User talk:Betty Logan

This editor is a
Senior Editor
and is entitled to display this Rhodium
Editor Star.

SEMI-RETIRED

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

A brownie for you!

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

Rule of the shorter term

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

For your eyes only...

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

FYEO!

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Merry Christmas

Tenebrae (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

For Your Eyes Only!

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

The $750,000 question

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

YGM

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

talkback

Hello, Betty Logan. You have new messages at El duderino's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

here

Julie Christie

Hi, Betty. I know what the refs say (although those are all based on second-hand or received info.) and I haven't read the Callan bio, but the bio i cited by Christie by Tim Ewbank (Julie Christie: The Biography, Carlton Publishing Group, London; 2000; ISBN 978-0-233-00255-2, pp. 1-2; "In the spring of 1940 meat rationing had just begun in England ... Vivien Leigh, a British actress born in Darjeeling, India, had on 29 February at a banquet at the Coconut Grove in Los Angeles won the Best Actress Oscar for her role as Scarlett O'Hara ... Forty five days later, on 14 April, there was much cause for rejoicing for Frank and Rosemary Christie, a British couple living on a tea plantation in Assam in the north-east of India, with the arrival of their first child, Julie Frances.") cites 1940.

So which bio is right? There is no record of her birth at the General Registry Office of England and Wales as she was born in India. I propose a compromise, as you will see in my next edit. Yours, Quis separabit? 18:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, if another credible biography gives another date I recommend a solution as per Audrey Tautou. Betty Logan (talk) 18:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Take a look and see if you like my compromise. Yours, Quis separabit? 18:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

That's fine, although I'm thinking maybe we should just go for the basic "1940/1941". I have been googling and quite a lot of respectable sources seem to have both. She's married to a journalist who works for The Guardian, and even they have used both dates: 1940 and 1941. If different biographies use different dates then truth is it can be either; I don't think I would bet my mortgage on either year now. The discrepency should be clear to readers. I recall a similar instance with Ali MacGraw over 1938 and 1939, and in the end McGraw herself issued a correction. Betty Logan (talk) 18:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

In case this comes up again, it's the same situation we used at Timothy Dalton, with the same issue there too, so at least the 'fix' has gained something of a track record for future reference. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 05:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Months later, talkpage stalker swoops in to say.... See also Mariah Carey and K.Michelle, where reliable sources disagree about the birthyear. What is the solution used for Audrey Tautou, who currently has just a single birthyear listed? I'm too lazy to review the edit-history, if somebody still remembers, and would like to just tell me.  :-)   74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The Audrey Tautou situation has been settled after many years. She confirmed her dob is 1976 and not 1978 despite many sources stating otherwise. Prior to that it used to have both dates: [1]. Betty Logan (talk) 16:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

"...Then she replies, the birth year is 1976. ‘But I would prefer if you wrote 1978. Could you write 1978? I tell you the truth, and ask you to lie.’ " Okay *that* is pretty funny.  :-)   — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 04:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Waterworld

I didn't know if this article might be of use to you considering your work on the various BO lists, it's about Waterworld being, or not being, a flop. http://www.deadline.com/2013/08/isnt-it-time-to-take-waterworld-off-the-all-time-flop-list/ Darkwarriorblake (talk) 07:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I was aware it finally broke even; it's a good source though so maybe I can work it into the Waterworld article. People tend to overlook video and TV income when judging a film's performance. When you adjust for inflation Waterworld made about half a billion just in theatrical release, which isn't too shabby however you look at it! I remember watching it actually, it was a pretty good film from what I recall. Betty Logan (talk) 19:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Um... Dances With Wolves was a pretty good film. Robin Hood Prince Of Thieves was also decent. I never saw Waterworld, until a couple years ago. Now, it's true I couldn't take my eyes off it... but I felt more like I was watching a terrible automotive mishap in slow-motion, or one of those quarterback-decision-rehash-videos. It's a handoff! No, a pass! He's fading back! Going to throw deep! No, no, he's tucked the ball and is going to run! Wait, now he's looking to pass again! Uh, okay, back to handoff... he just attempted a backward lateral to an imaginary player! Tackled in a dogpile! Fumble! Oh nohz!

  Replace costner==quarterback, nature film, political film, action film, love story, war story... ending in a big mess. Sure, lots of people bought tickets for the big game in the big stadium, and even more people watched the decision-rehash-videos on teevee the next few weeks on the sports-channels. But did any of the spectators *enjoy* the spectacle? Waterworld seems to be gaining cult status in the same way that Ash Williams did, and for the same reasons. Maybe you can watch the film again, and see how it has held up artistically, since you first saw it in the theater, back in the day? "Good. Bad. I'm the guy with the gills."[2] 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

What can I say? I was a lot younger then. I may not like it if I rewatch it, but it didn't leave me wanting a refund like a lot of films do these days. Betty Logan (talk) 16:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Heh heh, boy do I hear that. I have paid good money to see something in theaters at least three times... in the past six years.  :-(    When I watched Waterworld, it was on netflix or somesuch at a friend's house, which I guess means that, just like you, I also didn't feel the need to demand a refund. <grin> Anyways, agree with Darkwarriorblake that it wasn't actually a flop. Just a very big-budget cult movie, of a sort, which failed to justify high expectations set by *other* films Costner had been in, and thus kinda *seemed* like a flop. See also, many of the Hollwood-produced movies with Jet Li, which were not WP:OMG-gimme-a-refund films, but simultaneously can hardly live up to his earlier produced-in-Asia fare, so they end up seeming worse than they actually are. That said, maybe I better go rewatch Fist of Legend, and see whether it holds up twenty years later. Hey yeah... it's research work, for the sake of wikipedia! That's my story and I'm sticking to it. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 04:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Once Upon Ay Time In Mumbai Dobaara!

