User talk:Betty Logan/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Gautam Buddha listed as Indian

Dear Betty Logan, you reverted the changes - listing Gautam Buddha from Nepal. It is a misrepresentation to list Gautam Buddha as Indian. Probably your logic is that modern day Nepal ( and all other countries of south asia + some parts of China for that matter) was ancient India. If this logic applies then, Mahatma Gandhi should be listed a British and all American founding fathers should be considered as British. Mahatam Gandhi was born in British Emprie (not today's India) and so did the American founding fathers). I hope you correct this and we do not have to go back and forth with it. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.165.109.194 (talk) 03:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

First run >>> First run films

Can you create a redirect from First run to First run films, I cant as an anon. 158.70.145.156 (talk) 15:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

First-run redirected to Broadcast syndication so I've set up a disambiguation page. I've also set up a redirect from First run to First-run. Betty Logan (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your dedication ;) Have a wonderfully productive and happy week. 158.70.145.156 (talk) 16:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Snooker i'box

Missed your "citizenship" note; responded at Template talk:Infobox snooker player#Nationality in infobox. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 10:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Avatar Critical reception rewrite

Betty Logan, thanks for your contribution on Avatar. Following yours and some other editors' suggestions, I have proposed a restructured Critical reception section for discussion here, hoping to try and accommodate a deeper and more balanced coverage of the film internationally. Please have a look. I hope we can resolve this impasse and work out something everybody or most will be happy with. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 20:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I've left comments on the Avatar talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 06:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Shark/communism -- lol! I will try ti incorporate yours and other editors' suggestions. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 06:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Birth date changes

If there is any specific article you want sources for except for Deborah Kara unger and Joey Lauren Adams, just ask. Mostly of them wasn't sourced before either. Karbuncle (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

List of veggie athletes

The discussion has turned to legends, then stopped. Nobody's caring about the merge proposal anymore. So sad. Kayau Odyssey HUCK FINN to the lighthouse BACK FROM EXAMS 12:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Just copy up the referenced names and then nominate the athletes article for deletion. Betty Logan (talk) 12:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

While we don't have a consensus, it's not likely we'll get one. :) I'll do that tonight. Kayau Odyssey HUCK FINN to the lighthouse BACK FROM EXAMS 09:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Many people do care about veggie athletes, especially now that doctors are telling them to exercise and cut out their meat consumption. They turn to wikipedia and other reliable sources to find proof that it is indeed possible to exercise on a plant-based diet. Thanks for reading.

Avatar (2009 film)

Hah :) [1] Trusilver 19:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

List of highest-grossing films in Canada and the United States

Hi, Thanks for your note on Avatar ticket sales. I actually came across that article on Box Office Mojo and believe it or not had even written a note very similar to yours but didn't know the best way to add a footnote at the time. Anyway, my issue is that I don't think the position of Avatar should be affected as that table is listed in order of adjusted gross and not ticket sales. The reason why estimated ticket sales are listed/used is to multiply by the average ticket price to calculate a rough adjusted gross. Now, as you noted, the average ticket price of Avatar differs because it has to take into account 2D/3D/IMAX 3D prices. And as you calculated, this brings the average ticket price to $10.28. Therefore, regardless of how many tickets Avatar sold, the gross is still the same which is what is being compared. Sure the ticket sales ought to be 60,700,700 as suggested by BOM (although it is now harder to update as the 2D/3D/IMAX 3D sales proportions differ every week), but it still made $601 million dollars and hence its position ought to be #21. I'd like to know your thoughts on this, and once again, thanks for bringing this issue up and clarifying the points. Feudonym (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I was in two minds about changing the position myself, and was thinking of putting it back in the old poistion. I altered the position since the ticket sales seemed to be the prominent ranking order. In hindsight I agree with you it would be better to rank off adjusted gross because that can be directly sourced from Mojo itself whereas the ticket percentages have to be calculated from data which could become dated. My suggestion is to restore the old rank and rank off the adjusted gross which will always be up to date and clarify in the note that the ticket sales are estimated using data that is subject to change. For instance, the 2D Avatar will finish its run long before the IMAX release so the IMAX share will gradually go up as a percentage. Ultimately readers can determine for themselves where it ranks but it should be ranked off the most up to date data available which I agree is the adjusted gross. Betty Logan (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for review of Themes in Avatar

