, based on your experience, not something which is self-explanatory.
In this edit you have today reverted two edits by an IP user with no previous contributions. You did not provide an edit summary, and you have not left a message on the IP user's talk page. How is this user supposed to understand why you reverted them? It is quite an assumption to think that the IP user will be to infer the reason. My concern is that such activities will be extremely off-putting to new editors of Wikipedia. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 19:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I think it's clearly self-evident to any editor that you don't pull entries currently occupying a position in a chart just to make room for a new entry. There was nothing to stop them just adding the new entry without removing one. Betty Logan (talk) 20:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Had you provided a proper edit summary, you wouldn't have needed to provide an explanation here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not providing a reason for the revert, I'm providing a reason for not providing a reason. Betty Logan (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
If someone were to start following your edits, and come here with a question every time you revert without an edit summary, maybe your light bulb would start to come on. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
The reason for your edits may be quite obvious to you, but there are very many editors who are not you. To give an edit summary is to give helpful information to other editors. bobrayner (talk) 02:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
We'll have to just agree to disagree. Edit summaries are discretional, and some editors are indifferent to using them. Betty Logan (talk) 02:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Rather than trying to enact vigilante justice, which is certainly tempting, if the editor continues to do this then a trip to WP:ANI is probably called for. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia idiot's guide to documenting plagiarism/inspiration/similarities to other work

I beg you - please write this as an essay we can refer to. If nothing else, the title is friggin hilarious. Millahnna (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

That being said, in the interests of civility might I recommend "editor" or "newcomer" rather than "idiot"? Doniago (talk) 19:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Sigh. Ruin all my fun why don't you. Of course you're totally right, but still. :P Millahnna (talk) 19:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Ruining other editors' fun is one of the primary obligations of a WikiImp. Mission accomplished! :) Doniago (talk) 20:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh god. I'm totally a wikiimp.[citation needed] I had no idea. That page is a riot.[original research?] Millahnna (talk) 20:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I fixed your comment for you. ;) Doniago (talk) 20:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
There's already a book series called "The Complete Idiot's Guide To...", so I'd be more concerned about plagiarism than about "civility". Although the title could be considered a parody, so plagiarism might not be an issue. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
That was hilarious! While it may go against Wikipedia's standards on peaceful conversation, it needed to be said. I do believe that Namasaya was a troll, however, so if you see posts from him again, just ignore them. (Wikipedian1234 (talk) 00:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC))

Opinion from regs needed

I am pinging you because you have over 150 edits at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, and have edited the page this month. I have gotten no responses at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Template:WikiProject_Awards and need some to resume a major cleanup project I have been doing.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Special Barnstar
I thereby award you with this Barnstar for creating the templates for the snooker world rankings pages. Armbrust WrestleMania XXVII Undertaker 19–0 14:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't Look Now GA reiview

Hi, I've reviewed Don't Look Now against the GA criteria and am happy that it meets them, so have listed it as a good article. I've left some suggestions & comments at the review page. I can see you've put a great deal of work into it, so good job! --BelovedFreak 19:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll have a look at your comments. I noticed you doing a bit of copy-editing so thanks for that. I listed it for a review on the Film project a month ago, but there's a bit of a backlog and the film has seen substantial traffic over the last week, so thanks for taking care of that. Betty Logan (talk) 19:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Pina Menichelli article review

Dear Betty Logan, I would like to thank you for editing and formatting my article about Pina Menichelli. Your feedback was very useful, and I shall develop the article along the lines you suggested. Keep up the good work! Kind Regards, Jnorthdur (talk) 07:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It's an interesting read, so I don't mind helping out with a bit of style and formatting, it looks like it's going to be a really good article. Silent cinema is unfortunately slightly neglected on Wikipedia. Betty Logan (talk) 15:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Jason Voorhees

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jason Voorhees. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

  1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

I suggest you review the guidelines relative to WP:BRD. You clearly interrupted the consensus process to impose your own edits. You should also review WP:DE Disruptive editing as a failure to engage in consensus building is a clear violation of that guideline. In future, kindly work with other editors in seeking consensus and refrain from disruptive behavior. X4n6 (talk) 04:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

How is it possible to edit-war or violate 3rr when I've only made a single edit? Betty Logan (talk) 04:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
3RR does not require 3 edits. Perhaps you should review the rules before you start posting templates. You also violated the spirit of a standing BRD and engaged in disruptive and unilateral edits instead of seeking consensus as other editors were trying to do. Now your latest bogus claim against me is just more proof of your disruptive editing tactics and your ridiculously childish, petty, spiteful and unhelpful temperament. Your disruptive behavior is clear and will be thoroughly discussed with the admins. X4n6 (talk) 05:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
An edit-war isn't started by an editor making an edit, or even an editor reverting an edit, it starts when an editor reverts an edit that reverted them, so I haven't edit-warred. If you disagree then file a case. Betty Logan (talk) 05:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

This may interest you

Betty, hi. After you left a note, I rechecked and found you had made a very valid point about my mistaken assessment of the situation. I have blocked the editor who had been reported originally too. However, I have not unblocked Bignole as I believe Bignole has been a party to the edit warring in as much as has been the reported editor. There is generally no excuse for reverting continuously, and checking the reversions since yesterday, I found five reversions that were rebound reverts based on the bad sourcing issue. Please do note that crossing the 3RR is not allowed even if one wishes to revert a poorly sourced detail (unless it is a clear BLP issue or the article is featured on the Main Page). Even in case of BLP issues, it is better to report the issue to the BLP noticeboard than to revert. If there are any further clarifications, please feel free to contact me on my talk page as I may not be watching your talk page. My apologies for the inconvenience this issue may have caused you. Kind regards. Wifione ....... Leave a message 07:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Maybe I could have structured the case better, since they were reverting different aspects of the article. Betty Logan (talk) 07:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
There is no reason to apologize. I am guilty of reverting more than 3 times, that was sure and I did not deny it. I was more caught off guard that it was found that my edits were blatant reverts while the other editors were not, when I was actually editing some of his stuff to make it usable in the article. It was not your fault that I reverted more than 3 times, it was mine for not paying attention to my own actions. In any case, it is over now and the admins have saw fit to give me a break given the nature of the situation. I'll have to be more attentive to my actions in the future though and not get sucked into petty squabbles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Titanic

This is not the version that i was agreed? meanwhile unless my description was incorrect?--Bakhshi82 (talk) 13:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The version I restored is the version that was agreed in the discussion here; we decided to get rid of all the weasel wording. Secondly your version is not accurate, since if a film equals a record how can it be the *only* film to do so? By definition two films at least hold the record. In Titanic's case three films share the oscar record. However, if you are dissatisified with the current version then start a new discussion and form a new consensus, since that was how the current one was formed. Betty Logan (talk) 13:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm busy now but i'll see you on the page, my edit was correct, think about.--Bakhshi82 (talk) 13:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Nonce perusal this tables:
Per Most Oscar Wins
Film Oscars Nominees
Titanic 11 14
Ben-Hur 11 12
The Lord of the Rings III 11 11
Per Most Nominations
Film Nominees Oscars
Titanic 14 11
All About Eve 14 6
Gone with the Wind 13 8

Note: My friend if you get into precision you will see Titanic is only film that received both most nominations and Oscars, please.--Bakhshi82 (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Your own tables show otherwise: two films tie the nominations record and three films tie the wins record so it's obviously not the only film to hold those records. Betty Logan (talk) 15:statistics51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Which three films tie the nominations record? whoud you please mention this three films?--Bakhshi82 (talk) 15:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
My dear Titanic is the most acclaimed film of the Oscars ever and we shouldn't hide the reality, thanks.--Bakhshi82 (talk) 16:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
My talk page isn't the place for a discussion about Titanic. If you want to discuss this further start a discussion on the article talk page please. Betty Logan (talk) 17:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I want to entreaty please do not reject a copyedit until you don't know this is true or not, we don't need to consensus for the facts or statistics. My deepest thanks to you my dear partner.--Bakhshi82 (talk) 17:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Darkness2005

Hello,
can I have your opinion, concerns, and maybe conditions you have regarding this unblock request?
Amalthea 21:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Titanic

You wrote: No-one in this dispute has acted improperly other than Bakhshi! is this circumstances?--Bakhshi82 (talk) 22:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Betty i apologize you seriously, when i reverted Frank i removed your comment unintentionally! because we was editing in a same time, excuse me.--Bakhshi82 (talk) 22:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the support at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Thanks for the support there, but it seems equal blame has shifted to me. Some administrators don't see what we see, I suppose. Flyer22 (talk) 22:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Obviously I disagree with them that you harrassed Bakhsi, and if they believe that we acted improperly towards him then fair enough, but ultimately the real root of the problem was Bakshi's refusal to engage in discussion so I'm disappointed that hasn't been addressed. I don't think they really appreciated the difficulty of the situation, that while editors were trying to come to an agreement on the wording another editor was undermining efforts by edit-warring and point blank refusal to discuss his edits. When I filed the WP:AN3 report on him it wasn't picked up, so in the end we did the best we could without the support we asked for. If we were rude at all, then it's because we were becoming increasingly frustrated by Bakshi's refusal to discuss the edits. Betty Logan (talk) 00:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Betty. I take comfort in the fact that only one editor stated that I harassed Bakhshi82. Flyer22 (talk) 04:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Flyer, I think both you and Bakshi kept the ping-pong match going longer than you probably should have, but I don't recall seeing anything that constituted harrassment. Bakshi's editing of Talk page posts was clearly inappropriate. The threats were as well, but I believe the more severe ones were retracted after an Admin(?) spoke to Bakshi on the matter. Frankly, regardless of how "right" it might have been, I would have been happy if all conversation on the matter had stopped (at least on the Titanic page) after I pointed out that it seemed to be moving beyond the scope of improving the article. Anyway, this is a somewhat unqualified opinion, but as a perpetual Devil's Advocate, I think you should have let it go (or escalated it to the admins while dropping direct involvement as much as possible) sooner, Flyer. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 05:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I understand your feelings, Doniago. Not an unqualified opinion at all. I feel that I did drop it, though. I stated that while I would not be removing my comments, I was done. It was Bakhshi82 who kept pressing. This only came up again after he waited a few days and then continued to edit/remove my comments. I wasn't even the one reverting him, except that one time yesterday. He needed to be reported, and, since I didn't see that anyone else had reported him at the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (which is the place that made/makes the most sense to me to report him at), I decided to report him. I would have weighed in there regardless of who reported him anyway, and an editor still would have likely called me out as equally at fault. Or made this simply about a content dispute. Bakhshi82 has continued to harass me about removing my comments, and still...nothing has been done about it. But all of this is how Wikipedia has mostly been these days -- largely unhelpful regarding such matters. Most of what is stated in this discussion is why I am just about done with Wikipedia as it is. It's not a place I like much at all anymore. Flyer22 (talk) 06:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, if you look at my Talk page you can see I've been involved in my own fair share of ridiculous (to my mind) situations, though at the same time I haven't necessarily handled all of them with the grace I might have. I just don't think there's any way to be a long-term editor on WP who actually cares about the content and does any substantive edits without eventually being drawn into some level of "drama". My best advice would be to strongly consider whether anything you can say is likely to make a constructive difference; if it isn't, don't respond; it doesn't matter whether you're right, because they're not listening anyhow. You can always try to enlist other editors via Project pages, WP:CNB or WP:3O if you feel you're the sole sane voice in a discussion as well. As I said, I think in this situation you may have gotten overly-involved, but in general I consider you a very positive contributor to the project, and I hope you won't let this one situation drag you down. I found it...well, "amusing" isn't the right word...flattering? heh...that both you and Bakshi directly asked me to get involved in the discussion, while I'd been trying very hard to stay out of it. Didn't realize I was so highly-regarded. (smile) Anyway, I hope you'll stick around, and again, while I don't think you were completely blameless in this situation, I certainly don't think you did anything particularly horrible or incomprehensible either. Chin up! Doniago (talk) 13:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Like I stated in that linked discussion to my talk page, dispute resolution hasn't been working too well for me (sometimes not at all); it just feels so inactive these days. And oh no, I didn't ask you to get involved in my drama with Bakhshi82. I asked you to weigh in on the design of the lead (when it seemed that Ring Cinema and I would not be able to work past our differences). And I asked because you look after/contribute to that article, as well as other film articles. I do hold you in high regard when it comes to editing such articles (and if I was familiar with any other types of articles you look after/edit, I'm sure I would state the same about you in that light as well). All in all, thank you for the advice. I appreciate it. Flyer22 (talk) 16:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
No problem! (smile) Oops, sorry; I remembered the message but apparently forgot what it pertained to. (blush) Agreed that sometimes it seems that paradoxically those who are here to address drama are among the most drama-avoidant... As for what articles I tend to edit, feel free to review my contributions. (laughs) Doniago (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Some Assistance

Titanic is not showing up on my watchlist the last few days, even when there are new edits. Are you seeing any issues with that? --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

That sounds strange, it seems to be operating correctly on my watchlist. When I've had issues with edits not showing up on my watchlist it's usually down to a stale page in my cache, so it might be worth deleting all the files in your web cache and see if that makes any difference. Betty Logan (talk) 14:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Since I noticed you were cleaning up after this anon editor too... Do those edits seem really familiar to you? I feel like this might be a blocked user that was discussed at the film project but can't place it (or they are just common enough edits and I'm a paranoid idiot). You've been around longer than I have so I thought I'd ask you before I went to the project page with it. Millahnna (talk) 01:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

When I saw the edits on the Lethal Weapon articles I thought maybe it was User:Bambifan101 but Martial Arts films seem to pretty far removed from his MO, and I think this is actually a genuine editor not acquainted with the editing guidelines. There is no real vandalism going on, just a bit of poor editing but there are a quite a lot of good clean up edits in there too. The only real problem is specifying the sub-genres and WP:EGG links and some WP:OVERLINK too; none of these actually corrupt the information on the article, but obviously it would be better if he didn't do it. I only reverted the clear-cut cases because I didn't want to partially undo good edits, and I didn't really want to spend all evening patching them up either. I don't think there is a need to alert the Film project unless he actively starts to revert the corrective edits. Betty Logan (talk) 01:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeah I think Bambi is who I was thinking of and no he wasn't into the martial arts flicks. Other than removing a few references and the egg links (most of which were already in place on the Hong Kong movies), IP did more good than harm. Like you, I didn't want to remove the good parts of his edits so I just manually fixed the links and flag icons (I probably missed some overlinking). I only saw a few spots where it seemed appropriate to flat out revert and you got most of those. Thanks for putting a name to who I was thinking of, though. At this point, it was just driving me crazy not to be able to pull it out of my poor old brain (like spotting a "hey it's that guy" actor and not being able to recall what you recognize them from). See you round the film pages. Millahnna (talk) 02:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
He hit the ground running today so I've left him a message. Betty Logan (talk) 15:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Which apparently he has paid no attention to... :/ --BelovedFreak 13:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Which brings me to another question: am I wrong in thinking that changing the date on maintenance tags is not a great idea? It seems like it could mess up the whole "work through the backlog" concept. Not that many people actually do that (I started to with plots and then my brain exploded somewhere in mid-2007) and not that it's the biggest problem in the world on some articles but still... My mind is instinctively rebelling against the concept. Millahnna (talk) 13:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep, bad idea, although that could be a good faith misundertanding of the purpose of dating the tags. Trouble is, this IP doesn't seem to want to communicate.--BelovedFreak 13:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Well he's cleaning up the egg links himself, now. So I think he's seeing his talk page messages but not the edit summaries. Maybe? Millahnna (talk) 13:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Hopefully. I've started a thread at WT:FILM just in case, so that others can keep an eye on things too but hopefully it's just an over-enthusiastic new editor who wants to help out.--BelovedFreak 13:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Don't Look Now soundtrack.jpg

⚠
⚠

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 04:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

You can delete it. I originally uploaded it to illustrate the soundtrack but replaced it with an audio sample. Betty Logan (talk) 05:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Question

Do you think, that source cheating is becoming Wikipedia's new problem? Well I certainly think it is and encounter it even more often. Do think somebody should write an essay on it? Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 23:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I have noticed it a lot in the last six months, but it might just because I look for it more now. I think more and more vandals are wising up that something needs to "look" sourced otherwise it gets pulled, so it makes sense that source cheating is increasing. It's just like an arms race or a superbug—vandals adapt to their environment and the good ones develop more sophisticated techniques to evade detection. There are three types I have indentified:
  1. Editors puts claims into sourced sentences and paragraphs; this may be not be actual source cheating, but it has the same consequence in that something looks sourced when it isn't.
  2. The second type is when editors have a credible source but misrepresent what it says, or claims it says something when it doesn't; sometimes this may be based on misunderstanding, but on other occasions it is deliberate.
  3. The worst kind is when editors construct a fake reference or replicate one already present in the article to make their claims look sourced.

All you can do is assume that content will not always match up the source, so every online source needs to be checked. The real problem is with offline sources; we are obliged to comply with WP:AGF so all you can do is tag the source with {{verify source}}:[verification needed] Betty Logan (talk) 23:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Srry

Hey sorry for breaking the link, i was using a semi-automated program(Lupins anti-vandal tool and did not see that i was spellchecking a link —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moneya (talk • contribs) 17:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the explanation, but if this tool is correcting spelling mistakes in URLs it might be best if you don't use it. Betty Logan (talk) 19:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Wachowski

We got one article in one paper indicating the change, meanwhile we got all the other evidence indicating no change. I reverted 'Lana'. Lots42 (talk) 00:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I have no interest in the article. I was reverting edits by a sock so if you want to restore his edits that's your prerogative. Betty Logan (talk) 01:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Don't Look Now 2.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Don't Look Now 2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 05:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I replaced this photo with a PD photo on Wikimedia Commons; I figured the article didn't have to show her in character so used that one instead. Betty Logan (talk) 05:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Sock

Just wondering who the Jimmyson14 sockmaster is? Cheers. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/GeordieWikiEditor Betty Logan (talk)
Thanks for the reply. You hadn't tagged him yet, so I was just wondering if I could help. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, it took me a few minutes to find the sock templates. Betty Logan (talk) 06:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Steve Davis/GA1

Steve Davis is going through a GA review, and is on hold for 14 days to allow time to deal with the issues listed on the review page. SilkTork *Tea time 13:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Snow Prince article assessment

Hi Betty Logan,

You have recently assessed the article Snow Prince and gave me feedback on where I should improve the article. I have taken most of your suggestions and have made changes to meet the suggestions. I hope that you can take a look at the article again and see if they fulfill your criteria. Also, I have made some notes besides some suggestions that I did not take up on, and can you see that if you agree with my reasoning? If you have any other suggestions, please tell me. Thanks!! -- Lionratz (talk) 13:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The coverage is much better but the sourcing still needs a bit of work. I've left comments on the talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 01:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your speedy response!! I have made the necessary changes that you suggested. Can you see if you agree? Also, you have misunderstood me when I said, "I am only making use of the review, and it is not required to source reviews.". I am actually intending to type,"I don't think it is required to source the Plot section, as the primary source is the film itself." This is aimed at your doubts about the source "movieexclusive.com". Sorry for my oversight. Thanks! -- Lionratz (talk) 07:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
No you, don't need to source the plot section. It's probably best to remove a non-reliable source for something you don't need to source. Betty Logan (talk) 07:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I made a little addition to this article. Can you see if it fulfills your expectations? Lionratz (talk) 13:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I just don't think it has the depth of detail to be a 'B' class article. If you compare it to this B class article you will see there is a substantial difference in coverage. The criteria for B class says the coverage must leave "Readers are not left wanting", and I don't think it meets that criteria. The coverage of the actual production phase isn't comprehensive enough IMO. Other editors may disagree of course, so I suggest you re-list it at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Assessment#Requests_for_assessment and get a second opinion. Betty Logan (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Armbrust has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. †

Louisville, Kentucky

Resolved
 – Discussion moved to article talk page.

I'm sorry, but I've had to revert all the recent edits to Louisville, Kentucky. I don't see a point with all those tags, and the reversion of perfectly good content for an inapplicable rationale. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 22:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The point of the tags is notify readers and editors of unsourced content. There are huge amounts of information which are unreferenced. You asked what the problems where, so I have taken a closer look at the article. All the tags are applicable and you shouldn't remove them without addresisng the problems. Betty Logan (talk) 22:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Please address the problems without tagging the article like ornaments on a Christmas tree. It just isn't necessary. I will remove them as long as "legally" allowed to. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 22:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
The tags exist to highlight problems with the article, of which there are many. If the tags bother you the best course of action is to address the problems. Huge amounts of unsourced claims and statistics are no foundation for an article. By removing tags that have been applied to unsourced content, you are violating Wikipedia policies so I suggest you leave them be. Betty Logan (talk) 22:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Please cease. This obvious antipathy toward the subject of the article will only move this case to mediation. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 22:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I will make a deal with you. I won't tag the whole article on two conditions: 1) A general "Ref improve" tage is placed at the top of the article; 2) The unsourced content that was added this evening which I removed, and which you then re-added is removed and not added back in until a proper source is provided. Betty Logan (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Wouldn't this issue be much better argued out on the article's talk page? I have taken the liberty of copying it there. Exok (talk) 22:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Deathly Hallows Part 2 Marketing.