Hello Betty its time that you remove that {{Template:semi-retired}} template, you're pretty active, at-least in my opinion. Now thats not why I came to you, its because I wancha to check the articles critical reception (both music and film) and comment here. I would be extremely grateful to you if you do the needful. Thanks. Best, --Sohambanerjee1998 12:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Betty, thanks for responding. I have one question in my mind, would including more reviews from other reviewers reduce the undue WP:WEIGHT or do I have to trim those reviews? Note:I have requested article to be copyedited   Sohambanerjee1998   14:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

WEIGHT is subjective, but basically what it is there for is to make sure there is no undue emphasis on any single reviewer. Introducing more reviewers can help to address WEIGHT issues, but also reducing the amount of coverage given to just one reviewer can also help to address issues. Basically you just have to try and keep it balanced. Betty Logan (talk) 11:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh I see. Sohambanerjee1998 12:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oh, the article is now a GA, thanks for your help. Soham 16:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations! You've worked hard on it so I am pleased it has passed :) Betty Logan (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Cairo Station

Did you read the talk page discussion about the title? Clarityfiend (talk) 08:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

No I wasn't aware of it, but I don't agree with the conclusion anyway. The IMDb states that The Iron Gate is the "world-wide English title" while "Cairo Station" is the US title. It seems to me there are two acceptable English-language titles in this case, so I don't see the point in moving it from the unambiguous title to a disambiguated title. Betty Logan (talk) 08:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Very unilateral of you. I've opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Title of film - Cairo Station or The Iron Gate. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for letting me know. I have left further comments at that discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 20:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't know who to ask so I will ask you.

Hello, Betty, I was wondering what the criteria is with listing who is "Starring" in a released film on the right side of every page for a movie. It seems rather inconsistent. For example, The Lord Of The Rings: The Two Towers has 20 credits including some that were only in the extended version of the film. But, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone and all subsequent sequels only list Harry, Hermione, and Ron. I was under the assumption, at first, that who was included and more importantly, in what order they were included was dictated by how they appeared on the Theatrical release poster, but after looking closer at the posters, I found that that wasn't always the case. So, how is it decided? TBWarrior720 (talk) 06:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

As per {{Infobox film}} you are only supposed to include the names that are in the poster billing block. It depends on who edits the article though whether that guideline is enforced or not. Some editors apply it stringently and other just ignore it. Twenty credits is a bit excessive though. Betty Logan (talk) 20:49, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Boxoffice.com's budget

Boxoffice.com has specified that it's budget actually includes both the production budget and promotion or marketing budget. This means their budget is the true budget of the movies and more reliable than Box Office Mojo which many a times either displays a little bit lesser budget than other sources (strangely it's always $5 million less than the budget of other sources in this case) or does not display at all. I would like to know what is your advice about using Boxoffice.com as a source for budget of the movies. KahnJohn27 (talk) 09:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Well it's good that Boxoffice.com have clarified their figures, but only production budgets go in {{Infobox film}}: "Insert the approximate production budget of the film. This is the cost of the actual filming, and does not include marketing/promotional costs (i.e. advertisements, commercials, posters, etc). " The marketing costs would go in the "marketing" or "release" section, since they can change over time i.e. reissues, video runs etc. Betty Logan (talk) 20:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

She's got a point about that, KahnJohn27. It's all about production budgets, not about marketing budgets. Only production budgets can go to the infobox. BattleshipMan (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Walkabout (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Water hole (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) 08:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

International Championship

An IP keeps adding unsourced original research to International Championship and 2012 International Championship. It would be appreciated if you could keep an eye on it. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've added them to my watchlist. If it happens again I will revert and request SP. Betty Logan (talk) 21:23, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Maximum break

Is that relevant. I don't think so. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Amazing

List of highest-grossing films, I've never seen a featured list like this. Now I don't want to bother with List of best-selling game consoles - it feels like I got too much to do! « Ryūkotsusei » 21:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Lol, that page probably goes way beyond what you need for FL status. I'm probably prouder of that page than any other I've worked on, namely because it has developed into a pretty unique resource: all that information is out there, but not in a single place. I just kept adding stuff to it over the course of 2 years, and it only started as a quick clean-up job that eventually turned into an obsession of data collecting. You certainly don't need that level of exposition for most lists, but in this case there was a lot of historical context that was necessary to explain for them to make sense. Lists are a lot more boring to build than articles, so I think the key to building a good list is to give yourself a sensible timescale, maybe 6 months to a year so it doesn't turn into a second job. Betty Logan (talk) 01:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of highest-grossing films in the United Kingdom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page South Pacific (film) (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) 12:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Vegans

Watching an interview with Ben Stiller, who says he is no longer a vegan. Not sure if there's a reliable source that backs that up, but it may be worth a look? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