Hello, Betty. I appreciate your constructive contributions to Avatar (2009 film) and have learned much from both your edits and your communication style. I also noticed that we shared views on many aspects of the article (maybe even too much so for some ;). So it would be my pleasure if you could have look at, and hopefully take part in improving this draft for a Wiki roll-out. I will welcome any input from your side. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 14:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Betty, thanks for your participation in Themes in Avatar. Now that User:Ssilvers is done copy editing the article, he suggested that you be asked for a fresh look at the article for ways to improve it further to GA-status. Your review and/or edits will be most gratefully received. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 17:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it tomorrow. Betty Logan (talk) 00:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Cinosaur (talk) 02:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you again for your review, Betty. I had some questions for you on the article's talk page. In the meantime, I thought that you might also like to have a look at this peer review. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 05:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

TW

If you'll pardon my ignorance - I saw that you've reverted 3 edits at the list of veggies because of stand-alone list notability probs, apparently with Twinkle. Now I don't use twinkle, nope, but I'm pretty sure Twinkle's for vandalism and not notability. Maybe next time you'll just use the old way of doing it: edit the old revision of a page? Kayau Voting IS evil 15:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Twinkle is for any kind of revert. There is a normal revert button as well as a "revert vandalism" button on it. Betty Logan (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Really? thanks; I didn't know that. Kayau Voting IS evil 10:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Avatar (2009 film)

Hey Betty, I have no idea what happened on Avatar (2009 film). All I was doing was updating the box office takings as I normally do. I have no idea where those other changes came from. It might have something to do with my edits overlapping with DrNegative. I'll go ahead and re-submit the updated box office takings. Just leave a message on my talk page if you notice something out of the ordinary like that again. Cheers.--Forward Unto Dawn 00:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, never mind. I see you've taken care of that as well.--Forward Unto Dawn 00:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I think Dr Neg reverted the changes while you were updating, so the removed edits got put back in automatically. It was just easier to revert the whole thing and copy you numbers back in manually. It's a shame you can't highlight sections and just revert those bits really. Betty Logan (talk) 01:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit summaries

In another conversation, you indicated that some edits were sufficiently obvious that explanation was unneeded. But it's often quite time-consuming to guess at the purpose of an undocumented edit. Looking over your edits in context, it's easy to see that you apply a scrupulous method to your changes. However, out of context, for an editor who does not know your history, perhaps someone a year or two from now, an unexplained change to film budgets, gross income could present an insurmountable puzzle ... for example if the external link was then gone. Piano non troppo (talk) 08:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess people would wonder, especially if there were an editor who went around removing references from articles. An edit only really needs to be explained if it is likely to be questioned. Betty Logan (talk) 10:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

You regularly make edits without explanation, which is discouraged, and which you know very well is discouraged. Even more, you regularly remove other people's edits if they give no explanation. I.e., you feel other people should be accountable to you, and it's ok for you to make extra work for them checking your inexplicable edits, but that you have don't have the same responsibility to others. Piano non troppo (talk) 18:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

If edits alter something contrary to the existing reference I revert it. If they add something which is unreferenced I revert it. If they alter something in a way that is contrary to Wikipedia guidelines I revert it. If they alter something that was agreed by consensus I revert it. If they alter something out of personal preference which goes against my personal preference I revert it. It is really only the latter scenario that should require an edit summary, but if they ask for a reason or persist with the edits I am happy to offer a reason. I make my self accountable to everyone by having an account, and anyone who wants to question my edits can do on my talk page and I will respond. Many editors choose to edit anonymously, which is their right, but by doing so they choose to not make themselves accountable for their edits. Betty Logan (talk) 19:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Random query

I was looking through past voters for checkuser and noticed that you're perhaps the only regular voter who lacks a user page. Why? Bearian (talk) 17:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess I just never got around to creating one, there's always something else to do when I'm on Wikipedia. I've kind of got used to being a redlink too, I like the color. Betty Logan (talk) 12:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

World Snooker Championship

I have raised some issues on the talk page of the 2010 World Snooker Championship article. As an editor who was recently involved in these issues you are invited to contribute your thoughts on that page [2]. Leaky Caldron 17:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

adding to list of vegetarians and list of vegans

Hi betty I am trying to add myself to these lists but i saw that you removed me from both lists. I am a certifiable international professional cyclist. I want to put my name on these pages so that people can see that there are top level cyclists who are indeed vegan for over ten years. Please let me know what i can do to list myself. I do not win anything by having my name on the list. I feel it is good for people to see that top sports can be done on a vegan diet. I tried again to edit the list of vegetarians with a few links if that makes a difference. Please email me at vardaros-at-yahoo if possible as i am still trying to figure out wikipedia. Thanks so much for your help. best regards,christine

The lists are for notable people only. Notability is established through having a biography on Wikipedia. If you think you are notable enough to be added to the list you need to add a biography to Wikipedia so we can link to it on the vegetarian list, so readers can see who you are and what you are notable for. In addition to this, you also need to supply a reference for the vegetarian claim. In addition to that the vegans have their own list now and are being removed from the vegetarian list, so names should only be added to one list. Betty Logan (talk) 19:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Betty. I am a world championship level racer and an internationally renowned vegetarian - i am even spokesperson for international animal rights organizations. and today i was contacted by PCRM who wants to fly me out and speak in front of congress for them next week. I assume this is notable enough to make a wikipedia page. Thanks again for your help betty. and in the interim should i list myself again on "list of vegans" on wikipedia?

