User talk:Betty Logan/Archive 8

I've had an incident with someone
As an IP editor I am unable to make complaints at ANI, but you can! User:Tarage has bitten me by repeatedly deleting my question about who is welcome on his talk page and I am offended by that. Could you please bring up the case at ANI? He has asked me to report him because it will give him "more eyes on [his] talk page and a quicker lockdown", but I can't. So, I have to find someone reliable, and that someone is YOU. Thank you for your help. 110.146.179.201 (talk) 10:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Editors are permitted to request that other editors do not post on their talk pages (except when otherwise mandated, such as after filing an ANI report. They are also permitted to remove any talk page comment they wish except when blocked, so I doubt you will get much traction at ANI. Betty Logan (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Please do me a favor
Could you please do the ANI notice template on Tarage's talk page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.164.22.225 (talk) 20:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Create an account for yourself and stop asking other editor's to do your work for you. Betty has far more to do than involve herself in this saga. Also please sign any "contribution" you may make and stop trying to evade a block.. Thank you. David J Johnson (talk) 21:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I notified Tarage because he should have a right to defend hismelf against any (spurious) allegations put to him, but the case has been closed anyway. Betty Logan (talk) 21:08, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I really don't know what this IP editor's obsession with me is, but I'm glad that people are on top of it. Thanks for letting me know about the ANI case. --Tarage (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Re: Pirates of the Caribeean
Sorry to bother, but wanted to follow up on this one. I'm curious where the budget of $378.5 is coming from... The listed reference at Boxofficemojo has $250 million as production budget. This was my basis for adjusting the math rather than reverting. I see at the film's main page, the infobox does state 378.5 million, sourced to a Forbes article. However Forbes appears to state $410 million for production cost. Later in the prose, the $410 figure quoted for production costs. Any insight appreciated, just want to make sure we have the right figure. -- ferret (talk) 00:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You can disregard. I see the math is based on the tax credit being subtracted. And I missed the grouped reference. Whoops -- ferret (talk) 00:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a legitimate question, but I had my answer typed out anyway so here it is if you are interested: Disney's accounts submitted to the UK's HMRC revealed that the true production cost was $410.6 million and the rebate was $32.1 million, giving a net budget of $378.5 million (far higher than the reported budget). These figures are available under FOI requests in the UK and come from the actual accounts Disney have submitted to the UK tax authorities. The figure that Box Office Mojo has down is an estimate that has been there from when it was originally released and as per usual with Box Office Mojo they have not updated their figures after the new information became available. There was a range of estimates at the time with Variety putting at $150 million and the LA Times at $200 million and the BOM with $250 million. These figures were either "leaked" figures or guesstimates (i.e. not taken form the actual accounts), but the Forbes figures are the true figures because they were obtained under a FOI from the actual accounts Disney had to submit to gets its money back. It is explained in greater detail at Talk:Pirates_of_the_Caribbean:_On_Stranger_Tides. Betty Logan (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Clarification?
Good day Betty Logan! I am seeking clarification on a couple of your edits please. 1. You reverted a simple spelling correction I made, leaving the article incorrect - "strreaming" is not a word. Please can you indicate why this edit was reverted? 2. The second reversion - on UK broadcast detail - your summary says "None of this is in source". Please scroll to the bottom of the BBC page where the first broadcast date is shown and click "show all" and there is displayed a complete list of all 16 broadcasts on the BBC; the broadcast length of 174 minutes is also displayed on the page. It is possible that the page may display differently from outside of the UK, but I have no means of checking this. Please would you confirm that you are satisfied the facts are present as I've clarified? Thanks! Baldy Bill ( sharpen the razor &#124; see my reflection ) 16:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * OK, I see the other broadcast times so I will restore the BBC premiere. In regards to the other stuff it is not particularly important how many times it has been shown on the BBC i.e. we don't need to document every single broadcast, just the significant ones. Betty Logan (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for doing that. I agree that the first broadcast is most significant and I felt particularly so as it was uncut, 17 years before it was shown in the US. I always try to keep my article edits as compact as possible so I appreciate other editors who are keeping an eye out for the cruft. Have a great day! Baldy Bill  ( sharpen the razor &#124; see my reflection ) 09:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Please engage in good faith editing of bikini wax, and not just reverts
Could you please engage in useful, good faith conversation regarding the edits on bikini wax? Referring to the most prominent author and book on the subject are not outright violations of anything WP:PROMOTIONAL. I have tried to put more context and references, and all you do is revert with no discussion or alternatives. Thanks. - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 22:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please follow your own advice. You have added disputed content which has been removed twice and you have twice reverted. That is edit-warring by any definition. If you want editors to assume good faith then stop edit-warring and gain consensus for your edits on the article talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 22:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Film
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Film. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 07:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC). This invitation is based on your being a registered editor that has edited MOS:FILM and film articles. (Notification per WP:CAN.)

Poster question
As you are a long time wiki editor, I was wondering if you could weigh in Files_for_discussion/2017_January_27 on some suggestions I made to removing posters on of the kaiju films on wikipedia. There are some American posters added I don't are considered fair use. Would you be able to weigh in? Thank you! Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Could you please create this page?
Could you please create "Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Caillou ftw dora ftl" and I'll take it from there. 121.216.39.62 (talk) 21:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Jesus of Montreal
I've edited the article in line with your templates. Do you plan to evaluate more articles? If so, please allow me a grace period to format them. Secondly, would you kindly please list concerns on talk rather than tag the article? Templateomania drives me batshit insane. Ribbet32 (talk) 08:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I can add comments to the talk page if you'd like but assessments are not like reviews, in that there isn't a formal process. A reviewer works with the nominator but this isn't always the case for an assessor. If you make some changes simply make a note of it at the article entry on the assessment page and request re-assessment, and then the next person to do some assessing (which might be me or it could be someone else) will pick it up. In that sense your grace period lasts as long you want it to. The article looked to be ok overall, although the lead needs to be fleshe dout because it doesn't adequately summarize the article. Betty Logan (talk) 12:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Snooker world ranking points 2016/2017
As highlighted in my comments when I made two reverts on the above page, if WPBSA profiles are to be used as the primary resource for information on this page, that is fine, but it should be done consistently, not selectively (as per the Michael Georgiou example I gave). The player in question is called Hossein Vafaei, but his WPBSA profile is listed as Hossein Vafaei Ayouri (which is one of the reasons he has become known by this name), an issue which was mentioned during ITV's UK coverage of the Snooker Shoot-Out on 24th February. In general terms, if you look at the list of Iranians on Wikipedia, it's clear that Iranians don't tend to use two surnames, and a quick Google search also reveals that Ayouri is not a recognised surname anywhere, while Vafaei is. I know I'm correct in this matter, but I understand that snooker articles on Wikipedia might prefer to keep his name as it is listed by WPBSA. It can always be updated if/when WPBSA decides to update his profile on their website.

Also, regarding the uw-3rr template message that you posted on my talk page (which I have since removed), having read WP:EW and specifically the section "What to do if you see edit-warring behavior", it clearly states: "Avoid posting a generic warning template if actively involved in the edit war; it can be seen as aggressive. Consider writing your own note to the user specifically appropriate for the situation, with a view to explicitly cooling things down.". So, although I don't personally consider your behaviour to be aggressive, perhaps you should bear this quote in mind for the future, as others might. Edin75 (talk) 15:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

List of the highest-grossing cross media franchises
Regarding this article. Can you direct me to the latest source on how much DC and the Marvel universe make so they can be added somewhere on the list. I would think maybe Marvel Multiverse would technically be top and DC Multiverse would be second definitely if you add the MCU and the DCEU to it. Thoughts? Jhenderson 7 7 7  23:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Box Office Mojo is probably your best bet (MCU and DC), but it only includes the box office. I don't know of a source that includes home media, merchandise etc. Betty Logan (talk) 22:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

13th Warrior
Betty, you undid a change I made to 13th Warrior regarding a movie quote. You typed that it didn't look "RS" to you. First, what is "RS"? Second, please google "Rich Heimlich". I am an accredited film reviewer in the Philadelphia market and have been writing reviews since 2007. I know James Berardinelli and work along side him at Allied screenings and others (Allied is the marketing company the studios use and that's who I'm accredited with, among others). I'm in the IMDB, have been a professional author since the 1980's including having been a freelancer, columnist, staff editor, editor and publisher for mainstream publications across multiple industries. I've also written several books including a bestseller. I added this quote to this one movie because of its age and to point out how it has improved since its release. I attributed the full review as well.

