User talk:Betty Logan/Archive 9

Video Game Rating
Hi Betty. I don't understand 'cause I'm weak from English, so I'll ask you. Why are they supposed to be red, not purple?
 * ESRB M
 * CERO D

Why are they supposed to be red, not black?
 * South Korea Game Rating 12 & 15
 * Australia Game Rating MA15

and, why is it supposed to be purple, not red?
 * Australia Game Rating M

and, why are they supposed to be black, not red? 61.109.111.155 (talk) 03:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * BBFC 12 (NOT 12A)
 * IFCO 12 & 15 (NOT 12A & 15A)


 * In simple terms black is a prohibitive rating, the red indicates a restrictive rating and the purple is simply an age recommendation. But if your English is so weak that you are not able to correctly interpret the summaries against the table key then I suggest you refrain from altering the table. Betty Logan (talk) 05:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Then, what's differences between/among them about age restriction or prohibition?
 * ESRB T vs M vs Ao
 * CERO C vs D vs Z
 * South Korea Game Rating 12&15 vs 18
 * Australia Game Rating M vs MA15
 * 12/15 Rating vs 12A/15A Rating

and, what's meaning of white and yellow? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.109.111.155 (talk) 07:52, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The 12 rating is a prohibitive rating in that a 12-year-old can not purchase or rent a movie rated 12. A 12A rating is restrictive in that somebody under that age may is admitted if accompanied by an adult. They carry completely different conditions and are thus appropriately highlighted. If your English is not advanced enough to comprehend the key and the summaries then I am sorry, but there is not much else I can do to help you. Betty Logan (talk) 08:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. 12 vs 12A issue is solved. Left questions are...

What are differences among them about age restriction or prohibition?
 * ESRB eC vs E vs E10 vs T vs M vs Ao
 * CERO A vs B vs C vs D vs Z
 * South Korea Game Rating ALL vs 12 vs 15 vs 18
 * Australia Game Rating G vs PG vs M vs MA15 vs R18

and, what's meaning of white and yellow?

61.109.111.155 (talk) 08:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I can't explain every single rating and color to you. As the key explains, white means there are no restrictions or recommendations while yellow is unrestricted but recommends parental supervision. Lets take the first one for example, the ESRB. E and EC have no restrictions or minimum age recommendations so they are highlighted white; E10 and T carry age recommendations but are not restrictive, so they are purple; M is also an advisory category but is often enforced by retailers, so it is highlighted red in this case; AO is an adults only prohibitive category so is highlighted black. In the case of South Korea, as Game Rating and Administration Committee explains, anyone can play All (which means it is highlighted white), while 12 and 15 are age restrictive conditional on parental superal supervision (therefore red) and 18 is prohibited for those under that age (meaning it is black). This is all very clear from the key and the table, and described in detail in the summaries. As it stands the tables are correct and should only need changing if the ratings themselves change. Betty Logan (talk) 12:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. ESRB Rating/South Korea Game Rating(GRAC) issue is solved. Left two questions are...

What are differences among them about age restriction or prohibition? 61.109.111.155 (talk) 01:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * CERO Rating A vs B vs C vs D vs Z
 * Australia Game Rating G vs PG vs M vs MA15 vs R18


 * For CERO A has no restrictions (white), B & C are advisory (purple), D requires parental consent (red) while Z is age prohibitive (black). For Australia G has no restrictions (white), PG is a parental guidance category with no age limits (yellow), M is advisory (purple), MA15 requires parental consent (red) and R18 is age prohibitive (black). Betty Logan (talk) 08:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer!61.109.111.155 (talk) 08:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I wanna know them also... Are they the same ratings?? (with restriction or prohibiton)
 * CERO A(0+) vs ESRB E(0+)
 * CERO B(12+) vs South Korea Game Rating 12(12+)
 * CERO C(15+) vs South Korea Game Rating 15(15+)
 * CERO D(17+) vs ESRB M(17+)
 * CERO Z(18+) vs ESRB Ao(18+)

CERO B & C are advisory. Then, are South Korea Rating 12 & 15 advisory??

ESRB M is advisory. Then, is CERO D advisory?? 61.109.111.155 (talk) 04:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * This is clear in the articles and is explained there. If you can understand me then you obviously understand English well enough to understand the articles. I suggest you read up on them at Computer Entertainment Rating Organization, Entertainment Software Rating Board and Game Rating and Administration Committee. Betty Logan (talk) 11:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

If it's difficult for you to explain, please answer these 2 question only. You simply can say, "Yes" or "No". 61.109.111.155 (talk) 11:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * CERO B & C are advisory. Then, are South Korea Rating 12 & 15 advisory??
 * ESRB M is advisory. Then, is CERO D advisory??


 * For the last time you can get this information from the tables: white has no restrictions, yellow is parental guidance, purple is advisory, red is restrictive and black is prohibitive, as explained by the key. That is why the table has a color key. If a rating is highlighted purple it is advisory; if it is red then it carries restrictions. This isn't rocket science! Betty Logan (talk) 07:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, but you said "ESRB M is also advisory" in your answer :( I know that. It's de facto restrictive. So it's red. CERO D, South Korea Game Rating 12 & 15 are also red. but are CERO D, South Korea Game Rating 12 & 15 de facto restrictive, or legally restrictive?(I know AU Game Rating MA15 is legally restrictive.) Maybe this is the final question! I wanna know!61.109.111.155 (talk) 07:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