You sound notable enough for Wikipedia, but you should add a biography to Wikipedia first before adding your name to the list. If you add your name to the list people will click on it but it won't go anywhere, and it sets a precedent for non-notable people to add their names. It doesn't have to be a comprehensive biography, a paragraph or two will suffice. Just basic background information and a paragraph about what you are famous for, and then the List of Vegans can link to it. Betty Logan (talk) 19:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

AN3

Hey, can you explain exactly what the problem is, and what help you need?--Tznkai (talk) 19:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

apology

Hi Betty,

I want to apologise for trying to link the Pescetarians Forum to your pescetarian article. I seldom come here to edit anything.

Is there a way to talk to you in private? I don't know how.

Sincerely,

Jemdude

It's not my article, I'm just one of the editors who help maintain it. If you wish to discuss the pescetarian article then you must start a discussion at Talk:Pescetarianism so other editors can contribute their opinions. Betty Logan (talk) 17:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info.

Jemdude

Input needed

Hello! Input is needed to the AfDs of Mitchell Mann and Greg Casey. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Superman films

Hey, Betty, I'm jordancelticsfan. I just wanted to get the countries on the Superman films correct, but if I am wrong, or if IMDB is not a good source, please point out to me, I just want it to be right. Sorry if I have been disruptive. I guess I'm just a perfectionist. Thank you. Jordancelticsfan (talk) May 19, 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordancelticsfan (talk • contribs)

"Country" isn't really the nationality of the film on Wikiepdia, it is the nationality of the production companies. See Template:Infobox_film. In the case of something like Superman 2: Dovemead Ltd is a UK company, Film Export A.G. is Swiss and International Film Production is Panamian which means that UK/Switzerland/Panama should be entered into the 'country' field in the infobox. I don't know what criteria IMDB use but it is obviously different to Wikipedia. Betty Logan (talk) 00:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I fixed all the Superman movies as you had them, which is the correct one, sorry about the disruptiveness Betty. I promise I'll never use IMDB as a source again. Thank you for adressing my mistakes, I'm learning more. Thanks again Betty. Jordancelticsfan (talk) May 19, 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordancelticsfan (talk • contribs)

It's not your fault, and it's not IMDB's either really - IMDB is quite a good source for for filmography information. They just use a different criteria. The Wikipedia infobox isn't clear at all unless you read the documentation. I made the same mistake on the Avatar article a few months ago and had to be put right. Really the field should be labelled "Production company country" to make it clear. Betty Logan (talk) 00:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Betty. Jordancelticsfan (talk) May 19, 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordancelticsfan (talk • contribs)

Merkin

Sorry about that - I should have checked the provenance of that text. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I figured it was something like that. The editor who removed it was actually the editor who added it so I guess he thought better of his actions. Betty Logan (talk) 21:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Cher

Thanks for suggesting semi-protection for this. It hadn't really crossed my mind, though I wished for it, because the IP was at least trying to discuss, even though he was wrong on most points and didn't seem to get it. Appreciate it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection is always the way to go when it's an IP causing the grief. They've either got to discuss their alterations or register an ID. If they just get banned chances are they pop up under another number, so it's better to prevent anonymous changes to the article. Betty Logan (talk) 05:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Crazy edit buttons

Next time you see crazy edit buttons like those in the list of veggies, you can use template:FixBunching to fix it, rather than adding invisible text telling everyone not to use firefox. ;) Hope this helps. Kayau Voting IS evil 05:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. The images still didn't format properly in Firefox though - they went down the center of the page - so I've used the Stack template instead which allows you to place it on the far right. Betty Logan (talk) 06:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment

Please, if you have time, leave a comment there. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Sharon Stone

I am referring to the filmography edits. I checked IMDb, and there was a TV miniseries she appeared in during 1983 that I added to the list. Also fixed some incorrect information regarding years, and added episode information.Kbucket (talk) 20:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You entered several inaccuracies. For instance, "Les uns et les autres" debuted in 1981, but only shown in the US in 1983. "Bolero" in 1981 is just "Les uns et les autres" edited into a film. They should not have two different entries in the chart since Bolero is just an alternate version. The original broadcast dates take precedence over teh US dates. You also wikilinked Bolero to this: Bolero. You also entered incorrect dates and the incorrect epsiode count for "Harold and the Purple Crayon". Please be more careful when altering the filmography. Betty Logan (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The Last Airbender