What else would you like?


 * First of all if you are adding your own reviews this is a WP:COI violation. Second, there is no shortage of reputable critics and publications we can draw reviews from. Review sections should use internationally recognized critics—although nationally recognized are ok too—who write for reputable publications. Rich Heimlich does not appear on the Rotten Tomatoes critics list, and neither does Slashcomment on the publication list. I agree that the reception section needs to be more balanced, but I suggest developing the section with the reviews already available at https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/13th_warrior/ and which have already been incorporated into the aggregator. Both The New York Times and Entertainment Weekly gave it good reviews, and they are contemporary too and therefore more reflective of the film's reception. Betty Logan (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

"Malplaced"
Hi! While investigating the Stephen Lees at the requested move, I ran across an edit where you called the disambiguated title "WP:MALPLACED". If you read that page, you'll see that the term is very narrowly defined as a dab page that redirects to the same title with " (disambiguation)" in it. For example, if Stephen Lee redirected to Stephen Lee (disambiguation), the pair would be called "malplaced". It's one of those Wikipedia-only terms that leaves most people scratching their heads. Cheers! — Gorthian (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Snooker World and Asian Games men's singles events
Hi Betty how are you ?. I am just writing to you to ask should the above events be added to finals sections on wiki ?. You any feelings on this ?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.136.45.28 (talk) 22:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This is how it was done at the last events:
 * Cue sports at the 2013 World Games
 * Cue sports at the 2013 Asian Indoor and Martial Arts Games
 * Does this help or is there something specific you would like to know? Betty Logan (talk) 03:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I know I meant is there any reason that they are not added to players finals sections ?. Ie added as non ranking events ?. I was just wondering. Regards 92.251.165.160 (talk) 09:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


 * In some cases countries may enter amateurs so they will count as "pro-am" wins rather than professional wins, which might explain why editors have not added them to the totals. That said they are fairly high profile events so personally I would create a "Pro-am finals" section and add them so there is a complete record of what players have won. Betty Logan (talk) 10:56, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I am lead to believe they are invitational not pro-ams though ?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.218.176 (talk) 11:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * They are only invitational in the sense that you can't enter the event individually and have to be selected for your country's squad, but national heats are usually open events that anyone with the appropriate nationality can enter. Betty Logan (talk) 11:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes I looked into this you have to be selected for your country. I suppose it's like tennis in the olympics. This would make them invitational events. I might contact World Snooker to see where they class these events — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.218.176 (talk) 11:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Chris Totten
Hi can you create a page for the above player he has earned a tour card due to winning the euro champs thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.148.2 (talk) 19:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox name module
Template:Infobox name module has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox Chinese. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Jc86035 (talk) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 02:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Snooker Shoot-Out is a ranking event
Betty the Shoot-Out is now regarded by all sources as a ranking event. It is clearly stated after McGill's win he has won 2 ranking events not 1 ranking event and 1 variant ranking event. Are you happy with that deduction ?.
 * Please keep the discussion at Talk:Ronnie_O'Sullivan. Betty Logan (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your work
Hello BL. Many many thanks for untangling all the page moves. I know I pinged you but I thought I would leave a link to this thread User talk:Trivialist in case you have any info that you can add to it. No obligation of course but I have not seen anything like this before. Thanks again and cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 00:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Something is still not right BL. See my post on T's talk page. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 00:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oof. You fixed things correctly - I was getting two different article mixed up :-( Sorry about that. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 00:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what is going on
He BL. Thanks for trying to fix that but I do not see any columns in that cast list after your edit. My browser is Firefox so I don't know if that is the problem. I did refresh the cache and that did not change things. I know that is the preferred template and if it works for you than great. As ever thanks for your time. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 00:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That is weird. The cast is divided into three columns on my display. May I ask what your screen resolution is? Betty Logan (talk) 00:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * To test whether it is a cache problem, click on the "edit" button in the "Cast" section and preview it. That should bypass your cache. Betty Logan (talk) 00:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah that is the problem. I have things set at 133% for my aging eyes. When I reduced it back to 100% the columns showed up and they were they at 112% and 120% so it is just me. That will sure help if I come across something like this in the future. I hope that you have a pleasant week! MarnetteD&#124;Talk 00:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I have reduced the column widths slightly. Do they split into two columns for you at 133%? Betty Logan (talk) 01:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep that worked and they are there now. Thanks for your efforts :-) MarnetteD&#124;Talk 01:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Would you like to join this RfC?
Hi Betty, just to give you the heads up that I've started an RfC (with a different IP address) here regrding the style of the message. While I do acknowledge the fact that you are not an administator, I still think the more that join the discussion, the merrier. --120.155.53.171 (talk) 05:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion
Could I draw your attention to this discussion? It's gotten a bit stale and doesn't seem to be focussed on any actual policy or guidelines thus far and I'd appreciate an editor versed in the project chiming in on either side. Thanks. G RAPPLE   X  17:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:IMDb
Hi, Betty. I've hatted the discussion you started at Talk:IMDb. I hope you don't mind; I don't mean to imply that you did anything wrong in starting it, but the way it developed, it's clearly painful for the overly impulsive User:Pocketthis to see it on the talkpage. Since it got so personal, would you mind taking it to their user talk, or indeed to ANI, if you want to pursue it? (I'm kind of hoping you don't, but it's not up to me.) Bishonen &#124; talk 16:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC).
 * The article isn't very high on my list of priorities and Pocketthis is too highly strung to make it worth my while in pursuing it. The content he added is borderline promotion IMO and I think other editors will come along and remove it in due course down the line, so I'm happy to walk away from the article if it means I get him out of my hair. Betty Logan (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Revert the List of children's films page!
Should I want to remove The Hunt for Red October from the List of children's films list, because Red October is not a children's film! --2601:C8:C001:BD00:A9C8:F7F6:2D26:F010 (talk) 23:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * IP if you want to remove it then why did you add it? MarnetteD&#124;Talk 00:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I've replied to your points on Beguiled in the other talk page
Title self-explanatory. Concerning your comment "Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner." Sometimes, and with some people, this is impossible. You know I'm right. Stupidity is another form of rudeness, in fact you could say it is rudeness in canonical form. Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 10:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Your reversion of my edits on Randamoozham
Hi, You have reverted 3 of my edits linking to a new article for an upcoming film The Mahabharata (2020 film) based on the novel Randamoozham. May I know why? --Anoopkn (talk) 09:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you follow the link I provided in the edit summary? If not, here it is again: WP:NFF. The pertinent part of that guideline states:
 * "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks—there is no "sure thing" production. Until the start of principal photography, information on the film might be included in articles about its subject material, if available. Sources must be used to confirm the start of principal photography after shooting has begun."