IP, it might be better if you asked your questions at the Teahouse. Thank you. -- ‖ Ebyabe talk - Health and Welfare  ‖ 07:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Dispute resolution noticeboard in relation to consensus dispute on Non-notable awards
I've filed a new Dispute resolution noticeboard to address the current consensus dispute on Non-notable awards in the main article of Beauty and the Beast that will rule out a resolution that awards belonging to film critic organizations with direct-linked articles to Wikipedia should be considered as notable awards. You're invited in this resolution to state your reasons. Saiph121 (talk) 05:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Re-release
I may have been grouchy about your rv, or your comments, when I shouldn't have been. So, I'm happy to start over if you are. As for a joint project, as I said, I'm really, really not interested in taking on a thoroughgoing revision of the film pages. I have plenty enough to do now. So, if you're aware of the issue, & if you've got the sources & the time (because you clearly understand this better than me), I'll leave off any further "fixes" of the charts & hope you can manage to clear it all up. IMO, the language issue, for a start, needs addressing, because the boxoffice as listed frequently conflicts with perception: "Jaws" was called "the first $100 million movie"; seeing "The Graduate" & "The Sound of Music" described the same, a decade earlier, is begging for a "correction". I also begin to think the online sources should be avoided entirely, convenient as they are (at least until Variety gets all its back issues up...); as I've said, "lifetime", meaning "one year", & "lifetime" meaning "including several re-releases", at the same source is a recipe for confusion. And not only mine. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura  20:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Jaws was not the first $100 million grosser, it was definitely The Sound of Music. The American Film Institute confirm it here. Jaws was in fact the first film to cross $100 million in—you've guessed—gross rentals, according to Guinness World Records. Betty Logan (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Jenny Agutter
Please don't bully other wiki editors as you did regarding the article concerning actress Jenny Agutter or you may be blocked from editing. The text was clear that she "went on to" after her child acting career, so your sarcastic comment was inappropriate and has been reversed. Please be respectful of other editors and refrain from posting demanding statements in articles that have no validity. Wikipedia is a community that allows anyone to freely edit articles and no article should carry any demands or threats made by you or any other editor.136.179.21.77 (talk) 20:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * First of all I haven't bullied you nor have I ever made any threats on Wikipedia, so please don't misrepresent my actions. If you are not happy with how the lead is worded I suggest you stop edit-warring and join the discussion at Talk:Jenny_Agutter. Betty Logan (talk) 20:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Betty Logan has never bullied any "contributor". I suggest you desist in making silly and inaccurate remarks about a well respected editor. It is a pity you have to hide behind a IP, rather than creating a registered account. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced Change
59.14.190.176 user also changed color scheme with Japanese Wikipedia source only. Japanese Wikipedia cannot be source. Please alter them correctly.211.203.35.206 (talk) 23:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. I have corrected the table. Betty Logan (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Leave comments
If you can, please leave detailed comments to 59.14.190.176's talk page. I hope that unsourced changing doesn't happen.211.203.35.206 (talk) 09:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The IP address has only got four edits to his name so could be dynamic, in which case it isn't much use contacting the editor on their talk page. If the IP address resumes the same type of edits then we can assume it is static and raise the issue then. Betty Logan (talk) 18:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jenny Agutter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marvel ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Jenny_Agutter check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Jenny_Agutter?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Centenary Challenge
Hi Betty, just gathering your thoughts on this one. I've added this event to Stephen Hendry's list of non-ranking titles (and conversely a runner-up to Steve Davis' list) but I'm beginning to doubt myself. I used the Cuesport book source which I recall you mentioning before. Do you think this title (if it even was a title) should be included? I've read in several places Hendry's pro title count is listed as 74 (including this pushes it up to 75). Andygray110 (talk) 03:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't put too much stock in what the total is supposed to be. I honestly think that a lot of these sources that report what the total is just look these things up on Wikipedia, so they see the number 74 and report it. This is why it is important that we make sure our stats are correct, because we don't want to propagate misinformation. If we have a record of the event and a reliable source we should document it. On another note I corrected the name of the author i.e. it was Eric Hayton, not Eric Layton who compiled The CueSport Book of Pro Snooker. You keep popping up on my watchlist, you've done tons of good edits recently—put the rest of us to shame! Betty Logan (talk) 05:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Cheers Betty! Always a team effort though :) I noticed that as well I had been mis-spelling his name, think I made that mistake on quite a few pages! I'll try and correct them when I get spare time. Andygray110 (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi i personally don't think this is a professional title it was a series of 3 challenge matches as far as i know. you can look them up on Youtube, at the end of the match no totals were added up to announce Hendry had won 19–11 over a series of 3 events. Regards 31.200.130.86 (talk) 20:03, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Andy i asked you on your talkpage if the Cuesport book just listed the 3 stand alone events or did Hayton list a 19–11 result please ?. Do you know Betty by the way ? Regards 31.200.130.86 (talk) 20:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Motion Picture Association of America film rating system and WP:COATRACK
Hey. I’m not convinced of the value of the edit you have made, and feel it has removed something of value to the topic. WP:COATRACK isn’t policy, but an essay (albeit a good one), and relates more to having an article on a side topic buried in the body of another article. The list of movies that were there (and for the most part still are) provide useful examples of movies that push the MPAA ratings to the limit. The Martian (film) is a valuable addition due to it being a highly well known and regarded film, and a good example of the two uses of “fuck” as a non-sexual curse in a film. The cited article (here) goes through this in specific detail. I’d rather not revert the edits, but I’d like you to reconsider the inclusion of this point, and accompanying citation. user:PuppyOnTheRadio 21:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you happy for me to undo your edit? user:PuppyOnTheRadio 00:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I hadn't noticed you had left a message here. If you wish to revert then that is your prerogative as a editor. If, on the other hand, you would like to discuss the changes then I prefer to discuss article content on the article talk page so that other editors who have it on their watchlist can join the discussion if they have any views on the matter. Betty Logan (talk) 10:59, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

FYI
Hello BL. I saw Dawson City: Frozen Time last night. It is a fascinating film. The balance between straight documentary and art film is like nothing I've seen. While I don't expect anyone to like it as much as I do it is worth seeing for anyone with an interest in film history - and several other histories for that matter :-) Best regards. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 20:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I have to be honest, I have never even heard of it, but it certainly sounds intriguing. Somehow I doubt it will be playing at my local fleapit though. I have a notepad where I record the names of films that I want to watch so I will note it down and keep my eyes open. Betty Logan (talk) 13:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll keep my fingers crossed that you can find it somewhere BL. Well metaphorically anyway as it is harder to type with them actually crossed :-) Cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 15:55, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

UK PG
Does UK PG recommend parental supervision for children under 8, or for children 8 and over?211.203.35.206 (talk) 13:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I have already addressed this question on the article talk page. Asking it repeatedly won't get a different answer. Betty Logan (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't find that BBFC PG is suitable for ages 8 and over, even in official-site!223.62.11.22 (talk) 02:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You have to click on the individual ratings to get the descriptions. Betty Logan (talk) 03:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