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Last Airbender. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I appreciate things have got a little heated, I will abstein from making further edits to the article. Another editor keeps adding synthesis to the artcile. I've tried discussing this on the article talk page a couple of times Talk:The_Last_Airbender#.24280m_budget_edits, and have alerted him to the discussion but he refuses to discuss the issues instead just reinserting content that blatantly isn't backed up by the source. I'm at my wit's end with him. If you check the source, my points on the talk page and what he is inserting you will see what I mean: 1) there is no official budget; ii) the total costs are not stipulated to be $280 million (just two separate costs are mentioned); iii) promotion is not marketing - promotion is advertising whil marketing is promotion and distribution. I just want him to stick to what the source says, or at least address my comments on that talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 03:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I've also warned the other editor regarding WP:3RR, you weren't singled out. As to the content dispute, you may want to consider options available to you under WP:DR, such as a neutrally worded request for others to look into the dispute posted at WT:FILM, or possibly making a request per WP:Thirdopinion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand that, I shouldn't have kept reverting and I know it was wrong, but how can you possibly work to a consensus when the other editor won't even come to the talk page? I tried to resolve this diplomatically (twice), but he just goes ahead and ignores my concerns and makes his changes. How can you reason with someone like that? Betty Logan (talk) 03:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It can grow frustrating if the other user does not respond to talk page comments - but it's still best to avoid 3RR. When the other user does not respond, you have a handful of options listed under Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. In this case, I would likely go to the nearest relevent noticeboard or Wikiproject, such as WT:FILM or WP:NORN. That would likely get at least one or two additional eyeballs onto the article to offer their edits and opinions. It may take a day to a week, but the content eventually gets sorted out. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I haven't got caught up in an edit war for months, I let my standards slip this evening. You know how it is, sometimes the frustration just gets the better of you. He's come to the talk page now anyway so hopefully the problems can be resolved there. I won't make any further edits on that particular section, if he doesn't come around I'll drop it on the Film project. Betty Logan (talk) 04:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Shaun Murphy (snooker player)

I would be grateful if you didn't revert whole edits because of one particular part of the edit, like you did here. Christopher Connor (talk) 10:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I would be grateful if you didn't change content so that it contradicts the sources. I'm not sifting through the article putting back things that shouldn't have been changed so I suggest you restore your edit but take account of why it was reversed. Betty Logan (talk) 10:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

You could have simply reverted that particular part of the edit without reverting the whole edit, especially as it was a large one. Contrary to what you're claiming, this wouldn't be very difficult or tedious to do and doesn't require sifting through the whole article. Doing what you did simply disturbs the other editor and could be construed as vandalism. Also calling my edit "suspicious" and that it "contradicts the sources" is blatantly wrong. The edit said

Maguire said "I don't want to be a fat world champion" a reference to Murphy

while the reference states

Stephen stoked the flames of the rivalry in 2006, saying, "I don't want to be a fat world champion", a clear swipe at Shaun's success at The Crucible the year before.

It's not hard to see that these sentences match very closely. Christopher Connor (talk) 10:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

You know perfectly well that is not the problem with your edit. You have swapped the roles in the description of the chalk incident so it contradicts the sources backing it up. You have also removed sources from the article without giving any reason for doing so. On the subject of reverting your edit, it wouldn't take you any more time than it would me, since all you have to do is restore your edit and make the corrections so I suggest that's what you do, rather than expecting me to copy-edit your work. Betty Logan (talk) 10:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I see what you mean now. You are indeed right that it was Maguire who got a frame docked. This was a geniune mistake that confused me for which I apologise. (I wouldn't be stupid enough to make such a edit on purpose when the sources indicate otherwise.) I'll now revert those changes. Christopher Connor (talk) 10:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The Murphy/Maguire section gets vandalised a lot, and I've never seen you edit the snooker articles before which aroused my suspicions. If you had been a regular snooker editor I would have left a message on your talk page to give you a chance to correct it. I jumped the gun here and I should have given you the same courtesy I give to the other regular editors so I'm sorry about. Fresh start? Betty Logan (talk) 10:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely, no problem. I thought it was the "fat" comment that you disagreed with. The situation is kind of ridiculous since it was originally me who wrote that rivalry bit (and correctly!) over three years ago , only to get confused later and swap the roles! Christopher Connor (talk) 11:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Why do you keep deleting the Murphy unliked section, he himself admits that he is unliked and for a snooker player it is quite unusual as to how outspoken he is and the affect that this has on his popularity. If it ok to make mentions regarding Jimmy White's popularity, surely it is equally as required that in the case of Murphy, it is mentioned that he is an unpopular sportsman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.7.32.67 (talk) 18:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