Hi there,

You seem to continually remove information about Deathly Hallows Part 2, and the marketing it is currently doing. If you could find a better source for the current information on the TV spots/Trailers and Posters, please do so, in order to move past this dissagreement that editors are going through. In the mean time I think this information should stay, as it is current, and the provided sources do provide the evidnence.

B.Davis2003 (talk) 05:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not a case of whether I have "better" sources, but of what types of sources Wikipedia permits. Sources cannot be self-published (i.e. they cannot be fansites), they must have professional oversight (a hired staff), and they must have reputation for fact-checking (i.e. other reliable sources cite them). If they don't meet those criteria then they are simply not permissable; it's a policy issue not a consensus issue. Betty Logan (talk) 06:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

DH Part 2

Thanks for setting up the head count for the split! The article is way to crammed at the present time, and would look far better in two seperate articles, I'm glad we have finally found something to agree on! :P B.Davis2003 (talk) 03:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

It must be a good idea then! Betty Logan (talk) 04:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Must be lol!B.Davis2003 (talk) 06:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Is it safe to split the article now? It's currently 23-2, so it's obvious that the majority of readers want it split. Can we go ahead and do it now, or do you want to wait ? Oh and the article should be named "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1" as that is the title of the film as stated on the Part 1 Blu-ray in the copyright text at the bottom of the case. Hallows Horcruxes 17:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It looks pretty much decided, we're over 20 votes now. I've posted a formal move request so an admin will come along and view thge situation. Betty Logan (talk) 20:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Harry Potter split

I just want to say sorry if you didn't approve of the way I did it. Not everyone approved of the c&p approach and normally I don't either. That was the main reason I stated that I was freaked out. So if there is any copyright concerns I apologize! P.S. you might want to move your merge request to the one part article though if it stays. Happy editing. :) Jhenderson 777 21:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It's come out ok. The problem with cut and paste jobs is that the edit histories become lost, but you can easily fix that with a copyright attribution in the edit summary. It should be ok now, and personally I'm glad I didn't have to do it myself. Betty Logan (talk) 21:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes it was hard work and sort of time consuming. :) Jhenderson 777 21:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to intrude this space, but what about the soundtrack and video game articles ? Should they be split too ? Hallows Horcruxes 21:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It might be a good idea given the split with the film article, but the album/computer game projects are under no obligation to follow the structure of the film articles. They have to decide for themselves, but it might be a good idea to notify their projects of the film article split so they can review the situation. Betty Logan (talk) 21:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Good question. Noticing the video game it is primarily part one with a part two section that can be moved on the part two film article until it has room to go. So that one looks easier to where you can just rename the article and just move the part two section out of it until it is deserving of the article. The same with the soundtrack (just move the part two section out of the way and it will primarily be part one. And part two should just move into the film article until it's ready to be split with it's own article. Then all the part one version needs is a name move.) But consensus might be recommended first. Jhenderson 777 22:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I'll see about splitting it sometime in the future. But for now, we have a problem. The Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 article has suddenly gone to being a redirect to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film)! Hallows Horcruxes 06:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Just to let you both know, the move Jhenderson777 carried out was reverted this morning due to a copyvio situation. Therefore, the requested move Betty Logan made was sorted by an administrator; we now have a Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1 article and a Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2 article, so all is well. :) Hallows Horcruxes 08:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Betty, The Hobbit (2012 film) is a similar situation to Deathly Hallows. It's a two-part film, but it's still early in the process. Do you think we should tackle a split for that article too? (I'm thinking that we should probably split Kill Bill too at some point to set a precedent and show how it helps flesh out coverage from separate releases.) Erik (talk | contribs) 13:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The so called "revert" was necessary. Remember my edit was just a preview of what should it should start out as and so basically it is the same still right now. It definitely needed to be moved by a administrator as I said on your move request. I also let a administrator restore edits to the part two article so all is fine like HH said. As for "The Hobbit" I will respond to that when I am not busy with real life. :)Jhenderson 777 20:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I've left my comments at the Film Project. Betty Logan (talk) 21:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Not a sock

I'm not a sock. That used to be my username. Just updating to my current user so in future people may contact me through this user. --Victory93 (talk) 12:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed was renamed to "Victory93" here if you like. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
As you can see I had my username changed. --Victory93 (talk) 12:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing it up. While you are changing your talk links it might be worth putting a temporary message on your talk page so that other editors know you are the same editor so it's clear what you are doing. You obviously aren't doing anything wrong, but it would help prevent further confusion. Betty Logan (talk) 12:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Question?

Hi Betty! I have a question. Do you have access to old Snooker Scene magazine editions? Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 21:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid not, I don't get it. Are you just after old issues in general or one specific issue, because it may be worth asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request? Betty Logan (talk) 07:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Made a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request#Snooker Scene. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 17:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
If it is just snooker results that are needed this book might be better: http://www.amazon.co.uk/CueSport-Book-Professional-Snooker-Complete/dp/095485490X. Snooker Scene might not even have a complete record anyway (it only lists teh ranking results on its website), but this book looks really good for snooker results. Amazon says it is out of print but I will check my library computer tomorrow and if it's on the system I will order the book. Betty Logan (talk) 18:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh, currently no need for complete results. Only the result of the final is needed. Just moments 45 minutes ago find one for the Kit-Kat Break for World Champions on Google News Archive and still searching. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 19:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Maybe you should send these guys a bill: http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/images/6133646810/ref=dp_image_text_0?ie=UTF8&n=266239&s=books Betty Logan (talk) 18:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Dr No

I notice you're a fairly regular editor of the Dr. No article. I'm interested in getting this back to being on the WikiProject Good Articles list. I've got Nehrams2020 agreeing to copyedit the article and provide more specifics on areas for improvement. They have suggested starting with the citations, which is why I've been working on those over the last week or so. If you can see any flaws or think something should be cited, or that the article needs something adding (or taking away) I'd appreciate any thoughts you may have. Thanks!--Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk) 08:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll check through it over the next couple of days. Betty Logan (talk) 09:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Here is my initial review: Talk:Dr. No (film)#Review Betty Logan (talk) 10:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The Angry Video Game Nerd

I did contest the speedy deletion. In fact I and someone else, and even though we did that it were deleted by some RHaworth... This is pretty annoying actually. The information on that page are official and confirmed information. Could you please bring it back?

I don't want to like post all of it on The Angry Video Game Nerd's main article :) Luka1184 (talk) 08:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't bring it back, you have to ask one of these: Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles. Betty Logan (talk) 08:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Kill Bill

Hi, Betty. It looks like Hunter Kahn (talk · contribs) and I will be splitting Kill Bill into their respective volumes next week. I will especially be following your instructions from here, but I wanted to ask you if you had anything to suggest about any aspect of the split. For example, what should the titles be? Where should the overlaps be? See Talk:Kill Bill#2011 discussion to split. Thanks, Erik (talk | contribs) 14:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

List of Highest-grossing films by year

Hey you undid revisions I did on that page. You are going off of a less credible source than what I used, IMDB. Also, some of the films are where they should not and a couple of the gross revenues are incorrect. Also, my addition of the budgets and 1918 in film - 1999 in film were good additions that should not have been removed. Please explain. Thanks.

Your source isn't credible at all. This source is a user constructed list on IMDB, which means it isn't considered a reliable source in any capacity whatsoever, because anyone can set up a list on IMDB. Second of all, you left the page in a mess full of citation errors. Third, there was a a discussion on the talk page where it was agreed to replace the Box Office Mojo reference with individual references from WorldwideBoxoffice. I was asked by an admin to undertake that action. I implemented the consensus on the talk page, so if you would like to implement changes to the chart it would be best if you put them to the other editors first. Betty Logan (talk) 01:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
For your calm and reasonable input on copyright concerns in List of highest-grossing films and especially for finding and implementing a solution. Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I really do appreciate it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

It was no problem :) Betty Logan (talk) 17:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Transformers merging

Hi Betty, you participated in this discussion concerning merging the characters list. Before consensus has been reached however, User:ChipmunkRaccoon has attempted to do so, moving the list for the first film to List of characters in Transformers (film series) in a sort of half-assed manner. Is there any recourse here because it's kind of a mess and I'm not sure where the discussion can go if smoeone has already gone ahead and partially merged it.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, it kind of looks like a consensus has emerged (80% are in favor of the merge) so the editor hasn't really violated a policy by going ahead with it, although it is bad manners not to wait until the discussion is formally closed. The issue is really about how the merge is undertaken. If you have strong ideas about the form of the merged article, I suggest starting a discussion about what form the article should take and ask the editor to cease with his unilateral edits and join the discussion. This is basically a content dispute now, and no admin will intervene unless an attempt at discussion and co-operation is made first. Betty Logan (talk) 15:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I have no particular idea though it somehow seems a LOT longer than those 3 articles merged should be so I don't know if he has added a tonne of additional characters or not. I intended for it just to go like other List type articles though they seem to have a penchant for separating them by human, autobot and decepticon. I'm not sure if that is a good idea or not, personally I don't like it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Changing images

Hello Betty. I saw in this edit you changed the image of Julie Christie (and rightly so) but you didn't change the text with it. Could you fix that please? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice the caption. I've taken care of it. Betty Logan (talk) 23:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Copyeditor's Barnstar
For all your help clearing up my clumsy edits on Dr. No - I thank you! Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk) 07:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Nah they're not clumsy, you've done a lot of great work on it and it deserves to get its GA status back. The odd thing sometimes gets overlooked like a missing page number which I'll just point out if I spot, along with anything else that might an issue for a reviewer. The real problems are caused by editors that just come in randomly and alter information so it no longer matches the sources, so once its gets GA back we'll have to make sure the article isn't compromised again. Betty Logan (talk) 08:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Royal Wedding

Hello. I have no problem with the David Edwards issue being mentioned but i agree it should be done in a neutral way. No where in the article sourced did he oppose or dispute the official line about this royal wedding. He pointed to figures from previous ones but stated other factors were also in play and if it is to be mentioned that should be made clear.

On the issue of Estimates.. Large numbers of media outlets gave the two billion estimate, this one website (which does not even have an article on wikipedia) states another estimate. You should not give one source with questionable notability such status by including it in the introduction and treating its own work as factual. More detail on it could be mentioned in the article giving a break down of some of the figures. The sports site lacks notability when up against large media organisations from around the world which report the 2 billion figure, it also lacks neutrality, that website is very clearly aimed at promoting sport as superior to all other things. It has an agenda. CoiledSnow (talk) 06:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Sporting Intelligence may or may not promote sport, but if you look at the reports on there it downplays the TV audience for most sporting encounters, and is particularly critical of FIFA. At least the site makes a genuine attempt at reporting real figures, as opposed to just posting estimates. If you have sources with any "hard" figures then by all means include them, but I don't think we should remove the one lot of actual reported figures in the article. It may be biased in its estimate, so for that reason its estimates shouldn't be given any more credence than the others, but I believe factual data should be included as much as possible. As for Dave Edwards, if you feel you can put a more "neutral" spin on it then by all means give it a go. Betty Logan (talk) 06:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
" The confirmed global audience was 161 million viewers drawing from 47% of the world's population" Sorry but that whole statement is simply based on Sporting Intelligence and the selection that one person has made for a website which as i said before lacks notability and also lacks neutrality, it very clearly has an agenda talking up sport as being superior to other things. I fail to see why 1 website (which does not even have a wikipedia article) should get such special treatment especially when we are also dealing with sources from multiple national and global media outlets. How about if we state a brief list of the viewing figures by certain countries in that paragraph, rather than depend on this one website to state global audience / selection of the worlds population it is chosen from? it are already mentions their estimate by putting the 300m to 2 billion bit so we can let people make their own assumptions.. rather than Nick Harris's assumptions and research. CoiledSnow (talk) 07:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Something like: "The confirmed audience figures for the live event include 24.5 million in the United Kingdom, *** in ***, *** in *** etc. Estimates for the total worldwide audience range from 300 million to two billion". CoiledSnow (talk) 07:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
If you can find more TV figures by all means include them, but whether Sporting Intelligence is neutral or not is besides the point for reporting actual viewing figures. Its estimates shouldn't be given more credence than other estimates, but 161 million from 47% of the population is factual data. If you reject the view that Sporting Intelligence is not a reliable source and therefore not capable of reporting factual data, then you should take it to the reliable sources noticeboard and get a ruling againt using its content. Betty Logan (talk) 07:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I've managed to track down a few sources for individual countries. I think it will be better to create a section for TV viewing figures, and then all the data—factual data and estimates—can be covered in equal detail, and provide a context for the reader. I have reservations about having estimates in the lede as opposed to reported figures, andyou obviously have reservations about the source, so i think this will be the best approach. Betty Logan (talk) 10:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I think it would be helpful to have a selection of countries with official figures released in the introduction, although when it comes to the estimates of global audience it is probably better to deal with that in more detail in the broadcast section. I have also come across some other figures. [1] (just over half way down the page as france/germany figures). For China i have yet to come across any "official" estimates. The article linked for the one million simply says over 1 million expected to view on a specific channel (although that survey on the page also suggested there was 33% interest in the wedding, which would be many millions) , the Sportsintel site suggest up to 30 million viewers. Also 72 million streamed live on youtube and by the end of the day had over 101 million total streams. [2] CoiledSnow (talk) 16:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks I will incorporate them into the article. With the Chinese figure I guess it's down to the population proportion that receives the channel rather than the interest, but in the absence of a "pure" figure it is probably still best to include it. As for including audience figures in the lede, I'm not sure that including lots of random figures is really appropriate for what is an overview of the article, but if we perhaps limited it to the well documented UK figure and put that into context then I think that would work. Betty Logan (talk) 16:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree its best to leave out the global audience estimates from the introduction so that can be more clearly put into context (including with the criticism of hunt and the figures credibility, although i dont think he was the first that came out with a big number like that at the time)along with other global estimates and the fact it is hard to get an accurate figure. But i do think the fact it was viewed by many around the world rather than just people in the UK is an important element. The introduction is not very large at present, so listing a few countries (for which we have solid and respected audience ratings) seems reasonable. it would only take a couple of sentences. I think UK, Canada + Australia + NZ (3 main other commonwealth realms) , Germany + France (2 main western european countries), India (which has the largest viewing figure of any country, even beating the UK) and USA. It could then have an additional sentence saying it was viewed by millions more around the world including, the Youtube figure (as it was the most viewed so far of youtube live beating Obamas inauguration.) CoiledSnow (talk) 17:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I think we should perhaps keep it to the most prominent numbers then—the UK, the US and India—and cover the rest by stating it was broadcast in 180 countries (which is now sourced in the broadcast section). I think that would be adequate context, since I think it would be better to not fill out the lede with lots of stats. If the Youtube figure is as prominent as you say then I have no objection to that going in the lede too. Betty Logan (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I rearranged the current wording slightly so that it fits together in 3 paragraphs. That way a 4th could be added that could summarize the viewing but possibly other things to like a mention that 1 million lined the route, and the number of street parties around the UK. But for the viewing I thought something like...
National figures released after the wedding showed a peak TV audience of 26.3 million viewers and a total of 36.7 million watching at least some part of the wedding coverage in the UK. India had the largest recorded audience figures for the event at 42.1 million viewers whilst the United States drew an average audience of 22.8 million. The ceremony was viewed live by tens of millions more around the world including 72 million on YouTube which broadcast the event live via the Royal Channel. CoiledSnow (talk) 17:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
That looks fine. It keeps it concise and limits it to the known facts. Betty Logan (talk) 18:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit summaries

If you aren't actually doing an undo, please don't use the "undo" edit summary - using the button is fine (I do it all the time), but leaving the edit summary in there unchanged gives the false impression that you're reverting. Thanks. --B (talk) 00:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It was actually an accident. I used undo to replace the image but forgot to alter the edit summary. Betty Logan (talk) 07:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Goldfinger

Hi, Thanks again for the work and effort you put into Dr. No to get it back to GA status. I'm trying to do the same thing for Goldfinger and hoped I could tempt you in to doing what you did so well at the very beginning with Dr. No - putting in citation needed / questionable source / dead link tags etc, as well as any more general thoughts you had on it? I'd like to get this one back up to GA as well, if possible! Many thanks if you are able to do anything at all on this... - Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk) 08:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll have a look over it in the next couple of days. Betty Logan (talk) 15:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Themes in a film

Suppose there was a film of Moby Dick and the WP article on it contained some statement like "The concept of the recurring whale-behavior and whaling-technology themes running through the film was a design aspect conceived and executed by Joe Shmoe and Art Director Bill Blow [10]." Wouldn't that sentence be rather offensive to those who'd actually read the novel? As it reads, it sounds like Joe Schoe and Bill Blow invented the recurring whale theme that permeates Moby Dick, the film. One wonders how they came up with it, hey? SBHarris 20:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The theme may well have been present in the book, but that section is specifically addressing the design of the film, and the claim is clearly sourced and makes no reference to the book. Betty Logan (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Does that matter? We're writing an encyclopedia here, and if we know the whale theme in the Moby Dick film comes from the book, it's a half-truth (see lie) to mention ONLY some film Art Director in connection with occurence of whale themes in the film, because IMDB or whatever, was the only reference we had at hand. Be reasonable. SBHarris 19:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
The article lost its GA status on your watch, so I don't think you're in a position to ask other editors to "be reasonable" when they're trying to get it back up to GA. Interjecting original research isn't the way forward for restoring the quality of the article. Betty Logan (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
On my watch? You must be kidding. The article bears no resemblance to the one I worked on. In any case, not everything in WP needs a source, including the idea that Moby Dick (the novel) has a major theme of whales, or that Goldfinger (the novel) has a major theme of gold. These are just common sense, and are apparent to anybody who has read the original source. Also, FYI, Uncle Tom's Cabin has a major theme of slavery. Such baldly obvious truths do not cause articles to lose GA status if you do not cite some critic who has noticed them. Say, did you know that for New Testament of the Bible, that "the setting being the Roman Empire period in the 1st century, the historical context is well established." No citation on that. [3] SBHarris 20:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I think the point with the gold theme is that it’s not just about the metal gold, it’s also about references to the colour throughout the film which create a recurring motif. This reinforces the importance of the metal as the obsession in Goldfinger’s life, which is why Goldfinger wears or carries something gold in every scene. I think there is a big difference between the gold theme (in which gold is the same as whales, slaves and Romans) and the gold motif, which is what we're talking about here: an extra, subtle use of cinematographic design to highlight and support the importance of the theme, but which runs separate to it. - Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah exactly, the source isn't really addressing the theme, it's addressing the manifestation of gold motifs in the art direction of the film. Not only do you have Goldfinger wearing gold, but you have his yellow car which is synonymous with the color gold and the gold colored laser and so on. It's true to say this wouldn't have occurred if not for the theme being present in the book, but this is about the creative decisions specifically related to making the film. Betty Logan (talk) 22:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
The laser is silver not gold (the table being cut is gold). The beam is red (all laser beams were red in 1964). The gold motifs in the film are largely those in the book, at least where they are politically correct. Yellow sashes replace an explicit reference to yellow Korean faces, and a few dark-haired women in the novel have been turned blonde in the film. The car (a different model of Rolls, and a less appropriate one) is merely painted plain yellow, rather than armored with white gold (which is silver). But we don't see the yellow cat, food, wine, and golden-jacketed porn literature that occurs in the novel. [4] The spray painted woman appears, but not the fact that such women were used for sex in the novel, not just as a way to kill somebody to warn Bond. Yes, indeed, Goldfinger wears something gold or yellow in every film scene, but you'll have a very hard time finding a critic who noticed that (no doubt intentional) bit of art, before it was written in Wikipedia. Because I myself stuck that interesting fact in this article, as "original research." It is otherwise subliminal. Neener! Though true, I suppose you'll have to remove it now. SBHarris 02:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Gary Wilkinson

I think (if you're speedy request is accepted) we should wait at least one week before correcting the links in case someone opens a discussion to determine if there is a primary topic. The current "Garry Wilkinson (snooker player)" link will redirect to the relevant article anyway. Sir Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 18:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

And there is already: Talk:Gary Wilkinson#Requested move. Sir Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 21:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Armbrust, I'll present the reasons in a few minutes. Betty Logan (talk) 21:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Teamwork Barnstar
Fantastic work (again) on Goldfinger: we're now GA listed again! Thanks very much for all your hard work and invaluable input, without which we would not have got anywhere near GA! SchroCat (^ • @) 12:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
  • You would have got there without me, all I really did was do a bit of clean-up. It's great that these articles have been restored to GA though; let's just make sure they're on our watchlists so they don't get compromised again by "helpful" editors! Betty Logan (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Attack page and other random junk

I think I figured out the "attack page" thing. It's that your user page is a red link and notes that the page was previously deleted for being an attack page (which I'm assuming has no actual connection). That's all I can come up with. Also, in passing I wanted to note that despite the fact that you and I have wildly different speech patterns, edit some very different topics (though we cross paths a fair amount), and you have been around waaaay longer than me, we have been accused of being each others' sockpuppets twice now (both related to Titanic IIRC). For some stupid reason this tickles me. Always a pleasure bumping into you. Happy editing and all that. Millahnna (talk) 04:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah thanks, that log doesn't do me any favors actually does it? I always presumed it was an attack on me and an admin deleted it. I can see how it might appear that I created the attack page though. Betty Logan (talk) 04:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Maybe I should go blue. I sometimes get weird responses from editors who are instantly hostile which has sometimes puzzled me, and if they've seen that it could put them on the defensive. Betty Logan (talk) 04:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Probably wouldn't hurt. I know there's a knee-jerk tendency to associate redlink users with new users. Combine that with the knee-jerk assumption that all new users will be problems, and yeah... My philosophy; if the vandals and problem editors aren't mad at me then I'm doing it wrong (but you do more content creation than I do so that may not be right). Ironic given my obvious problems with certain patterns but there it is. Millahnna (talk) 04:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Is the editor who deleted the page still around? Or could another editor fix that deletion message so that it doesn't read like that? Millahnna (talk) 04:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I kind of got used to using the red link as a visual identifier so I could quickly pick out my name from edit histories, and I would be reluctant to lose that feature. I'll contact the admin and see if he can do anything. Always nice to run into you too; I can see why we are sometimes accused of being socks, we share similar outlooks on many issues. The advantage of that is that it's nice to get some back-up in a dispute, but of course sock/tag-team accusations are par for the course when that happens. Betty Logan (talk) 08:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Just a comment, the page was an attack on you Betty, though relatively minor. You could easily create a userpage, and then change your signature to be red (or any other noticeable colour), I can give you a hand with that if you like? WormTT · (talk) 08:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Betty. Yes your userpage was created by a vandal who we've now blocked. It was the sort of juvenile vandalism that was borderline between wp:G3 and wp:G10. There is no obligation on you to have a userpage and you never edited that page so I can see the annoyance factor. I've moved the deleted page to be a subpage of the editor who created it, and hopefully the deletion log now makes that a bit clearer. Happy editing! ϢereSpielChequers 12:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Thankyou for sorting it; that will make things much clearer! Betty Logan (talk) 17:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Huh. Never expecting anything useful to come out of the mess that started this whole discussion to begin with. Neat trick, that. Millahnna (talk) 22:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Highest grossing film franchises/series

Hey, I'm kinda waiting for a response in our discussion. I think that if changes were to be made to the section, I can't go ahead and make them myself. It would require more experience... But anyway, just saying I'm waiting for some input in the discussion. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 05:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I've added my comments, but if you would like a range of input you would be better asking the regular film editors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. The film chart talk pages don't get much traffic as you've probably realised by now. Betty Logan (talk) 06:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Again, I'm waiting for a response. I brought it up at that talk page, and managed to drag someone else into the discussion, but that's only one person... --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 22:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Another one?