White Savior Narrative
Half Nelson isn't properly sourced, and this article supports my summary of the film. https://medium.com/cinenation-show/the-power-of-second-chances-in-half-nelson-74587b9602ee — Preceding unsigned comment added by Film Energy (talk • contribs) 17:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It looks properly sourced to me; it has a full academic reference. You have been reverted a few times by different editors at that article so I recommend that you stop reverting and start a discussion on the talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 23:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Do you know
Hello BL. Do you know about the website that is mentioned as being on the blacklist in this article Michaela Tabb. It is not a tag that I have seen before. As snooker is an area of interest for you I though I would ask. If you don't know about it no worries. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 19:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, thanks Marnette. I actually pushed for it to be blacklisted because this blog had proliferated on many of the snooker bios and we should be using blogs on articles about living people. Betty Logan (talk) 01:36, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for educating me about this. I am wondering if the link should be removed per the instructions in the template or is it left there as an alert to readers/editors. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 01:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I have removed the link at the article. The tag will be removed over the next couple of days when the bot processes it. Betty Logan (talk) 01:43, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Good deal. I'm a couple weeks away from 13 years on the 'pedia and still finding new things to learn :-) Enjoy the rest of your week. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 01:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Can you check the result of the Centenary Challenge in the cuesports book ?.
Hi can you check the above i want to verify it's inclusion. I think it was three challenge matches and do not think it should be included why are they added together ?. Can you view it since you have the book please ?. 92.251.224.222 (talk) 03:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The Centenary Challenge was broken into three legs: Hendry won the first two 6–4 and 8–2 and the final leg was drawn 5–5. It is not clear if the result of the contest was determined by match result (i.e. 2 wins & 1 draw) or by aggregate. Usually though when sporting contests are played over several legs the result is determined by aggregate. I don't think it really matters here because Hendry easily won regardless of how the result was determined. Perhaps a note could be added to clarify the scores over each leg? I think it should probably be included because the CueSport Book of Pro snooker doesn't seem to list other challenge matches of that era, so the inclusion of the match is anomalous in that regard. It was also played over the course of a year (rather than an evening or a week) which I think probably qualifies it as an event. Betty Logan (talk) 11:25, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

But i disagree does it actually say Hendry won 19–11. No it does not. These matches are on Youtube you can clearly watch them no result is given as 19–11. They are played as 3 stand alone events. Money went in and out of the players pockets after every pot. In all fairness i do not think this is a Snooker event. Someone has read that page and just added the 3 legs together to total 19–11, who said that was the right thing to do ?. Can we clarify this somehow please ?. I edit and research lots of events and i have to question about whether this should be added. Regards 92.251.152.23 (talk) 01:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't wish to speak for Betty here, but you have already asked this question in many different ways here and on my talk page which I have asked you several times to stop posting on. Rather than persisting with disruptive edits such as and, it would be wiser to respect the point of view of others and post on WikiProject Snooker Talk to discuss these topics instead of removing sourced information which others have taken the time to contribute, and trying to push others to conform to your (unsourced) opinions. Andygray110 (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Well Andy don't speak for Betty then. You two know each other i'm the outsider i get it. It's a talkpage it's good to talk. Im editing events only trying to help like you are ok ?, any questions i have are legitimate ones trying to help not offend or criticize anyone ok 178.167.144.191 (talk) 02:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * No one is an outsider here. Betty and I do not "know each other", we simply collaborate which is what this encyclopedia is built on and ultimately the only way it can work. I get you're trying to help, and the best way of trying to help is to go to the Project with these queries. Trust me. That way, everyone is free to answer if they wish and the topic will be resolved in a way everyone agrees with. Good luck. Andygray110 (talk) 02:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I am trying to help it feels like i'm the outsider. I'm just questioning the legitimacy of any event to reach the right result like anyone not criticzing your work by any means, you are doing lots on here i know well and it's appreciated. Good luck 178.167.144.191 (talk) 02:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Andygray110 and I have no off-Wiki contact. All our communications are public and here on Wikipedia. I think what you are experiencing maybe is a lack of rapport due to not having an account i.e. Andy and I are familiar with each other now which feeds into our discussions. Personally I don't why some editors are so against having an acounts, because if you live in an undemocratic regime like Russia or North Korea then surely an IP number is easier for a government to trace? Anyway, the truth is I know very little about this event. All I know is what is there is in the Hayton book. That said it is very well researched and he included these matches for a reason. I do think it is an assumption on out part to treat the result as an aggregate (the book simply lists three different scores), but I think the entry should be retained as an event because the Hayton book documents tournaments, qualifiers and play-offs. It doesn't document challenge matches, except when they constitute an event. For example, it lists the World Championship matches from the 1960s even though they were played within a "challenge" format, and we wouldn't challenge the inclusion of those results. Betty Logan (talk) 08:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the Youtube videos it seems to talk about the matches being decided by money won i never heard of that have you ?, regards 92.251.197.248 (talk) 05:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Color scheme for achromatopsia
Currently, Motion picture content rating system, Television content rating system, Video game content rating system, Mobile software content rating system, International Age Rating Coalition article uses 5 colors: white, yellow, purple, red, black. But achromatopsia people see purple like #343434, and they see red like #4c4c4c. They can confuse them. Please change color purple to blue. They see blue like #1d1d1d. It doesn't confuse with red. Thank you.211.203.35.206 (talk) 06:35, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Personally I don't have a problem with this, but can you propose it at Talk:Motion picture content rating system because my talk page isn't the correct place to propose a major change. Betty Logan (talk) 06:41, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit request
In Talk:Motion_picture_content_rating_system, another color-blind user(110) agreed my suggestion. Please edit to my request. I do not wanna bother you.211.203.35.206 (talk) 09:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * We both know that "other" user is you so please stop wasting my time. Betty Logan (talk) 09:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Then, what should I do?? By the way, Motion picture rating system article is semi-protected, so I can't edit.211.203.35.206 (talk) 09:50, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You should perhaps take a break from Wikipedia or edit a different area of it. The article is protected because I requested it, and if you keep disrupting the other ratings articles I will obtain protection for them too. Betty Logan (talk) 09:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Armageddon
I assume you know about the situation with the dispute with Armageddon. Users Gareth Griffith-Jones, TheOldJacobite and Beyond My Ken are the problem. Gareth Griffith-Jones and TheOldJacobite have kept removing most of the actors off the infobox, despite those actors are listed in the bulletin box in the theatrical poster, the idea that came from Beyond My Ken and they've been hostile towards the users who oppose those ideas, reverting their non-vandalizing edits and TheOldJacobite keeps on removing the warnings posted by other users in his talk page. Their actions are primarily the reason Armageddon is under full protection due to the dispute and edit warrings. I gonna tell you something needs to be resolved or it might happen again. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:06, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Yellow is not necessary
See Talk:Television_content_rating_system. Yellow can be altered as black and red, so we don't have to possess yellow highlighting.211.203.35.206 (talk) 13:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yellow is not the same as a black & red combo because they indicate age suitability with a conditional restriction. For example, it would not really work for Australia's parental guidance ratings which doesn't have a conditional age component. It's fine as it is: we have a five colors available so we may as well use them. Betty Logan (talk) 13:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Currently, yellow is used for both unrestricted rating and restricted rating, such as revision. (e.g. Taiwan's case) It can make confusion. For AU etc., PG can be allocated as white (no restriction). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.203.35.206 (talk) 13:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC) If you need "Parental supervision recommended but unrestricted" rating, these color schemes will help you. 211.203.35.206 (talk) 13:53, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * White – Unrestricted: Suitable for all ages / Suitable for all ages but parental supervision is recommended. / Aimed at young audiences / Exempt / Not rated.
 * Yellow – Advisory: Not recommended for a younger audience but not restricted.
 * Red – Restrictive: Instructs that people under the age must not see it without parental supervision.
 * Black – Prohibitive: Instructs that people under the age must not see it. / Restricted to a specific audience / Banned.