If you have an issue with the Shaun Murphy article, please start a discussion on the article talk page, which is where content discussions are supposed to take place. Betty Logan (talk) 18:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I have, however you appear to be fairly well engaged in a discussion here? I invite you to defend why you;ve deleted the Murphy popularity point, as Murphy himself admits that he is not well liked and this is a significant part of who he is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.7.32.67 (talk) 18:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't remove the statement, I reworded it so it reflected the context of the article. The statement wasn't an objective appraisal of his popularity in the sport, it was a comment by Murphy that is put into context later when it says he rubs rivals up the wrong way. If he said he was the most liked player in the game would you insist on that being included? Murphy isn't in a position to evaluate his popularity, if you want to do that then find a third party secondary source. Betty Logan (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Pifeedback

Could you give your opinion on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Pifeedback.com?ChaosMaster16 (talk) 13:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

I'll take a look. Betty Logan (talk) 13:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Despicable Me

Could you explain this edit cause I really can't work it out. You seem to have reverted to a really old version - one before the film was released and only had 10 Rotten Tomatoes reviews. Some good information was lost in the process. - Kollision (talk) 20:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I honestly don't know what I've done there. If you look at my edits I was reverting some vandalism by an IP and all I can think of is that I've got my tabs mixed up. Sorry about that. Betty Logan (talk) 20:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the IP made an to the article. I was looking at what he had done and it turned out to be legit, and for some reason I've saved that version instead of just closing the window. I've restored the version before my edit so hopefully it's ok now. Betty Logan (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well I just got an edit conflict with you Betty (now two times). I was asking how you got $110 million for the budget and removed the LA Times source. Figured something went wrong with a revert or something. :) Mike Allen 20:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to go and check my other edits from around that time and make sure I haven't stuffed up on the other articles. Betty Logan (talk) 20:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

References

Hi,

I was considering deleting many of the references from the bikini wax article. Some are insufficiently detailed and some that do have details, they didn't contain what the article claims they contain.

So I'm happy to see that you have a copy of many of these references.[3] Could you add details to the references?

BTW, I think you're wrong to revert my good faith edit to add patently obvious information[4] but I'm too busy today to persue that. Gronky (talk) 13:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a copy of the references. They are all listed in the reference section but just poorly organised. The information you are adding is a claim about the process so needs to be sourced just like all the other claims about the process. If you don't think the references back up the claims I suggest you challenge them on the talk page, and if no-one defends their use then remove them. Betty Logan (talk) 13:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Aha. Thanks for organising the references. I've added tags asking for quotes, so hopefully the information you added will help someone else do the next bit. Gronky (talk) 13:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Buena Vista

Thanks for the clarification! Best regards, Esb94 (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Jenny Agutter

Thank you for fixing this. My mistake. I didn't read it properly and the way it was formatted, it didn't occur to me that it was an episode title. Cheers, Rossrs (talk) 13:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome. Generally I'm not a fan of superfluous notes, especially when someone can just click on the link and find the information out, but when someone makes an episode appearance in a series it can be helpful if you want to track their work down. I took out the rest of the junk and just retained the episode title. Betty Logan (talk) 13:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

American Gigolo

Ah....

You were right. And I was wrong.

Apologies.

--89.211.145.121 (talk) 20:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It happens. I removed something just last week that turned out to be sourced. It's not a foolproof system - especially when you're just looking for a word or two in an entire article, but at leats other editors do tend to catch it if you overlook something. Betty Logan (talk) 21:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Godfather talk page

I am not entering into dialogue with an anon. editor who makes no positive contributions and then insults me. There is nothing to be gained by it. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The anon. editor's reference to the genre of the film The Shawshank Redemption rang a bell, so I checked the page history: this is an example of how this editor works. He hops from IP to IP, disrupting film articles. He has been blocked numerous times. Check the IPs that changed the genre on The Godfather earlier today. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The article is popping up on my watchlist every five minutes, so something is going to have to be done. If he's hopping IPs then maybe you should apply for semi-protection or something, at least that will put an end to the constant reverting. Betty Logan (talk) 02:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I have attempted the automated rpp a couple times now, and cannot get it to work. Do you want to have a go at it? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I had it semi-protected. Let's hope he moves on. Betty Logan (talk) 02:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo re-release chart