 * In other words the article should not be created until filming has begun. According to the article you created production will not begin until September 2018, so the article should not be created until then. Until then you should document all production developments at Randamoozham. Betty Logan (talk) 11:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. Keep up the good work. Cheers! --Anoopkn (talk) 21:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Nice coincidence
Hello BL. I saw this thread Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film and all I could think was this is the perfect confluence of two of your interests :-) Best wishes to you in creating the article. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 15:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Beaten to it! Serves me right; I've had a year to create it. I don't know why it didn't occur to me although I'm not generally an article creator. Betty Logan (talk) 15:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I should have mentioned that is was you that helped hammer out the columns situation at the filmproject thread - apologies. I got diverted by another project. Thanks for leaving such detailed posts about things. Cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 04:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Cheers, though it doesn't really matter who solves the problem, what matters is that people appreciate why one width is better than the other. Editors——especially project members—need to be aware of what looks great on their display doesn't always translate to others. Betty Logan (talk) 04:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Selby's centuries
Selby yesterday made his 468th century (it was 143 points), according to the Croatian Eurosport commentator. – KWiki (talk) 10:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You need to provide a WP:Verifiable source i.e. ones that readers can check. Betty Logan (talk) 10:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems he has even four more (the site is regularly updated). I am following (or what is the correct verb) snooker for almost 20 years and I never do any edit without a reason or background (also an admin in BS Wiki). Best regards from Mostar. – KWiki (talk) 10:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * CueTracker is a fansite and not a reliable source and has many wrong figures (see the editing notice at Century_break). If you are going to update the figures you need a proper verifiable source such as a match report like at BBC or World Snooker. Betty Logan (talk) 10:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I know that CueTracker is not completely reliable (I am unfamiliar with other similar sites), but can anyone find a better source? There is no such statistics on World Snooker site and BBC offers news, results and calendar, but is also missing the statistics section. So, what is a better solution: fairly reliable source or no source at all? – KWiki (talk) 11:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You've got a point, but I am inclined to stick with dated data and readers can see when it was valid. I would personally be inclined to get rid of the 50-thresholds and just stick 100, 200, 300, 400 etc because these are nearly always reported. There is a reason why 468 isn't reported, and that's because it isn't really a significant milestone. Betty Logan (talk) 12:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Also a good point (100, not 50). There are a lot more tournaments nowadays and, consequentially, a lot more centuries (Neil Robertson alone had a 103 in a season few years ago). – KWiki (talk) 13:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Don't Look Now love scene .ogg
A good question in the edit summary, and I don't know the answer - I will have a look for it, but it may not exist! Since Nov, Wikipedia now has an image search (by size / resolution) and your video got caught up in it - if it was a static image then it would be too big for non-free (<100,000 pixels is the guideline) - but as a video, I'm not sure. It's 30sec which is OK for length. If I find more info, I will let you know. I may tag it with non-free no reduce for now, just to stop further tags being added. Ron h jones (Talk) 23:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I would appreciate that. I apologise if I was curt in my edit summary but I have tried to address this issue once already. If there was a standard resoultion like I said I am happy to sort this out since I still have the original clip on my computer so it is fairly straightforward. I would prefer to skip the guessing game though. Betty Logan (talk) 23:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem. Non-free_content hardly mentions videos - we have audio clips and still image guidelines, but nothing for a video (probably not that many!). With a lack of data, I raised the question at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content. Ron h jones (Talk) 23:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Your kind help requested!
Hi Betty, is there any chance I could solicit your mastery of tables to implement the changes that were discussed here, specifically reformatting the tables so that films with the same gross are lumped in at the same rank point per Lyrda's suggestion? There's no massive hurry, but I do notice edits like this one, where a film's rank on this list gets represented elsewhere in articles. That can be contentious. If you're swamped, I understand and can ask at the Village Pump. I'm not terribly good at tables and there are some row coloration issues that need to be considered, so it's a personal nightmare. Thanks and regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, I can help you with that. I might not get around to it until next week though but if you compile a list of links to the tables you want fixing I can take a look at it. Betty Logan (talk) 02:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I have done this at the article that the discussion took place at, but let me know if there are any more and I will get around to it in the next week. Betty Logan (talk) 18:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You are awesome! Thank you Ms. Logan! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:41, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

The Beguiled
Hello! How are you? I've left a message on the Beguiled talk page, and would like your input. Thank you! :) Vmars22 (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

edits
Hello, my problem with the articles isn't the fact that skeptics express disagreeing opinions or cited rebuttals. My problem is with the deliberate use of loaded language smearing the entire paranormal community- "superstition", "frauds" and so forth- and with the use of weasel-phrases like "It is alleged"- and with (IMO, deliberately again) conflating carnival hucksters and charlatans with actual working Mediums. That's not neutral, not honest and not civil. That reeks of agenda. Citing sources like Randi, Nickell, Shermer et al. is no help, either. Those guys are notorious for their attacks on the paranormal community. Major NPOV problem right there. These entries read like something from Penn & Teller's "Bullshit"- not like reasonable criticism. Therefore, I intend to continue correcting the record. Wakebrew (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that Wikipedia should not adopt the tone that mediums and psychics are frauds unless there is evidence that they are using deceitful tactics, but at the same time Wikipedia cannot treat these abilities as authentic when the scientific consensus is that the evidence does not support the existence of paranormal activity. It was not so long ago that schizophrenic people were regarded as being possessed; now, we understand the phenomenon and that the explanation is medical and not paranormal. Betty Logan (talk) 21:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Your reverting
I'm unconstructive? You are restoring discussions all the way back to October 2015, which are not 'still active'. Could you please undo what you have done? 1989 03:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Inactive discussions on the talk page are not a problem; archiving discussions that are ongoing or are used to maintain the article is. Maybe you should leave the archiving to people who actively work on the article instead of making a nuisance of yourself. Betty Logan (talk) 03:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Those discussions go back to 2015. You can't tell us that 185k was active threads. 71.91.45.233 (talk) 03:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I wasn't 'making a nuisance of myself'. All of the discussions I archived were older than two months old, which was not ongoing. P.S. - adding a resolved tag is not archiving, just saying. -- 1989 03:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As it happens some of those that date back to 2015 are still active because they maintain a list of films we are missing figures for. Most talk pages have active and inactive discussions and archiving active discussions is far more disruptive than not archiving inactive ones. Betty Logan (talk) 03:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for archiving everything yourself. My apologies for the disruption, it was not my intention. -- 1989 16:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I was very irritable (the end of a very long day) and I think we probably both could have handled it much better. In truth you were correct many of teh discussions needed archving and I should have got on top it earlier anyway, so in the end we just took the long route to a satsifactory outcome. Betty Logan (talk) 16:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Moonraker Opening Scene
Hi Betty. I just finished watching the movie. From my interpretation of the opening scene, he passes through the tent and lands on the trapeze net. Here's a video of the opening scene time coded to the appropriate section: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIwSxNARQYE&t=308. I'll leave the final interpretation to you :-) Vampus (talk) 18:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay...if we accept the scene segues into the opening credits he lands on the net. Personally I think it is opening to interpretation if I am honest. I will self-revert because it's not really a big deal I guess i.e. something breaks his fall and he doesn't die. Betty Logan (talk) 18:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

On the proposed deletion of Mahabharatha
Mohanlal is a five time national award winning actor who has acted in over 300 Indian movies. When he announces something of this grandeur, it for sure, about to happen. Agreed that it falls within WP:NFF. But growing number of links to the article shows the popularity and need for a Wiki page dedicated to the movie. If this still needs to be deleted, please go ahead.

Thanks and keep up the good work Thatgeeman (talk) 11:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Ordering in lists
Betty, I seem to recall that we had a discussion about how to order films in a list. In this case, another editor tried to change de-aging in film from alphabetical to by year. I know that you supported alphabetical somewhere. Do you remember where? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I don't. I did a word search but it didn't bring anything up. The basic gist IIRC was that it was more accessible if lists were default ordered alphabetically because readers were more likely to be looking for a particular film title. For example, if you want to check if a particular film is in the public domain alphabetical sorting makes it much easier to look for it at List_of_films_in_the_public_domain_in_the_United_States. Obviously that wouldn't apply if the list had a chronological basis though. Betty Logan (talk) 00:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * A-ha! Is this what you were thinking of? Betty Logan (talk) 01:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I saw this before but did not have time to reply at the time. Yes, that's what I was thinking. :) I suppose I could ask more broadly than that talk page. Lately I've had trouble with seeing sorting in tables; have you had any trouble? Also, I believe one cannot sort at all on mobile, right? I feel like I go back and forth between alphabetical and chronological because there are good reasons for both. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I perosnally have not had any problems, but sorting does need javascript turned on. Most browsers support it but it is not necessarily turned on by default. Betty Logan (talk) 14:07, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I probably have too many extensions blocking elements so I'll need to find the sweet spot (or else just whitelist Wikipedia in its entirety). Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:27, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

On the proposed move of Mob film
Hi Betty Logan, the small lead of Mob film, and much of the early years history do not refer to Mafia film, but rather to Gangster film. So there will have to be a split of these parts to the new article (Gangster film), as per WP:PROSPLIT, But unless someone works the split part into a proper new article, it will be a mess. Any thoughts? Thanks. Hoverfish Talk 02:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Hong Kong Masters draw made
Betty can you create the page for this event the draw has been made ?92.251.157.92 (talk) 21:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have created a redirect at Hong Kong Masters so the page can now be edited. Betty Logan (talk) 00:22, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Hammad Miah
Hi Betty, I hope you are well. I have done some editing on snooker articles for quite a while, the odd time updating Performance and Ranking Timelines. I know these sections are unsourced, however a relatively new user to Wikipedia reverted my Riga Masters edit to Hammad Miah's ranking timeline  and has sent me a warning on my talk page to use inline citations. I'm aware of how sourcing works having created several articles over the years and I am not offended in the slightest as they are a new editor. I have explained on his/her talk page that the entire section is unsourced.