 * If we only had four colors available I would advocate that approach, but since we have five it is completely unnecessary to do this. This is an asnwer looking for a question. Betty Logan (talk) 14:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If you want to maintain five colors, maybe this proposal will help you.

Category:Articles_with_images_not_understandable_by_color_blind_users suggests white, yellow, red, black, blue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.7.54.147 (talk) 07:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * White – Unrestricted: Suitable for all ages / Suitable for all ages but parental supervision is recommended. / Aimed at young audiences / Exempt / Not rated.
 * Yellow – Advisory: Not recommended for a younger audience but not restricted.
 * Red – Restrictive: Instructs that people under the age must not see it without parental supervision.
 * Black – Prohibitive: Instructs that people under the age must not see it.
 * Blue – Prohibitive: Restricted to a specific audience / Banned.


 * There was an RFC and the consensus is for the existing scheme. If you want to change it you will have to start an RFC and gain a consensus. Betty Logan (talk) 16:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Pirates 4 and 5 Budget
Plaese change the numbers of Pirates 4 and Pirates 5. Pirates 4 cost between $180-250 milion and not $378 milion. Pirates 5 cost only $230 milion and not $320 milion. You are Fake News Wikipedia. Paperino Mago (talk) 15:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Undo my edit
I added this like restricted highlighting, but it seems unnecessary. This is what I added. Please undo if you can.(Television content rating system)211.203.35.206 (talk) 07:31, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Re: ESRB
The exact same section you dispute begins with this cited statement:

"The ESRB rating system is primarily enforced on a self-regulatory basis by the video game and retail industries; in markets where it is used, retailers typically enforce the "Mature" rating using photo identification, and refuse to stock video games that have not been rated by the organization, or are rated 'Adults Only'."

Additionally, Canada is, obviously, not subject to the Constitution of the United States.

ViperSnake151  Talk  03:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we are at crosswires. I would rather discuss article content at the article so I have outlined my position at Talk:Entertainment_Software_Rating_Board. The wording just needs to be tweaked IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 04:00, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Octopussy
Octopussy, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 23:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Jamie Clarke
Betty can you remove Rhys from the above players wiki page please ?. WS lists him as Jamie Clarke as does the EBSA as he has won their playoffs to turn professional. his twitter account lists him as Jamie Clarke and Hermund from Snooker.org contacted Jamie himself and was told that he wants to be known as Jamie Clarke. Snooker.org are removing Rhys from their records. i hope you can help ?. regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.200.183.141 (talk) 13:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not possible to do that because there is more than one Jamie Clarke on Wikipedia. See the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Snooker Betty Logan (talk) 13:06, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

of course its possible there are plenty of Mark King's also. we just need a Jamie Clarke snooker player. why cant we remove the rhys like we did in the sunny akani page ?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.200.183.141 (talk) 15:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There is only one Sunny Akani so he can have the page. However, Jamie Clarke is used as an index for all the Jamie Clarke articles on Wikipedia, and there is no evidence the snooker player is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Betty Logan (talk) 15:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

can we change it from Jamie Rhys Clarke to Jamie Clarke (snooker player) then it would be much better ?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.189.174 (talk) 16:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That is for the snooker project to decide, not me. Betty Logan (talk) 16:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Open Tour 2002/2003
Hi Betty I looked this up and World Snooker was in charge of the Open Tour until the end of the 2002/2003 season. You said it was the EASB that ran it. Open Tour was not classed as a pro-am it was treated like the modern day PTC'S were except they were non ranking events. I told you snooker historian counts these as non ranking events. Can we contact World Snooker to clarify this issue please ?. Regards 178.167.223.245 (talk) 23:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * All snooker tournaments that are not ranking events count as non-ranking events. That includes professional invitationals, pro-ams and amateur events, so being a non-ranking event does not necessarly indicate the event was run by the WPBSA. "The Cuesport of Professional Snooker" says that the EASB administered the tour in 2002/03, so if you have a reliably published source that says otherwise then please provide it here so it can be reviewed. Betty Logan (talk) 23:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

1982 in film
Hi, I find very confusing about this article [here] This is regard to an edit made by User:Maestro2016 on this [post] He added another box for "International market" and posted figures for three countries - India, Soviet Union, United Kingdom. For Indian movie Disco Dancer, he mentioned domestic grossing figures from its origin country + the grossing figures this movie made in Soviet Union according to his unofficial [calculations] which he made by himself. For Soviet Union movie Sportloto-82, he mentioned its country’s only domestic figure and UK film Gandhi-1982 he mentioned both Domestic and International figure. Why is that figures for North American movies in the 1st table are domestic figures [see] and for the International table, the figures for 3 countries are jumbled up both with both domestic and foreign grossing figures made outside of its country of origin. If you take for example, Jurassic park ‘s domestic figure is $359,197,037 but it made $357,800,000 outside North America with total worldwide gross of $792,910,554. This is more box office gross than the films mentioned in International table. Then why not mention this movie in International table? I feel only domestic figures should be mentioned for them just like North American table. Similar editing was made here [1973],[1967], [1966] I hope you look into this matter. --Chintu89 (talk) 11:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It doesn't make any sense at all. If the worldwide figures are not known then only the domestic figures should be used. Betty Logan (talk) 17:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks
For comments at ANI. Sometimes I'm my own worst enemy, but what is done is done. Appreciate you taking a few moments out of your editing time for me. Thanks again!  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 06:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it Lugnuts. We all say and do dumb things from time to time and I have seen enough of you in action to know that the comments that were presented at the discussion are not wholly representative of your character. The problem with edit summaries is that we cannot go back and delete/strike them once we have cooled down a bit and reconsidered. Betty Logan (talk) 08:10, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Centuries
Trump and M. Williams now (after World Championship) have 533 and 439 centuries, respectively. That is what I saw (statistics shown on screen) and heard (from the mouth of commentators) during broadcast on Eurosport, at least. If they are mistaken, then I am mistaken too. – KWiki (talk) 09:59, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That's cool Kwiki. The problem though is that the centruy counts don't match up to the (outdated) sources. All you need to do is update the reference to something like  so editors & readers know you have got them from somewhere legit. Betty Logan (talk) 13:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