I found a chart hidden within the depths of Box Office Mojo. Most film's re-releases over the span of their life looks to be referenced on it at any point in time. It hasn't been updated since 2002, but I figured you may find it useful. If you are already aware of it, disregard. DrNegative (talk) 05:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I will use it to cross reference the CPI amounts we have for Star Wars, Raiders and ET on the US chart. Betty Logan (talk) 17:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

There is your

Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Regarding "forfeit"

Thanks for your comment. However, Armbrust doesn't think the word should be used because it isn't in the sources. Even after trying to explain, still no use. I have no idea what the problem is. He doesn't seem to understand what the word means. He doesn't explain his position, just insists that because the word doesn't appear in the source, it can't be used, then edit wars to keep his version of the article, despite my explaining why it can be used—even going as far as quoting the dictionary. I'm even starting to doubt whether he's doing this in good faith. Christopher Connor (talk) 09:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with every single decision Armbrust ever makes but ultimately he's a good editor who does a lot of hard work—I certainly wouldn't relish filling out all those drawsheets he does. The Snooker articles have certainly improved since he came along. At the same time I can understand why you don't want to back down when you're usage of the word is correct, but there are only three ways this can play out: one of you can back down (which doesn't look like happening); a protracted discussion about the meaning of a word with the inevitable RfC that will take up even more of your time; or you try to come up with a phrasing that is satisfactory to both of you. Betty Logan (talk) 10:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain to him why forfeit can be used indeed? This will save everyone time. Christopher Connor (talk) 11:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Country

Your opinion on The White Ribbon's talk page would be appreciated. It involves countries and production. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah! Thanks so much! :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for your thoughts on the countries issue. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

If it goes some way to resolving the dispute then I'm glad to help. Personally though I think the country field in the infobox is poorly thought out since these types of issues are always arising. It isn't really clear what "country" means: the nationality of the film? the country where the film was made? the country where the funding comes from? I would prefer to use the country of the company that registered the copyright and it would make the whole issue clear cut. Betty Logan (talk) 15:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

2004 European Open (snooker)

Have copied the discussion from my talk page to the articles talk page. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 23:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, it's a good idea to preserve it there, in case anyone else has an issue with the wording. Betty Logan (talk) 00:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

First billing on Superman (film)

I posted a discussion here. Cheers. Wildroot (talk) 04:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Darkness2005

It seems that it is impossible to discuss edits with Darkness2005, so I have mentioned the issue with the editor at WP:ANI. The discussion can be seen here. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I'll add my comments. Betty Logan (talk) 21:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

RCP *sigh*

The toys have come flying out of the pram on this one... --89.211.65.21 (talk) 11:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Deathly Hallows

Nice trim, but do you want to put back in the explanation about the Elder Wand, so it doesn't come from nowhere at the end? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I actually restored an earlier version by you from yesterday evening. I haven't seen the film so I don't want to alter plot elements, but when we have a perfectly adequate summary that is within the recommended limist it just seems logical to go back to that version. Betty Logan (talk) 06:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Heh, it's gone through so many versions I lost track. Ok, I'll try to put that in tersely. I saw the movie at 3:15AM opening night, because the midnight show was sold out. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

It's just the natural cycle for plot summaries. It gets written, and eventually expands past the acceptable size. You then restore an older version, it gets improved slightly, and then it expands again so you have to go back to an earlier version, but hopefully one that was an improvement on the previous restore. I picked yours from the edit summary because I noticed you'd specifically trimmed it so it seemed a good version to put back in. Eventually it crystalises into something coherent and concise. Betty Logan (talk) 06:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the version that keeps getting restored is that it's dreadful. It has plot points in the wrong order. Is there any way to stop restoring this particular version of the plot? It's just not accurate, and it starts a new round of edits all over again, leading to more plot bloat. If the reversion was to a plot that actually reflected what was seen onscreen, this editing cycle would stop sooner. Trumpetrep (talk) 14:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen the film, so feel free to correct it if you wish. The problem is that everyday I come back to it, it has blown up to 1500/2000 even 3000 words. It's supposed to be a brief summary, and the guidelines suggest 400–700 words. The previous film has a plot summary of 500 words, and the Deathly Hallows book is summarised in 500 words, so there is no reason for this film's plot summary to be 3/4 times as large as that. If you want to rewrite it please do, but please respect the guidelines, and remember readers don't want to read an essay. Betty Logan (talk) 14:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you please undo your latest revert to the incorrect plot? That's just unhelpful. The plot you keep reverting to is wrong. It'd be easier to condense that monstrously long one than to correct the one you keep reverting to. The repeated reversions to that incorrect plot is more problematic than the too-long plot, right now. Trumpetrep (talk) 15:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Only you seem to be complaining that it is incorrect, and you have entered into disputes with other editors over this particular version of the plot. I suggest you make any necessary corrections but do so without violating WP:FILMPLOT. If you are that unhappy with this version of the plot, rewrite it without breaching the guidelines. Betty Logan (talk) 15:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I have not entered into a dispute with anyone, let alone multiple people. SarekOfVulcan informed me of the 3-revert rule, which you seem to be in violation of by repeatedly reverting to an incorrect version of a plot that you haven't even seen. I understand that you are more concerned with the length of the summary than with its accuracy, but hopefully, you can understand that accuracy concerns should trump length concerns on Wikipedia. You would be doing the article a favor by undoing your latest reversion. Trumpetrep (talk) 15:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The guidelines clearly state that any exemptions to the word count range must be agreed by the other editors first. Everytime you bloat the plot, you breach a guideline that carries a consensus. If you continue bloating it I will simply head over to the Film Project and have the policy enforced. There is nothing to prevent you making any necessary corrections within the 400–700 word limit, so this issue can simply be resolved. We both know that if we have to drag other editors into this they will back the version that is within the recommended limits, so it's really up to you how this proceeds. Your arguments don't stack up anyway, making it longer doesn't make it correct. Betty Logan (talk) 15:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