I'm going to have a crack at getting On Her Majesty's Secret Service up to scratch. It's not in bad condition, but is a bit short on citations / a little 'clunky' in places. Feel free to join in if you can / want! Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 10:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll get on it in the next day or so. It's one of the best of the series so it will be good if it is promoted to GA. Betty Logan (talk) 02:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
That's great - would be good to have you looking over this one too - it's a little bit of a mess in places, but nothing too bad and I've always liked it, despite all the criticism! - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Not too far off now. I'm away until Monday, so I'll do some more then, including re-writing the rather weak lead and then assess again - could be going for GA by mid-week at this rate! Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 22:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Placing warning templates

I came across the warning template that you placed on User talk:Bridgeplayer when examining the background to your request for protection of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film). My view is that this was an inadvised usage. Warning templates should only be placed on an experienced user's talk page in exceptional circumstances, and this was not such a case. A better way forward would have been to raise your concerns on his/her talk page. I agree that the phrasing that you complained of could be misinterpreted but by taking the most adverse reading, it could be argued that you, yourself, were not following WP:AGF. We are all busy editors and it is better to resolve disagreements by discussion. TerriersFan (talk) 23:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, it annoyed me more than it normally would because of the effort I put into trying to make sure I followed the correct procedures. There had been some conflict over that redirect (which I had not been part of) and the redirect was brought up for discussion at the Film Project. Of the several possibilities we were faced with I personally favored deletion but that wasn't a viable option at the time given the many links to it and the discussion fizzled out, so I spent a considerable amount of time correcting the links. I then put it up for speedy deletion and it was contested, so having never encounted this type of situation before I read through the many instruction pages on Wikipedia to determine the best option. In the end I plumped for the RfD because it was an automatic redirect creation that created the problem, and AfD didn't seem like the right place to discuss a redirect/disambig. I may have made the wrong judgment here, but I think I displayed very good practice all through this, and then—let's be honest here—Bridgeplayer was a dick about it. I followed procedure as best I could and elevated it to the next level and make a judgment call about where it should be discussed—ultimately I don't think it makes much difference if it ends up at Afd or RfD, the fate of the page will still be decided in some fashion, so I still don't know exactly why he thinks it should have gone to AfD. I have no particular strong investment in the outcome, I just wanted to see it resolved. If he felt I was getting it wrong there was nothing to prevent him from contacting me and offering some helpful advice, but he basically chose to be derogatory. If there was a situation to be resolved then, yeah, templates aren't the way to go, but I couldn't see what we were supposed to be resolving, he didn't cite any policies/guidelines which indicated my actions were "bad practice" so I templated him to show my annoyance. Mostly I just like to get on with editing and don't have much need for all these procedures, so given that this was a "first" for me then I an open to the possibility that I got some things wrong, but if that is the case then just spell it out to me, so I know what I'm supposed to do. Betty Logan (talk) 01:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Film

You're not as big as an editor in Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (13 edits) as with the Bond films, but seeing all the help you're giving with those, can you take a look at that one? (just nominated for the GA, need it to pass before the 20th. Thanks. igordebraga ≠ 04:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to take a look at it at some point, but I have already given my word to look over the "On Majesty's Secret Service" article so that is my priority at the moment. Betty Logan (talk) 08:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Vincelord

I would like to know why you removed my recent edit on the Superman movie as 'unnecessary exposition', I feel my edit better explained what happened in the film and made it easier for people to understand what happened in the movie and therefore should not of been removed.Vincelord (talk) 13:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

It's supposed to be a plot summary i.e. it should provide an overview of the story. The details of the accident and rescue are not necessary for understanding the story arc. Plot bloat is quite a problem on the film articles—just enough detail needs to be provided so that readers get the gist of the story; blow-by-blow accounts of the film are best served by fan wiki. See WP:FILMPLOT and WP:PLOTSUM for guidelines on writing plot summaries. Betty Logan (talk) 17:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Highest grossing film franchises/series tables

Hey, I've listed what I know on the discussion page (or at least what should be able to be easily referenced, but I think it'd be better if you handled the new table. I understand you've been pretty busy, so if you don't get around to it now, that doesn't matter. If you just chuck it somewhere on your to-do list, that'd be greatly appreciated. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 16:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

There is currently no consensus for such a table, and no source has been provided that supports this type of table. I won't be proceeding with anything unless those two criteria are met. Betty Logan (talk) 16:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
How much of a consensus do you need? Noone else will contribute to the discussion, and those who have, agreed, including you. No source will state that wikipedia needs to have two different tables, so if you mean individual sources for each case, I am asking you to find them for the ones I have no clue about. If you think it needs more discussion, by all means, keep discussing or at least ask others to. I've already left two messages on the Project Film talk page. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 08:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I said that a pre-requisite for such a table is a source because an editor defining what a series is would be WP:Original research, and that is why we model the current table on the BOM one; whether it's a good way of doing it or not it is currently our only option. The Numbers franchise table seems to do it the same way, as does Allmovie. If you want to establish another type of table then you have to provide a source that defines a "series" in the way you think it should be defined. If you can't then we can't set up another table, that's just how Wikipedia works. Maybe editors haven't joined the discussion because they haven't had a viable alternative submitted to them, or maybe they're happy with the current table. But all of this is academic until we have something we can use. Betty Logan (talk) 09:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm still only using the words, "series" and "franchises" until better terms can be thought of. It is clear and undeniable that they are completely different things, just difficult to source. Wikipedia defines a film franchise as "A media franchise is an intellectual property involving the characters, setting and trademarks of an original work of media (usually a work of fiction), such as a film, a work of literature, a television program or a video game", but defines a film series as "A film series is a collection of related films in succession. Their relationship is not fixed, but generally share a common diegetic world." And although unsourced, the film franchises page also notes that "Recently, some parts of the film industry has erroneously begun to use the word "franchise" as a synonym for a film series." Call the two different things, "Films from intellectual properties" and "Films sharing a common diegetic world" if you want, although it is not entirely user friendly. Although wikipedia isn't the world's best source, particularly for itself, it is clear to see that the two are different, and therefore should be treated differently. Also, I apologise for misinterpreting your words. I assumed that by sources you meant individual sources for each series/franchise, and kinda jumped the gun. As to the consensus, maybe, if editors are happy with the current table, they should say so at least (and possibly state why it should stay the way it is), or suggest a viable alternative. I'm trying my hardest to improve the quality of this article, and am not receiving much support, which brings me back to why I wrote on your wall in the first place. I need assistance, particularly in finding these sources, but you know, just contributing to the discussion more or getting others to contribute is fine. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 10:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

RFD result

I want to inform you that I have closed your rfd entry as retarget to Deathly Hallows (disambiguation). Hope that helps. @pple complain 10:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah that's fine, thanks for sorting it. Betty Logan (talk) 10:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The Man with the Golden Gun.....?

Hi there - I've made a start on The Man with the Golden Gun (film) as it was in a terrible mess. It's now approaching some level of normality now and I wondered if you had time to have a look over it at some point? I appreciate you're probably snowed under with a million and one other things, but even if it is just to drop in [citation needed] or [verification needed] tags it really would be much appreciated! If you are too busy, it's really not a problem! Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll try and get around to it but it will most likely be after the weekend, since I promised to look over the POTC:Stranger Tides article. I don't have much interest in POTC (glorified toy adverts if you ask me!) but I should look over it since I said I would. Betty Logan (talk) 20:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
You are an absolute star - thanks so much for this! - SchroCat (^ • @) 21:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Thank you for the assist on Starship Troopers. I hope you were able to clarify things more successfully than I apparently was able to. Doniago (talk) 01:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Infobox film

Hi, Betty! You may want to see my comments here regarding the recent modification you made. Swarm u | t 20:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I've left my thoughts at the main topic. Betty Logan (talk) 00:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Betty - for the third time, thanks again for all your help, this time with On Her Majesty's Secret Service, which is now a GA-listed article again. Without your hard work and invaluable input we wouldn't have made it. Thanks again! Gavin SchroCat (^ • @) 21:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
That's great. I'll be able to move on to TMWTGG in the next day or so too since Pirates of the Caribbean got to GA without any assistance from me. Betty Logan (talk) 01:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Have you ever considered becoming a reviewer of WP:Good Articles Betty? I think you'd make a great reviewer.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I did try it once and I made a bit of a hash. I sometimes review articles for B-class status, but I still feel I have some way to go before I become a GA reviewer. I'm still overlooking things I should pick up on, but hopefully I'll get to the point where I am completely thorough. Betty Logan (talk) 17:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

titular & eponymous

You did ask - and I did promise! Below are the nearly incomprehensible entries in the OED, minus the quotations. As you can see neither of them make it entirely clear whether Scaramanga should be called the titular or eponymous MWTGG...! - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

titular, adj. and n.

A. adj. 1.

a. That exists or is such only in title or name, as distinct from real or actual; holding or bearing a title without exercising the functions implied by it; nominal, so-styled.
b. With limiting words, as but, merely, only, expressing entire absence of the reality.

2. Of, pertaining to, consisting of, or denoted by a title of dignity; also, having a title of rank, titled; bearing, or conferring, the appropriate title. 3. Of or pertaining to a title or name; of the nature of or constituting a title (in various senses). titular character, title-role. 4. From whom or which a title or name is taken; spec. noting the parish churches of Rome from which the titles of the cardinals are derived (see title n. 9); hence transf. of a cardinal.

B. n. 1. Sc. Law. In full titular of the teinds (tithes) : a layman who became possessed of the title to the tithes of an ecclesiastical benefice at or after the Reformation; a lord of erection. 2. a. One who holds a title to an office, benefice, or possession, irrespective of the functions, duties, or rights attaching to it; spec. a cleric who bears a title (title n. 8) whether he performs the duties or not; esp. short for titular bishop at sense A. b. transf. One who has a title or appellation of some kind. 3. One who bears a title of rank; a titled person. 4. R.C. Church (See quot. 1885.) 1885 Cath. Dict., Patron and Titular of church, place, &c.‥ The titular is a wider term comprehending the persons of the Trinity, mysteries (e.g. Corpus Christi), and saints; the patron of a church can only be a saint or an angel.‥ The feast of the principal titular or patron is a double of the first class with an octave.

Second edition, 1989; online version June 2011. <http://www.oed.com.libezproxy.open.ac.uk/view/Entry/202662>; accessed 19 August 2011. Earlier version first published in New English Dictionary, 1912.

eponymous, adj.

1. That gives (his) name to anything; said esp. of the mythical personages from whose names the names of places or peoples are reputed to be derived.1846 G. Grote Hist. Greece I. i. iv. 111 The eponymous personage from whom the community derive their name.1874 A. H. Sayce Princ. Compar. Philol. ix. 379 Eponymous heroes.1889 A. C. Swinburne Study of Jonson 27 The eponymous hero or protagonist of the play. 2. Giving his name to the year, as did the chief archon at Athens.1857 S. Birch Hist. Anc. Pott. (1858) I. 195 Inscribed with the name of the eponymous magistrate. Second edition, 1989; online version June 2011. <http://www.oed.com.libezproxy.open.ac.uk/view/Entry/63656>; accessed 19 August 2011. Earlier version first published in New English Dictionary, 1891.

Thanks, harldy makes it clear does it? I'll be taking a look over For Your Eyes only this weekend BTW. Betty Logan (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Teamwork Barnstar
Once again, User:Betty Logan, thanks for all your work on The Man with the Golden Gun: this article would not have got to GA Status without all your efforts. SchroCat (^ • @) 13:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

ps. I'm making a start on Licence to Kill if you feel like jumping right in... ;) - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look over the weekend. Betty Logan (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
You're an absolute star - thanks very much! I thought we'd get the Eon series done first and then go back to NSNA partly because it's 'non-official' and partly because it's a huge mess...! Thanks again for agreeing to look at LTK - SchroCat (^ • @) 06:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

File:MrPerfection.ogg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:MrPerfection.ogg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sir Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 20:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Inflation adjustment

A worldwide gross calculated in U.S.$ can be adjusted for inflation in U.S.$ even though it might imprecisely adjust all the underlying currencies, I believe.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

You'll have to give me a bit more than "I believe". I have never heard of anyone publishing an adjusted worldwide chart on the basis of the different inflation levels, and no other film article review has asked for this to my knowledge. Betty Logan (talk) 15:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

Hope you like it. Sir Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 16:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Teamwork Barnstar
Once again a thousand thanks for all your input on the FYEO article - a great three person team we have going here! Only LTK (now a GAN) and NSNA to go for the full house! Thanks again.... SchroCat (^ • @) 08:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I think we wore down Tony on For Your Eyes Only! Betty Logan (talk) 08:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I think so - seemed to want to get out quickly at the end! Still, the article is at GA standard - and a high one at that. He certainly gave it a thorough going over so I don't think anyone can complain about it now! LTK now nominated: fingers crossed for that one and I'm starting to look at the hideous mess that is Never Say Never Again... - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't think he was a regular film reviewer, so confused editorial discretion and MOS on a couple of things. That's not a bad thing though, because I think unorthodox editing decision should be justified at some point to help protect the article from future delistings or changes. As for the casting issue, if you want to leave it as it is that's fine by me; I just suggested the alterations as a means of resolving the impasse, so it's kind of irrelevant now. Betty Logan (talk) 08:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree - if the MOS gives three options then it is an indication as to a large degree of flexibility allowed in the process. I had re-written both the cast and casting sections in case he stood firm and I'm tempted to put them in now as I don't think anyone will complain too much. What do you think? - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
It's entirely up to you. I always believe when something is not necessitated by policy or clear guidelines then it is really up to the primary article editors to decide on the structure of the article. I'm not one of those editors who believe that articles should all look the same, and it's basically just a structural issue in the case of For Your Eyes Only—everything that should be there, is there. Personally I think there is a more a problem with something like Die Another Day which doesn't provide any third-party coverage of the casting, so if you are looking for somewhere to divert your energies they would probably be better spent on clear MOS violators. Betty Logan (talk) 09:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'll crack on with Never Say Never Again first, which will get all the films onto GA, then work through the weaker articles to get them up to a the same standard as we've set on the others we've worked on. - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Stop...

...moving MoS pages into article space. Whatever title you want it to have, it must begin "Wikipedia:".Kotniski (talk) 11:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Also notice of the discussion to move manual of style pages can be found at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/snooker. There was wide support for moving pages to be sub-pages of the main Manual of Style page. If you disagree with that decision, you might want to review the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 123#RFC: Should all subsidiary pages of the Manual of Style be made subpages of WP:MOS? and then raise any objections at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. older ≠ wiser 11:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Never Say Never Again

Hi Betty, I've made a start on Never Say Never Again and I'm a little concerned with having three non-free images images on there, which appear to more window dressing than anything else. If you've got time, I'd appreciate your opinion on which (if any) could legitimately be kept... Many thanks! - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a closer look at this article over the weekend, but this article has had problems with its images for a while, I removed a couple last month. I would say that (apart from the poster) the only image that is justifiable under FUR is the image showing the replacement for the gun barrel scene. I mean, in that motorbike one is that even Sean Connery or is it a stuntman? Betty Logan (talk) 09:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Thought that was going to be the case – the replacement to the gun barrel seems to be the only noteworthy one there – I’ll ditch the other two and have a hunt round a little later to see if there are any relevant free ones to drop in. - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

SFN Help!

Hi there, I wonder if you could help me on a coding / citing issue I have? I’ve got the following (below) which is all OK as far as it goes, but I wanted to see if there was a way to do this with the {{sfn}} template? Do you have any ideas, or do I have to go against the formatting for the rest of the article on this one? Is there a way to do something like “Chapter...., in {{sfn}}, for example? Just starting to have a look at Casino Royale (novel) which isn't too bad, but needs a bit of a spruce up! Cheers! - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Bennett, Tony & Woollacott, Janet, The Moments of Bond, in Lindner, Christoph (ed) (2003). The James Bond Phenomenon: a Critical Reader. Manchester University Press. ISBN 9780719065415. P 13

Example

Using the above as an example, the simplest way is to combine the reference like this (click on "edit" to see the wiki mark-up).[1] However, if you have several references to Lindner (not authored by Bennett and Woollacott), then to avoid multiple book references in the bibliography you can do it like this.[2]

References

References

  1. ^ Bennett & Woollacott 2003, chpt. 13. sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFBennettWoollacott2003 (help)
  2. ^ Bennett, Tony; Woollacott, Janet (2003), "The Moments of Bond", {{citation}}: Missing or empty |title= (help). In: Lindner 2003, chpt. 13.
  • Note that in this example Bennett & Woollacott 2003 doesn't link to the book, but to the other reference. This is because they share the same reference code due to the same name and year, but obviously since you won't have both references in the article together then this will correct itself.