List of highest grossing film in United Kingdom
I edit that page after reading this article of The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/may/15/avengers-infinity-war-overtakes-dark-knight-at-box-office-is-it-uk-biggest-superhero-film ਬੱਬੂ ਬਰਾੜ (talk) 10:55, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I have reinstated it to the list, but if you had added the source to the article in the first place I never would have reverted! Betty Logan (talk) 11:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 5
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Adults Only, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page R18 ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Adults_Only check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Adults_Only?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism on the Seniors World Championship site
Hi Betty. There is a Vandal on the world Seniors site. He keeps making the same edit from multiple ips and it is the only edit made on these ips which tells me enough. How can we stop this please ?. Regards 178.167.134.252 (talk) 12:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You can place a request for "semi-protection" at Requests for page protection if a page is being vandalised by an IP hopper. There is no point blocking the IP numbers because they will just get another. Betty Logan (talk) 14:44, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Betty if you edit it or leave a note on the page it would be better. This person seems to think the Seniors Tour is associated with the main tour and and keeps changing it. I have pointed out the Seniors Tour is a tour in its own right like in golf but he won't listen can you leave an edit please ?. Regards 178.167.134.252 (talk) 20:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

He keeps saying main tour players are ineligible and keeps changing it. Does he not realise the Seniors is a tour in its own right ?. This is very frustrating. Can you put a semi lock and explain this to the person please ?. Regards 178.167.134.252 (talk) 20:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC) So, only amateur (non-tour) players were eligible to play since 2018. "Non-ranking events" is a terminology used for events with pro players (otherwise, Q-School, IBSF championships are the non-ranking events also). 46.211.133.186 (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "Open to any player not currently on tour aged over 40" (from pdf-file in 2017 article);
 * "This tournament is only open to Amateur players not currently in the 128" (from pdf-file in 2018 article);

I pointed this out on another talk page. The World Seniors Tour is a tour in its own right it is not linked to the main tour. The legends 6 to 8 of them play the qualifiers in the tournament proper after they qualify. You seem to think this has something to do with the main tour it does not. It is like the senior tour in golf. Editors and moderators on here class them as non-ranking wins on the Seniors Tour 178.167.134.252 (talk) 22:30, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * They were "non-ranking" until 2016 only when they were organized by World Snooker and eligible for the main tour pro-players. Since 2017, seniors events were organized by Snooker Legends, not World Snooker even, and open for the amateur players only, per cited references. 46.211.110.147 (talk) 22:31, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

The World Seniors Tour only started last season you are having a real problem understanding that. 4 events Jimmy White and Ken Doherty they are main tour players they played in the final of one of the Seniors events. The Seniors Tour was created by Jason Francis of Snooker Legends you are missing the point. It had nothing to do with the WPBSA Buthe they are joining forces with himy this season OK? . 178.167.134.252 (talk) 22:44, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a pity for you, but Mark Davis, Jimmy White and Ken Doherty didn't play in 2017 and 2018 because they were not eligible for that year's editions, as it was exclusively for non-tour players, per sources. "Ranking" events are played with Top-128 pro-players (and included into the world ranking), and all "non-ranking" events (Masters, Champions League, Champions of Champions, Hong Kong, Haining) are played for same Top-128 pro-players (with the addition of some wild cards). 46.211.121.242 (talk) 22:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

But you are not listening the World Seniors Tour was set up since then what are you talking about ? 178.167.134.252 (talk) 23:00, 10 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I suggest you start a discussion at the World Seniors article and then notify the Snooker Project at WT:SNOOKER. Having looked at the page I disagree that the editor is vandalising the article; however he is breaking the WP:NOCONSENSUS policy so this needs to be resolved through discussion. Basically one of you needs to start a discussion and then other editors can contribute to it. Betty Logan (talk) 22:50, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Betty we all discussed this on the Snooker talk pages that World Seniors Tour events should be non-ranking events. You were happy with that am I right ?. I checked it today ? 178.167.134.252 (talk) 22:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * They should be "non-ranking" until 2016 (when organized by WPBSA with the participation of some pro-players). But since 2017 this events are for amateurs only. 46.211.121.242 (talk) 23:00, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

The only reason Jimmy White and Ken Doherty did not enter into the Championship is because they were already qualifying through the main tour. You are not getting away from the fact you think it's tied to the main tour. What will your answer be when the WPBSA runs it next year. 178.167.134.252 (talk) 23:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Plus it's called the World Seniors Championship on the World Seniors Tour not the amateur tour.178.167.134.252 (talk) 23:07, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Jimmy White and Ken Doherty were not eligible to play in the seniors WCh in 2017 and 2018 because they were available for amateurs only. Who knows what will be in the future. Read WP:CBALL first. 46.211.121.242 (talk) 23:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)


 * It is good you guys are talking but will your PLEASE take the discussion to Talk:World Seniors Championship. You need other editors to weigh in and they can't do that on my talk page! Betty Logan (talk) 23:15, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Betty can you just tell me if you view the Seniors Snooker tour as non ranking events wins please ?. Regards 178.167.134.252 (talk) 23:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Betty can you just tell us if you view the World Seniors Championships in 2017 and 2018 as amateur events? 46.211.121.242 (talk) 23:28, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

They were Senior Tour events which were created by Jason Francis in 2017 with other events so why all of a sudden would these two be amateur and the others senior non-ranking titles makes no sense ?. Regards 178.167.134.252 (talk) 23:32, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * First, there were no any Senior Tour during the 2017 WSC. Second, both regulations for the tournaments clearly says: "This tournament is only open to Amateur players not currently in the 128..." 46.211.24.228 (talk) 23:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I would describe them as Pro-Am since Snooker Legends took over. The events were open to anyone over the age of 40, include amateurs. Also, I would like to point out that not being on tour doesn't necessarily make you an amateur. If you still have WPBSA membership but are not on the tour you are still technically a professional player. For example, Tony Knowles was unable to play in amateur events because he refused to resign his WPBSA membership. On the other hand Darren Morgan resigned his WPBSA membership and was therefore allowed to play in amateur events. Unless the likes of Stephen Hendry and Dennis Taylor have started playing in amateur events then there is no evidence they have reverted to amateur status so I believe it is wrong to describe the World Seniors as an "amateur" event. Betty Logan (talk) 23:37, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