I have put the result back in and just want to make sure that I am not doing something incorrectly as adding these updates unsourced, and I also appreciate this may not even be the place to discuss it. If not I am happy for you to point me in the right direction. Andygray110 (talk) 15:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ideally these sections should be sourced but it is worth pointing out that WP:UNSOURCED states "Attribute all quotations and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." I would argue that in this case it is the technical issue of sourcing and not the policy issue of verifiability that is being challenged because it is trivial to verify the information by simply clicking the table entry. So I agree that is correct to highlight this issue but I don't agree that removal of content is justifiable when it is so trivial to actually verify it. I think the more appropriate action would be to tag these tables with unreferenced section which would give editors a chance to address the issue without derailing the maintenance of the tables. In the context of just this particular article though the dispute can easily be resolved by adding a citation to http://www.snooker.org/res/index.asp?season=-1&player=593 which provides all pro results for Hammad Miah. Betty Logan (talk) 17:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)


 * That's great Betty, thanks for your help I will add this in. Much appreciated. Andygray110 (talk) 17:58, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Wpbsa open tour
Hi Betty I have the source from Eric Hayton's book that says the WPBSA and EASB actually spilt in the 2003–2004 season. So the events in 2002/2003 are not Pro-Am as you claim would you like the view the article to prove this please as I have the article ?. Regards 178.167.200.213 (talk) 00:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This is all covered above at . Betty Logan (talk) 11:04, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Betty I read the scans you sent by zooming in but at no point in that section does it call the event a pro-am. Just like the PTC'S had pro and amateur playing in them they were not called pro-am. I think they are what they were called 'Open Tour' events because there was 3 different tours going back then. I have rolf kalb's email he is a snooker statistician he will know. Will I ask him to clarify ?. I also have a contact at World Snooker I can turn over results to you if I get them ok ?. 92.251.130.4 (talk) 05:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hayton actually said that there were 3 tours in 2002-2003 Main Tour, Challenge Tour and the Open Tour which allowed players to gain access to the Challenge and main tour. It was a different system with so many players then. He then says the WPBSA and the EASB split in the 2003-2004 season. This is all in the books introduction page, will you read it when you get a chance please ?. Regards 92.251.130.4 (talk) 06:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Wpbsa open tour
Hi Betty if you look at Wikipedia world snooker tour and go to the section regarding this event it actually States the WPBSA finished up their involvement with the WPBSA Open Tour at the end of the 2002/2003 season which would cover these events ?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.147.136 (talk) 06:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Why does it state the WPBSA finished with the open tour at the end of the 02/03 season?. With main tour Challenge Tour and open tour being ran by them it clearly states when they handed it over. Can you have a look please ?. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.147.136 (talk) 06:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The Open Tour was taken over by the EASB for the 2002/03 season according to the Hayton book. I can even scan in the relevant pages if it matters that much to you, but the Hayton book clearly states that the EASB ran the event from 2002/03 onwards. For the first season the EASB allowed pros to enter, but after that it was limited to amateurs. I am aware that you disagree with this, but I can only go off what the book says. Betty Logan (talk) 07:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I have got this book with this page it clearly states that the WPBSA and the EASB separated during the 2003-2004 season. I want to see your evidence because I have no problem showing you what Hayton said it did not change until 2003/2004 season. Which is also reported on world snooker tour and any site you use, discuss ?. 31.200.140.223 (talk) 00:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The evidence is all provided in the Hayton book, and the relevant page numbers are given in the citations at International Open Series. But I will spell it out for you:
 * 2001/2002 – Open Tour is introduced and operated by the WPBSA, the professional governing body. Conducted on similar lines to the PTC including an amateur leg (pp. 180–182).
 * 2002/2003 – The EASB, the English amateur governing body, takes over the Open Tour. The EASB are in partnership with the WPBSA at this time and as a result the EASB permits WPBSA members to play in some of its competitions (pp. 182–184)
 * 2003 – EASB ends partnership with WPBSA. There is a subsequent revision of EASB Open Tour rules to exclude professional players (page iii of the Introduction).
 * 2003/2004 – Open Tour is operated by EASB purely as an amateur competition (pp. 184–186).
 * I really can't make it any simpler than that. No matter how much you protest, the simple incontrovertible fact is that the EASB ran the Open Tour in 2002/2003 admitting pro players and prohibited pro players the next season following the split. Betty Logan (talk) 08:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

These relevant page numbers on Hayton's book you speak of how come they cannot be viewed when they are clicked on BTW?. You can't even read them. it is a useless link.92.251.188.33 (talk) 02:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC)02:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

But Betty I actually have a transcript from the book and that is not what is implied by Eric Hayton at all.that seems to be your interpretation. It does not say the easb took over the running of the events in the 2002/2003 season. It is clearly stated by Hayton that the WPBSA ran all 3 tours during the 2002/2003 season prior to their split in 03/04. Would you like to see it ?. I'm not protesting I just have evidence that's all. I can show you this and you can show me your transcript please ?. Just trying to sort it out thank you 92.251.188.33 (talk) 02:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * You can't read it online because it's a book! Hayton at no point says the WPBSA ran the event in 2002/03. He categorically states the EASB ran the event across 2002/03. If all you have is a transcript then the transcript is obviously wrong, because the book has a complete listing for each season and each tournament. It also lists every single result. I also regard this constant haranguing as mildly insulting because you are either saying I am too incompetent to read what it says in the book or you are accusing me of lying. Clearly if I have the book and you only have a transcript of the book there isn't a debate because a transcript is not a reliable source. Anyway, here are scans of the relevant pages, and now please let this be the end of it: http://postimg.org/gallery/254c1vr82/  Betty Logan (talk) 10:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Can you post me the pages where it shows the 2002/2003 results are stated as Pro-Am in the book please id love to see it if possible? 178.167.200.213 (talk) 00:28, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Because what you sent is absolutely unreadable it cannot be viewed have a look yourself and tell me how you can view those scanned pages please ?. I can't even see them ?. 178.167.200.213 (talk) 00:31, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually you can read it online on Amazon.co.uk it gives product description with a written introduction from Hayton with pages on the history of Snooker. It even mentions this split that's how I saw it. I don't know how it's wrong when it's taken from his book it's a scanned page.i can give you the link will you read it yourself?. 92.251.130.4 (talk) 05:24, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * How many times do we have to go through this? Do you or do you not accept that the EASB ran the the Open Tour in 2002/2003? Betty Logan (talk) 06:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Cast section and character descriptions of Die Hard 2
there's an argument on Die Hard 2 about the cast section and character descriptions. A lot of film articles have character descriptions which I feel are very necessary, but that version of the cast section has been switched back and reverted by TheOldJacobite and Deloop82. It is on this section of the article's talk page. BattleshipMan (talk) 02:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:12 Monkeys
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:12 Monkeys. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Star Wars split
I noticed you made a comment regarding the Star Wars splitting and redistribution of content off the main article. There's currently some implementation of it, though some elements are under discussion, and there's some moves toward restructuring. To update you on it, in case you wanted to revisit it. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  16:54, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Re. Film categories
Hi Betty Logan, I agree with you that we should put together a project-wide discussion. For me, the initiative to start (and then be productive in) such a discussion requires a bit more of catching up with developments and refreshing my knowledge on the more general guidelines and rules. Yesterday and most of today I have been following one hint after the next, starting from a link I was given to a CFD of last year. From this I got most of the answers I had about your view and the views of some of our other key members. I have also followed many edit histories to get an idea of who (and maybe why) is behind this restucturing in categorization (not only in Films). Not everybody wants to explain their actions, however. I feel some just follow the brain hemisphere responsible for puting everything in little etiketted boxes, forgetting the needs of the other hemisphere. Well, I did get some jolts out of this quest, but also hopefully more insight.