By heck, these Hollywood stars are fickle aren't they? While obviously I believe you, it is problematic removing people when tons of sources say otherwise. Can you recall the name of the programme by any chance? Betty Logan (talk) 03:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I certainly can: it was last night's The Graham Norton Show on BBC 1 (the first time I've watched the show, and probably the last!). Offered a vegan brownie by Jamie Oliver he fessed up to no longer being one. It'll be on the BBC iPlayer for another week, by which time he may have reverted to the diet! - SchroCat (talk) 05:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Betty,

You recently deleted an edit I made to the list of Vegans for Karyn Calabrese. Not only does the entirety of her page suggest she is vegan, not only is her entire brand built of raw veganism, but the source, which you said did not back up the claim, did in fact claim she was vegan, and has been for over 30 years. What makes you the authority? Mkpr (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

It is irrelevant what her Wikipedia page says since anyone can edit it. To add her to the vegan list you must provide a reputable source that explicitly states she is a vegan. The source you added does not back up the claim she is vegan, since it states "A vegetarian for decades, Calabrese is far from inflexible on the matter" i.e. the source backs up the claim she is vegetarian, not vegan, which is a different branch of vegetarianism. Betty Logan (talk) 22:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

My edits were in good faith

I don't really understand why you removed my comment on your talk page. I was just proposing to you to about solving the issue about the budget of the hobbit film through consensus. I know I made a joke in earlier comment but it was just a simple joke. I apologize for it if it offended you. My comments were always in good faith. KahnJohn27 (talk) 08:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Local consensus doesn't overrule project guidelines, which are quite clear on this, and can be found at {{Infobox film}}. It is not known how much The Hobbit 1 cost; the official statement from the studio only says that it is "closer to $200 million" than $315 million i.e. the studio isn't actually saying it cost $200 million, so to give that as the sole figure is to misrepresent what the source actually says. The $315 million figure provides the context, since without it the comment by the studio doesn't make any sense. Betty Logan (talk) 18:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually it's probably because they already said that $315 million "is highly inflated". Either that means it is highly inaccurate or maybe they're saying it was budget without tax rebates. They got $65 million tax rebates from NZ government. KahnJohn27 (talk) 08:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Portals and film articles

Hi, Betty. Just got this message. May I see the relevant discussions? Have they appeared at the RFC level, or is it only somet

Also consider that "This has been discussed in the past. There is no consensus to add portals to film articles." is very problematic because multiple Wikiprojects are relevant to a typical article. So there is consensus to add portals to United States-related articles but not to film-related articles? (Gone with the Wind is relevant to both WikiProjects). Then what do you do?

My view on this is that an individual Wikiproject cannot unilaterally opt its own articles out of a systemwide thing such as portals unless the articles in question only pertain to that project. This is impossible in that case of most films because they will be relevant to country-related projects.

Therefore in the case of Gone With the Wind it will be impossible to comply with "This has been discussed in the past. There is no consensus to add portals to film articles." due to conflict with the United States WikiProject (they will have to agree that no portals belong in that particular article) WhisperToMe (talk) 23:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• I just went ahead and started Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_United_States#Inter-project_relations_and_allowance_of_portals_in_US-related_articles. There have been inter-WikiProject conflicts (I remember one about Japanese names between Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games and Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan) which have taken up valuable user time. My recommendation is for WikiProject Film to say "There is no consensus to not have portals" to avoid inter-WikiProject conflicts. Then on an article-by-article basis decide what portals are okay for which articles. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Also posted to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Cross_WikiProject_relations_and_decisions_about_portals. I'm letting everyone know WhisperToMe (talk) 23:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion was at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive 46#Use of Portals in film articles. In the cases where an article belongs to more than one project, or a portal belongs to more than a single project then I guess the consensus of all the relevant projects would be required to install portals. Betty Logan (talk) 00:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I see. In that case I linked to this discussion from both projects. I'm not sure how widely adopted this view is, but at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_United_States#Inter-project_relations_and_allowance_of_portals_in_US-related_articles there was a user who argued "One benefit of WikiProjects is that they can each comprise a group of subject-matter experts that have expertise in a subject area. That's good for identifying reliable sources, content that should be included, etc. They should not deal with some structural items in articles, like the presence or absence of infoboxes, portal links, etc. The SMEs from WikiProjects should put together good portals so that they can be linked, but they should not ban portal links that make sense." So he seems to argue the question "should portals be included in articles at all" should be completely out of the hands of the WikiProjects. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I've expanded further on my views at the Film project discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 00:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you :) WhisperToMe (talk) 01:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Xmas greetings

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

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Soham (talk) 13:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

	A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!
	May 2013 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls or vandals! All the best Gavin / SchroCat (talk) 20:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Lol, not off to a great start: User:The betty logan htcbi. Anyway, same to you, hope you have a nice Christmas. Betty Logan (talk) 22:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Understanding

Hello, I believe we know a both know a fellow editor Stiarts erid? Well I know his spelling isn't always perfect and that he says things on the spur of the moment. But I do, strongly believe his intentions are good and was wondering if you would be so kind as to give him another chance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by My latest trick (talk • contribs) 20:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

If you wish to return to editing I suggest you contact an admin and pursue WP:OFFER. If you keep creating more accounts they will be blocked and all your edits reverted, so there is no point to it. Betty Logan (talk) 21:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay then I will try that, and if you stop blocking my accounts then maybe we can actually talk and reach an agreement. I don't think you can talk to an administrator if your account is blocked can you? P.S if that is true and I am blocked again, then I will have to create another account to talk to an administrator.