You completely misunderstand my point. I have no desire to make it longer, simply to make it correct. The film has just opened. The plot will undergo a series of edits by enthusiastic users who have just seen it. Conscientious editors can then go in and trim that plot down to within the guidelines of Wikipedia. Your method is killing a fly with a sledgehammer. By repeatedly reverting to an incorrect version of the plot, again to a film that you have not seen, you are erasing pertinent information that has been filled in by other users. What's most counterproductive about your reversion method is that it starts the cycle over again. So, instead of working through consensus, you're reverting to an already debunked version of the plot. I am simply asking you to undo your latest reversion and let the users focus the scope of the plot. It has reached a healthy level of accuracy and length before, and it will do so again. Your efforts, are extending that process, rather than shortening it. Trumpetrep (talk) 15:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Harry Potter 7: Your correction of the paragraph about the fascist bureacracy

Thanks for editing my awkward writing, but it appears that you have totally removed my comments about "fascist bureaucracy" because it might be perceived as original research. Please note that there is already an article (not my original research) about this Harry Potter movie that uses these words, and I was influenced by that article.

Here is the article:

http://cinespect.com/scary-potter-and-the-fascist-bureaucracy/

Since you write better than me, please put a few equivalent sentences in the plot summary, to say that the Death Eaters subverted the Ministry of Magic and transformed it into a fascist system that persecutes Muggle Blood people. You can see that there are Inquisition-style courts and a new police force, whose officers wear arm bands and combat boots, terrorizing people on the basis of their ancestry. This fascism aspect is a fundamentally important aspect of this Harry Potter movie, which makes the film more serious in many ways.

Regards,

TotalMemory —Preceding unsigned comment added by TotalMemory (talk • contribs) 15:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

This is just an interpretation which is not part of the plot. Only plot development should be included in the plot summaries, not interpretations themes or viewpoints. If you think these are important details, discuss it on the article talk page where it would be appropriate to include them in the article. Betty Logan (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for my verbosity, but although I agree that the words "fascist bureaucracy" is somewhat of an interpretation, the fact that the Death Eaters are using the Magic Ministry to gain power and persecute Muggle Blood people is definitely a relevant part of the plot development, it is not themes or viewpoints . Since I do not want to be rude, I will not put this information in the plot summary again, and I will restrict the argument to this talk page here. But I still suggest that you should at least expand that sentence (which you have put back) which says that "The Death Eaters infiltrated the Magic Ministry", by adding a few words to clarify the purpose of this infiltration. In fact, the way you put that half sentence makes it look irrelevant, and maybe you should totally remove it to improve the style of the paragraph, which becomes awkward when it is incomplete. I was the one who had originally added the sentence that starts with "Death Eaters who infiltrated the Magic Ministry..." but other contributors truncated it. Better to remove it altogether instead of this current incomplete and awkward form.