Bibliography

You're an absolute star - thanks very much indeed! I'll drop in one of the versions and then see how many other chapters from Lindner there are to see if I need to go down the other route. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 14:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

ANI

If you continue to remove discussion from WP:TFD I will have to report this incident to WP:ANI. Frietjes (talk) 17:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I think you should, because you are interfering with the creation of a template that has been agreed by consensus. Betty Logan (talk) 17:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Stop removing it from TFD. If there is so much consensus for this template, then let it get snowball kept. Please stop disrupting Wikipedia. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

September 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Template:Highest-grossing films franchise. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. You can see from the edit history I am developing a template. This other editor has no valid reason to interfere with its development since it is not in use in any article as yet. And yet, I am the one who gets warned for edit-warring? How come I am edit-warring and he isn't? Why am I subject to sanctions but he isn't? And where does this leave me? Do I have to stop developing the template and leave it half finsished, simply because someone opposes its development? Betty Logan (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
(Moving my comment to WP:AN, since you have taken the discussion there.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Casino Royale - the novel

Hi there, I know you're hugely busy with the film franchises stuff you're doing (not to mention the templates!) but if you've got a spare 10 minutes, could you cast your eye over Casino Royale for me and let me know if you find any problems? It's really not a problem if you haven't got time! Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I will look at it, but I'm pretty focused on building a template at the moment, which has turned into a war of attrition and I'm determined to complete it! Hopefully I can look over the article some time next week. Betty Logan (talk) 00:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Betty - That's great - thanks very much for that - much appreciated! - SchroCat (^ • @) 06:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Franchises Table

I know it's a big task, but how's it going so far? --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 15:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

You can have a look at here: User:Betty_Logan/Sandbox. I've been experimenting with making franchises sub-tables of franchises anticipating The Hobbit films. As you can see it mostly works, but while the film totals add up in a series box, the series totals don't add up for the franchise box. This is basically because the series boxes are tables in their own right, so from how Wikipedia sees it there aren't any totals to add up, just tables. I've been looking around to see if there is a way to get around this, but if there isn't we'll have to just input the franchise totals manually. We do that with the current table, and it isn't a big deal because we just change one number in the formula when we update, but I was hoping to avoid it with the template version. Betty Logan (talk) 21:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
That's a little bit of a hassle, but I guess it's no big deal. Question: Will the Avengers be part of the Iron Man franchise? If so, provided Avengers makes at least $241,981,116 (which it will...) the Iron Man franchise would be in the top 20. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 15:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I think there are strong reasons for including it if Iron Man is in it, although I'm inclined to follow the lead on the Wikipedia Iron Man article. Personally I don't think there is an Avengers "franchise", it's just a film that belongs to several other franchises, but the sources take precendence over what I think. Betty Logan (talk) 18:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Do you mean the Iron Man article? Because that lead mentions Avengers as though it's as much of a part of the series as Iron Man 3, although it does mention Incredible Hulk as well, even though he only made a cameo appearance in that. And I think Iron Man in other media pretty much does the same thing. I'm not entirely sure I want Avengers included in the Iron Man franchise, but on the other hand, I think it makes sense to put it there... Yeah, Avengers is a tough franchise to deal with, because it really does behave more like a narrative continuity type thing that connects different franchises, rather than the usual, different continuities connected by a franchise. But I think, whatever we do with the Avengers, we should also keep a potential Justice League film in our minds (it could happen... not any time soon though), as we would have to treat it very similarly to the Avengers, and that would further complicate Batman's entry. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 13:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
If you are wondering what is happening with these templates then it should be ready some time this weekend. I've tried various methods to automate the summation of the franchises but you can't do it without substition, which is pretty complicated. It will be easier for editors to type in the totals themselves. There is some middle ground though. I can put summation formulas in the templates, and editors can use the preview function to perform the calculation and just copy in the number. They have to copy in a number for the film anyway, so it will just be an extra number to copy into the template. It's not perfect, but it cuts out the work of having to do the calculations yourself. I'll write up the documentation this weekend which will give an example of how to fill in totals. Betty Logan (talk) 21:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Dr. No & Subsections...

Hi Betty, I've had to revert someone a couple of times for saying articles "should not have single subsections" and moving 3.2.1 (The casting of) James Bond to become 3.3 - even though 3.2 is the casting section. (BTW, this all makes sense if you look at the history!) Am I right in thinking he's talking absolute nonsense? I've had a look over the MOS and can see nothing that even vaguely suggests he might be right! I'm also away for a few days (back on Tuesday) and not able to ensure he doesn't do the same thing again - could you keep an eye on it? Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I just took a look. Bignole is a good editor so is always worth hearing out, but I don't know of any MOS guideline that backs up what he's saying. Since it passed GA under the "offending" sectioning he probably should have taken it to the talk page after you reverted him. However, I see he has since created two sub-sections splitting up the casting section, so is that an effective compromise, or would you prefer to restore the original partition? Personally I think splitting the casting into two sub-sections works, because I think the casting of Bond is the most important part of that section, so should probably be foremost under Casting. However, if you want to back to how it was let me know and I'll post a request at the MOS and get it clarified. BTW, I haven't forgotten I said I would look over Casino Royale, but I got tied up cretaing templates this week. I've more or less cracked the problem so will hopefully get on CS during the week. Betty Logan (talk) 08:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Don't worry too much - he's discussing it on the talk page of MOS and I think it's largely been closed off for the moment (it's just a very, very bad idea!) - SchroCat (^ • @) 10:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

HP

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1 Hello! Just about the following sentence:"....Principal photography began on 19 February 2009 (2009-02-19) and was completed on 12 June 2010..". What kind of pictures are involved here? Thanks a lot in advance! 2.193.57.132 (talk) 10:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Could you be a bit more specific please? Betty Logan (talk) 11:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1 Hello! Just about the following sentence:"....Principal photography began on 19 February 2009 (2009-02-19) and was completed on 12 June 2010..". I can't understand the meaning of photography in this context. Is creating more pictures involved? or is a shooting activity involved? Thanks a lot in advance! 2.193.254.11 (talk) 14:02, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Principal photography is the main filming of the movie, usually done by the director with the main cast. Before principle photography, sets are built and parts are cast, and after principle photography the special effects are done, the movie is edited and scored. You can find out more at Principal photography. Hope this helps. Betty Logan (talk) 14:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1 Thanks a lot! 109.53.198.115 (talk) 14:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Teamwork Barnstar
Thanks again for all your hard work on Never Say Never Again to get it over the line for GA status! As always it's been great working with you again. I'm going to see what I can do for Casino Royale (Climax!), but I'm not sure there is enough information out there to get it to GA status, but I think I have to at least try! SchroCat (^ • @) 15:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Film Series articles

Hiya, Just a quickie as I've had a look round, but I'm struggling to find any info about how to deal (on a macro level) with film series articles. I want to have a stab at getting James Bond (film series) into some sort of shape (or at least ensuring that most of it isn't tagged for being unsourced). The problem is that this is a big fat bloated article at the moment (591 on the list of the largest articles on wiki) and ripe for division onto 2 or 3 articles. I've tried looking for some guidelines on what would be considered 'standard' in a series article, or what would be considered a 'standard' set of articles around a series, but without any success. Do you know where I could find any guidelines? I'm out of contact for about a week or so, so please carry on sorting out your franchise tables (which look pretty good, from what I've seen!) Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 14:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there are any guidelines for film series articles. I don't tend to do much on them because I find many of them redundant, and just regurgitate what can be found in the main articles. That said I have a slight preference for the "in film" articles as opposed to the film series articles. Two worth checking are Superman in film and Batman in film. I think the main strengths of those articles is that they focus on the background production history. I think there is some scope for covering the legal wrangles over the Bond rights in the James Bond article. On another note I've started to install that blasted template into the film grosses article so that should be off my back soon, and Casino Royale is top of my list. Betty Logan (talk) 20:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Cheers for that - I've incorporated your ideas into a wider plan and suggested it on the talk page, but I like what they have there and it would sit better alongside the three pages that the article has now been broken down into. Don't worry about Casino Royale - it went GA a couple of days ago, which I'me very happy about! Cheers! - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Adding the Transfomers animated movie to the Live series would be wrong

I saw that you added the animated Transformers (1986) movie's Box Office to the 'Transfomers' film series in the "Highest-grossing franchises and film series" section. You see, adding the animated film as in the "Transfomers series" would not be correct. The series mentioned on that page focuses on the [Live] movies. Therefore, the animated film is not a part of it. This is what believe, if you think different, please put a talk about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Namanbapna (talk • contribs) 16:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The Transformers franchise includes the live action series and the animated film; you can verify this by checking the source for the chart. We use verifiability on Wikipedia, not editor's opinions. Betty Logan (talk) 18:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

expr vs +++

You believe that {{+++}} is easier for the layman editor to use than {{#expr:}}. I can understand how {{#expr:}} might seem technical but templates are not perfectly straight forward either. A newcomer to the article might wonder what the special code is (be it {{+++}} or {{#expr:}}) and have to look it up. Which of these is the newcomer more likely to have seen before? Well, consider that {{+++}} is used only in List of highest-grossing films. In addition {{addition}}, to which {{+++}} redirects, is used in only a handful of articles. Here they are.

I see an interesting pattern in these: films, English towns, parts of London and FIRST teams. This layman editor you mention, there seems to be two or three of them, and not such laymen. I'm not trying to say you're wrong but I just wonder why, if this is the easier way, it's hardly ever used after about three years of existance. Moreover, is ease of use the be all and end all? Newcomers will have to figure things out somehow, why not let them figure {{#expr}} out? It's useful. JIMp talk·cont 07:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

If you feel that strongly about it, then feel free to put it back. It's just that the template has been in the article for quite some time, so I didn't see the point of changing something that editors were used to. Betty Logan (talk) 07:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I see your point but considering that this article is about the only place they could get used to it would they be more used to this or #expr. It seems to me that having umpteen different ways of doing the same thing makes this place more difficult to fathom. I don't believe we should keep templates which perform simple maths functions which can easily be done with #expr. I think I might go put it back. Thank you for your understanding. JIMp talk·cont 00:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

On This Day

Nice to see that we made the On this day... section yesterday! :) - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully it will become a regular occurrence now they're all up to GA status. I guess the important thing is to make sure they're kept in that state, because the Bond articles tend to be an popular destination for editors. Betty Logan (talk) 16:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, hope you're doing well! I wanted to ask you if you were interested in nominating yourself as a candidate to become a coordinator for WikiProject Film, but I was surprised to see that you did not list yourself as one of its participants. You've been a welcome presence at WT:FILM with your excellent discourse. I've also liked that you've worked on solutions, such coming up with a viable table for the highest-grossing film series. Would you consider nominating yourself? I think you would have a lot of good ideas on how WikiProject Film can serve its editors and also readers of articles about film. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Film has always been a secondary interest on Wikipedia for me with the snooker project being my priority. The Snooker Project doesn't have many participants so I've always taken care not to prioritise another project ahead of it. When I work on film articles I prefer to take a stub or start class article about a more obscure film and develop it—something like Don't Look Now for instance probably would never have got a proper article even though it's on the core list, and I would much rather work on something like that than gettin/font>]] • [[Special:Contributions/ Schrodinger's cat is alive |g roped into working on Snow White or something, which will probably end up being done by somebody at some point. That said I'm quite happy to continue with (or formalise) the peer/B class reviewing I've been doing over the last year or so. Betty Logan (talk) 11:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
That's fine! Thanks for your reply. Hope you can help out with some of the stub-class core articles. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thunderball

Hi there, I wonder if I could ask your advice on something sort of film related... I'm going through the Bond books at the moment, getting them all into a much better shape; I'll shortly be coming up to Thunderball, which contains a massive amount of information on the associated controversy. A certain amount of this belongs on the page, whilst much of it is only remotely connected to the book itself, but is a subsequent ramification of the events covered.

Can I ask, in your opinion, how much of this should be included on this page? I was thinking of maybe starting a separate page, just on the controversy, to cover all aspects of the book, the two films and the proposed Warhead film. Would that stack up to something notable and sufficient for an article? Any help, as always, would be much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is enough material to create a sufficiently strong article in its own right, although if that's how you choose to go I will support that, but it may be better and easier to just to trim what isn't strictly necessary from this article, because there is quite a bit of duplication across the Bond articles. I think everything up to the first court settlement is relevant to the authorship and the copyright of the novel so belongs here regardless of whether a separate article is created or not, and I would probably rename the section as "Copyright" or something along those lines rather than "Controversy". In the adaptations section I would briefly cover Thunderball (film), Never Say Never Again (which is surprisingly missing) and the planned 1990s version Warhead 2000, and while it may be worth mentioning McClory's participation I wouldn't delve too much into the production history of those films because it isn't actually relevant to the novel, and is covered on the film articles. The last segment (the 1998 challenge) doesn't really pertain to the copyright of Thunderball, it is a much broader claim regarding the rights of the character, so maybe it would be better to move that over to the article about the film series. I think that would pretty much address what should be included on the Thunderball article, but there is the counter-argument that it would not sufficiently address the legal dispute itself. I think these are two different issues though, so I would pare down the Thunderball article which would at least reduce the coverage of the dispute to what is actually relevant to the novel itself, and then if you feel that the copyright dispute is notable enough to be covered as a single entity then a separate article can be created. Betty Logan (talk) 23:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I suspect you're right about there not being enough for a full article, but I feel that there needs to be the full story somewhere, so I'll re-draft it into a more manageable format for the James Bond in film article, as that seems to be a more appropriate place for it anyway. Most of it certainly doesn't need to be in the novel's article; once I've got For Your Eyes Only sorted out I'll get onto it. Thanks again - invaluable advice as always! - SchroCat (^ • @) 14:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Hiya, one more question for you (and sorry for bugging you!) Is there a way to search for pages that link in to a section? If I change the name from "Controversy" to "Copyright" then those pages that link in will need to be edited to reflect the change: any idea on the best way to do that? Cheers (again!) - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
That's ok, I don't mind helping out on these articles. You need an {{Anchor}}, for the section; I've taken the liberty to add one in (Thunderball_(novel)#Controversy) and changed the section title, but if it's not how you want it feel free to make any adjustments. Betty Logan (talk) 17:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
That's great - thanks very much for that. Do you know if it will work for a lower level heading too? I'll probably leave it as a separate section in its own right, but it could end going as a sub-section of a Background section (which may also be logical, depending on how it all pans out...) - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Don't worry, I've tested it and you can! Thanks again - SchroCat (^ • @) 03:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I've had a large scale edit of the section now - splitting it into two subsections along the way, which sort of seemed like the best thing to do at the time! Could I beg one further favour from you? Would you mind having a quick look over to see that what I've done looks and feels right for the article? If you don't have time, then it's really not a problem. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll have a gander at it this evening. Betty Logan (talk) 07:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
That's great - many thanks indeed! You're a star! - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I've cleaned it up slightly. There is one claim that is uncited and a possible problem source, that could be an issue in a GA review (although if you can't get the info elsewhere there probably is a case that the source is reliable in this particular instance, on the basis that it reproduces a magazine article and there is little scope for misinterpretation). I think the level of coverage and the focus of coverage is about right for this article, overall it looks like a good job. I just looked over the Background section, but if you want me to do the entire article (either tomorrow or when you finished doing what you want to do with it) just let me know. Betty Logan (talk) 17:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi there, Thanks so much for doing that - it's much appreciated. I've altered the citation and added another one, so all should be okay now. Don't worry about the rest - I know you've got your hands full with other stuff. Thanks again. - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

royal wedding page

Did you watch the YouTube video? It contains the BBC, ABC, and dozens of other major independent 3rd party news sources. What about the mention of the effects of the royal wedding on sapphire engagement rings is not verifiable? If you don't want the world's largest sapphire distributor referenced, that's fine, however it seemed more than a little relevant, as they WERE mentioned in every story about what the royal wedding did for the popularity of sapphire engagement rings and the sapphire industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.90.68.215 (talk) 23:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

If you want to add this stuff to the article, I suggest starting a discussion on the article talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 12:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

the-numbers.com

Hi Betty, We're trying to get List of James Bond films through the FL process at the moment (see here) and one reviewer has questioned the validity of the-numbers.com as a reliable source. Do you have any thoughts or any evidence to show that it is a reliable source? Many thanks - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The Film Project considers it reliable for box office data: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Resources#List_of_potential_resources. If the reviewer is simply trying to assess its suitability then the resource page should be sufficient; if he is actually questioning its reliability then the issue has wider implications for lots of film articles and should be raised on the Film Project discussion page. Betty Logan (talk) 17:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I pointed that out to him! His reaction was, and I quote: "Just because something is listed on a WikiProject's resources page doesn't necessarily make it reliable. The projects are usually more inclined to declare a shaky source reliable than the other way around. Are there any stories in the media that declare this source reliable?" - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Nash Information Services which publishes "The Numbers" has been referenced by some high profile publishers: Variety, Wall Street Journal, New York Times etc. Usually citation by reliable sources are key to establishing a source as reliable. Betty Logan (talk) 18:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
That's great - thanks very much indeed. That should persuade him as to their reliability! Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Ra. One

Hello. I can't see how the neutrality of the reception section is disputed if everyone except one user seems to agree that it is "mixed to positive". The tag is unnecessary. Shahid • Talk2me 14:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It's disputed because there is an open discussion about it on the neutrality noticeboard. It stops being disputed once the discussion is closed. If it is open and shut then the discussion will be closed over the next day or so. Betty Logan (talk) 14:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Transformers

But its already out on DVD..... Box office Mojo tend to take time in updating the movie statuses.....B.Davis2003 (talk) 10:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Possibly out on DVD in the US and some other countries, but the fact is the box office is still being updated so it's obviously still out somewhere. Betty Logan (talk) 12:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

On the scrounge for some help & advice again!

Hi there, I've been going over the James Bond article recently to try and get it into something of a better shape. Would you have time to have a quick look over it to see it makes sense? No problems if not - entirely understandable if you don't! I've gone for GA status with it in the Literature category, but I'm not entirely sure that's the best place for it: would you know of a better place for such a broad topic? - Cheers if you can help! - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'll try and look over it tomorrow evening. Betty Logan (talk) 11:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The Passion of the Christ

This edit is excellent. It's exactly the wording we need. Well done! StAnselm (talk) 20:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Since all we can really deduce from his comments is that he is less religious than he used to be, it at least puts his review on a solid footing. Betty Logan (talk) 11:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Bond image...

Nice work! - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
Thanks AGAIN for all your help on repairing all my mistakes on James Bond - your ongoing advice and guidance is a huge help to me in my error-strewn approach! - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

James Bond (character)

Hiya, I'm going to have a stab at the James Bond (character) page and try and get it up to a decent standard, if possible. i've put down a suggested outline at Talk:James Bond (character) of what I think would be the best way to start. Could you let me know if you think this is a half decent outline, or if you think it should be along totally different lines? Many thanks, if you've got the time! - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Feeling quite drained after finishing what may only be the first draft of the page. I've left out one or two parts because of lack of good reliable information (such as Bond in the Christopher Wood novelizations). I'm not sure how much of a hole that looks like as I've spent too long being too close to it and I can't see the Wood for the trees now (horrible pun, I know). - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
It looks pretty good but I haven't had a chance to review it properly yet. I'm currently trying to get another article up to date before the weekend so I will have a proper look at it then. Betty Logan (talk) 11:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks so much (as always!) There's no rush - I'll be glad of a few days away from it, to be honest! Cheers. - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Diet in Hinduism

Hi Fellow editor, please join the discussion here. Thanks SH 18:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hey, thanks for {{reflist-talk|close=1}}! I couldn't figure out what was wrong and I didn't know about that code. Thanks, MathewTownsend (talk) 13:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

List of James Bond films

This user helped promote List of James Bond films to featured list status.




Fantastic news! - SchroCat (^ • @) 05:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations! It seemed to take ages didn't it? Betty Logan (talk) 06:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
It seemed to take an age! Thanks very much for your copyedit on James Bond (character) - much appreciated and it's in much better shape after your work than when the GA went through! - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The Man with the Golden Gun (novel)

Hi there, I've got a newbie reviewer for The Man with the Golden Gun (novel) who wants me to have a peer review for copyediting. Could I impose once again and plead for you to have a look over it for me? Many thanks, as always, if you are able to! - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'll look it over this evening. Betty Logan (talk) 08:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
You're a star - thanks so much (AGAIN!) for helping me out! - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that - I'm so annoyed at most of those mistakes! Really stupid, schoolboy errors, all of them! Thanks so much again - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
That's fine, when you look at the same thing for so long it's the obvious things you overlook. BTW, in regards to my comments about the Themes section, I think my comments imply there is more wrong than there actually is. The real problem is with the last paragraph which identifies the themes but doesn't expand any further on them. The rest of the section is ok. Do the books expand on these at all, or do they just touch on them and leave it at that? Betty Logan (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
A fair comment on the themes and as a result I've worked the section about as much as I can, adding a few bits here and there. Adding anything more would take it outside the sources, but I'm hoping that the new additions, even though small in themselves, should make a difference in impact. Thanks again! - SchroCat (^ • @) 22:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Film project discussion topic

It'd be great if you could comment at this topic.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I've added my comments with a possible compromise. Betty Logan (talk) 17:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks much. Now you get to "argue" with me. No good deed goes unpunished. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 18:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

Hiya, I wonder if I could impose once again? It's just two small points, but as I'm doing a GA review I thought I'd get it right! I've asked the editor of Shiloh to do a few things, two of which they've pushed back on and I'm not sure if I'm right to press them on it, or if they have a fair point. Could you have a look at the GA review and let me know if the point I make about the use of "Bildungsroman" under Style is correct? (I think it should be in a piped link as the source doesn't cite it, but does use the phrase "coming-of-age" instead) The second point refers to the number of links in the References section. I actually prefer to have all references to newspapers etc linked in the section (as they have done here) but I've been told to edit them down by successive reviewers. Which is the best format here? Is there a wiki-guideline that suggests the right level of linking? Any thoughts you have would be most appreciated! - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I've added my comments. In all, I think it's good enough to pass; the bildungsroman thing is only really an issue if someone is actually challenging the genre, and the links issue comes down to how you look at it. Betty Logan (talk) 10:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks so much for that - much appreciated! I've passed as it is after your thoughts. thanks again - SchroCat (^ • @) 10:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Yet more advice...