FYI

If an SPI is marked as "closed" and you would like to add a new report, you can just add a new section under the closed section, like Bobrayner did here. I've taken care of the editing angel from the AIV report. Thanks! Mark Arsten (talk) 20:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, I didn't know if it would just be automatically filed away once closed. Looks like I'll have to go down that route anyway, since as you can see above he's back already! I guess we're going to have to consider a more permanent solution. Betty Logan (talk) 21:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

NFCC

Hi Betty, if you have a moment I wanted to ask your opinion on NFCC, I think you generally know your way around this and I am in a debate that is frustrating me greatly because a video I have created is on the verge of deletion because people keep citing Rule 3 of NFCC, and no matter which way I read it it does not fail it. It doesn't fail any of the NFCC requirements, yet people keep saying that a piece of NFC should be replaced with a piece of NFC, yet they present no guidelines or rules which say such. But when I point this out it is ignored and they repeat themselves ad nauseum. It's getting very disheartening. Am I wrong in this? I know you to be clear and impartial on these topics where I can get lost in the argument. This is the file, it isn't film related but its the rules I'm interested in. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 15:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm no expert on NFCC, and I'm a bit rushed for time right now, but I will try to comment more fully in a couple of days. However, I notice the clip is 49 seconds, and that is never going to fly at an FfD review, so the first thing I would do to strengthen your position is to knock it down to 30 seconds if possible, because editors will probably vote against it if they consider it excessive. Briefly looking at the video, the sourced commentary and the discussion I think you have a decent argument, since I don't think a single screencap can convey the full functionality of gameplay, but I'll try to leave comments at the discussion over the next couple of days. Betty Logan (talk) 23:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Betty. The discussion has yielded that there is no set limit on video length, and it is difficult to get it down to 30 seconds and show everything because its self made and its just not generally possible to complete combat in that time frame, but I think hte length is not excessive for what is being shown, much in the same way the American Beauty file is 1 minute long. I'm more concerned at the precedent it can set about the use of video in game and film articles, plus others. I'm not for the abuse of video files at all, but I wouldn't have added it if I didn't think it was appropriate. Obviously its Xmas so enjoy yourself, if I get a chance I will see if I can make another video. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 23:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Prometheus 2012 film portal proposal

In light of the continued references to the portals of the 2012 film Prometheus I decided it would be best to make a specific proposal post about this film and the use of portals here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#What_portals_are_appropriate_at_Prometheus_.282012_film.29.3F. I brought up four options from the discussions, one of them written by you, and labeled them as "proposals". WhisperToMe (talk) 02:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

		Happy holidays.
		Best wishes for joy and happiness. Keep up the good work on Wikipedia! Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment request

Since you were involved in a similar discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers#Should_.22award.22_articles_be_comprehensive.3F I thought you might want to comment on the propriety of including Film Critic Societies at Critic top 10 lists in film articles at Talk:In_a_World...#Request_for_Comment.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Format of the RfC

Hello Betty Logan I want to say that the format of your RfC might be wrong. In an Rfc there should be a separate section for discussion and it should be below the surveyaccording to the rules and format of WP:RfC. However you did not make any separate section for the discussion. Since it is your RfC I don't think I can correct that so I request you to please correct this by making a separate section for Discussion. KahnJohn27 (talk) 09:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

There is a discussion directly above the RFC for anyone who wishes to discuss the matter in further detail. Having two discussions going on isn't generally a good idea. However, I will make it clear at the RFC. Betty Logan (talk) 00:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I think you're mistaking. It is a reason not a discussion. The reason for starting the RfC should be separate from discussion. Discussion should not be held in the "Background" section. KahnJohn27 (talk) 21:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Since you yourself not going to make a separate discussion section in the RfC I'm going to make it myself. WP:RfC does not say anything about adding sections or morphing layout of someone's RfC so I believe there is no problem if I add a separate section. KahnJohn27 (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Betty Logan

Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ — is wishing you a Happy New Year! Welcome the 2014. Wishing you a happy and fruitful 2014 with good health and your wishes come true! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! May the 2014 goes well for you.

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:User:Pratyya Ghosh/Happy New Year}} to their talk page with a Happy New Year message.

Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 17:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year! Hopefully I'll see you around on the highest-grossing films list—keep up the good work :) Betty Logan (talk) 12:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah that. Also I am trying to improve another list on my sandbox. So wish me luck! Thank you though. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 14:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• films; for ''Rocky V'', flashback scenes with Mickey were newly filmed with Burgess Meredith)

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

1998, 1999 and 2000 years in film

I would say that it's a good idea for the highest-grossing to go in the United Stes number-ones (with the cast included). Now then I think that the list on the international releases should also include the cast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.73.186.132 (talk) 00:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I have moved the US box office charts to the articles about US box office (the link is in the edit summary). The "XXXX in film" articles are not really the place for American charts since they discuss film in a global context, and we can't have a chart for every country in there. Betty Logan (talk) 06:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Dr No trailer.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Dr No trailer.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of 2002 box office number-one films in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael York (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) 08:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The Lego Movie

Hi, Betty. Oh, I hope you're reconsidering that semi-retired thing. Wikipedia needs all the good editors like you it can get! Plus, selfishly, I personally enjoy collaborating with you!