Another thing I observe is that it may not quite be up to WP Films or even Wikipedians to define what the function of the categories should be, because there are some technical limitation of the system to make full use of them. When we were starting Film categorization we had input from two editors who were putting together the category intersection proposal. I see that it remains a proposal since, waiting for Wikimedia to respond. My guess is that if the Wikimedia computing power was anywhere comparable to that of Google, this issue would have been resolved long time ago. Also, looking at the recent Wikimedia Strategy forums, I see that more focus is directed to social interactions, although I believe that if they gave more focus to make more powerful use of categorization it would be as much to their benefit as in ours. Back to the point: as soon as I feel confident I understand enough of what is going on, I will initiate a talk in the project. I am not very eloquent and I often find myself being very naive or overy talkative, which works against what I am trying to achieve. In any case it is good to know that you are for the WP discussion approach. Best regards, Hoverfish Talk 22:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

If you have time and wish to add your points or edit mine, I have started this page to help me focus on all that is worth bringing up for discussion, but I am still in the brainstorming phase so any input is appreciated. Thank you. Hoverfish Talk 23:29, 15 July 2017 (UTC)


 * On the issue of "primary" genres (by WP:weight considering the sources, and all such things considered), can you think of any main set of genre categories that could go to all film articles? Some are clear as generic ones, like drama, comedy, crime, horror, documentary, but after these few I am wondering how far we can go with "primary" ones. Action, thriller? Are they mostly stand-alone? Then for genre crossings, should we put two or more primary genre categories? I know this is going to sound like plenty of trouble, so I am trying to get a complete picture. - By the way, my quest with the search techs went nowhere. I tried their suggestions but the searches keep timing out and I get very partial results. Oh wel... Hoverfish Talk 21:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Allmovie has a good selection of primary genres at http://www.allmovie.com/genres. Pretty much any film can be categorized under that combination. Take Jaws for instance: Allmovie categorises it under two primary genres and then there are a number of specialised genres that are applied to it. I think Allmovie have a pretty good approach; something like a "thriller-adventure" intersection category isn't really needed if you already include thriller and adventure categories (and remember if you cross 20 genres over with each other that would produce 400 intersected categories), but something like Category:Monster movies, Category:Seafaring films and Category:Survival films arguably add more depth to the categorization. Betty Logan (talk) 06:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm taking a wikivacation soon and I'll be back after the first week of September. I like a lot your idea and I'll think more about all it involves. When I am back we'll find out how other feel about it. Cheers. Hoverfish Talk 02:10, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

YGM
- SchroCat (talk) 04:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

User return?
Hi, Betty. I received a recent e-mail request from User:Hayal12 asking for reinstatement to Wikipedia. Currently, they are under an indefinite block for disruption and lack of communication -- with the eventual option of the Standard Offer. My usual inclination is to leave blocks in place for the duration once I've given them. But their e-mail showed a significant improvement in tone and willingness to communicate. My plan would be to reopen their talk page and allow them to make a public return request. I know this editor would mostly impact your neighborhood, so I wanted to get your opinion. What do you think? — Cactus Writer (talk) 16:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Ultimately he was blocked for non-communication and he is communicating now so the other problems aside there is some significant progress on the main issue. I was indefinitely blocked soon after I started editing for refactoring comments in discussions but I acknowledged the error of my ways and was given a second chance and became a GA and FL contributor so it would be hyprocritical of me to deny the same opportunity to another editor. Obviously the lack of communication was symptomatic of other recurring problems but he also made plenty of good edits too. The way I view this is that it is much easier to block an editor who blows his second chance than it is to find committed good editors, so there probably is more to gain by allowing him access to the talk page than there is to lose from Wikipedia's perspective. Maybe a probation period could be considered where he is banned from altering column dividers for what remains of his six month period and we can take it from there? Betty Logan (talk) 17:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. Good suggestions. Thank you. — Cactus Writer (talk) 15:40, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Bond 25 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bond 25 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Bond 25 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. BilCat (talk) 15:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Bond 25
Every time... Articles for deletion/Bond 25 ~sigh~ SchroCat (talk) 15:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Now see Shatterhand (film). - BilCat (talk) 05:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I would leave it for now and let the AfD at Bond 25 run its course and then use the outcome at the AfD to put Shatterhand up for CSD. Betty Logan (talk) 05:35, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

The War Game
Hello, Betty.

I added my edit on The War Game as the version on the Internet Archive said that there is no copyright in force on the film. As the Internet Archive is a legal organisation, I expect that it would check this sort of thing before uploading it, and I would've imagined that the BBC would've told them to take it down if it had a copyright.

However, I might be wrong. Is there a well-established way to check whether a film is in the public domain? Epa101 (talk) 15:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The film is almost certainly in the public domain in the United Kingdom but not in the United States. It was made for the BBC in 1965 when copyright was automatic and lasted for 50 years, so a British film released in 1965 would enter the UK public domain in 2016, which is probably why somebody has uploaded it to the Internet Archive. However, copyright terms in the UK and the US are not the same: the copyright term for films in the US lasts 95 years, so The War Game will not enter the US public domain until 2061. British films are protected under US copyright in the United States due to the Berne Convention. Since the Internet Archive is hosted in the Unisted States then technically the uploader has broken the law by uploading it to a jurisdiction where it is still under copyright; if they had upoladed it to a file server in the UK that would be perfectly legal. Either way it shouldn't be listed at List of films in the public domain in the United States because this list only covers the US public domain, not the UK public domain. As for noting its UK public domain status at The War Game ideally you just need a WP:Reliable source, but the Internet Archive doesn't meet that criteria; the Internet Archive is basically just a file hosting service like Youtube and doesn't corroborate copyright. Betty Logan (talk) 15:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Betty. That all makes sense to me.  I have learnt a lot from your informative response.  Epa101 (talk) 22:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Highest-grossing films
With Despicable Me 3 achieving $1 billion, not only it became the 31st film to reach the mark, it's the 6th animated film. I was hoping maybe you can put the information of 6 animated films reached $1 billion. And you know that Frozen, Minions, Zootopia, and Finding Dory reached it.
 * I don't think it's relevant. The article is not about animated films or live-action films, it's just about films in general. Betty Logan (talk) 20:07, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Just a suggestion. Ggianoli —Preceding undated comment added 20:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Problems with career Prize money on cuetracker.net
Cuetracker.net does not count team event prize money. This should be taken into account on Wikipedia pages ! 92.251.169.183 (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Cuetracker should not be used at all, and you should quit inserting your own WP:Original research into the article. Betty Logan (talk) 20:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

So what should be used where do you get your figures from ? 92.251.169.183 (talk) 20:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You can see where the figures are from by clicking the citation for the figure. Betty Logan (talk) 20:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

You are not listening the citation said he had won MORE THAN 8 million prior to the 2015 World Championship but someone rounded it up to 8 million which is not right, by the way who is anyone on here to tell me I cannot use a source to add prize money I can add any total as long as I have a source that is the rule 92.251.169.183 (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

ROS has clearly won over 9 million in prize money and it is clearly stated 92.251.169.183 (talk) 20:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I am not listening because your perspective is not in line with policy. I suggest you read WP:Verifiability not truth and WP:Reliable sources. If you want to use your own figures I suggest you set up a blog or something. Betty Logan (talk) 20:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

You are not listening did I say I was using my own figures ?. It's quite simple to follow I told you I had a source but because it doesn't suit you, you don't want to hear, do you own Wikipedia btw ?. 92.251.169.183 (talk) 20:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If you have figures based on reliable sources then add the sourcess to the article. For several weeks now all you have done is change the numbers in the article without providing any citations. And please stop posting on my talk page. The Ronnie O'Sullivan article has its own talk page so raise your points there. Betty Logan (talk) 20:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I raised the issue here but I won't ever bother again. I put a lot of my own time into this site to be spoken to in such a manner 92.251.169.183 (talk) 20:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

FYI
Hello BL. I wanted to let you know that I reported the new IP and editor here Sockpuppet investigations/Dcasey98. Best regards. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 02:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Aborted script for Bond 17
Hey girl. I'm not option for write this in this page of James Bond in film. I put it in GoldenEye; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GoldenEye&diff=802522479&oldid=802517929 but this jerk DonQuixote believes that the sources are fansites but not. Hel me with this please.--190.158.26.48 (talk) 19:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * is correct that fansites are not WP:Reliable sources. Also, please read WP:NOTPLOT; plot summaries are only included to support encyclopedic coverage of a work, so it is not necessary to include a plot summary for a film that was never actually made. Betty Logan (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Cuetracker.net not a reliable site for prize money ?
Why or how do you get to decide that ?. People are allowed to add edits here with a referenced source but in your personal opinion cuetracker.net is not good enough is it ?. Why is cuetracker.net referenced for century breaks then ?. 92.251.186.12 (talk) 11:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources, or not, are designated by the Wikipedia community and not by any individual. Additionally, Betty has asked that you stop posting on her Talk page - which she has every right to request. If you continue to post here, rather than the article Talk page; you may face a block. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 12:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

DRN case closed
This message template was placed here by Nihlus, a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. You recently filed a request or were a major party in the DRN case titled "Talk:Beauty and_the_Beast_(2017_film)#Overcategorization". The case is now closed: consensus has been reached on the talk page. If you are unsatisfied with this outcome, you may refile the DRN request or open a thread on another noticeboard as appropriate. If you have any questions please feel free to contact this volunteer at his/ her talk page or at the DRN talk page. Thank you! -- Nihlus 21:15, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Additional comments by volunteer: If further disagreements form where consensus is not achievable, feel free to refile.