Hiya, Sorry to disturb once again! I'm looking over the James Bond novels article with a view to updating that one next. I think it would be a good place to drop in a little more detail on the plots of the books, which are not centralised anywhere, but only in the individual articles: we do this with film plots, so why not books, is the thought behind it. I've drafted up a few examples of how this could look in my litter tray, using the {{Book list}} template. Like the other articles, I plan to have supporting text into which these are placed in historical and literary context. Do you think this is a good way to go, or is the {{Book list}} template a bit of overkill? Cheers! - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It looks ok, but I can't really offer an informed opinion. I don't see any reason why you can't include a plot summary. From an aesthetic point of view the white box underneath genre and length looks a little weird, I wonder if there would be any gain in scrapping the genre and length fields? After all, the genre is going to be pretty much the same for all of them isn't it, and the length can vary over the different editions. The Bernard Cornwell does something similar and has a good layout. On a different note, we have a slight problem at File:Dr No trailer.jpg; it's been put up for deletion by a nominator who hasn't understood the copyright license terms; I used the rationale as exactly provided at File:Ursula Andress as Honey Ryder.jpg so I don't really see what the problem is, or why the nominator didn't tag that files as well. Betty Logan (talk) 14:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I'll drop the genre field and play around with the others to see if I can lose something else to get the box across: if not I'll ditch the length too. I've commented on the image - it managed to get through an FL review, where these things tend to be picked up, so I think the nominator has missed the point on this one! Cheers once again - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment

This is a neutral request for comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#The Hobbit.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2

I notice that you have recently edited Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 and would like to make you aware that I'm seeking consensus on the article on the talk page . --Mrmatiko (talk) 09:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Avatar article

Unsourced original research? Have you read the Deathworld book? Do you want me to actually reference the novel, or is the reader of Wikipedia supposed to read the book to see the parallels? Koakhtzvigad (talk) 11:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT states each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Basically what that means is that it is irrelevant if Avatar has parallels to the Deathworld, or indeed if you or any other reader thinks it has parallels; at the end of the day that is just your opinion. What WEIGHT states is that we only document them in the article if those parallels have been documented in published sources. Therefore you need sources that have observed those same parallels for them to considered relevant and notable enough for them to be added to the article. Betty Logan (talk) 11:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Is it my fault that no film critic remembers Harry Harrison (still alive)? Fine, I will get the "original research" published elsewhere onlineKoakhtzvigad (talk) 12:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

You Are the Apple of My Eye C-class review

Thanks for reviewing this article and your comments. I have a query as to your second point which says that "you should really include a negative review by someone who didn't like the film to offer a counterpoint to the praise the film has received.". I agree with your point that the critical reception has all favorable reviews, and I really want to balance it. However, I cannot find any unfavorable reviews about it (I even searched in foreign languages). Therefore, how can I improve this section, since all of the reviews are practically raving about this film?--Lionratz (talk) 02:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Obviously you can only include what is available, but it's a fairly recent film still awaiting international release; it's reasonable to assume that a reviewer will publish a negative review at some point, because not even films like Casablanca and Citizen Kane have 100% good reviews. I think it's just a case of waiting and then the section can be made more balanced when more reviews are available. It's not a major problem, it's a pretty good article overall. Betty Logan (talk) 07:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Betty Logan. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhaag Milkha Bhaag.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A user has commented on your post. X.One SOS 13:24, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Fluffymoose_disruptive_editing. Thank you. Calabe1992 20:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:CRIME

If you think that, you haven't read all the way to the end. Yworo (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

"A living person accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator (or including material suggesting that any named person has committed a crime in any article), when no conviction is yet secured."

I did read it and I think you have misinterpreted it; the policy relates to article creation, it does not govern the content of the article. The main Wikipedia:Notability page explicitly states These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not directly limit the content of an article or list. If Wikipedia really is against documenting arrests that result in charges being documented, then this issue should be directly addressed under the appropriate policy i.e WP:DUE. Betty Logan (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
BLP treats notability differently. In any case, that language is at the end of the section on alleged perpetrators and clearly suggest not including material about unconvicted crimes in any article. It's no longer talking about a stand-alone article. That addendum is a content inclusion guideline and no longer a notability guidelines, otherwise there would have been no reason to append the comment. Yworo (talk) 20:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't accept the addendum; it was introduced only a week ago and there is no discussion about it on the talk page. I have raised this issue at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Suspicious_alteration_to_WP:CRIME. Betty Logan (talk) 20:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

RBinPerson

Hiya, Sorry to pester you once again but I wonder if you could advise me on a problem I am having with an editor, RBinPerson (RBinPerson talk), on List of James Bond novels and stories. They have removed a good piece of well-sourced information and replaced it with information that even they admit is more positive about Benson. I have reverted it twice and can't do so again for a while but their badly sourced information is still there. I asked them to take it to the Talk page before the last revert and they didn't, claiming they didn't know how to. They subsequently posted on my talk page claiming to be Raymond Benson themselves. Any thoughts as to what steps I can take that will keep the well-sourced info there and get rid of their badly written and sourced info? Many thanks in advance! - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't respond to this more quickly, but it's unusual so I have been thinking about it. First off, the information RBinPerson added in its place isn't properly sourced so should probably come out; secondly, I notice these claims are sourced to The Guardian, and while it's a reliable source it is not an authority on Bond, and it wouldn't be the first time a newspaper has got something wrong, or just plain made something up. Whether this editor is really Benson or not is irrelevant, but he is asserting that this fact is wrong using the books as a primary source; for instance, if The Guardian declared that James Bond had group sex in Eon's Goldfinger, we could legitimately argue this is not the case by going and watching Goldfinger, because the film itself is a reliable source for its own plot. Similarly, someone who has read the books can contest a plot point from the same standpoint. In accordance with WP:AGF we must entertain the possibility the editor is being truthful, has read the books and Bond did not have group sex or visit a prostitute. On that basis we should probably remove the information until someone who has read the books can confirm whether this is the case, or another independent source (preferably higher quality than a newspaper) corroborates the claim. It may be worth posting the query on the James Bond Wikiproject, and seeing if anyone has read the books. Betty Logan (talk) 00:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me on this. I've left in the new additions, although added the much needed sources to them all. Whether or not the Guardian is right or not, the new material still provides a good balance in there anyway. I've taken one of the novels out of the library to read too as I want to make sure of the facts myself (the various fan fora all seem to suggest the Guardian has a point, but I'll speed read the book myself to see who is right.) It is actually Benson behind the edits—I contacted him through his website and we've had some very good email correspondence on the matter, so I'm happy to leave it as it is until I've finished reading the book! Thanks (again) for all your help on this: you are a font of huge amounts of knowledge for me! Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 10:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: Merger

Hi Betty, do you want to do the merger as disscused here? SH 08:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know that much about the topic, but I can "dump" the material in and sort out the licensing. Once it is in the article someone else will have to copyedit it and make it more "integrated". Betty Logan (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I've done the merge, but the article is going to need some work and that's down to you now. Betty Logan (talk) 03:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Betty, I noticed your thread at WT:LINK. You can turn your signature blue by writing even one character on your userpage overleaf. Thanks. Tony (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Contributions to List of highest-grossing films

The WikiProject Film Award
I, Haseo9999 (talk), hereby award Betty Logan the WikiProject Film Award for his/her valued contributions to WikiProject Film. Thanks for your numerous contributions to the article List of highest-grossing films. Keep up the good work!
Awarded 01:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For your tireless contributions in the article List of highest-grossing films. Jhenderson 777 21:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help!

Thanks a lot for your help, in the correction of the Box Office amount data of Avatar. Really Appreciate it! - Namanbapna

But there is just one problem. I wondering if someone might undo these edits, and say that they are non-constructive. What happens then?

I am going to add an explanation to the talk page, because it isn't immediately clear what we have done. Betty Logan (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Betty, I guess you are right. Lets wait for sometime and then see what to do. Thanks - Namanbapna

Thank you!

Thanks for helping out during the GAN; Terminator 2: Judgment Day is now a GA! --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 23:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

That's great! You worked hard on it so well done. Betty Logan (talk) 23:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
You think it can reach FA? --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 23:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't see why it can't, but for FA your sources have to be watertight and they expect "full coverage". In this case, since books have been written about Terminator 2 then a reviewer would expect to see one of them used as a source for the article to demonstrate that the article is as broad as possible in its coverage. Betty Logan (talk) 23:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Quantum of Solace

Hi there, I wonder if you could just settle something in my mind for me? (Yet again!) I've had to revert someone a couple of times for de-linking the references from Quantum of Solace, despite me pointing out that it's against WP:REPEATLINK. I've followed this up in the talk page, but I just want to check that I am right to revert in this case? Thanks (yet again!) - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

References are just one form of footnote. The editor disputing this should maybe read the Wikipedia article on footnotes. But I can do much better than that, since I actually started a discussion on this issue following one of your article reviews: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Linking#Repeat_linking_in_reference_sections. The discussion specifically focused on references, and as a result "footnotes" were added to the list of exemptions. Now you can see from the discussion there isn't an outright consensus for linking the reference section, but neither was there a consensus for strictly enforcing WP:OVERLINK, so it was added to the exemptions that is left to editorial discretion. Betty Logan (talk) 12:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
That's great - I thought I'd read that bit right! Another user has also added to the talk to reiterate the situation, so I guess that the editorial consensus on QoS is to keep them! Thanks again - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

List of snooker players by number of ranking titles

Had changed the "List of winners" section from this to this. What do you think? Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 17:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It looks great, it's certainly much clearer! Betty Logan (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
One suggestion I do have, is that in the data entry it might be better to have tournament codes i.e. For Stephen Hendry, wc=7, uk=5 like we have on the ranking article; otherwise we will end up with IP editors putting numbers in the wrong places, because it isn't immediately clear which number is for which tournament. I think overall though it is much clearer and will be much easier to update. Betty Logan (talk) 19:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Also, since the collapsible format makes all players bold, the differentiation between active and retired players is lost. Maybe add some background shading to players on the tour, or perhaps grey out the ones that are retired. Betty Logan (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Good ideas. I think I will code it on Monday. The template also needs a documentation (on Monday too). Currently I'm concentrating on the Welsh Open. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 20:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 Done Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 21:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Somewhere I Have Never Traveled

I have a bit of a problem with you tagging the Plot Summary as original research.  The plot summary is by definition original research unless I transcribe the screenplay or quote a 500-700 word review verbatim, in either case it would be a copyright violation.  Please see:  WP:FILMPLOT

:- ) DCS 06:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

There is always a fine line with plot summaries, but the trick is to describe the film rather than evaluate it. I've tried to explain in more detail at Talk:Somewhere_I_Have_Never_Traveled#Plot_summary. Betty Logan (talk) 07:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
My apologies.  I just this morning saw the talk page.  I understand some of your reasoning and will see what I can do to improve the article.  When I first saw the page late last night, I assumed some runaway tagger had hit me.  I'm also concerned about verification of information of the film's production.  This information is not normally available from any source except the people involved. :- ) DCS 17:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I tagged the article because it was submitted for review at the Film Project. Normally there isn't any point tagging articles that are in development, but since a grading was requested then it needed to be clear what the issues are. Betty Logan (talk) 19:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I requested a review, because I wanted the opinion of a experienced person on films.  I made some edits shortly before your visit, but they probably made it worst.  I have made another 50 or so edits since your visit intending to address the issues.  I hope that you can take a look at it sometime in the future.  Thanks a lot for your time.  :- ) DCS 00:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Not following your edit summarry

You wrote "As per WP:ENGVAR" but did not expalin how the use of tyre instead of tire works on this article. It's an equally American project as it is British and Australian. So how dos that explanation work? Is there other uses I am not aware of for consistancy? Since I am the major contributer I have been consistantly using the American english on purpose becuase I am American and that is the language use I know. To make this outside my ability as the one who wrote the majority of the article is not appropriate in my opinion. Thoughts?--Amadscientist (talk) 19:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

As I understand you go with the phrasing that has the strongest national ties to the topic, and The Rocky Horror Show was originally a British stage musical, which suggests we should probably go with the British variant over the American one. When you can make a case for either variant then the MOS says we should go with the variant that is chosen by either the editor who started the article or the editor who first had to make the decision about which variant to use. Being the "major" contributor doesn't really come into it, MOS:RETAIN is quite clear on how to handle this. Betty Logan (talk) 19:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I've checked the earliest edit history and the American spelling was used first, so in view of that I've reverted my edit. I still have resevations given that it was a British stage musical, but that is for the editors of the article to decide. Betty Logan (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I thought that might be the case. So let me try to at least convince you of a few things. (but thank you for the revert) The Rocky Horror Show is considered more Australian than British (see recent research at that article. Because it's author is from New Zealand and it's artistic staff is mainly Australian, including it's director and production artist. However as a film it was produced by an American (Lou Adler) and released by an American film company. It's location was the UK and filmed at a British studio (when not on location). But I did think about this and the reason I mainly defend American English is because set in America, the two main characters are American and I think someone mentioned somewhwere that the credits seem to be using American English...but Ai am not sure about that (for the original choice...as this has been brought up before). Anyway thanks for the input.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
The whole subject as to whether Rocky Horror is British, American or Australian has lead to some great discoveries though so it's always good to get outside input.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
The AFI considers it a UK/US film so we can probably rule out Australia. Personally it's not a big issue for me I'm familiar with both varieties to the extent I can't even remember which is which anymore; however I do believe in the rigid enforcement of the ENGVAR/MOSRETAIN policy otherwise you end up with the most tedious edit wars on Wikipedia. I really should have checked the earliest version first before changing it back, but no damage done. Betty Logan (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh yes! Absolutely! No damage done! As a film absolutely, it was an American/UK project with no affiliation to Australian film companies, But then again....the same people who did the play, made the film. But we go by the companies involved and it was strictly US/UK. I must keep you in mind when the issue of American verses UK english comes up. Thanks!--Amadscientist (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry - saw this as I was passing and thought I'd comment. RHPS was produced by Michael White Productions, a British company. The BFI show it to be a British film, not a joint production. (Even the AFI site lists only Michael Whiter Productions as the only production company. This article really should be in BE, not AE. - SchroCat (^ • @) 10:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I'd always understood it was a British film, but in truth I don't really know much of the background; since there is some discord between the BFI and AFI on this matter, it's probably better to leave it as it is until someone knocks it into shape. Betty Logan (talk) 11:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Appreciate your thoughts... (yet again!)

Hi there, I'm struggling through updating the List of James Bond films cast members article with half an eye on it becoming a Featured List, but not feeling terribly good about what the result is. I've done a second version without the notes on each actor, which still needs a bit of work updating each film's intro, but looks a lot better. As an impartial witness, which of the two seems a better list to you? Thanks as always! - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I have to be honest, is there much point to this list in its current form? All the ground it covers seems to be pretty much covered by the film articles themselves, so it just looks like it is duplicating content. I think the main problem is that it is ordered by film rather than by cast member i.e. it is a "List of James Bond film cast lists" rather than a "List of James Bond cast members". If it were limited to a list of recurring cast members, and each section tracked an actor's role through the series I think that would be much better. For example, a section on Lois Maxwell would address all of her participation in just one section, rather than having to trawl through each film section to see what her involvement was; you look up Ursula Andress and you can find out she was involved in Dr No and Casino Royale i.e I think a list like this should focus on the involvement of the actor rather than the cast of each film. I think that is why you are having problems deciding which list style is better, because the current overall structure of it is a bit weak. Betty Logan (talk) 13:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I see where you're coming from - and that's probably the reason I don't like the look of either of them! The recurring characters thing has been tried, but it's a bit of a mess because of the number of films involved! Have a look at List of cast and characters in the James Bond film series; it's way too wide for most monitors as there are 24 columns involved - and there are 18 rows becuase of the number of characters. I suspect the editors went for something like the List of Harry Potter cast members page, although they only have eight films to sort out. I've knocked up a third version, but I don't think that's much better than the previous versions. - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
PS. I noticed the Rocky Horror chat and left a message there too - it's a British film! - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I think the third version is the best of the three, because at least you can organise it by actor or character. Betty Logan (talk) 11:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
The problem with that version is that it would bring in a huge table. The sortability is the key part of it, however. I've done a couple of other versions to try and get the format right before doing the whole thing. See Version 2 here which is unsortable, but breaks the characters into categories. Although unsortable, it is able to navigate round to the pertinant sections. The other possibility is this one: a series of tables breaking the list into character categories. The problem I have with this one is those characters whose motives are unclear or who fall into more than one category. - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I think the one in sandbox2 is the superior version. It supports sortable navigation which I think is pretty important considering it is a list of cast members rather than characters. Betty Logan (talk) 08:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I'll start sorting them out into the correct tables shortly: could be quite a long page in the end! Thanks again - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

ANI report

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

RockyIV

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

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

2001 A space odyssey

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

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


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

Thanks for your feedback

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

1973 in film

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

The fact that a film's total box office gross is unknown does not disqualify it from the list when we can actually source where it ranks on the annual chart. It's misrepresentative and inaccurate. There has never been any criteria initiated on the chart stipulating films must only be ranked by their total gross. In fact, that chart was ranked by theatrical rentals up until a couple of months ago when you changed the figures: [5] Betty Logan (talk) 04:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
On second thoughts, the problem is easily solved by limiting the chart to the top 10. Betty Logan (talk) 04:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

WikiThanks

WikiThanks
WikiThanks

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

Ra.One nominated for Featured Article

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

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

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

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

YouTube vs 2nd hand journalism

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


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

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

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

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

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

Titanic merge

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

I didn't close it, it was closed by an ininvolved editor. After it was closed I archived the discussion and performed the merge so it looks like I did it but I didn't. If you check the edit history of the article and compare it to the times on the talk page you can see I just did the clear up work. Betty Logan (talk) 11:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry - I just saw your name in the close header and assumed you'd closed it. Ignore me, carry on ... pablo 11:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
It's ok, I should have made it clear when I archived the discussion that someone else had merged the articles. Betty Logan (talk) 11:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I've added a note. pablo 11:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

An award for you

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

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

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

2010 South Kyrgyzstan riots

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

Are you sure you've got the right person? You would be better asking an admin about this, but the article has been tagged for merging since November 2010, and merge discussions are usually decided in a week so I would say that it is ok to remove the tag. Betty Logan (talk) 08:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! I just needed an opinion from an experienced user. I have removed the tag. Nataev (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

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

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

User:Ring Cinema & ANEW

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

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

Passion of the Christ

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

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

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

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

Titanic box office

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

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

A barnstar for you

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

NPOV

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

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

List of vegans

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

Just noting here that your response was to leave a template on my talk page. [6] Look, if you keep reverting people at that page, I'll report it to the editing-warring noticeboard. I'd very much prefer not to do that, but you seem to have been reverting everyone and anyone for months, and extending this even to reverting me at the RSN. I'd very much prefer to work with you on the list, rather than against you. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
I saved you the trouble. You are ruing in the article by going against the consensus on the styling and using poor sources. Betty Logan (talk) 02:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
If anyone has any further views on this, then I have opened a case at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#List_of_vegans. Betty Logan (talk) 06:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

SlimVirgin dispute

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

Thanks, but really, what is the point? These procedures should be mandatory, I shouldn't need an admin to stick his neck out. I really appreciate you coming to my rescue, but I've been to AN3, dispute resolution, the main admin board, and all I wanted was a fair discussion to set the direction of the article with somebody impartial deciding what the consensus is. That should be the norm in a consensus based project, I shouldn't be having to go from board to board from admin to admin just to get that. These procedures should be in place, and dispute resolution should be mandatory when there is a dispute, otherwise what is the point? It just seems so obvious to me. Maybe I've made a few mistakes along the way, but the net effect was always positive on the articles I developed. My main collaborator on the snooker project has gone now, and I think maybe things have just run their course. I've always put a lot of stock in wikiprojects, having somewhere where editors can bring their issues and can find someone to give them a fair hearing. If people aren't willing to submit to and to support a fully impartial review process, well I don't really see my place in something like that. Betty Logan (talk) 04:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I hope you have a change of heart and mind over your decision; either that or I really hope that you miss it too much in a month or so and come back to us—you are too good and balanced an editor for us to loose, especially because of the actions of one or two mindless idiots! I know where you're coming from, however, as I've found out with my recent adventures into admin territory! All the best and I hoe you'll re-consider. - Gavin, aka SchroCat (^ • @) 07:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I can give you a very good reason not to leave. Your contributions outway the inability of one admin to do the right thing on your behalf. Leaving ony serves to show that they win and ecourages others to use this tactic or sililar to drive others out. You can't win everything but you can fight for your right to continue discussion if your concerns are not addressed. If the other side refuses to discuss, there seem to be policies that would address this.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Mmm...relaxing tea...

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

Templates

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

A few days ago I decided, that if O'Sullivan wins the World title, then I retire from retirement. And now I'm back. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 22:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I took your name off the Snooker Project so you will need to re-add it. I think you should consider reducing your workload though; one example of how you might do this is to just have one article per season for the Players Tour Championship such as Players Tour Championship 2011/2012, and just externally link to webcited results for each PTC event at WWW Snooker. Obviously it is your decision, but you shouldn't let Wikipedia take over your life. Betty Logan (talk) 23:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I know you're retired, but...