So will we leave them as non-ranking as they were in previous years? . It was agreed at the start including by yourself that all Seniors events were non ranking events wins. You can view the talkpage ?. Regards 178.167.134.252 (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Only one question else. How they were "pro-am", if "this tournament is only open to amateur players", per regulations ? 46.211.24.228 (talk) 23:45, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Entry and qualification was only open to amateurs, but that doesn't mean only amateurs played in it. According to this the "all-new World Seniors Tour will give amateur snooker players aged 40+ the chance to battle it out with the likes of Stephen Hendry, Jimmy White and Dennis Taylor." That is kind of ambiguous, because players like Hendry and Thorburn were given automatic entry, and I don't see any evidence of them playing in other events carrying amateur status. Betty Logan (talk) 23:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

They are not pro-am either. Do you understand why Francis put the word amateur in he wanted people to play legends on a Seniors Tour for senior players can you not get that. You are thrown by that one line in all of this 178.167.134.252 (talk) 23:49, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know what he want and you want. I don't want to know it even. I read the regulation of the tournament. Also I can see the standings with only amateur (non-pro) players included. If the rules says amateur tournament then it is amateur. Othervise, it's a your WP:OR (original research). 46.211.24.228 (talk) 23:56, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Even Betty pointed out amateur players can play the legends in Special Senior Tour events they are not amateur and only you thinks they are. 178.167.134.252 (talk) 00:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Betty why throw pro-am out to really complicated things this was consented to including yourself that it was to be called non ranking instead of creating another section to add these finals ? 178.167.134.252 (talk) 23:55, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * These tournaments are either pro-ams or invitationals with an amateur leg, or they are full amateur events (if you can prove to me that Stephen Hendry is now officially recognised an amateur by his NGB). "Non-ranking" status is basically an WPBSA concept and this isn't a WPBSA event anymore. Betty Logan (talk) 00:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Invitationals I say Betty the General Cup was a non ranking events. The WPBSA are running this next year with Snooker Legends and the will be non-ranking ranking invitational events. Will I put in non ranking events (Amateur legs). ? 178.167.134.252 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Wrong idea also. Snooker Legends have no any "ranking events", so they have no any "non-ranking events". Their WCh are eligible for non-tour (amateur) players only, per regulations. 46.211.112.72 (talk) 00:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

New Page Patrol?
Hi Betty Logan,

I've recently been looking for editors to invite to join New Page Patrol, and from your editing history, I think you would be a good candidate. Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; we could use some additional help from an experienced user like yourself.

Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. If you choose to apply, you can drop an application over at WP:PERM/NPR.

Cheers, and hope to see you around, —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  21:21, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

re: 1925 in Film (revision)
If you use the "accessdate=" parameter, it is REQUIRED that you have a URL filled in. If not, the article will show up in an error report which is where it came to my attention. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pages_using_citations_with_accessdate_and_no_URL As best I know, the problem can be remedied (in this case) by either changing (page= to url=), or removing the date from the "accessdate=" parameter. Gene Wilson (talk) 22:38, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for letting me know. I have removed the access date. I still think it is better to just link the page number because most of the book isn't actually available online i.e. it's just a Google page preview. Betty Logan (talk) 23:04, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Swedish every on Motion picture content rating system
I know this is your personal talk page and not the talk page for Motion picture content rating system. But you seem to be the most active there, plus that you seem to be more knowledgeable about the structure, so I wanted to contact you directly.

I have tried understanding how the table is supposed to work, but I can't really understand how it works. Swedish rating 15 is black for 11–14 and red for 15–21, which I understood as black messaging there are conditions that are applied whilst red isn't. But looking at Turkey, this isn't the case. Here the 15+ and 15A are both 15–21. So following how it is on Turkey, Swedish should be Btl 0–6, 7 (red) 7–10, 11 (red) 11–14, 15 (red) 15–21. – But if you do want to add the information of when a rating first is allowed even accompanied by an adult, I still think my version does the job. Because currently, why isn't there a black 7 from 0–6? Why is there a red 11 from 15–21 when no other rating is stretching beyond the next rating? The same is done on Norway where the red 12 is going beyond 15, but ends at 18. On Denmark, the purple 7 goes beyond 11 and 15, where 11 could have been two rows like the Norwegian 18. I also don't understand the alternating colours, the chess pattern, that is used on Norway and Sweden. Liggliluff (talk) 02:06, 17 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Let's take the United States as an example: G and PG have no age limitations so they start at 0; PG-13 carries an age recommendation so the the purple bar for PG-13 starts at 13; the R rating has a conditional restriction for audiences under 17 (i.e. audiences under 17 have to be accompanied by an adult) so the red bar starts at 17, while NC-17 prohibits audiences under the age of 18, so the black bar starts at 18 i.e. the bar starts at the age upon which the rating is based.


 * In the case of Sweden's "7" rating, children under the age of 7 have to be accompanied by an adult, so this is represented by a red bar starting at 7 (just like the US R rating is represented by a red bar starting at 17). By changing it to a black bar starting at age 0 you are essentially telling us that children that have not been born are not admitted (note how no other black bars start at age 0)


 * In some cases, the ratings have more than one condition attached. For example, in Sweden the 11 rating prohibits admission under 7, and also requires that children under 11 are accompanied. Because the rating has two conditions it is represented by two colors: a black bar starting at 7 (meaning that children under 7 are not admitted) and a red bar from 11 (meaning that children under 11 should be accompanied). These two conditions are applied in tandem. The problem with your alteration is that you split the 11 rating over two rows making it look like two separate ratings, which makes it more confusing than it already is. Since it is a single rating with two conditions it should be kept to a single row. In Turkey's case, 7+ and 7A are actually two different ratings, not a single rating with two conditions.