Steve Davis
Thanks for the info. I don't even know how to reply to these messages, or sign my reply. Apologies If I've done this wrong, but while it's worth spending the odd 60 seconds adding info to wiki, frankly I have better things to do than spend hours learning how to have arguments with other users. I did not start this "edit war". I work in archive television and am an acknowledged expert in the field. Of course I understand that you weren't to know that, but given your expertise on wiki, you must know that I do not have a history of arguments or edit wars on Wiki, I'm not entirely clear why you chose to take issue with a fact that is impossible to verify online without illegally uploading the match on Youtube, which it isn't particularly my place to do. I regularly come across old domestic video recordings, and came across a recording of the match in question recently. I thought the information was notable as it came from Davis' golden period. If you think the public is better off without this verifiably correct information, I'm afraid I haven't got the time to continue to argue with you. Best wishes, Diariser Diariser (talk) 21:55, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Edit - I attach a screen grab, in a final attempt to persuade you to reinstate the correct information! thumb


 * Please join the discussion at Talk:Steve_Davis. Betty Logan (talk) 08:10, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request
Your name is being listed in this resolution. Better comply. Saiph121 (talk) 03:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I've filed a new dispute resolution concerning the following disputed categories for the Beauty and the Beast (2017 film) article.


 * Category:Feminist films
 * Category:Films about narcissism
 * Category:Films about bibliophilia
 * Category:Witchcraft in film


 * You need to explain your motives in your opposition in the inclusion of these following categories, because in my own judgement these are considered as "DEFINING" in which you disagree with that notion and even disregarding the sources that have been provided in this categories to be proven and justified in its reasons to be including in which the current consensus that has been ruled is completely biased and prejudiced. Saiph121 (talk) 01:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Everyone except you at the discussion agrees the categories should remain out of the article so perhaps it is your motives that need examining. Betty Logan (talk) 10:26, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

1960 in Film
Please provide a valid explanation for obtusely reverting my edits. --Chintu89 (talk) 17:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Which part of "This is a chart of domestic box-office rentals, not worldwide grosses" do you not understand? You keep adding a worldwide box-office gross to a table that does not chart worldwide box-office grosses. They are completely different quantities! If you are going to change the figure for Spartacus to a worldwide gross then you have to change the figure for Psycho to a worldwide gross (which was $50 million incidentally), and then do the same for every other film in the chart. I would have thought that was obvious, but apparently not. What you are doing is WP:SYNTHESIS which is against the policy, and that is the reason I have reverted you. Betty Logan (talk) 18:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Blacklist tag removal (Steve Davis)
Hi Betty, I have removed blacklisted Cuetracker and Prosnookerblog references on Steve Davis' page as per here - and re-sourced to BBC. Can you advise on whether it is correct to now remove the bot tags at the top of the article, set the "invisible" field to "true", or simply leave the tags in place as they are now? Andygray110 (talk) 23:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I would set the "invisible" field to "true" and leave it for the rest of the month. If the bot doesn't untag it automatically after a few weeks then I would just remove the spam tag. Betty Logan (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Done, and same also done with Alex Higgins. Thanks for your help as always. Andygray110 (talk) 00:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You are welcome, Andy. You do a lot of great work on the snooker articles so I am happy to help where I can. Betty Logan (talk) 00:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

RFC to change film MOS
I opened up an RFC on proposed changes to the Film:MOS. You can vote on it here --Deathawk (talk) 05:02, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

MOS:PARAGRAPHS
Please read MOS:PARAGRAPHS before continuing to join paragraphs. I split these up because they were hard to read. If you can think of some more logical way to split them up, then I'm open to that. In fact, the section is long enough that I would consider dividing it into smaller sections to make it more readable. Seraphim System ( talk ) 04:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The paragraphs are not hard to read. They are typical pargagraph lengths ranging in most cases 5–10 sentences. They may be hard to read on a tablet but Wikipedia is not written for tablets, it is written for resolutions of 1024 and more. Paragraphs should form a cohesive "thought" and introducing arbitrary breaks interrupts the point. Betty Logan (talk) 04:29, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not reading on a tablet and I find them hard to read. I don't know why you would argue with me that I went to the article to read it, and found the section very difficult to read. I think breaking it up into shorter sections would actually be more helpful as the section itself is considerably longer then average for Wikipedia articles. Also, I know what a paragraph is and I broke them up in logical places. You should really be willing to take advice from a second pair of eyes telling you that it is difficult to read. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 04:34, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Personally I find your edits made the article much more difficult to digest because it broke up points. You did not introduce new paragraphs into "logical" places. I did not write the section, but the stucture of the section was better before it was broken down into more paragraphs IMO, which is why I rejoined some of them. A paragraph should cover a single thought: if that takes 3 sentences then the paragraph should be 3 sentences, and if it takes 12 sentences then the paragraph should be 12 sentences. The only logical break for a paragraph is when you move on to another point. Betty Logan (talk) 04:43, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * For example the paragraph you joined about Dixon showing the film to Woodrow Wilson at the White House, and the Supreme Court is two paragraphs. "Besides having the film screened at the White House..." - this is pretty clear that we have moved on to a new topic. It also serves the purpose of logically connecting one paragraph to the preceding one. Perfect place for a break. The paragraph about reactions from Americans is fine as one thought, now that I removed the second sentence - of course the first time I looked it, I did not think the author was that wedded to topic sentences so I decided to break it up instead of removing anything. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 04:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The third paragraph addresses the screening at the White House. The President and the Justices were present at the same time, so it is not really a logically divisible point. It recommend reading the paragraph guide at http://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/paragraphs/. The main point is that if you think about a paragraph in terms of size you are thinking about it the wrong way. A paragraph being long is not necessarily a reason for breaking it up. Betty Logan (talk) 04:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand but prose is not the only concern, readability is a factor. So many studies have shown the importance of white space for readability. Personally, when I am reading and not editing I scan articles - I don't read them like a novel (and I came to this article to read, because I am reading a book about the Klan right now) - I think one issue is the overall lack of Wikilinks in the section. I added one by creating an article for it. The tone of the lede is also extremely positive for such a negative film, that the critiscm of the film seems buried in that section. I don't think it was intention, but subheadings may help here. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 05:03, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have asked if he would mind taking a look at the paragraph structure. He has numerous FA articles to his name, and he may be able to strike a compromise. As for the lead itself, the film is not negative, it is simply controversial due to being racist. That does not detract from the fact it is arguably the most important American film ever made, in terms of film-making innovation, its impact on the industry and its unprecedented commercial success. Betty Logan (talk) 05:10, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree and it is my fault for scanning the article quickly. The last paragraph of the lede is usually a very prominent placement in an article. I think for a film that has been the subject of a tremendous amount of critical literature, a subheadings under "Responses and Reception" discussing that background would be suitable - it is discussed not only in reviews but for it's impact on the Klan and I could not find a clear section about that, which is what I was looking for. I think a section about this should be added. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 05:15, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think creating a couple of sub-sections would be a good first step.. The critical reception can probably be separated from the responses. I will WP:BEBOLD and implement that. Betty Logan (talk) 05:33, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have made some structural alterations. Are they going in the right direction for you? Do you find they have improved readability at all? Betty Logan (talk) 05:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it's more organized and less overwhelming now, thank you. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 06:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, you are both right. A paragraph should not be judged by length, but should be the length it takes to discuss a point. Readability is also extremely important when putting together an article and walls of text should be avoided if possible. I like the changes that have taken place so far (breaking the long section into sub-sections, rather than breaking single-point paragraphs), and I think that goes a long way to helping things. I didn't find the paragraphs too long to read but (and this is Inman a tablet). To overcome the feel of a wall of text, I've found that adding images breaks things up and aids the feel and readability, so I'd be tempted to drop in some free images in there. Hope this helps, but if you want more input, please ping me. - SchroCat (talk) 08:38, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Where does it say not to edit guidelines?
Hi. Unless I’m mistaken, you never responded to this post about WP editing policy. You’ve said that guidelines should not be altered without first gaining support. Policies like WP:WPEDIT and WP:PGCHANGE say this isn’t necessary. What is the backing for your position? Thanks. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 18:40, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not say that. I said they should not be altered without WP:Consensus, which is a policy. And there has been extensive discussion on the talk page regarding the changes you wish to implemement and your suggstions have not gained support, but you keep going ahead and altering them regardless! It's poor form. Betty Logan (talk) 22:50, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I’m not sure how you’re differentiating “support” and “consensus,” but yes, you did in fact say that. Anyway, I’m aware that editing against consensus violates policy, but editing without consensus—editing to achieve consensus—is actually condoned by policy, such as what I linked above. Which edits of mine are you thinking of? Because unless I’m mistaken, at the time of most of my edits (and some, even afterward), there was little to no discussion from anyone else about the particular changes. But speaking of poor form, if you intend to revert multiple edits without discussion (as you did leading up to the RFPP), please be sure to address them all in your edit summary. Otherwise, it leaves the impression that only a partial revert was intended, and the full revert was mistaken. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Implicit consensus is enshrined in our WP:BEBOLD guideline, but when it is obvious from talk page discussions (mutliple in the case of this guideline) that several editors have made it abundantly clear that they do not wish to see the guideline altered then there is no consensus for changing it. In such cases implicit consensus does not exist and you should observe WP:NOCONSENSUS. The article has been semi-protected because of the ongoing disruption, as evidenced by the multiple reverts in the article history. I am sorry if that upsets you but semi-protecting a page is an entirely reasonable step to take to prevent further disruption. Betty Logan (talk) 06:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Again I ask, which edits, which alterations, are you referring to that had been previously discussed? Are you talking about when I was iterating to try to find a compromise solution that works? (That isn’t disruption; please don’t toss that word around.) Or do you mean there was a blanket consensus against any editing of any kind? If so, such a stance seems antithetical to how Wikipedia works; local consensus to freeze editing cannot override editing policy. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 07:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The article would not have been semi-protected if there had been no disruptive behavior. We are all in the same boat here: I can no longer edit the page logged out either. Betty Logan (talk) 09:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am aware the page was semi-protected due to unsubstantiated claims of disruption. I am not aware of which actions of mine we’re discussing, which is why I’m asking you to give me an example. As far as I am aware, my behavior consisted of proposing and making new changes in order to provoke discussion so we could try to find common ground, which does not match up with what you’ve described. DIsruptive behavior includes “repeatedly disregarding other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits,” which I experienced rather than committed. Leading up to the PP request, the changes I made had nothing to do with anything previously discussed to any extent. So, to be absolutely clear, my question for the last three posts has been this: What are you talking about? What behavior was WP:Disruptive, and where did I actually do it? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 16:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The disruption is evidenced by all the recent reverting on the page. It had become unstable, and that is unhelpful for a guideline. Semi-protection seems to have solved the problem. If anyone wishes to make further changes while logged out they can use the edit semi-protected template. Betty Logan (talk) 01:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Please explain how the normal process of proposing changes, and then implementing them when no objections are raised, constitutes disruptive editing, or else please point out where I did otherwise. The reverting was done by logged-in editors who frequently opted not to engage in discussion regarding any objections, which is a sign of a disruptive editor, so this accusation coming from you (as one of said reverters) continues to frustrate and confuse me.