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

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

X-Men: First Class (film)

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

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

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

Country description infobox

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

I'm not actually sure what I can do. The problem with the country guidelines is that they are very protracted and over prescriptive. The reason they are like that is because no-one really agrees on how the field should be used, so the guideline was re-written so the field would only be used in clear-cut cases. Personally I don't have a problem with using the equivalent field on the AFI/BFI sites, but Ring Cinema obviously does and so does Gothic Film, who don't think a film produced as a 4/5 country co-production really carries a national identity. I mean, Ring isn't opposed to just the rewording he is opposed to its sentiments. Generally my view on this if editors can agree on a country then that's great and it should be sourced, but if editors don't agree it is probably best just not to use the field and cover it in the prose. It is an ambiguous field. Maybe we have to have to consider renaming it to something more specific, such as "copyright nationality" or something, which you can get off the credit blurb at the end of the film. Betty Logan (talk) 04:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
But wasn't there already consensus for it to be changed? It's just needs re-wording because right now it's not even what I suggested. I don't mind contrary opinions but they don't seem to be really based on anything other then "well, I don't like it". There's no school of thought surrounding their ideas, none that I can see anyways, and it just frustrates me that for a infobox based on the wiki's film project, that we can't even base it on industry standards of labeling countries. Well, I don't know. Your better at sorting these things out than I am. Thanks for helping!Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to pester you again....

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

Coo lumme - it's all gone to project talk again for another circular argument that doesn't advance us terribly far forward! - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I was just getting around to replying, so I left my comment there. It's a shame the other discussion fizzled out, because it clearly needs to be resolved. I think I have pretty much convinced myself now that only the home distributor and distributors that undertake an international operation distributing the film should be listed, since most films maybe only have one or two international distributors with locals distributing it in the remaining territories. An international operation is inherently more notable than a local operation regardless of the territory, so I think inclusion should really be based on the scale of the operation. Betty Logan (talk) 16:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Cheers for that—much appreciated! I'd tend to agree with you, although with the caveat that, rather like WP:FILMRELEASE, it included domestic as well as international. I'm not entirely sure why I feel it should be added, but maybe it's because if a film is contributing to its nation's cinematic history, then the distribution element of that should also be noted alongside the largest player. Either way, I'm not too over-fussed about the domestic element as long as the US distributor isn't included on European films for no other reason than "just because"! - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Licence to Kill

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

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

GA concerns.

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

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

RSN Help!

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

I've temporarily reverted the edit, because good source or bad, you don't pull an entire section from an FL rated article unless there is a consensus to do so. I will take a good look at the source and post my opinion at the RS/N board. Betty Logan (talk) 21:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
The source isn't particularly strong, but I think it is acceptable for what is essentially an "in universe account", which has been recognized as an authoritative account by the copyright holders. I've reverted Jack a couple of times and asked him not to remove the section again pending an outcome at RS/N. I'm not going to be dragged into an edit war, but this is why I've decided not to develop articles anymore on here; if admins won't get off their assess and put a stop to disruptive behavior on Featured Lists and Articles then one has to question whether it is worth the effort of developing them. If editors want to challenge content then there are many avenues open to them: various noticeboards, project pages, dispute resolution, and if opinion goes against you then you have to live with it I guess, but until then the FL/FA graded version i.e. the peer reviewed state should be enforced as the status quo. Betty Logan (talk) 01:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for helping out. I've always known Griswold was self-published, but with the IFP endorsement (not to mention their connections with the forward) it raises it from fan-fiction to something more concrete. The academic citation is just the cherry on the cake. I saw you edit to JS (since deleted with the summary "she wasn't paying attention, apparently. 2 people make a consensus now? This should be fun") He's a real charmer and has something personal against me, I think: that is the only reason I can think of for some of his actions on this and the other matter. I suspect this will rumble on a little longer before he finds some new toy to play with. I knew why you left before, but not really appreciated the rationale fully until now: you have my sympathies and understanding! - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

And another request!

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

It's a judgement call really. The Film Project doesn't really offer any guidance, but I took part in a similar debate when the issue came up at a Harry Potter article, when people were adding the Wizard's Academy best film award and all that shit: Talk:Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows_–_Part_2#Non-notable_awards. I tried to put it into the context of other policies i.e. awards from national (BAFTA, Oscar) and international bodies (Golden Globes) are generally notable, while regional and magazine awards generally are not, except in cases where their notability is established by being reported in independent reliable sources. I would say that awards issued by a student paper are almost certainly not notable, unless the result was reported in other reliable sources. Personally I would say ditch it (if you decide to retain it though "Dicember" needs to be corrected in its entry). I mean, it's basically a form of film criticism isn't it, and generally we wouldn't cite reviews from student papers. Betty Logan (talk) 15:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that - I was thinking along the same lines as you, but wasn't entirely sure why I thought it was out of place (if that makes any kind of sense!) Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

And another...

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

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

I think I would have called it "Postwar years" or something to that effect (as per T. E. Lawrence) to remove the date specificity. I know some things fall out of that range but it roughly covers events in that period of his life. Betty Logan (talk) 20:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Another approach would be the Winston Churchill approach, where they cover his personal life, military service and political career separately. That approach would work on the Fleming article by substituting the writing career for the political career. Betty Logan (talk) 20:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Cheers for these: I'll have a spin over them in the morning to see what fits best. I've just made it a little more generic for the time being with "Personal life and interests" sort of in line with Churchill, but I'll see how I feel about it in the morning! Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 21:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Snooker world ranking points 2012/2013

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

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

Replaceable fair use File:Snooker stance.jpg

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

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

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

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

WP Snooker in the Signpost

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

A Matter of life and Death

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

I've had altercations with this editor before, the most recent being the Powell and Pressburger article ironically. He doesn't have a collaborative approach to editing, and if I go over there and take your side I guarantee we will end up in an SPI witch-hunt, after he goes through our edit histories and compiles a list of every single article we have in common. If you "meddle" with his articles too much you can expect a tit-for-tat retaliation on the ones you regularly edit too. Obviously you can get your edit pushed through by raising the issue at the Film Project. Everyone there will say yeah follow the guideline, but please realize that he perceives the Film project as one big tag-team, so even then he will probably only accept a decision from outside of the Film Project, and even then someone he hasn't had a disagreement with. Personally I think he should be booted off Wikipedia. I'd probably let it go if you are not actually intending on getting it up to GA standard and putting it through a review, because he will pretty much resist every single change you try to make; if you are determined to push the edit through then prepare yourself for a world of pain. Betty Logan (talk) 09:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks: I was worried you were going to say something like that! I've never had such a large amount of edits reverted in one sweep and for absolutely no good reason but that an editor doesn't like them. I was hoping to get this article up to GA as it's such a wonderful film, but with idiots like that sitting on them, life is too short! - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
For what it's worth, that article has bigger problems that the FILMRELEASE violation. When I assess for the Film project I never insist on guideline adherence for 'Start' and 'C' class article anyway. I think sometimes the guidelines can hinder the natural development of the article, and coverage and sourcing is more important in the early development stage. Betty Logan (talk) 09:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
You're right - it's a total and utter mess, which is what I was trying to improve. FILMRELEASE was the obvious first battle to try and gain ground after all the ridiculous reverts he's undertaken. - SchroCat (^ • @) 10:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

List of highest grossing films is incredible

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

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

For editors that are wondering why I left

Background

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

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

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

I took this issue to the edit-warring board, following her reinstalling the changes after I had reverted them, where the case was taken up by User:EdJohnston. Due to the continuation of the controversial edits, I thought dispute resolution would be a more productive process so filed a DR case also: [7]. I then returned to the 3RR board and requested that I would prefer to see the 3RR case closed. EdJohnston contacted SlimVirgin and asked her to co-operate in the dispute reosultion process, noting that he did not believe she had a consensus for the changes she was undertaking: [8]. She still insisted she did, and refused to participate in DR. EdJohnston closed the case noting that neither of us had a consensus, and that we should both refrain from reverting. He also advised me that ANI was an option to me.

I decided to pursue the ANI option, requesting administrator intervention to compel SlimVirgin to participate in dispute resolution: [9]. I received a response from another administrator, User:Jehochman that my complaint was invalid and I was "forum shopping". At this point I felt totally disillusioned with Wikipedia, but in the end the system proved that it still worked to an extent, thanks to another administrator and reviewer who looked in the case; however, no editor should be left to the mercy of friendly administrators, the safeguards should be part of the process.

The questions

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

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

The findings

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

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

The solution

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

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

Replies

Betty, I'm torn here. On the one hand, I really think this is a case of "least said, soonest mended." On the other, I also feel the need to defend myself. And on the third, I don't want to look as though I'm ignoring you.
Suffice to say, there was a minor disagreement that is easily resolved. You don't want the colour-coding either, so that's not an issue. You think the source for Heather Nicholson wasn't good enough, but did you notice I'd added a second? [10] So I'm guessing (or at least I hope) that's not an issue anymore either. Perhaps you want to discuss sourcing standards for the page in general. If so, I'd have no problem working on a set of parameters with you.
Bottom line: please just come back and start editing again. I'm sorry you got so upset about it. Part of the problem is I think you misunderstood the idea of the dispute-resolution process, or if not misunderstood, turned to it too soon. The point is not to intensify disputes, which can happen really easily if too many boards are involved at once. So in this instance, the first place to discuss was the talk page and to do that for several days if necessary. Then if issues remained perhaps ask for mediation, or choose just one of the boards, or an article RfC, to ask for more input. But to report two editors to several boards within a few hours causes people to feel swamped. When I see that kind of thing happening, my instinct is to withdraw, because otherwise we're reduced to a forest fire of "he said, she said," which makes everyone look bad.
So, please – accept this olive branch, consider taking a couple of days away from the page to get some distance (as I'm doing), then come back and let's work on it together. I'm not a huge fan of lists on Wikipedia (or at least I wasn't), but it would be fun to take this to FL status. I've looked around at some recent FL promotions, and I'm really impressed by the quality. So it would be a new Wikipedia experience for me, and I'd be really happy if we could start afresh and do it together. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Don't buy this. SlimVirgin onlly apologizes when the heat is on. This case has blown up in her face and now's she's scrambling, but you're not the first and you won't be the last. So many editors driven away by her. Don'tBelieveHere (talk) 07:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, I do believe this teacup is broken beyond repair. So many beautiful teacups dashed to the floor carelessly over the years. Are there any left in the set? Would anyone appreciate their beauty if there were? Is this a place where beauty and creativity can be held in the hand and appreciated? Any more? Was it once such a place? Rude hands, mistakes, and carefully chosen places to dash hopes... →StaniStani  02:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I just came to tell you that WT:NPOV is discussing the NPOVN backlog and found this debate I had only observed tangentially. Sad to hear. My takeaways are: (1) There is no impartial rule for determining consensus. Sometimes we have a metaconsensus that there is no consensus on the basics. Everyone decides what they think consensus is. It's built by (long) discussion and is not forced. (2) There is no forcing another editor to behave a certain way. Staying in the dispute-resolution track is always optional and misbehaving is always a tempting alternative. Trying to force resolution on an editor does take the long multiadmin route. (3) These first two principles are relatively fair for the libertarian Wikipedia community, but they do require great creativity. (a) When you first find yourself first facing a new instance of "that type" of editor, the type you come to recognize only through experience, instead of letting yourself behave typically, back off and be very circumspect in interaction. Start documenting everything and being unstintingly polite. Certainly back off from your hopes and dreams about balance in the articles and look for other areas that can be tweaked more easily. (By "that type" I mean the type that you, whomever you the reader are, believe to be the class of editors that require special treatment; no more.) (b) Once you're in the thick of it despite plan (a), overcommunicate your expectations. Indicate the one or two pages you anticipate the dispute should continue on, with almost every interaction where the other editor proceeds on a different page. If there is a lot of movement, indicate your desire not be called a forum-shopper for following the advice given. This won't prevent you from fallout dealing with "that type" of editor, but it will give you the good graces of the community. These principles also scale IRL. I appreciate your help bringing the discussion I was involved in to a sufficient conclusion. JJB 21:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC) Oh, and as to 3RR: the brightline is, restrain yourself so that you never ever have more than three edit sets to an article in 24 hours, where a set is any number of your edits surrounded by other people's edits. If you see that you've gotten to 4 edit sets of any kind in any 24-hour period and there's any hint that anyone whatsoever is offended, make the first attempt to distance yourself from 3RR, immediately, such as by self-reverting or distinguishing your content as completely new (nothing whatsoever built on any prior content) or mentioning your desire not to breach 3RR at talk. This brightline should formally protect you if you're working in good faith no matter how gross the charges; the exception, Rouge Admins at AN3, does involve a little pain and is dealt with by more community-based means of course. JJB 21:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
I've only just come across this but I'd like to add that this same thing has caused me to retire from Wikipedia as well. Especially as my final complaints were left unanswered and then the automatic archiving of the chat was changed to an unnecessarily short period for which I can only assume was to hide the discussion. Muleattack (talk) 23:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Mule, I'm sorry to hear that. I've stuck around to do some assessing and template work (it's relatively stress free), but I have well and truly washed my hands of that article now. The plain simple fact here is that if SlimVirgin was not an admin she'd be serving a block by now the way she has basically ignored the concerns of two other editors. Two editors choosing to do something against the wishes and judgment of two other editors is simply not a consensus, no matter how she dresses it up. I was particularly incensed by her accusation that we had "done nothing", particularly given the fact we had attempted to convert the list to a sortable table six months ago, only for it to stall due to her objections. Archiving certainly shouldn't be filing away ongoing discussions. I feel guilty about bailing, but you can see what happened above; I wanted to go through dispute reosultion to resolve the issues, but she wouldn't do that and no-one was prepared to compel her, so there isn't really much we can do about it. Betty Logan (talk) 00:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

List of vegans

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

There's no hurry, I'm not actively involved with the article anymore. I'm just a bit cheesed off to see her doing the same thing to another editor. Betty Logan (talk) 02:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
It may be a good idea to talk to Muleattack first; I'm not sure it's really my place to speak out on article I have actively withdrawn from, but he sounds pretty fed up. The obvious thing to do would be for him to just go and edit other articles but I don't see why he should considering he's been contributing to that article for as long as I've been around. Betty Logan (talk) 03:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Ben-Hur

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

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

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

Doh! Thanks very much—as always! - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
It's easily done. I remember once spending ages trying to track down the same problem. What I do in these cases is copy a working one over from another article and then alter the sfn and bib entry field by field. There are also two citations in the "Articles" section causing a ref template error at the bottom of the page too. Betty Logan (talk) 17:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that - I was trying to slowly ease them out altogether as they are peripheral at best, but hadn't noticed the error message. I've eased them out a little more quickly than expected... - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Heads up

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

Why not just revert it and see what happens, as per WP:BRD? Betty Logan (talk) 21:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, I did revert at the Veganism article, directing people to the discussion about it. I felt that I should start a discussion to explain my reason for objecting and/or reverting the edits, especially to avoid a WP:Edit war. When reverting something that I feel the editor is likely to revert me on, I've found that it's best to take the matter to the talk page instead of just waiting to see if the revert will happen. The editor has responded already, and has explained why he made the edits. Flyer22 (talk) 23:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

List of henchmen/allies articles

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

List of James Bond villains

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

I'll have a closer look later when I have a bit of free time, but the bottom line is anyone who wants to change the status quo on an article should start a discussion and get a consensus. Pushing through edits when another editor challenges them clearly violates BRD. Betty Logan (talk) 13:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I told him that and asked him to go to the talk page. He reverted. thanks again, as always: you are a beacon of calm and sanity (and vast amounts of knowledge)! - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your input (as always)—it was much appreciated and I've implemented your suggestions in the article. - SchroCat (^ • @) 14:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Dalton & Bond

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

The Wild Child

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

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

Hoodwinked

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

Yes, I'm retired from active article development, but I've been sticking around to make sure that everything I have done doesn't regress back into the primordial soup. However, if no-one reviews your article by the weekend I will do it for you. Betty Logan (talk) 18:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks!--Jpcase (talk) 18:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi, thanks again. The article is up for Featured Article status now, and it certainly never could have gotten this far without all of your help. If you have the time to take another look at it, and to show support for the nomination or to share further suggestions on how to improve the article, it would be greatly appreciated. Jpcase (talk) 19:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Martial arts films disruptive IPs

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

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

Talkback

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

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

Suggestion

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

It's completely up to you, I don't think the case against you has been substantiated either. The problem with promising to "avoid" him is that might mean you won't be able to edit the articles you want to edit if there is a large overlap between your editing areas. I don't think disagreeing with Niemti over an interpretation of policy is a sufficient reason for avoiding him, because ultimately one editor has to be correct and the other wrong. I think provided you don't choose to edit articles by searching his contribution history and don't watch his talk page then by definition you can't be "wikihounding" him. If you get involved in disputes with him simply because you watch or edit the same articles then that isn't wikihounding. Betty Logan (talk) 10:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I see. I just wanted to make sure that we clear up that misunderstanding over at ANI. In truth, I actually want to edit the articles that I want to edit, as disagreeing with Niemti over an interpretation of a policy is not a sufficient reason. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 11:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Batman film gross

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

To update the franchise table you just have to plug in the number in two places, and the template does the rest: [11]. Betty Logan (talk) 23:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Good to know. But what I really meant is figuring out something like $3,569.9 supposedly equaling to $3,575,468,308. Is there somewhere I am missing on the source that says that the estimates with out using decimals or do I estimate by determining how much that is? Jhenderson 777 15:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
The Box Office Mojo source rounds each amount. If you look at the BOM franchise summary you will see The Dark Knight is listed as having earned $1003.0 million, but if you click on the film you can get the full amount to the dollar which is $1,003,045,358. The full amounts are typed into the chart and then the templates just add up the grosses. We are not actually sourcing the franchise totals because they have rounding errors, we are are using the franchise summaries as an index for the film totals, and Wikipedia's own arithmetic function does the adding up without the rounding errors. Betty Logan (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah I can see where the individual film's gross can be. So the templates add up each of the individual grosses on their own is what you are saying? If that's true that's neat. :) Jhenderson 777 17:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Definition of a snooker pro or am?