 * I concede it's not a great visualisation technique but it's the best we can do to represent ratings that have two conditions attached. To try and limit confusion these types of ratings also have a hoverbox explanation, so if you move your mouse over "11" in the Sweden entry it will tell you how the rating works. Due to the limitations of the Wikipedia software I can't see any other way to render the information in a bar chart, but perhaps we can make this clearer in the key at the top. Betty Logan (talk) 02:23, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

The Birth of a Nation poster
Would you say a consensus has already been established regarding the poster for The Birth of a Nation yet, so we can change it back? 24.18.128.102 (talk) 01:36, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It's customary to give these things a few days. It looks like the impartial editors are supporting your position though. If there hasn't been a significant third-party objection by the end of tomorrow I'd say it would be ok to change it then. Betty Logan (talk) 12:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Infinity War Genre Problem
Okay but you gotta change that for its sequel.Shayaan Raza (talk) 15:42, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

FYI
Just wondering if you were aware of this...? - the WOLF  child  23:01, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * These pages are being discussed at Talk:List of box office bombs (2000s). I should warn you though, it's like talking to a brick wall. Betty Logan (talk) 23:10, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean... it just kind of goes on and on, with no decision in sight. I started a straw poll to try and get things moving. Feel free to add your !vote. Your opinion carries a lot of weight in this subject area. Cheers - the WOLF  child  01:50, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:20, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Should there be Wikipedia articles devoted to movies that bombed at the box office?
The simple answer if if people will visit the page, there should be a page. Purist level two would be to say if enough people visit the page to make the crowdsourcing effect accurate, there should be a page. After all, it takes a certain number of eyeballs to evolve away bad edits. The other way to see it is how influential the topic/movie was. But it’s hard to argue that anything with a wide release, a twenty million dollar budget, and three hundred people involved in making it isn’t influential enough to allow a volunteer to write a paragraph about it. All major motion pictures are part of the zeitgeist.

If it doesn’t make its money back at the box office it is a bomb. There are films that were box office stinkers but were money makers in secondary markets of home video and games for various and sundry reasons. BornonJune8 (talk) 12:00, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * My talk page is not the place to challenge the deletion of an article, and editing an archived discussion won't get you anywhere either. If you think the decision was flawed in some way you should either discuss this with the closer or ask for the decision to be reviewed at WP:DELREVIEW. Betty Logan (talk) 00:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:19, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Boxoffice politcs
I'm not going to argue it. I found a source that contradicted what was posted & used it. If you've got better sourcing, or better info, I'll happily let you use it. I'd just like for there to be some agreement on what is & isn't the "box office" of a film for a year, or ever, because nobody seems to have a damn clue. I certainly don't anymore. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura  22:43, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

TCM
Hi Betty. I did some digging, and found this thread, which lead me to this. Should work now!  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 17:13, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Lugnuts, that works for me. I have proposed it as a fix at the TfD. Betty Logan (talk) 17:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Difference
Mind if telling me what difference between age recommendation (e.g. PG-13 in US), age half-prohibition (e.g. R in US) and age prohibition (e.g. NC-17 in US)?Zenkaino lovelive (talk) 01:16, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * PG-13 is an age recommendation, R is a conditional age restriction, and NC-17 is age prohibitive. Betty Logan (talk) 01:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I asked about functionality. In other words, how they are practically applied differently.Zenkaino lovelive (talk) 02:08, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well it depends on the medium (for example, TV may require a password or the broadcast may just include a warning), but for theaters PG-13 is basically unrestricted in functional terms (although some theaters have their own policies). For R you will need to be accompanied by an adult to be admitted to an R-rated film if you are under 17. You won't be admitted to an NC-17 at all if you are under 18. Theater chains may have strict policies like ID cards, others might be more relaxed about enforcing the ratings (theaters are not obliged to enforce them because the MPAA is a voluntary code). Betty Logan (talk) 02:21, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Mind if telling me if all restricted ratings are all-okay for older audiences? For example, I wonder if all 12A-rated (UK) films are all-okay for 12+ or if all 15-rated (UK) films are all-okay for 15+.Zenkaino lovelive (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Metropolis (1927 film)
Thanks for your revert on my change of poster size -- not being sarcastic, it gave me a clue that someone my thumbnail setting had gooten changed from the standard 220 down to 150, which explains a lot of what I was seeing. Without your edit summary, I probably wouldn;t have realized. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't quite understand the explanation BMK, but I am pleased it is sorted out. Betty Logan (talk) 21:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Source is confusing
Source and source  is confusing. says "M" is set at 16 but says "M" is set at 10. Therefore, what is followed?Zenkaino lovelive (talk) 09:37, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * None of this is confusing because it has already been explained to you at Talk:Video_game_content_rating_system. But here is a final summary:
 * is the official label set by the film censor which gives an age recommendation of 16.
 * is a blog and does not prescribe an age. It simply makes an observation that a lot of literature popular with children over 10 gets made into films rated "M". That does not meanall M rated films are suitable for 10-year-olds. Furthermore, the blog makes it clear that the author's "views do not represent those of the Chief Censor or of the Classification Office."
 * and are both wikis and are therefore not reliable sources per WP:USERG. The reason they state the age of 10 is because you altered them a few hours ago:  and  (which is a classic example of why we don't allow other wikis as sources!).
 * Now will you please stop pushing this issue. The New Zealand classification board is more than capable of defining its own ratings, and on the label they prescribe an age of 16. If you continue attempting to alter the age without obtaining a consensus I will have no choice but to report the behavior as disruptive activity. Betty Logan (talk) 09:48, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Interstellar, sexism in character names
In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Question_about_name_usage_over_at_Interstellar_(film) you state that you sympathize with the issue of potential sexism in calling all adult female scientists (Murph Cooper and Amelia Brand) just by their first name ("Murph" and "Amelia"), while in the same context calling all their male counterparts by their last name. You stated "we shouldn't obfuscate plot details to correct the inherent sexist bias of the subject". I agree it would be obfuscating to call "Amelia Brand" just "Brand" (as the credits do), but I consider using "Murph Cooper" and "Amelia Brand" (the proposal under discussion) both a necessary disambiguation as well as respectful. --Vigilius (talk) 14:03, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I haven't sympathized with calling all adult scientists by their first name, I have sympathized with one instance of it because it resolves potential confusion arising from two charcaters sharing a name. If the Amelia Brand character were male my answer would have been the same. Betty Logan (talk) 19:11, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 30
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Motion picture content rating system, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Office of Film and Literature Classification ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Motion_picture_content_rating_system check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Motion_picture_content_rating_system?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 05:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Production companies in infobox
Hi Betty, could you weigh in on this topic here? I think its relevant to your interests and you seem to be pretty level headed when discussing it. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga Thanks! Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:19, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Christopher Robin
Can you please check if Christopher Robin bombed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:197:C180:13A5:C1E9:EACF:B975:4CCF (talk) 19:35, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I doubt it—it made 2.5x its budget. Betty Logan (talk) 23:39, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Betty, I see your version is actually much better, my apologies. Have you blocked me from editing? That wouldnt be so cool 2 days before the championship !! I was going to leave a message saying I was pleased with the new version, start using that myself.