But you said recent reverting; are you talking about my partial restoration after you seemed to mistakenly revert more than your edit summary indicated? I thought we’d already settled that; see the end of yesterday’s 6:40 comment. If that’s what you’re talking about, then it was a misunderstanding, not DE. Raising your objections on the talk page (where the changes were first proposed) would have also helped immensely. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:38, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

ANI, User:Michael 182
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Michael 182, WP:DE to award list articles. AldezD (talk) 17:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Why did you undo my fix?
Hi Betty, I recently stumbled upon a broken wiki page, and spent some time verifying the syntax to figure out why it was broken. It seems that you reverted my fix: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Valerian_and_the_City_of_a_Thousand_Planets&oldid=prev&diff=798715890 I believe this was a mistake, so I'll try to fix it again. Thanks! jan (talk) 01:06, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually, it seems that the Infobox was later re-fixed by someone else. Everything is in order then. Have a great day! jan (talk) 01:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

The infobox was not broken by me, it was broken by the editor before you, who deleted content:. Following your fix I restored the content:. Your fix was only reversed because I reverted the edit that caused the problem. Betty Logan (talk) 01:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Alternate history films
I considered Category:American alternate history films possibly includes films about fictional history also, as well as Back to the Future Part II which already included in the cat just for example.--Twilight Magic (talk) 03:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Please note that categories have to be supported by sources per WP:CATVER, which states: "Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." If sources can be found supporting the claim that these films are "alternate history" fiction then by all means add them to the categories but they shouldn't be added based on editorial judgment alone. It is very iffy in the case of something like the Terminator films and Twelve Monkeys which are set in the near future, relative to when they were made. I don't really see on what basis these films can be classed as "alternate history". Back to the Future 2 is anomalous because despite being made in 1989 it is a continuation of the first film which was set in 1985, and it creates an alternate 1985, so it probably does qualify in that regard. It would be a stretch to say that the other two films in the series are "alternative history films" though. Betty Logan (talk) 03:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

20th Century Fox
21st Century Fox sold their film and TV assets to Disney, the 20th Century Fox label exists under Disney now, they're no longer a separate label. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnknownAssassin1819 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Fox has only changed ownership. It has not ceased operating as a studio, and the MPAA still list it as a member. Betty Logan (talk) 19:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Fox is under Disney now, how can you even call it a separate studio? The MPAA site probably wasn't updated yet, remember, Disney still has to implement Fox into their company, it's not completely merged into Disney, but it definitely isn't a separate studio anymore.UnknownAssassin1819 (talk) 23:47, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As you point out, Disney still has to incorporate Fox into its own operations. Until that happens it will continue operating as a subsidiary of Disney, producing films and distributing them, and while that continues it will most likely remain a member of the MPAA. All your sources show is that ownership of Fox has changed; it does not show that they have stopped operating as a company or stopped making films, and it does not not comment on their MPAA membership. The MPAA will do doubt update their website when Fox resigns their membership as a independent entirty. Until that happens you are making WP:CRYSTAL assumptions. Betty Logan (talk) 11:08, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays text.png Hello Betty Logan: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Tenebrae (talk) 17:35, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


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


 * Same goes for you too, . Whenever I see your name pop up on my watchlist I know I don't have to bother checking the edit! Betty Logan (talk) 18:32, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Season's Greetings
...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * You have a good one too (same goes for ). Betty Logan (talk) 15:54, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Reversions
It's kinda rude to just revert my edits instead of making some attempt to reach a middle ground. Some of the stuff you reverted didn't have anything to do with the source you provided. We're all on the same team you know? Jozsefs (talk) 06:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I included edit summaries for both reverts and added in a citation, and there is no "middle ground" when it come to WP:Original research. For further explanation as to why your edits were problematic please see the article talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 15:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Dude it's considered rude to revert good faith edits instead of working on a compromise and you know that. I've been here for years and my edits are always in good faith, having someone come along and stalk my edits and revert them is discouraging me from further participating in this website after many years. I don't know why you have to behave in such an intolerable manner towards your colleagues. Are you trying to run good faith editors off the website? What does that accomplish? Jozsefs (talk) 23:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Reverting is a perfectly acceptable part of the editing process, and a completely necessary action when those edits violate the WP:Original research policy. My edits are completely in line with WP:BRD which I suggest you go and acquaint yourself with. You made bold edits, I reverted them, and I have given you comprehensive reasons in both the edit summaries and on the article talk page. What's more, after removing your interpretative analysis from the plot summary I have made a good faith attempt to incorporate some of your other edits. As far as I can see the good faith is running in only one direction here. If you are not happy with the current state of the article I suggest you join the discussion on the talk page make your case there. Betty Logan (talk) 23:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You're not even going to acknowledge that reverting is an abrasive technique when used on experienced editors, and that there are much more gentlemanly ways for experienced editors to resolve a difference in vision? I don't mind another editor fine tuning my work, or discussing differences with me. But you're just rampaging around like a bull in a china shop, stepping on colleagues toes. Chill out dude Jozsefs (talk) 23:54, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * An experienced editor would not add WP:Original research to articles, nor would they remove useful wikilinks or obfuscate terminology. If you look at the article you would see that I have actually retained many of your edits, but I suspect your idea of a "compromise" is one where I step aside and let you do what you want. Betty Logan (talk) 00:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Cuetracker.net blacklisted ?
In Snooker cuetracker.net has some professional events that Chris Turner's Archive does not have on his site. If cuetracker.net is the only source for the event if it is blacklisted how can we add the tournament ?. What other sources are blacklisted also ?. Regards 31.200.137.180 (talk) 16:08, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:SPS for guidance on the use of self-published sources. Betty Logan (talk) 18:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I just asked a direct question can that site be used for missing tournaments finals ?. That page does not answer my question. I'm not talking about century breaks just finals ?. Regards 31.200.137.180 (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * A blacklisted site cannot be used for anything. That is the definition of a blacklist. Betty Logan (talk) 22:22, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