Regards, TotalMemory —Preceding unsigned comment added by TotalMemory (talk • contribs) 15:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Possible translation help

Hello Betty Logan. I saw your request for translation help on the War and Peace talk page. One editor that might be of assistance is User talk:Galassi. Last summer this editor did some translation work on the article for The Red Tent (film). I checked and this person is still editing here. Of course, they may not be able to help but I thought it was worth letting you know in case that they can. Thanks for all of your work on this article. MarnetteD | Talk 03:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Google translater only gets us so far I'm afraid.. I'll see if the note gets any reponses (the Russian guy who brought us the sources might be able to clarify a few things for us), and if it doesn't I'll see if Galassi will help us out. Those two articles Greenland Cat put us on to had some great information—budget stuff, release dates, production dates, ticket sales. The sources on the Russian article may be useful too. Betty Logan (talk) 04:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Rollback usage

If you have come here to reprimand me for "absuing" rollback in regards to this editor, please refer to this discussion: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Notable_or_not. Thanks Betty Logan (talk) 08:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Powell and Pressburger

Please explain in the Discussion page for the article where we can discuss it properly why you want to see the actual thesis when all that is needed is proof that a thesis exists? -- SteveCrook (talk) 01:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't need to actually see the thesis, but proof that it exists isn't enough, it has to be verifible i.e. there should be enough information there if I want to see it. The link would be sufficient if it were actually there. Since it's not we need the name, title, year of award, and the university. You may find this pedantic but so much crap gets put on Wikipedia it needs to be clear where every bit of information comes from so readers can evaluate the information on their own terms. Betty Logan (talk) 02:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

When the page loads - which I now see it doesn't do every time, but does do most of the times I try it, it tells you the date and title of the thesis, the name of the candidate and the name of the university:

Author: Natacha Thiéry;
Supervisor: Jean-Louise Leutrat;
University: Université de la Sorbonne;
Year: 2003;
Thèse doctorat;
Title: Photogénie du désir: les films de Michael Powell et Emeric Pressburger, 1945-1950.
Even if that site isn't as reliable as it could be it is the repository for French academic papers. I loaded the page 20 times in a row, it failed to find the details in its database on just one of those occasions. So if it doesn't load when you try it, try it again -- SteveCrook (talk) 02:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

That explains it then. I'll still add the reference details anyway and then it covers it. Betty Logan (talk) 03:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks -- SteveCrook (talk) 03:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Adultnature1989

Thank you for starting a sockpuppetry investigation. Although I felt it was obvious Darkness2005 was behind this account a month ago, I wasn't sure what to do, so I will follow the initiative you've taken very carefully. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 16:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a shame we have to go down this path because he's actually one of the hardest working editors around, which ultimately amounts to very little because a good 2/3 of his edits end up being reverted. It's his decision though, the blocking admin made it clear he would be welcomed back if he agreed to discuss his edits, so he should be blocked again and issued with the same ultimatum IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocked. I agree with you, it's a shame; but then again he had his chance and it's for the greater good. Thank you for taking the trouble to sort something out. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 18:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately it would appear as though Darkness2005/Adultnature1989 opened a new account, under the name Darknessthecurse, on 17 December 2010. - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 13:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. He was blocked for not discussing his edits, so I'll keep an eye on him and if he hasn't learned his lesson I will file another sock report. Betty Logan (talk) 09:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand people that are blocked from a site, but keep coming back to it like nothing ever happened. He can actually be blocked now for evading a block. However, it doesn't look like it would do much... —Mike Allen 09:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess they would have to set up an IP range block, but they don't like doing it because it blocks out legitimate editors. They would probably block his account if we reported him but probably won't set up a range block unless his edits are problematic because of the effects on other users. If they only blocked his account he would get a new one and we wouldn't know what it was. It's best to not do anything now, monitor him now he's back on the radar, give him warnings if he causes problems and once he's built up a few warnings try to get a range block which might stop him registering an account. Betty Logan (talk) 10:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

John Higgins

Hi Betty, I've semi-protected the article, I've seen the problems you've been having with the anon IP. I've also seen you've started a discussion on the article talk page, well done. Let me know if I can be of any further assistance. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah thanks. Obviously it's a difficult section, but hopefully the IP will join the discussion and we can iron out his concerns. I'm going to drop a message at the snooker project as well and try to get some further input on this article. Hopefully we can get a version we are all happy with. Thanks for helping out. Betty Logan (talk) 17:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Greetings of the season to you and yours!

Happy Holidays, 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 very Merry Christmas and happy editing in the year ahead! MarnetteD | Talk 20:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Bzuk (talk) 15:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Wikisanta-no motto.png		Merry XMAS (2010)
		Armbrust is wishing you a Merry Christmas! Whether you celebrate Christmas, Yuletide, Litha, Eid, Mōdraniht, Diwali, Hogmanay, Wren's Day, Hannukkah, Kwanzaa, Lenaia, Festivus, Jonkonnu, or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone! May this find you in good health, good spirits, good company, and good finances. If any of these be missing, may God see fit to restore you in good time. Best regards! Armbrust Talk Contribs 20:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks guys, you have a nice xmas too! Betty Logan (talk) 12:15, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5