James Kevin McMahon (talk) 12:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC) 

You are welcome James. I haven't blocked you because you haven't done anything wrong! I just reverted you because there is a much better way of adding archived links, and that probably just automatically triggered the notification system. Betty Logan (talk) 12:57, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Your last revision on List of vegetarians
Betty, as a senior editor you should know Wikipedia does not work by a random 2-1 majority rule but by reliable sources and consensus building. I recently found out that there is a whole book dedicated to the claim Hitler was not a vegetarian. I believe you are very much personally involved in arguing there is no dispute and urge you the second time to leave this matter as it is. Or we can ask for Mediation.

Sincerely, 08:20, 16 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mateo (talk • contribs)


 * Yes, Wikipedia works through building consensus. So far you have not established a new consensus to alter the article so you should respect the editing procedures as outline at WP:STATUSQUO and WP:NOCONSENSUS. Please note that WP:NOCONSENSUS is a policy. Betty Logan (talk) 08:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I see that i have to dig deep on this one. But because i regret implying you are not acting in good faith, i do feel obliged, before going to a mediator, to show you that there was never a consensus regarding the definition of Hitler as a vegetarian, and that this is yet another evidence that he is a disputed case.
 * So up until 2013 there were many cases of people moving the dictator off the list altogether and you and others restored him to the disputed section. The first time i found someone moved the dictator from the disputed was [| in june 2013]. The edit summery claimed that all the "major biographies" say he is. You know that this is not so. At least two prominent biographers of Hitler actually claim the opposite.
 * Secondly, it never reached consensus. In 2014 alone this edit was reverted at least 5 tims. [] [] [|times]. The last one added some sources and created a large debate on the matter, and these cases continued [] over the years.
 * So unlike your representation of events, the current situation of the article relies on an inaccurate fact, never got to a consensus, is disputed in the biographies of Hitler.
 * There are so many different evidence that prove this dispute is not settled, with opinions outside wikipedia claiming so.
 * So i ask you one last time, politely, to remove your adamant protection of this unbalanced situation and return this case to where it belongs - in the disputed section.


 * 10:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mateo (talk • contribs)
 * Hitler was moved to the main list over five years ago, and not be me. However I agree that the combined evidence of testimony from the food-tester and the forensic evidence prove he was vegetarian beyond any reasonable doubt. The current version of the article has been in place for five years now and is the "status quo" version of the article. If you wish to initiate an alteration to the article the onus is on YOU to obtain a consensus for such an edit. So far you have failed to convince me and a third-part commenter at the NPOV noticeboard. If you want to seek mediation then that is your prerogative. Betty Logan (talk) 10:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Jamie Clarke Snooker player
Hi Betty Jamie's homepage was changed back to Jamie Rhys Clarke when the player himself has clearly stated his name is Jamie Clarke. Can this redirect be changed back please ?. 77.75.241.2 (talk) 17:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * My privileges are not high enough to move the article. A move request would have to be filed at WP:RM. Betty Logan (talk) 04:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't know how to do that. It was changed to Jamie Clarke but your friend Armbrust changed it to a redirect for no reason. Can you look into it please ?. Regards 92.251.140.119 (talk) 17:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Jamie Clarke is a disambiguation page so the article cannot be moved to that page unless it is proven to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. To do that you would have to start a "move" discussion. If you want to do that all you need to do is follow the instructions at WP:RM. Betty Logan (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

My talk page
I do not want your nonsense on my talk page too. So stop it, or you will be reported to an admin for fasely accusing and harassing. Sebastian James (talk) 19:00, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * By all means report me, but your behavior will also come under scrutiny. Betty Logan (talk) 19:02, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I have found out that you do not know what trolling actually means, and I encourage you to read Internet troll. Sebastian James (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Your time would be much better spent addressing the real issue at the article talk page. You have managed to escalate an easily resolvable minor dispute into a drama. If you feel that discussion is "stealing" your time then that's a shame because Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Betty Logan (talk) 19:40, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I have been adressing and will adress the real issue. This minor thing got bigger thanks to you. Maybe I used "stealing" because I think it is extremely hard to collaborate editors like you? Sebastian James (talk) 19:52, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You ignored the note and did not provide an WP:EDITSUMMARY when you made the original edit. You also failed to abide by WP:BRD when you chose to restore your edits without once again providing an explanation. This is what makes collaboration difficult, not editors that expect you to abide by established editing practices. Betty Logan (talk) 20:00, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, I was the one who added reason paramater and updated the subject's new marriage a while ago. I probably have seen the note way before you did. I wasn't expecting to be reverted, so i did not write a summary in the first place. I think continuing to send messages against one's inclination, harassing and calling them "troll" without appropriate situation make it difficult. Sebastian James (talk) 21:30, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Asking editors to use edit summaries and warning them about edit-warring is not "harrassment". Posting messages on an editor's talk page insinuating they have a medical problem certainly constitutes trolling in my book. Betty Logan (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It is harassment if the editor doesn't want your messages on their talk page. Also assuming you have astigmastim because you wrote "marriage dates changed" was not trolling, I was totally serious and confused. Sebastian James (talk) 11:16, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Legitimate notification is not harassment unless there is an IBAN in place. Betty Logan (talk) 15:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Huggums537
Hello,

As you know I have been considering this users unblock request. One of the restrictions I am considering as part of this unblock request is to have editors "monitor" his edits (look at them to check them) to ensure that he is not slipping back to what got him blocked in the first place. Would you be prepared to do this?-- 5 albert square (talk) 09:13, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not going to scrutinize every single edit he makes, but I am happy to oversee him in an advisory capacity. Also, if editors encounter a problem with him I am happy for them to ask me to intervene (this could be flagged up on his user page). This might reassure those who oppose his return. Betty Logan (talk) 13:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Betty Logan, Thank you so much for your support during this difficult period. I could NOT have made it through this without your help. You are a saint! Huggums537 (talk) 15:11, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Betty, I know this is really soon, but your advisory capacity oversight could really come in handy right now. I just left a rather lengthy message on my talk page regarding some objections I have to part of the restrictions and I want to make sure I don't offend anyone, while firmly standing up for my personal liberties and not being walked all over like a mat at the same time. It's a very delicate situation, and I'm not sure what the reaction will be. If you could take a look to make sure I'm within the lines, it would be very appreciated. Thank you. Huggums537 (talk) 18:03, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Xmas!

 * Merry Christmas Betty Logan! Thank you for helping me to enjoy a free and happy X-mas on here! All the best to you and yours. Huggums537 (talk) 17:35, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You too Huggums! Betty Logan (talk) 18:22, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
Merry Christmas to all of you too. Hope you all have a pleasant holiday! Betty Logan (talk) 18:24, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Xmas

 * 2018 XMAS.pdf FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:43, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
Happy New Year! Hello Betty Logan: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a great New Year! Cheers, 5 albert square (talk) 23:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year snowman}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.