If you have a chance, could you keep an eye on The Lego Movie? One fannish editor keeps adding obsessively, "The film received universal acclaim," a hyperbolic phrase that per discussions at one of the Harry Potter movies and elsewhere we don't use. In any event, stay well ... and warm, if you're not in tropical climes! --Tenebrae (talk) 21:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Tenebrae! Regards to the Lego Movie, if it is IPs that are causing hassle it may be better to ask for semi-protection for a week to just get it through the opening weekend. If it's a "name" editor then we can apply a little bit of pressure to get the message across. I'll watch the article but to be honest there is so much activity it will be difficult to track it. I'm happy to chip in with some reverts if required though. Betty Logan (talk) 03:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

English Patient

Betty Thank you for the input on the edit warring page. Another account with suspicious activity is username:A1Houseboy. Another editor saw that guy linked to WordWrightUSA as sock puppets possibly. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Edits at Kangaroo court

I assure you my edits at Kangaroo court were no kind of revenge. It was a pure good faith edit. An unregistered user had posted on User talk:Flyer22 that the reference provided no evidence that the term "Kangaroo court" is American. I read the whole content of that source and found out that the unregistered user was saying the truth. I request you to please stop making baseless accussations. I understand we had a problem at Gone with the wind (film) but this edit of mine at Kangaroo court is in no way related to that edit conflict at Gone with the wind film. KahnJohn27 (talk) 13:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of whether you meant well or not, she would be justified in interpreting your action as antagonistic since you have not edited that article before. The IP has raised their concern at Flyer's talk page, and Flyer herself is very capable of determining the merits of their point. If she feels she is incorrect in her edit then she can self-revert, and if she feels it should stand then she and the IP should be left to resolve that issue without extending a dispute to another article. Betty Logan (talk) 13:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Regardless of the goings on in the edit history, a quick check of the OED shows the term is of American origins, with the first published reference in Philip Paxton's 1853 novel A Stray Yankee in Texas. - SchroCat (talk) 13:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Haha lol sorry I didn't read the reference clearly earlier. I only had noticed the first para of the definition of kangaroo court in the dictionary reference where it says slang of U.S. origin. However I have noticed many incorrect online dictionaries these days so we just can't take it as a reliable source because of being a dictionary. Where's the proof that is a slang of U.S. origin? And actually well it was there in the second para where it describes it's origins. I hadn't noticed this para earlier. I checked this info on other sites and it turned out to be true. I am really sorry that was extremely careless and stupid of me. I apologize for my mistake. I unneccessarrily reverted a correct edit. I apologize it was a mistake. KahnJohn27 (talk) 15:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Skyfall BO

This is a neutral notice of a discussion concerning this film's box office section.Spinc5 (talk) 03:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Deletion discussion invitation

Hi there! Since u have been a contributor to Bond-related articles, I thought I might notify u of an "Articles for deletion" discussion over at the Octopussy (character) article. I'd love to have your input! Survivorfan1995 (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion

Betty, TheRedPenOfDoom and Dr. Blofeld, do you remember weighing in on the discussion about removing budget, box office, etc. columns from a filmography: WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Director.2C Budget.2C Box office columns in Filmography, specifically Justin Timberlake videography. Was I wrong to consider that consensus to removing the columns? When I removed them from the table and even referenced that discussion, two editors that seem to claim WP:OWN of Justin Timberlakes videography reverted me and near edit warred with me and even warned me for disruptive editing on my talk page. Any thoughts? LADY LOTUS • TALK 16:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I do believe there is a consensus not to include the financial data (director is a bit more disputed) but ultimately an involved editor can't just claim "consensus" even if it is obvious there is one. If the other side still contends there is not a consensus you need to request a formal closure of the discussion at WP:AN/RFC. Betty Logan (talk) 13:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Quick query

Hi Betty, Could I ask your opinion on Talk:Licence to Kill#PG-13 in America? It was my understanding that we don't put in much information about ratings because they mean little globally (and let alone in the lead, let alone unsourced and let alone for a non production country). I can't find the thread that raises this question, so I may be wrong, and your thoughts would be most welcome. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I've added my comments. I don't think it's particularly relevant, unless of course there is commentary like we have for the UK-15 affecting the takings. Betty Logan (talk) 13:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

RfC

This is a neutral request for comment as a participant in a past discussion regarding a similar topic at Talk:The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug#Critical reaction and WEIGHT. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

An RfC that you may be interested in...

As one of the previous contributors to {{Infobox film}} or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!

This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Ben-Hur

Hi Betty. Remind me what the problem was stopping Ben Hur from being promoted to GA was? The lead clearly needs expansion but if you could highlight what needs doing I might give it a go in a few weeks. It looks pretty good on the surface. Can you also fill me in on the wiki background to it, I was told some time ago it was a contentious article our something.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's particularly contentious. I made some observations a couple of years ago at Talk:Ben-Hur (1959 film)/GA1 which is by no means exhaustive, but also some of which have since been rectified. The biggest problem at the time was really the structure of the article; it was a bit unwieldy but I sorted that out myself. Betty Logan (talk) 22:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

It surely looks comprehensive enough for GA! Needs mostly minor technical work and expansion of the lead. I should be able to get it up to GA. I've put the text in references into notes and have begun adidng the isbn and links to the books. One problem though is that some of them are reprints in google books, the Buford source for instance is 2009 in books and 2000 in your article. If I leave the reprints any chance you could locate the original isbn numbers of the books used? Or was it Tim1965 who added them? Should I ask him? I think it really helps for verification purposes that's all.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I never added any actual content to the article. I just restructured it slightly to make it more readable because it was written more like an essay at the time. That basically just involved going through and adding suitable shapter headings. The coverage is excellent though, more FA standard than GA. ISBN numbers are useful for verification but not required (if you have the author, title, year and edition) so it's not a big deal if we're missing a few. Betty Logan (talk) 09:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Space Jam

Requested protection for article.