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

Amateur and professional status is determined by whether you belong a professional organisation i.e. whether you are a member of the WPBSA or not. Joe Swail is still a member of the WPBSA as you can see at [12]. Every member is included on the ranking list, whether they are on the tour or not. As you can see, players like Ray Reardon and John Parrott are still members, so are still professional players. Jow Swail is listed at 150, so despite dropping off the tour has not resigned his professional membership. Darren Morgan on the otherhand went back to playing in amateur events after dropping off the tour, so had to resign his WPBSA membership effectively making him an amateur again so he could enter IBSF events. Since Joe Swail still holds professional membership he will be prohibited from entering all amateur events such as the IBSA, EASB etc. Players often retain their professional membership so they will be eligible to enter the "non tour" leg of the world championship, which amateurs can't do (which was the rule John Parrott and Tony Knowles entered under earlier this year). It's a "hard rule", if someone is on that list they are a professional player. Betty Logan (talk) 16:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanx a lot for the great explanation. That does help a lot. Greetings. --LezFraniak (talk) 17:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Contra: What about all those (old) WPBSA-Members, who participate every year at the world championships (for fun), e.g. Del Smith. They are members, but surely no pros anymore. Another example from the WPBSA official site: Swail, who got to the World Championship semis in 2000 and 2001 as well as the Welsh Open final in 2009, has plummeted to 65th in the world rankings and faces a fight to retain his professional status. From here. So also the WPBSA talk only about the main-tour-players as pros. --87.122.25.105 (talk) 07:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
See also: Competing as an amateur, the Ulsterman beat the likes of Shaun Murphy and Barry Hawkins to reach the final, before being denied the trophy by Selby. from here. --87.122.25.105 (talk) 08:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Talking about IBSA and EASB you could say: pros and wpbsa-members are not allowed to participate. --87.122.25.105 (talk) 08:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
The report discusses Swail "competing as an amateur" because he entered in the pre-tour rounds along with all the amateurs, but in reality the evidence suggests he is not an amateur. Let's examine the evidence:
  1. Swail is eligible to enter the world professional championship but not eligible to enter the amateur world championship, or indeed any amateur event run by an amateur governing body.
  2. By your reasoning that Swail is an amateur, then that means some amateurs cannot enter the amateur events but they are allowed to enter the professional world championship.
  3. If Swail resigns his WPBSA membership he will be eligible to enter amateur events as Darren Morgan has done.
  4. If Swail enters the world championship and wins it then by your logic an amateur player would be the world professional champion.
  5. Swail still formally has a world ranking issued by the world professional governing body.
The arguments seem compelling to me he still holds professional status despite dropping off the tour. Betty Logan (talk) 12:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Titanic (1997 film) plot section

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

Yeah I can do that, is it just a straight revert of this edit? If it is let me know and I'll revert the edit, if not, then please tell write out here the text that is to be replaced and what it will be replaced with. Betty Logan (talk) 09:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
As I'm sure you saw, Nandt1 took care of it. But thanks for being willing to help. 31.193.138.223 (talk) 16:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The Cabin in the Woods

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

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

Edit war

Please see Talk:Assassination_Games#Edit_war and do not edit the article till there is clear consensus. Debresser (talk) 08:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Onibaba

Hello, any more ideas in this case? User Joshu seems to turn this article into his personal property, having reverted almost all additions I made despite being linked to various sources, now he started deleting other info as well. I reverted some of his deletions, but he won't stop, re-reverting them etc., always calling sources given "not reliable", even belittling them by misquoting them. I think one user alone shouldn't be left to decide what is reliable or not ... thx.--Robert Kerber (talk) 23:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can see you have only listed two sources so far, and I thought you said there were five? I can't offer an opinion on the sources unless I know what they all are and precisely what they say about the film in regards to Noh theater. Also, in your first example you say what follows is a "whole paragraph", but unless you actually tell us what the paragraph says it is difficult to draw to any meaningful conclusions about how you are interpreting it. Betty Logan (talk) 23:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, I've listed five but only had time to write down two excerpts so far. Do you think it makes sense to write down the whole paragraph in example 1? Also, I find myself constantly in th e position to defend my arguments while user Joshi keeps on reverting and calling my sources unreliable, even misquoting them to undermine his position.--Robert Kerber (talk) 07:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I suppose it depends how much you want to use it as a source. If I don't know what it says I am not in a position to judge it. If someone reverts you I cannot say either way whether that was the correct action or not. I think you are putting the cart before the horse though. Nothing should be in the lede that isn't already covered in the main body of the article, so personally what I would do is develop the analysis section first before trying to make alterations to the lede. Betty Logan (talk) 09:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree with you concerning the chronology, but the reverts by J. concern the main body as well.--Robert Kerber (talk) 10:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
It seems to me the two of you need some kind of mediation. An RfC is good for resolving one specific issue, but the gerater problem seems to be that the two of you just can't work together. I recommend applying for dispute resolution at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Betty Logan (talk) 06:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I did, thank you.--Robert Kerber (talk) 09:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

FYI

Hello BL. You have reverted some of the edits of our Burton-on-Trent problem editor so I wanted you to know that I have created this page User:MarnetteD/Burton-on-Trent Vandal so that we can keep track of the numerous IPs that have been and will be used by this person. Feel free to add to it if you encounter them again. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 15:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

  • Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
  • Research: The most recent DR data
  • Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
  • Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
  • DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
  • Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
  • Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 18:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

War and Peace (1965 film)

I recently expanded the article, and also moved it to War and Peace (film series), which I believe is a more appropriate title. From looking at the talk page, I know you were searching for concrete figures regarding the budget. That kino-teatr.ru source you had is somewhat misleading and that website is horrible in general. Anyway, after combing through Google Books etc. I found a collection of Goskino protocols which specifically states that on 25.8.64 the budget was revised and set on 8.5 million ruble (the 8,165,200 is the budget from a year earlier, approved on 21.5.63; a new directive was issued in 64') and it includes the expenses of the army. The line producer corroborated this in an interview, and even told the 18 million ruble which later appeared in the press were nonsense. Author F. Razzakov, who had access to the crew's records, wrote in another place that according to their financial statements, as all work ended in August 67', their total expenses were summed up in 8,219,712 ruble. So, it cost that sum in 1967 exchange rates, i.e. $9,203,800. P.S., the $100 million budget appears in the earliest reports in the American press about the film - but as a Soviet estimate, not an American, as you have written somewhere (for example, NYT's A.H. Weiler, 19.1.68: "Russians say cost $100 million". Judith Crist, NY Magazine, 29.4.68: "what the Russians estimate is the equivalent of $100 million".) I presume it is some sort of a publicity stunt by the Soviets, or maybe even by the American distributors. All sources are cited in the article (P.S., they were no 120,000 troops in the Borodino re-creation as stated by Guinness, but about 1/10 of that; Bondarchuk told to the National Geographic himself). Bahavd Gita (talk) 16:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

You've done a great job on the article, and yes, (film series) is the correct disambiguation term in this case. It's great that you have been able to address the inaccuracies and myths. I just assumed the "100 million" estimate was American because it appeared in most US sources and the Russian sources I had seen put the cost around 8 million rubles (which came in under $10 million). I guess Cleopatra gets its record back! Betty Logan (talk) 05:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
I have seen you make consistent edits for a long time now, for which I think you truly deserve this. Surge_Elec (talk) 14:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Surge! I have noticed many of your contributions to List of highest-grossing films in keeping it up to date, and your work is also much appreciated. An article like that is very 'contemporary' and it requires regular updates, so your efforts are a great help. Betty Logan (talk) 19:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

List of vegans

Can I explain why? Sure...because none of those people's respective articles state that they are vegan. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 09:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you are confusing lists with categories. A category should not be added if the subject's article does not include the claim, but lists are independent of articles and have their own inclusion criteria and their own sets of sources. In other words, what another article says or doesn't say is irrelevant, unless it directly contradicts it i.e. if the Bryan Adams article included a sourced statement stating that he his not vegan, then that is something the list would have to accommodate. But the fact that his article does not record his vegan status one way or the other is not a valid reason for removing the claim. Betty Logan (talk) 09:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Really? Where is that guideline? Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 15:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Look it's sourced, that's the criteria used on Wikipedia. WP:BURDEN states You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source. It doesn't say anything about removing claims that are not included in the subject's article. Betty Logan (talk) 16:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
That guideline doesn't state that, but WP:V does. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 02:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
If you quote me the relevant section of the policy that justifies the deletion of these names I will happily remove them myself, otherwise I'm done debating this and suggest you start a discussion on the talk page of the actual article and get a consensus for their removal. Betty Logan (talk) 06:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

James Bond (film character)

Hi Betty, Following the change in page title to James Bond (literary character) from the previous version, I starterd a new article today: James Bond (film character). Unfortunately an editor who should know better has tagged it for speedy deletion based on a rather spurious and short-sighted assumption. As always I value your rather balanced and even-minded approach to such matters and would appreciate your comment on the situation, if you'd be able to spare a minute or two? Many thanks - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I will contest the speedy deletion for you. Betty Logan (talk) 13:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks v much! I'm not sure they understand the background to all of this and I've tried to explain, but sadly sense just seems to fall on deaf ears... - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all you did - all very annoying, but we'll get there in the end. I was mulling over the structure over the last couple of days before I started (which also allowed me a little more time to work towards the end of John le Mesurier too). Does this look the most obvious approach to you? I played around with following the same sort of format as the literary character article, but it just looks the wrong approach to take with eight actors to examine. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the most organic approach, there was very little continuity after the 60s. It is each actor's interpretation that defines the screen Bond, rather than a general set of characteristics. Bearing that in mind it may be worth considering grouping Never Say Never Again with Conney's other Bond films, because it was still part of the same depiction really. Betty Logan (talk) 21:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I thought about keeping the Connery films together, but that falls out of the Eon - Non-Eon split (not such a bad thing), but then logically Niven should also be looked at between Connery and Lazenby (not such a good thing!) - SchroCat (^ • @) 22:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Signpost

This appeared on my talk page a day or so ago: as one of the stalwarts of recent development, I think your comments would also be welcomed! - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

WP James Bond in the Signpost
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject James Bond for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Goodbye, Mr. Bond. -Mabeenot (talk) 17:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Princess Mononoke#GA push?

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Princess Mononoke#GA push?. I am trying to get the article up to GA status, so I may need some suggestions from you on how to improve it as well. Also, there is a discussion regarding a compromise for the film's ending regarding San and Ashitaka's scene as well, which can be found here. I would also like to hear from you about this matter as well. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I will take it a look at the article tomorrow and give you my comments. Betty Logan (talk) 21:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Okay then. Thanks for your timely response, as always. By the way, as Erik pointed out to me in this discussion, the article has not gotten much good attention historically. Also, he pointed out to me that the plot sections are never immutable. As for the other sections, once we write and expand them into strong, well-cited passages, they tend to be permanent. Erik suggested that in general, we should help add to the article's body as a whole, especially to indicate to the IP editor that we want to add value and not change things for the sake of changing things, which I also suspect what the IP thinks. Hope this helps. Best wishes, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Highest-grossing films

All of my changes to the pages regarding the highest grossers of each year prior to 1980 are based on the-numbers.com. Please stop removing these changes without explanation, as you have done. Thank you. Shipofcool (talk) 00:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

These lists are organised by theatrical rental, not box-office gross. You are mixing up the two quantities. These are based on Variety gross rental lists, and if you wish to convert the charts to box-office gross you need to convert all the figures, not just some of them. Betty Logan (talk) 00:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Since when are these lists based theatrical rentals? As I see, they are all supposed to be listed according to box office gross. Not to be rude, but I don't consider you an authority figure and so I will restore the changes because they are sourced and reliable. Shipofcool (talk) 00:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Most of the older lists are based on theatrical rental because that was how how films were ranked at the time. Trackers did not start using gross until the 1970s and Variety did not start using it until the 1990s. Please do not add gross figures to your preferred films on rental lists, it just makes the entire list meaningless. Betty Logan (talk) 00:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
When the category table says "Gross" in the third column, that is exactly what should be listed under it: the amount that the film grossed at the box office. If it sad "Rentals" in the third column, the films would be listed according to those. Please stop reverting these sourced changes. I really do not want to deal with an edit war. Shipofcool (talk) 00:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Gross is used to refer to box-office gross on modern lists and gross rental on historic lists. You are cocking up all the box-office charts. Betty Logan (talk) 01:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
The films are going to be listed according to their box office gross. Shipofcool (talk) 01:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Which I don't have a problem with, but the conversion should be done completely for all films. Betty Logan (talk) 07:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
For 1958, I can't find enough films listed on the-numbers, which prevnts me from being able to to a complete conversion. Too bad. Fortunately, 1960 onwards has enough films listed on that site. 130.157.34.22 (talk) 08:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Vertigo

Betty, I told you that Box Office Mojo's figure included the 1996 re-release. Being that the source you are giving to back up your claim includes a RE-release, it belongs under the RE-evaluation section, not the Contemporaneous section. I hope you understand, because I do not like conflicts. My wish is that you will see this as fact instead of cherrypicking. Shipofcool (talk) 05:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Further comments at Talk:Vertigo (film). And yes I will be reverting it back. Betty Logan (talk) 05:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Template:Box office bombs list

As a template dependent on a deleted template, it can be safely speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G8. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I did wonder if I could invoke that criteria, but I didn't know if it applied to templates. Betty Logan (talk) 20:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
If it begins with a "G", it can apply to pretty much any namespace. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Dark Shadows

Betty, it seems like you've become quite the box office guru. I'm wondering if this discussion would be of any interest to you? Talk:Dark Shadows (film)#Box Office. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, what started out as a mini-project to track down the missing grosses on the highest grossing films article has turned me into a research student of Hollywood's labyrinthine accounting practices. The data doesn't seem to be collected together in one place, so I'm quite enjoying building what seems to be a unique resource. The IP is correct in what he says, so I will add some comments. Betty Logan (talk) 12:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Bond

In this week's Signpost and an "On this day..." reference on the front page - it means that there's a lot of editors needlessly chopping and changing stuff today! - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah they're going to take a lot of hits today. I had to correct something earlier, but it may be worth just letting it go today and reverting all the damage tomorrow, otherwise we'll spend all day reverting. Betty Logan (talk) 13:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Dr. No images on Commons

I've temporarily undeleted the four Dr. No trailer images so that you can move them over to Wikipedia, at least while the discussion continues over at Commons. Since you're not active on that project, and temporary deletion only lasts 48 hours, I figured I'd let you know here.

On a related note, please be civil. Even if the people you're dealing with are being less than cooperative or less than civil, name calling isn't an acceptable method of conducting an undeletion discussion. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Point taken, although I did solely address the issues until aspersions were cast upon my neutrality. I shouldn't have been drawn into it, but when someone just dismisses your points without addressing the evidence you have provided them with it is frustrating. Anyway, the simplest solution to this is probably to transfer the files over here, because I am getting absolutely nowhere explaining US copyright law to a bunch of Germans. Betty Logan (talk) 00:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Betty Logan. You have new messages at Go Phightins!'s talk page.
Message added 01:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I have another question for you... Go Phightins! (talk) 01:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 09:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Betty Logan. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Thanks for letting me know! I only check it at the start of the day as a rule so I'll go and have a look. Not a talk page message? You know I'm going to be bitterly disappointed in you if the subject title is not "For your eyes only". Betty Logan (talk) 19:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

stable state is at odds with this proposal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Don%27t_revert_due_solely_to_%22no_consensus%22 might be of interest to you. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out, but it doesn't exactly have strong support for becoming a guideline. I don't think it's a very relevant essay anyway, since most editors don't revert because there is no consensus, they revert because they disagree with an edit that there is no consensus for, which is an entirely justifiable reason for reverting IMO. You may want to check this out: User:Betty Logan/BRD enforcer. If you have any views either way you are welcome to air them. Betty Logan (talk) 00:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

John Wayne filmography

Hi Betty,

I wondered if you would mind taking a look at User:MarcusBritish/sandbox and giving me feedback? I have completely redesigned a new John Wayne filmography, using the data from the 3 current articles. In order to make it WAI accessible, I have eliminated all colspan/rowspan cells and have used individual tables per year, with a custom TOC. This method is noted at WP:DTT##Avoiding column headers in the middle of the table, and it easier to do with a fresh table than altering an existing one, as I've just found out. Have also recreated the placings tables of Box office popularity, below the filmography. A great number of repeat wikilinks have been eradicated.. the current pagesize is about 88kb, with the prose from the 3 articles made into one "overview" section, which seems to read okay, for now. I think it should suffice, but a second opinion would be welcome. Gonna have a coffee now.. tired after all that table work! :) Thanks, Ma®©usBritish{chat} 17:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Just to advise, I've more or less finished copy-editing and tweaking it.. should be up to Mainspace quality standards, by now.. 96k after including a few bells and whistles to smarted it all up, but seems to load quite fast. Should be a strong foundation for editors to work from. Might even push it towards WP:FLCR, in time. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish{chat} 02:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
It looks very neat and comprehensive. I don't think breaking it up by year causes an accessibility problem, since each year is accessible via the contents, but for aesthetic reasons have you considered having a table for each decade? In the case of the later decades, he only seems to do one or two films a year, so I don't think there is much to gain from having separate tables for those entries. Also, currently you have set the widths of your tables using hard pixels, which may look good on your monitor, but not all monitors are set to the same resolution. The tables are supposed to be accessible in 1024x768 resolution (as per MOS:ACCESS#Resolution), and in 1024 resolution some of the tables look huge (just check out entry 31 for instance). It might be better if you let the software set the table widths automatically, or if you want the columns to match up across all the tables use "em widths" instead of pixel counts i.e. width="10em;" etc, and then the width of the columns will be adjustable according to the text size in someone's browser rather than a hard pixel measure (someone who has vision problems may have their browser text set a higher size). It's always best to set your monitor to 1024x768 resolution to design tables, and then you know they meet the minimum standard. Betty Logan (talk) 09:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't think ems are good to use on Wiki.. not only have I never seen em widths on any wikitable during all my time here, I've never seen a single MOS page recommend anything but px or % either – Wiki practices don't always follow W3C recommendations.. (in fact, I'm not even sure if Wiki-markup becomes HTML4, HTML5, or some XHTML-strain once converted, but I doubt it's all valid on many pages). Probably because the concept of how ems work is not straight-forward and your average non-web-savvy editor won't know the idea behind it works "m" wise. I have seen one instance of ems changed to px in some table's history, but that's all. I've never used them myself either, and I studied Web Dev. at Uni. and prefer px or % also, for ease. With regards to 1024x768, I fixed all but the Notes col in order for the columns not to be be haphazardly aligned.. and the Notes would always stretch to the right margin regardless of resolution; I've seen articles with multiple table arrangements and no set widths, and because the columns "jump" back-and-forth whilst scrolling down the page it's uncomfortable to read and not ideal. However, I have narrowed them all a little, to give Notes some breathing room, and it looks much better on 1024x768 now. No surprise that the MOS expects us to meet archaic CRT widths, but based on http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_display.asp it is only a minority of users still use it, and will have to be left behind like 800x600 eventually, as widescreen standards are more flexible to work with and most new monitors are around 16:9, as are all modern laptops which are out-doing desktop machines. But until that time comes, yes, I've checked it out in 1024-mode and made it less cramped.. which leads to grouping by decades.. could do that, but it would mean adding a new column with each film's release year, or full release date would make more sense if there was a date column.. but that would be 8 columns and more "squashing", especially at 1024x768; even without widths set it could be very tightly packed, depending on the date format, i.e. "1963" vs "11-28-1963" vs "28 Nov 1963" vs "November 28, 1963". I'm also not sure if I fancy going through all 185 films and getting hold of those dates, just now.. would be a couple of hours work. However, if you're happy that the page is generally suitable as things go, since the width adjustments, I'll look to performing a proper merge procedure from the 3 dated articles. Perhaps once it's live it'll generate more input. Regards, Ma®©usBritish{chat} 11:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

JB List

Hi Betty, I've finally managed to finish off the JB in film update. Could you swing by and have a look at it when you have a free moment? Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

ps. I've dropped the Fleming article on for nomination on the front page. If you feel like commenting, please feel free at TFA requests. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
GIven it my support.
It looks really good. Are you leaving it as it is for the non-eon films? Betty Logan (talk) 22:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I was. There would be too many blank fields is we followed the same format across. I'll keep looking to see if that info can be identified, but things like awards will always be blank for Casino Royale! - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I prefer the shorter synopses that appeared in the article table. However I will defer to you both on this issue. I see that the non-Eon films still have the synopsis. I favour including the synopsis in an Eon table... though that may not be feasible. - Fanthrillers (talk) 00:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I sort of prefer the synopsis in the table too, but with the amount of info in the table as it stands, then we're breaching a number of MOS guidelines and the article could lose its FL on that basis alone. The plots are the thing to lose, as all the remaining info is there for comparison, which the plots are not. Sadly, it's just not possible to have all the info in one single table. - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The Dark Knight (2008) Box Office

I just happened to the box office amount of The Dark Knight at BOM, and it says that the film has had a 2012 re-release. I need help from you now. At BOM, for The Dark Knight, now it shows "Domestic Lifetime Gross" (did not show before). But some say that, The Dark Knight was re-released in 2009, for the $1 billion mark attempt. If that is right then this re-release is its 2nd re-release. So what do we do now in the "High-grossing films by Year" section (List of highest-grossing films ). My suggestions:

It was like this: $1,003,045,358 ($999,615,879)

So, #1 make it like this: $1,004,558,444 (1,003,045,358) (If you do not think the film was re-released in 2009)

Or, #2 Make it like this: $1,004,558,444 [$1,003,045,358] ($999,615,879) (If you think that film was re-released in 2009 and now it has 3 different amounts).

Need you help in this one. Thanks. Surge_Elec (talk) 07:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

In the year chart, we list the overall total (which would be $1,004,558,444) and the original release total. There is no need to list each release total in between—many older films had many re-releases (Gone with the Wind and Snow White had about eight each for instance). We only need the total really, but in some cases re-releases change the record without having to do much modern day business so we keep the original release records too to be fair. Betty Logan (talk) 07:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for you help. I have a second request. I am still confused about how much money the film made in its original run and the re-releases. Can you write (and make whatever corrections needed) about it in the Box Office section of The Dark Knight? Thanks again and sorry for the trouble. Surge_Elec (talk) 10:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
If you click on the reference, there is a source for the original release total and the current total; there is also a source detailing the 2009 IMAX re-release. The Dark Knight originally grossed 997 million, and the 2009 IMAX reissue put the overall total over 1 billion (although Box Office Mojo don't list this as a separate release for some reason). Betty Logan (talk) 10:51, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

James Bond in film

Hi Betty, I'm all out of reverts on an IP who insists on putting nonsense into a table on the James Bond in film page. If you're around, could you revert them? I've told them to self-revert before I go to ANI for edit-warring, but I don't think they will listen. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks like Marnette has beaten me to it. Yet me know if it happenes again. Might be worth requesting semi protection too. Betty Logan (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Betty - I'll let you know. I'll see what I can do with the protection - I've had luck there in one or two cases recently. Cheers! - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

JB Character

Hi Betty, could I ask a favour, for when you have some spare time? I've been slowly working on the JB film character article in fits and starts and I've now done Connery to Dalton. Could you have a quick spin over it to see that it looks OK and doesn't break any major rules? I'm hoping to finish Brosnan and Craig soon(ish) and them revamp the other troublesome page before having to have another battle on various talk pages... Cheers! - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll have a look over it today or tomorrow. Betty Logan (talk) 12:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Betty, Thanks again for your comments and input on the character page - it's much appreciated, as always. I've cleared up your and Fanthrillers' comments (with the exception of one para for FT to work on), so it's pretty much ready to go I think. I'll make a start on revamping the production history page and see how it looks after a few films. I think I'll come back to you after two or three films for your comments again, if you don't mind, just to see I am going along on the right lines and ensuring that I'm sticking to the sort of lines you have in mind too. Thanks again. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

List of actors by total box-office gross

Hi, I removed the prod tag you placed on List of actors by total box-office gross, since I didn't see any obvious reason why the article should be deleted. You linked to WP:INDISCRIMINATE as a reason for deletion, but I didn't see anything there that looked like it would apply to that article. I certainly don't think the article is "long and sprawling" or would be confusing to a reader. Also, the article seems to be cited to a reliable source, and from a common-sense perspective, actors' total box office gross seems like a topic that would be notable. Is perhaps your concern that the article appears to contain gross from the "domestic" (U.S. and Canada, I think) box office, not worldwide box office? If so I'm not sure if that is a reason to delete the list rather than rename it (or rewrite it). Anyway, if you still think it should be deleted, perhaps you could explain in more detail why in an AFD discussion. Calathan (talk) 16:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

It just seems to be a completely arbitrary list, in terms of what films are included: The Numbers (which also uses domestic grosses) has a completely different set of figures to BOM, and likewise with Guinness. It probably should be based on worldwide figures too, or renamed to to List of actors by total US box-office gross. I'm not opposed to it enough to AfD it, but I don't think there is much value to it in regards to how it currently stands. Betty Logan (talk) 20:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

In film

Hi Betty, Can I ask another favour? I've made a stab at the opening section of the production history article and just want to check I'm not putting in too much info, (or missing the point entirely!) Could you have a look over the following sections to see if you think I'm on the right track?