But it is being used. If finals and tournaments are correct there should be no problem. It's only century breaks that are Wrong because he cannot add team events so the totals differ. so I agree with you not to use them in fairness 178.167.172.1 (talk) 03:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

What other sources have been blacklisted Snooker related of course ?, 178.167.172.1 (talk) 03:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

WPBSA/EASB Open Tour 2003
Hi you have the above tour down as a pro-am. I have contacted Snooker Statistician Clive Everton and he says that these events were non-ranking in the above year. I can forward you on the conversation to prove this to you ?. Will you change the above status of these events with this evidence ?. Regards 178.167.155.123 (talk) 12:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * They were non-ranking because they were organised by the EASB and not by the WPBSA. We have been over this so many times now. The proof is the reference supplied in the article. Betty Logan (talk) 15:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

No please read the introduction of the Cuesport Book of Professional Snooker the complete record and history it says the WPBSA and EASB split in 2003-2004 season. This does not include the 2002-2003 season which you have included as pro-am please read the introduction for yourself !. Will you view this please it is clearly stated and Clive Everton has stated that the 2002-2003 season were non-ranking events. Will you view this and amend please ?. Regards 83.136.45.2 (talk) 17:49, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Jesus H Christ. This is the sequence of events:
 * 2001/02: WPBSA (professional) start the Open Tour. They are in partnership with the EASB (amateur) at the time and permit amateurs to compete.
 * 2002/03: The EASB take over the Open Tour. As part of the partnership with the WPBSA they permit professionals to compete (Hayton, pp. 182–183)
 * 2003/04: WPBSA and EASB partnership ends. Professionals are barred from entering EASB Open Tour as result of the split (Hayton P. iii)
 * How many times do I have to explain this to you? The same book you keep quoting at me explicitly states that the WPBSA ran the open tour in 2002/03 during which amateurs were permitted to enter, the EASB ran the open tour during 2002/03 during which professionals were allowed to enter, and in 2004/03 professionals were barred following the split. Why do you keep quoting one part of the book but dismiss the other part of the book which contradicts your viewpoint? I even scanned in the pages earlier this year so you could verify this yourself but yet you persist in refusing to accept the EASB ran the tour in 2002/03. If you put much so much stock in what the Hayton book says about the split in 2003/04 why do you keep refusing to accept what else the book says? Betty Logan (talk) 19:04, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I am a Catholic do not use Jesus Christ's name in vain. Show a little bit of class and respect. I am told by all other sources that the 2003 events were non-ranking events. Clive Everton has confirmed this for me and is replying to me again after Xmas when he digs out back issues of Snooker Scene. Surely he would know as a Snooker historian no ?. I've noticed you have been proved wrong on here before and you struggle to accept that at times and seem to think Wikipedia is your plaything.but it does not work like that.178.167.207.115 (talk) 20:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I have contact info for Clive maybe you should try him for yourself178.167.207.115 (talk) 20:08, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Maybe it's about time you start abiding by Wikipedia's policies, principally WP:Verifiability? Any event that is not a ranking event is a non-ranking event by definition, and since nobody is arguing it is a ranking event then this in itself is irrelevant. The question here is whether it was run by the WPBSA or by the EASB. The source that you keep quoting clearly shows the event was run by the EASB in the 2002/03 season, the year before they split with the WPBSA. I have provided you with page numbers and even page scans, and yet you choose to disbelieve the source that you keep quoting to me. Tell me this: if you believe the Hayton book is correct in stating the EASB and WPBSA ended their partnership in 2003/04 why do you not believe the same book is not correct by saying the EASB ran the tour in the 2002/03 season? I have asked you this several times now and each time you evade the question. You can't have it both ways. If the Hayton book is reliable for the 2003/04 date then it is also reliable for the 2002/03 season. Betty Logan (talk) 20:44, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not evading it I got no scans does it say they are pro-ams ?. Who cares if the EASB ran it Snooker Historians like Clive Everton are calling them non-ranking events not pro-ams. He said they were open and non-ranking what is wrong with that ?. Does the book state pro-am ?. 31.200.137.180 (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I provided you with scans earlier in the year, and there is a record of it in my talk history. The fact that EASB is an amateur body and not a professional body is a major factor, because amateur organisations do not organise professional tournaments. Only the WPBSA runs professional tournaments. Did Clive Everton call it a professional tournament? No, he called it a non-ranking tournament, which all tournaments are if they do not carry ranking points. Betty Logan (talk) 18:03, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Betty you are talking absolute nonsense do you think I don't know anything about the game ?. Yes Clive called them professional non-ranking events not pro-ams. All the events that do not carry ranking points are not all non-ranking events by any means. A pro-am is a pro-am. A non-ranking is a non-ranking and a ranking event is a ranking event.All totally different. It's not my first day out of school you know 178.167.172.1 (talk) 03:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Heddwch ac ewyllys da


Hello there! Shearonink (talk) wishes you & yours the the very best of the season! Whether you celebrate Christmas, Diwali, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Festivus (for the rest of us!) or even the Saturnalia,  here's to  hoping your holiday time is wonderful and that  the New Year will be an improvement upon the old. CHEERS!

Share these holiday wishes by adding  ~  to your friends' talk pages.

Shearonink (talk) 20:36, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I hope you had a nice Christmas and don't get too drunk tonight! Betty Logan (talk) 07:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Inflation error
HI, can I ask for your assist on the inflation error from the List of highest-grossing films in Canada and the United States page? it seems to be that time of the year again and I don't really know how to fix it, thank you in advance! DCF94 (talk) 09:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a problem with the inflation template. I have filed an update request at Template talk:Inflation-year. Betty Logan (talk) 11:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Amazing Spider-Man 2 budget
Hey man. Just clarifying to you that on the budget sheet (https://www.filmla.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/2014_FeatureFilm_study_v9_WEB.pdf#page=7) that $200 million figure isn't an overall number, but how much was spent soley on special effects/sound editing (per the section). I had to double check it too but that's what I took it as. Hope this clears it up, don't want to start an edit war. Cheers! TropicAces (talk) 03:20, 27 July 2017 (UTC)tropicAces
 * That is not correct because they have $250 million for The Hobbit in both sections and also $210 million for Transformers in both sections. It is obviously a mistake but it is not clear which figure is the mistake. Betty Logan (talk) 03:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * you're right. Huh, that's odd. Fair to assume that the $200 figure is the mix up since that was Sony's "official number" but everyone has speculated costs between $250-300, but right, can't go off that thought train. Sorry for the mix up, have a good one! TropicAces (talk) 03:25, 27 July 2017 (UTC)tropicAces
 * I think they are probably both at the extreme ends. Deadline says it cost $255 million (see ), so bang in the middle sounds about right to me. Depends what they count as a cost to be fair. If they are trying to recoup money from a tax body they probably push up the budget. Betty Logan (talk) 03:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Pirates 5 cost only $230 milion, no $320 milion. The $320 milion came from Daily Mail, a notorius tabloid that your forum bandish from reliabe source in febbraury 2017. Mago Paperino (talk) 11:47, 3 January 2018 (UTC)