Jdogno5 (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

"The administrator who reviews this request should be made aware of this 3RR report filed against User:Jdogno5. I don't recommend protecting the article since the disruption involves a single editor and can be resolved at ANI.": I did that to deal with the matter in a constructive way. You said that was something I could do that was considered alright. So a single editor doesn't matter?!

Jdogno5 (talk) 00:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Devil in popular culture

What was wrong with what I stated?

Jdogno5 (talk) 03:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Let It Be

Are you aware that you just wheel warred by moving the page? Bovine moved the page earlier, but Anthony Appleyard undid it after I contested it. Thus, by moving it again you've wheel warred. I hope you undo it before I seek redress elsewhere. Hot Stop talk-contribs 23:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I haven't a clue who you are or what your involvement is, and saw no contesting by you at the move discussion; however what I do see in the article history is someone moving an article to another title and listing it as "uncontroversial" when it directly violates the disambiguation guideline at WP:NCF. If you wish to move an article to a title that does not comply with the naming guidelines then I recommend you start a discussion on the talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 23:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Umm, it had been at plain old Let It Be (film) for many years before BB moved it today. If you can't get that basic fact straight, maybe you should reconsider. Hot Stop talk-contribs 23:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• and now check WP:ANI for discussion of this. Hot Stop talk-contribs 00:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I am a bit confused. What exactly is the issue? Do you disagree that the page move does not comply with WP:NCF which states Do not use partial disambiguation such as Titanic (film) when more than one film needs to be disambiguated, or are you just objecting to me closing the discussion? Article renaming doesn't have to be discussed if it's a straightforward matter. I will re-open the discussion if you wish but it is unnecessary in this case. Betty Logan (talk) 00:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Space Jam editor

Thank you for your continued watch of the page and handling with that user. I don't know if I should be saddened or dumbfounded by the fact that some people just don't get it. In all the reverts and directing them to the talk, they just didn't understand what had to be done to work it out. Anyways, thanks for trying to make it work, even though it may have been extremely difficult, had the user cooperated, given the amount of WP:OR in the content they added. Regards, - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much everyone starts out a poor editor on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has rules coming out of its ass so novice editors are going to often get things wrong. I don't mind that, but presented with the right way and the wrong way then the editor has to make that choice themselves. Ultimately Jogno made the wrong decision and has to face the consequences. Hopefully, if he returns either by convincing an admin to unblock him or getting an new id he will try a bit harder to learn the ropes. Betty Logan (talk) 05:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Missing white woman syndrome

I have responded on the talk page. Thanks for notifying me. SQGibbon (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

No result of discussion

Closed. Discussion not going anywhere.