1.1 First screen adaptation
1.2 Eon Productions

1.2.1 Albert R Broccoli and Harry Saltzman (1962—74)
1.2.1.1 Dr. No (1962)

Feel free to chop out any bits you think are excessive, or highlight any issues you see, and I'll use those bits as a sort of template for the rest. Cheers (yet again!) - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

By and large it seems to be coming along well. It is certainly distinct from the film character article with its focus on the production side of things. I won't fiddle around with anything yet, it's best to let it take shape before tweaking anything. Betty Logan (talk) 21:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
That's great: many thanks! - SchroCat (^ • @) 04:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry - one more piece of advice, of you could! I've used the chart from the JB in film article (see User:Schrodinger's cat is alive/litter tray 4#Recurring crew) which is particularly pertinent. Should there be others listed in there, such as production designer, editor, second unit director or others? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

It probably depends on what the rest of the article covers. If the editing and second unit photography is discussed in detail in the prose then it might be a good idea to include them, if not then there isn't much point. Off the top of my head I would say the production designer should probably be covered since Ken Adam's sets have always been pretty integral to the series. Ideally, tables in articles should support the prose, so it's always better to avoid arbitrary inclusion. Betty Logan (talk) 04:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
OK thanks - I'll drop the prod designer in there and ensure it's covered throughout. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 05:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
BTW, when do you think is best to go to the talk page on this - when it's done, or before I spend a week or longer finishing it off only for someone to throw it out?! - SchroCat (talk) 05:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Well you tried the 'look ahead' approach before and editors didn't understand the distinction between the series and the character. I appreciate it's easy for me to say—since it's not my work being chucked out—but I would get both articles ready first. When they're done I wouldn't even start a discussion, I would just WP:BEBOLD and transfer them in, since we both know there is at least one editor who will challenge their existence. I expect the "in film" article will be reverted quick smart, but the "film character" article will have to go to AFD again (since it will be sufficiently different to the stub that was redirected under the Speedy deletion, so the speedy criteria won't apply). There is no way the film character is not notable, so they won't delete it. If they want to get rid of the article then all the new content would have to be merged into another article, and on that basis we can argue that the film series and the film character are distinct topics that warrant their own articles (which is why it is important to have the "in film" article ready to go). We can also use WP:SIZERULE to our advantage too. Betty Logan (talk) 06:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Request to move Adolf Hitler's vegetarianism to Adolf Hitler's diet

Your comments would be appreciated at Talk:Adolf_Hitler's_vegetarianism#Requested_move. Nirvana2013 (talk) 16:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Players Tour Championship 2012/2013

Could you take a look at Players Tour Championship 2012/2013. An IP insists on adding that the 7th player on the Asian Order of Merit qualified for the PTC Finals, but this wasn't officially verified yet. Also he add meaningless background colours to the table. Armbrust The Homonculus 14:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I've added my thoughts at Talk:Players Tour Championship 2012/2013. We can't make assumptions about who has qualified, but we must remember it is the purpose of the article to provide readers with as much information as possible. It might be useful to readers to know that Yupeng (and indeed Guodong) are the next players on the Asian Order of Merit should it be used to allocate the remaining places to those players. Betty Logan (talk) 21:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Your neighbourhood stalker

(It's beginning to look like I'm stalking you with all these comments! I'm not really: I just need your advice again.) I've started a thread at Talk:List of recurring characters in the James Bond film series#Revamp?; I'd appreciate your thoughts, if you could spare the time and have an opinion. It revolves around replacing the current table with this one, which is out of place in a production history article. Any thought you have would be much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Princess Mononoke#Further improvement of Princess Mononoke article

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Princess Mononoke#Further improvement of Princess Mononoke article. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

You are now a Senior Editor. Congrats!

Many, many congrats to you on becoming a Senior Editor. This is a huge milestone, that you have reached. This, that you have achieved, is truly amazing and remarkable. All I can say is: "You deserve it". After all you have made such tireless contributions to Wikipedia, for a very long time. Congrats once again! Surge_Elec (talk) 12:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Prod Hist

Hi Betty, I've finally finished the production history, although I did feel as if I was going round in circles towards the end of it. When you have a little free time, is there a chance you could have a look over it for me? Many, many thanks! - SchroCat (talk) 06:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I promise I'll get onto it, but I'd like to go through it thoroughly so I'll set aside Thursday evening for it. Betty Logan (talk) 14:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
That's great - thanks Betty. There's no huge rush on this, so feel free to take your time. I'm still not 100% sure I've covered everything I should have done (or even gone too deeply in places) so feel free to cut out anything you see as extraneous. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
One thing that jumped straight out at me was the omission of the editor from the recurring crew. I think this should be included since it was a key 'promotion' position, with both Peter Hunt and John Glen going on to direct films, so by including the information it shows the career trajectory of some of the core crew. Betty Logan (talk) 14:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Yep - good point. I'll drop it in there shortly. Ta - SchroCat (talk) 14:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

File:The Perfect Game.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:The Perfect Game.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Armbrust The Homonculus 13:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

GCD

Hi, Betty. As a valued colleague of mine, I hope you've keep an open mind about one aspect of Grand Comics Database. If you'll read my 19:58, 21 November 2012 post at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, I think a credible case can be made that we CAN assess the editorial expertise, since each title's editor(s) are listed and everyone goes by their real names — there's complete transparency of what is, in essence collated information from primary sources. I hope I can make you willing to reassess that particular part of your feelings toward the site. With regards as always,--Tenebrae (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Rise of the Guardians

There looks like an incipient edit-war brewing at Rise of the Guardians over a familiar concern: Fans of the movie changing "mixed to positive" to "positive" in the Reception section, even though Metacritic was only a 57, etc. A knowledgeable and experienced WP:FILM editor might want to weigh in. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Cache

Hi Betty, not trying to drag you into another battle, but the agreement to leave the country section blank in the Cache (film) article isn't sitting to well with Ring Cinema. Lil help? Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I had noticed, but I don't see what else I can personally do. I mean, you both know where I stand on this: where the sources are not clear cut then it's best to not use the parameter in the infobox, but Ring obviously disagrees which is his prerogative. If an admin catches whiff of all the reverting you'll probably both get clobbered for edit-warring. At this stage it is probably best to file an WP:RFC, since the dispute isn't going to be resolved by the editors currently involved in the discussion. If you do file one, make sure it is neutrally worded so it doesn't get closed on a procedural point. Betty Logan (talk) 20:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

JB in film & Character

Hi Betty, I'm fairly happy that both these articles are close enough to standard that they can be launched fairly soon. I'm off on a business trip to the frozen climes of Norway for a couple of days so I propose to move them to their rightful locations when I return (either Tues or Weds) so I can deal with any of the inevitable issues that arise subsequently. There are still of few of FT's hidden comments in there which I will leave there and they can be sorted as and when the cites come up (I've had a hunt round and can't find anything, but I'll do another sweep before I launch). Does that sound OK with you? Thanks also for your comments on the other matter - I knew I shouldn't have logged off when I did, but it was nice to see it all done and dusted overnight! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah that sounds great! Just ignore that fool from yesterday evening. He's entitled to dislike it, and everyone approaches articles differently, but he's pissing into the wind complaining about somebody overhauling an article and promoting it from a B class rating—which in reality was probably more a C-class article anyway—to FA status. Betty Logan (talk) 10:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
They were a major pain in the backside during the editing process too, wanting to wipe out everything bad about Sellers and giving totally the wrong impression of the individual behind the public persona. A very strange stance for an encyclopaedia to take! The strange thing is that I can't see the ratings (they come back from time to time and appear only periodically on some articles and not others. I presumed WW was correct in the scores he gave, but I have no idea why I can't see them half the time! - SchroCat (talk) 17:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
BTW, I'm sure you've probably seen already, but I uploaded the new versions of the two pages. I had some spare time and the internet access in the hotel is better than I thought it would be, so I've gone and lit the blue touch paper... - SchroCat (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm positive the film character article would survive the AfD now since the sheer amount of sources demonstrate that the casting of James Bond is a notable topic, and if that survives the AfD there is no point reverting the "in film" article. You've done a terrific job on them, I'm pretty sure anyone viewing these articles objectively would see that. Betty Logan (talk) 02:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
There is so little overlap on these articles that only someone who has a personal issue or a point to prove would want to go down the AfD route again. The only thing that concerns me is seeing the Bond-focussed editors revert parts of the Bond in film article back in there. It's sort of happened with the re-addition of the "Happy and Glorious" section, but I was in two minds when I took it out and I can't think of anywhere else for it to go, so it may as well stay there!. - SchroCat (talk) 05:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
I wondered about removing it myself, but it isn't really doing any harm so it's best to not be too aggressive about things like that. After it settles down what really should be there and what shouldn't can be reassessed, and the editor does have a sound point that it should go somewhere. Betty Logan (talk) 05:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Practical Magic#refinement of genre categorization

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Practical Magic#refinement of genre categorization. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Maximum break, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 2008 World Championship (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Nuveen Investments RFC Reboot

I see that you contributed to the original RFC for this article. As a member who is working on RFC's, I have closed the first one as unresolved, and rebooted it with a more compliant RFC question. I would appreciate your feedback on this new RFC. Thank you Tiggerjay (talk) 07:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic as derivative works

I hope to persuade you that these services are entirely derivative works, and not original, and inconsistent, and therefore don't qualify as reliable sources, or even as reliable primary sources. But I don't want to fight, because we've agreed on several things in the past. Not sure how to proceed. --Lexein (talk) 17:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thanks again for your constant advice and guidance: your help is always appreciated and very welcome! SchroCat (talk) 04:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Citebundling question

Hi Betty, I wonder if you could advise on a cite bundling / coding point? I'm re-working the Skyfall reviews at the moment, trying to slim them down and make them more sensible, rather than just re-gurgitating the critics opinions. I've managed to bundle a group together (see fn 14) but I also want to quote one of the reviews separately on a different point (it's the red error message at fn27). If I try my usual technique of <ref name ="krupa">{{cite... full details}}</ref> then the cite bundle breaks down. Do I have to keep the refs entirely separate, or is there a way of using the "ref name=" facility of covering all the info. (I suspect that I'll have to duplicate as it's not possible to bundle up the info and have it fully displayed elsewhere, but my head is starting to hurt thinking about it now!) Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible in the way you mean, because the software expects to match each separate cite to a separate footnote—it's a drawback of bundling. You may be able to hack it in a similar way to page cites, but it won't be exactly like what you want, but I'll have a fiddle with it. Betty Logan (talk) 18:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that: I'll see if it works or if it looks sort of misleading (like Krupa had written a book) and maybe have to double up on the refs - I'm not sure which is best. Thanks again! - SchroCat (talk) 04:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I had another attempt, but the problem with this one is that you have to label the ref manually. I've labelled it 14 so it matches up to the cite bundle, but if that changes due to the automatic numbering you'll probably have to change the label. If you want a direct cite to the review then just duplicating the reference is probably the most robust solution; however, what is actually wrong with just citing the review bundle again? Since the prose explicitly names Krupa, then it's easy enough to identify the relevant review in the bundle. Betty Logan (talk) 08:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your help on this: I went for the robust solution in the end, largely because it's a high traffic, highly edited article and the manual numbering would get knocked out of line fairly soon. I also used a second cite bundle with an slightly differing set of reviews, so I duplicated the overlapping reviews into the bundles. It means that for a couple, there are three entries in the refs (one stand-alone and one each in the bundles), but I don't think that's too much of an issue really. Thanks again - SchroCat (talk) 14:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Film ratings

I shall assume that nominating {{film ratings}} for deletion was a temporary aberration. Please be more careful. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

You should probably have checked the facts first. I nominated a template that had previously been deleted following a TfD discussion, so was eligible for speedy deletion. Please be more careful. Betty Logan (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Box Office Bombs

I have an issue at Dredd with users who insist on adding "It was a box office bomb" to the opening of the box office and lede and I wanted your input on what constitutes a bomb because I've read the article and the list of bombs and Dredd doesn't seem to fit it. It didn't make its budget back but it made 60% of it at least if you use hte lowest gross and the highest budget and was critically well received and its budget was relatively low at 45 million and it made at least 30, while two sources say 36 million. This doesn't seem comparable to the bombs where they seem to have lost on average 50%+ of the budget, but there doesn't seem to be any definition of why the films on the list were included as Bombs. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

It's basically editorializing. A "box office bomb" is a subjective term that means different things to different people, so personally speaking I don't think it should be used on Wikipedia. In today's market there is nothing remotely special about a film not recouping all its outlay from a cinema release because the income from the secondary markets and merchandise often supersede the box office, it's factored into the business plan. I had a similar dispute with someone on the Vertigo article who insisted on calling it a "box office disappointment", and I was like what is considered a disppointment? It made its money back so why not just state the facts rather than imply innuendo? My view on this is if you can source how much it cost and source how much it made then you can just give readers the facts, they don't need it dressed up in non-neutral language. Betty Logan (talk) 22:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Betty, that is how the article is at the minute; what it cost, what it made. But the user just wasn't having it, might still not be, not heard back from him yet. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

"Edit-warring"

Given some of my recent experiences with alleged "edit-warring", I fear I'm starting to gain a deeper understanding of some of your WP frustrations. Doniago (talk) 16:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it is becoming increasingly frustrating for good editors to create and maintain good content. I've taken a back seat these days. I tried quitting but I couldn't stand seeing stuff I had developed compromised by low quality editing (God, that sounds pompous but you know what I mean), so I mainly overlook my previous work, maintain templates and carry out some article assessment. Personally I think admins are too handy with the blocks and procedural adherence, and Wikipedia would be better served if they provided more support to the collaborative process. My bone of contention was that in my altercation I actively sought help, but an admin just washed his hands with "if either of you revert I'll block you" threat, whereas I think both of us would have been better served if he had advised a clear course of action to resolving our issues. Leaving editors stranded in a situation that has clearly broken down isn't going to encourage them to continue their involvement at Wikipedia. It's a volunteer project, after all, so the only currency is goodwill and if that seeps away so will the editors. Betty Logan (talk) 19:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
In my case, and I'll grant I'm not necessarily being the "nicest" editor or following what some might call "best practice" here... I find a fairly technical article that's been tagged for needing citations for over six months. I move some of the unsourced material to the article's Talk page, nothing that the article's been tagged long-term. An editor comes in and re-adds the material w/out sourcing, so I remove it again, as they're in violation of WP:BURDEN at that point (if you want to add challenged material, source it). Then a 3rd editor chimes in, calls my edits "unconstructive" and gives me a warning for edit-warring. I've started a discussion at Editor Assistance which is either drawing little attention or which people are actively shying away from, because I'd love to know what exactly is supposed to be done about unsourced material if editors are going to be accused of edit-warring when they try to address it in ways that policy does support. Anyway, I'm not asking you to get involved or anything, I just needed to vent a bit. I'd love for someone else to chime in, but, again, not soliciting. We'll see what happens. Very frustrating. Doniago (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Those etiquette and assistance boards are dead zones. The best thing you can do is start a discussion on the article talk page explaining why you have removed the content, citing the relevant policies/guidelines etc. Notify both of the editors of the discussion on their talk pages. If it's been in six months it doesn't matter if it stays in for a couple more days. Give it until Monday evening and if they don't respond remove the unsourced content providing a link to the talk page discussion in the edit summary (to cover your ass). If they do respond but you find you need an independent opinion then drop a note at the relevant project pages and also on my talk page too, and I'll come along and offer a third party opinion, and we'll see how it develops. Betty Logan (talk) 20:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Wow Betty, thanks for the offer! :) I feel obliged to give you a chance to review before you dig in though. Article in question is Synchronous motor, my Editor Assistance request can be found here. The individual who warned me for edit-warring has already chimed in there; Andy Dingley. The original reverting editor is User:Wtshymanski. You're welcome to just chime in on the EA conversation, stay out of the situation, or we can proceed as you suggested; whatever your comfort level is. Again, thanks for the offer to wade into the mud with me...I sincerely hope you don't end up regretting it! Doniago (talk) 21:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Because I kept getting pushback anytime I attempted to keep the unsourced sections out of the article (and the editors even acknowledge that I have the right to remove the information), I've opened an RFC...admittedly part of me thinks I should just move on and let people keep the article in its current...condition. I suppose my problem is that I care too much. Heh. Anyway, thanks for chiming in at EAR. Transporterman left some pretty awesome comments as well. I appreciate your help, especially given your semi-retired state. Doniago (talk) 18:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Another prod

I've also prodded the rather pointless List of James Bond title references. Feel free to revert if you think it has any merits. Cheers SchroCat (talk) 13:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

How has it managed to survive for 8 years?? Betty Logan (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
lol - I have no idea! Probably because very little links to it. I only stumbled across it earlier today and I presume that few other people know it exists. I'm surprised that 100 people a day manage to look at it! - SchroCat (talk) 16:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
De-prodded, so I've gone down the AfD route again. - SchroCat (talk) 14:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Here's another one List of James Bond novel locations. Revert if you think I'm wrong. - Fanthrillers (talk) 22:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
No complaints from me! I've also got the Quantum article at AfD at the moment - another pointless one for the chop hopefully! - SchroCat (talk) 05:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleting them both is fine by me. It's amazing how much fancruft there is. Betty Logan (talk) 05:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Good Humor
For making me laugh at ANI! - and sorry that I can't find a star that spells humour correctly! ;) Cheers SchroCat (talk) 14:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

James Bond (film character)

I've started the GAN on this one - I just hope it's a nice quiet and simple one! I'm going to wait a little for the other one as I've got the John Le Mesurier filmog at FLC at the moment, and hope to have John Le Mesurier going to FAC in the next few days, so I don't want to be doing too much heavy stuff all at once. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy Happy

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 16:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Season's tidings!

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Merry Christmas Betty, have fun. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 03:00, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that you are still 'minding the shop' - Merry Christmas,Betty!

Greetings! Gareth Griffith-Jones – The WelshBuzzard – is wishing you the season's greetings.
Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's solstice or Christmas,
Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus,
or the Saturnalia,
this is a special time of year for (almost) everyone.

Hi! –  – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard|
gives you this puppy!
Puppies promote WikiLove and I hope this little fellow/girl (your choice) has made your day better.
Remember! Your puppy must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever.

Merry Christmas and a happy 2013
05:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


Thank you for your example and guidance during 2012 –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 07:37, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

In the nick of time

I wanted to also wish you a happy holiday, and peace in the New Year. May we disagree on a few things, and yet agree on many others, peacefully. (heh - almost midnight in my time zone) --Lexein (talk) 07:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Les Misérables (2012 film)

There seems to be a bit of concern over at Les Misérables (2012 film): whether we should present the cast in all-bullet form or just a bullet-form where we should use simply prose format. I was wondering if a more experienced WP:FILM editor would weigh in on this matter. The discussion is at Talk:Les Misérables (2012 film)#Cast billing. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy New Year

File:Happy New Year 2013.jpg Have an enjoyable New Year!
Hello Betty Logan: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)



Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2013}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Thankyou ________ and happy New Year!

Thanks to everyone who left seasonal greetings. Hope you had a good time and look forward to seeing you around in the new year! Betty Logan (talk) 01:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Mervin avoiding his ban?

Hi Betty, I don't know what the procedure would be for this? I think that Special:Contributions/190.198.26.57 is clearly him, one is a non-indented reply to something he started on PotC (Non indent is like his mark of cain), and the other two edits he has made are entirely revolving around nationality. He's clearly evading his ban but where would I complain? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

You shop socks at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Open the case in Mervin's name and add the IP number as a sock. Provide a few diffs like you would at 3RR. Betty Logan (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
K, done, thanks Betty. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Betty_Logan/Archive_3&oldid=1144422204"