As you know the discussion did not reach any consensus here. What do you think should be done now? KahnJohn27 (talk) 12:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC) If a discussion doesn't reach consensus then nothing happens, the status quo is retained. Betty Logan (talk) 13:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC) Of course I know that. But no consensus was reached because actually no one cared to discuss it. That's why I'm asking what do you suggest should be done now? Where should this issue be taken so it receives proper attention of other users and it can be properly discussed. KahnJohn27 (talk) 10:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC) If you have an issue with the infobox I suggest you raise the issue at the {{Infobox film}} talk page which is where infobox issues are primarily discussed. Betty Logan (talk) 11:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC) Alright thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 12:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC) Reported the matter here. Also it seemed last time that you didn't even cared about discussing the issue. If that was so please do not do so again. It might seem that I'm blaming you but I don't know how to express myself in a more better way so it does not offend anybody accidentally. Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 13:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC) I have discussed the issue plenty of times with you. The fact that neither of the previous discussions resulted in a consensus is not my problem. Betty Logan (talk) 14:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC) You only discussed it once at GWTW's talk page. You did not care to discuss this issue here. And might I say it wasn't even a discussion. All the editors including me just posted a single comment and no one cared to talk about it after that not even you. I don't wanna blame you but it seems you're doing on this purpose since if no one discusses there is no consensus which means status quo remains and thus the path of editing box office gross of re-released films which you prefer continues to be used. Regardless of everything your comment that "The fact that neither of the previous discussions resulted in a consensus is not my problem" is completely irresponsible and against ethics of Wikipedia. It is "your problem" and your responsibility (it's everyone's responsibility) to properly discuss an issue and try to reach a consensus. Had this issue been properly discussed and a consensus had been reached I won't have ever taken up this matter again however it did not happen so. The issue wasn't even properly discussed. KahnJohn27 (talk) 13:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC) Obviously I did care to discuss it at the Film project since I was the one who started the discussion! There is nothing I can do if editors choose not to participate in the discussion. And no, it is not my problem since I am not the editor attempting to effect the change; if you want to effect a change it is your responsibility to forge a new consensus per WP:BRD. I have participated in the discussion at the article talk page, the Film project and the Infobox talk page. In my experience if editors support a change they usually join the discussion; if not it's generally because they don't care. All I can suggest is that you notify the Film project of the discussion at the Infobox talk page and see if anyone else cares to contribute to the discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 14:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC) To that I'll just ask one thing of you. Did you care to discuss it after your first comment? No you obviously didn't. You just started the discussion with a comment and well you were done after that because according to you it wasn't "your problem". KahnJohn27 (talk) 14:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC) You don't really get it do you? I stated my case and left it open for others to comment. That is the point of requesting community input. The community didn't respond in any meaningful way so the discussion didn't go anywhere. Betty Logan (talk) 14:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC) If you cared about the discussion you would have tried to ensure that it was actually discussed which you didn't. Even after that you would have taken the issue up again. The reason I couldn't post after my first comment was due to my university exams and also because the discussion was already abandoned before being started so I felt no point in trying to beat a dead horse. Rather taking up the issue again when I was free was a better idea since I would be able to make sure it was properly discussed. Had you cared about the discussion at all it would have been you doing that or at the least you would have made an attempt instead of shaking it off as not your problem. KahnJohn27 (talk) 14:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC) (talk page stalker) KahnJohn27, No-one has to take part or do anything on Wikipedia, so calling that "completely irresponsible and against ethics of Wikipedia" is, I'm afraid, complete and laughable nonsense. Betty Logan has said she does not want to take part in the discussion: that is her prerogative, and you berating her here is unlikely to change her mind. You have informed her of the discussion so let it run its course and if Betty Logan decides to take part at some point in the future then so be it: if she doesn't comment, then it's not anything that needs to bother you. I suggest you just move away from this talk page and do something constructive while the infobox discussion continues. - SchroCat (talk) 14:21, 5 April 2014 (UTC) I did actually take part in the discussion! I posted one comment, no less or no more than anyone else involved in the discussion (including Kahn himself). He's berating me because it had a low turn-out and didn't resolve the dispute. Betty Logan (talk) 14:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC) I have made more of an effort to resolve this than you since I was the editor who started both of the initial discussions. What initiatives have you taken besides edit-warring? Betty Logan (talk) 14:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC) Yeah Schrocat they don't have to so tell me what's the point of discussion. What's the point of Wikipedia at all if no one cares about other editors' opinions. I cared about Betty Logan's and others' opinions that's why I discussed this issue with them. The users only posted one message and they were done like they don't care anymore. Hey you call that a "discussion". No, in fact that is a "complete and laughable nonsense". If no one cares about improving Wikipedia then what's the point of Wikipedia's existence? Also SchroCat you talk like your comment is constructive when it is actually you telling others what to do and not to do. I was only trying to make Betty Logan aware of her mistake. I don't want to get involved in that mudslinging again which happened on the discussion for adding Boxoffice.com as a reliable source. Also an ironic and sarcastic thing is that while you advice me do a constructive thing while the infobox discussion continues I have been doing constructive editing which you would have known if you knew about my edits in between the infobox discussion. The edits that I have made no body would have cared to make them. For example there's an entire section of Lee Kun-hee lying sourceless for years however no body even cared to look at it and atleast add that a citation is needed which I did. KahnJohn27 (talk) 14:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC) KahnJohn27, This thread isn't constructive. You need to carry on doing whatever it is you want to do elsewhere without the need for badgering others on their talk pages. Move on and drop the stick. - SchroCat (talk) 14:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC) I think Betty Logan it's more like you started the second discussion and abandoned it after that and later said that if the issue was not discussed it wasn't "my problem". For your info I started the third discussion which you have infact overlooked and I am still discussing it. Also I have posted comment on User:Erik and User:Favre1fan93 for joining the discussion. And don't forget you too were part of the edit war even if you were doing the "right thing" by reverting my edits. KahnJohn27 (talk) 14:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC) You started the third discussion after I suggested it and also in which I have responded. And no, I did not edit-war: I followed the BRD cycle by following up a revert with discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 14:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC) Read my comment I only asked you where I should start a new discussion so it recieves proper attention. Just because I said "what I should be done now?" doesn't mean I had no idea what to do. I was going to start a discussion myself whether you responded to my comment or not. If my comment confused you then I'm sorry but I was only here to ask you where a new discussion should be started. KahnJohn27 (talk) 14:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Your reverting of my Gone with the Wind edit

I'm a bit perplexed by it. You said Leigh receives second billing in the film. Seeing as you have no reason to make that up, I'm assuming you're correct. However, screen billing isn't used unless the poster doesn't list actors, according to Template:Infobox film. Why are you skipping the first part of the "cast list" policy? Corvoe (speak to me) 03:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I have left a comprehensive response at the article talk page. On reflection I agree that it is probably better to leave out the uncredited names, but I have also addressed other aspects of your edit. Betty Logan (talk) 03:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

No more discussion

Since nobody has cared to discuss about the thing about the box office gross of re-released films I think there's no use in further taking up the matter since it seems apparently the community is not interested in it and still picking up despite will be foolish. But still even though I had a few complains with you over the issue you still discussed the issue and showed cooperation. Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 08:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry you didn't get the level of discussion you wanted. However you should be commended for at least pursuing a discourse. Betty Logan (talk) 21:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 09:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Snooker season 2014/2015

It would be nice if you could take a look at Snooker season 2014/2015. IPs are removing sourced information from the article, and I can't do against it for a while. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I've replied at the talk page. I've added the article to my watchlist so I'll intervene if the reverting starts up again. Betty Logan (talk) 09:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

New Hollywood

I propose that we add the director's name with each movie. This helps the reader to see the role played by notable directors. What are your views on this proposal. I think it adds to the article, as it helps the reader connect movies with the notable directors.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 14:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't oppose it in principle since there is some value in it, but I think if you want to add more information then it needs to be a bit more stuctured, like a title/director/year three column table. You could make it sortable and then readers can sort it by director or year. Betty Logan (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Warnings left for an IP user

I came across your AIV report for User talk:121.208.159.27. I went ahead and blocked the IP again, but I wanted to comment about the warnings you left. When leaving warnings regarding vandalism, there really isn't much point to leaving more than one warning within a 1-2 minute period, nor much point to leaving multiple warnings at the same warning level. It just makes the page difficult to read, and I doubt it makes the IP any more likely to pay attention to the message. —Darkwind (talk) 16:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry if I made it more difficult for you. I figured out quite a while ago that the IP wouldn't heed any warnings but I was more concerned about leaving an accurate record for the admin examining the case. If it re-occurs I will just leave a list of articles on his talk page in future. Betty Logan (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Snooker sources

As we established that Cuetracker, Snooker info et al are (a) unsuitable as sources and (b) differ even from each other, is there something that we should do regarding all the snooker pages (players in particular) which use these sources? The Ronnie O'Sullivan page for example is classed as a 'good article' yet contains multiple refs to Cuetracker. I don't mind the work but am I right to go through replacing inaccurate yet precise information with maybe less precise but verifiable stuff? Btljs (talk) 07:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

There is always a chance that an alternative source can be found so we shouldn't change information unless it is absolutely necessary. It might be a good idea to tag all occurrences of CueTracker with {{Better source}} and leave it a month so that editors will be made aware of the issue and have some time to find another source. Betty Logan (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

List of snooker player nicknames

Could you take a look at the article. An user is insisting for changing Steve Davis' nickname from "Interesting" to "Steve "Interesting" Davis". Thanks. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I've left a comment at the talk page, Armbrust. Betty Logan (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for copying me in, Betty. I am presently very busy at the moment with some teaching/lecturing, but I appreciate your intercession. I may come back to you on this later, though. I will try to put something in on the talk page. FClef (talk) 18:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Reverting Ten Commandments related edits

Hello,

Could you give me a little insight into reverting my Ten Commandment changes? For instance, I thought putting the Ten Commandments template on theCatholic doctrine regarding the Ten Commandments article aids in reader navigation. And the intent of placing Homer vs. Lisa and the 8th Commandment in Ten Commandments category groups that article with other modern interpretations. What do you think is the best use of the Ten Commandments template and category? Thanks! RevelationDirect (talk) 14:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Basically navboxes should be bidirectional i.e. a navbox should only be added to an article if that article is included (or added) to the navbox. As WP:BIDIRECTIONAL states Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional. For instance, if you wish to add the {{Ten Commandments}} navbox to the The Ten Commandments (1956 film) you ideally need to create a media section in the navbox and add the article to the navbox. The logic behind this is to group links together so readers can navigate between them. For example, if we assume that a reader is interested in the 1956 film then it is reasonable to assume that they will be interested in other Decalogue media (such as the 1923 film or the 2007 film etc); however, by just adding the navbox to the articles without adding the articles to the navbox doesn't actually help the reader navigate between the media which defeats the purpose. Your underlying idea is a sound one, it just needs to be approached right. If you need technical assistance at all then I am happy to help with that. Betty Logan (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Your concern is more precedural/navigational rather than about the underlying topic. I'm going to make another pass at this based on your input. If you have any further concerns, just drop a note on my talk page so we don't inadvertantly engage in an edit war. Thanks again. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Thank you for watching the anti-fur video, removing another non-vegan from the list of vegans, and leaving a comprehensive edit summary. Edwardx (talk) 17:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of most expensive films, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page McFarland (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) 08:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The Ten Commandments Accolades section

Hi. I have modified the accolades section in the article from a wikitable into paragraphs because I have added more information which can't be properly displayed in a wikitable. Besides, the Wikipedia Manual of Style states that a film's awards can be also written in prose.--V. Villalvaso 00:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:$1Billion Films

Template:$1Billion Films has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.

(As you have made a few edits to this template, I thought you may want to comment.)

--Fru1tbat (talk) 18:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Question of curiosity.

I'm new here and while looking through the FAQ section of Wikipedia, I found this question in the section relating to blocks:

"Q If I made an account on Wikipedia on one IP address but opened it on another, would that create problems? E.g. If I attempted to open my account on an IP address that had been completely blocked (no editing, no creating new accounts e.t.c.) but I haven't received a block for anything that I have done under my username, will I be blocked on that IP address? If so, is there a way to appeal it?":

I am curious myself about what is being asked here. Just saying, If I attempted to open my account on an IP address that had been completely blocked (no editing, no creating new accounts e.t.c) without knowing so but I haven't received a block for anything that I have done under my username, will I be blocked on that IP address? If so, is there a way to appeal it?

Michael Demiurgos (talk) 07:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Sock Puppetry

I understand I am being accused of sock puppetry.

Where do I go to respond to that? On the talk page or project page for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jdogno5?

Michael Demiurgos (talk) 12:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

What is happening now? Just trying to understand what is going on.

Michael Demiurgos (talk) 00:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)