Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Would you please mind if you reply my opinion in Talk:Motion_picture_content_rating_system? I wrote it 2 days ago (16 March).Zenkaino lovelive (talk) 03:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Betty Logan. Is there some reason my edit was partially reverted? Angela Maureen (talk) 01:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per my edit summary "partial r/v to MPAA wording" i.e. I have restored the actual wording used by the MPAA rating in the given source. This is also the grammatically correct conjunction for how the rating operates. Changing the "and" to an "or" alters the semantic meaning of the rating i.e. the rating could be used to bar 17 year-olds but allow in those under the age of age 17, or conversely permit 17 year-olds and bar those under the age of 17. The rating is intended to prohibit both audiences aged 17 and audiences under the age of 17, not one or the other, which is why the "and" is the correct conjunction to use. I appreciate it is only one word but it alters the meaning of the sentence. The rest of your changes were fine though, so thank you for those. Betty Logan (talk) 03:33, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

it looks much better the way I had done it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.229.38 (talk) 03:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. When players "share" a position it is always clearer when rowspans are used. This is also common practice on other snooker articles such as Maximum break. Betty Logan (talk) 03:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Betty! I'm just letting you know that I responded to your points at Talk:Motion_picture_content_rating_system#RfC: Should we install a color scheme with 9 colors in the comparison table?. If you're still interested in helping out, please let me know and we can organize something.Zenkaino lovelive (talk) 04:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is an RFC. We don't organize anything. It is a community decision now. Betty Logan (talk) 04:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC is working. Can I change color right now? See:User:Zenkaino_lovelive/sandboxZenkaino lovelive (talk) 00:50, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand. The point of an RFC is to hand a dispute over to the community. We can't change anything now. It is up to the community to decide what happens. Betty Logan (talk) 09:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for the correction. I truly apologize for my mistake and will do my best to not repeat it. Sc2353 (talk) 00:54, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I noted that you indicated that the second half of the sentence added is not in the source. My copy of Moonraker has a a footnote towards the end indicating that the date of the Moonraker test launch (thus the day Bond defeated Drax) was November 1954 (I forgot the exact date). Was that footnote not from Fleming? Emperor001 (talk) 11:59, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the way I interpreted your edit was that the date itself was not explicitly given. Rather than use vague phrasing such as "indicate" perhaps it would be better if you simply incorporate the above in the article to avoid potential confusion. Betty Logan (talk) 12:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just changed the wording a bit. Emperor001 (talk) 14:56, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can season's not be broken down into weeks ?. Don't disrespect me by calling my work a mess btw ok. This has been broken down into weeks by World Snooker and others previously. DooksFoley147 (talk) 13:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying this is not a mess: [1]? Anyway, in answer to your question, Hendry was not #1 for 471 weeks in a comparable sense to Selby's 321 weeks. I get the sense you are a young person who is a new fan of snooker, and you possibly don't understand how the old ranking used to work. But the point is that under the old system a player only had to be ranked #1 after the world championship to be ranked #1 for a full year, but in the modern system the rankings are updated after every tournaments. It is a false comparison, because Hendry literally only had to be #1 for one week out of 52 to get a full year at #1, whereas Selby has be #1 for 52 weeks out of 52 to get a full year. There is a full explanation at List_of_world_number_one_snooker_players#Players_ranked_number_one_at_the_start_of_the_season. That is why why we have two separate tables, one for the annual updates and one for the rolling ranks. The only way in which the two eras are comparable is on a seasonal basis, which is why we also have a list showing the ranks of each player at the start of every season. Betty Logan (talk) 16:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Concerns Regarding User:Bbb23 and Possible Misuse of Admin/CU Abilities". Thank you. Notifying you as I mentioned your name. Nil Einne (talk) 10:22, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Betty Logan: noticing your revert, I do not quite understand:

1. Removal of the file position because the file is placed automatically on the right side of the article if not explicite indicatedn. IS that no longer valid now?
2. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#Duplicate and repeat links ... Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead ... Is that no longer valid now?

Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 05:17, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These films already have links right next to the images so the extra links in the captions are unnecessary! Betty Logan (talk) 05:23, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As per the article on Douglas Fairbanks in Robin Hood ...was one of the most expensive films of the 1920s, with a budget estimated at approximately one million dollars. Should that film be added to the article you think? Lotje (talk) 05:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The exact cost of Robin Hood was $930,042.78, so while it was very expensive for its time it never held the record. Betty Logan (talk) 07:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Betty Logan:

I saw you reverted my change to the Gone with the Wind (film). I'd like to make sure I'm following best practices going forward, but I wasn't quite clear on which ways the link violated Wikipedia's External Links policies. I appreciate your help!

Thank you, Sldevine (talk) 20:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Links that can be added fall into three categories, as explained at WP:ELYES. Your link doesn't satisfy the first two by definition and I don't see how it satisfies the third one either. Betty Logan (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, why did you undo my edit on Century break, it was corect, John Higgins has got 753 centuries moving him up a tier to be with Hendry, I removed the source because it no longer applied (the source said he was on 700) but my change of information was correct so why did you revert. SSSB (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:Verifiability not truth. If the information has changed then update it with a WP:Reliable source, but please don't change it and leave it unsourced. Being out of date is preferable to being unsourced. Betty Logan (talk) 13:37, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain why you reverted my edit? That wasn't original research, I added reliable sources.--Mazewaxie 16:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You added sources for the individual films and added them up. There are several reasons why you cannot do this:

• Sometimes the costs are shared and may be counted twice in individual budgets or not at all, which is why you need a source for the joint production cost.
• Sometimes costs can be incurred after the joint production is finished, say for example if re-shoots are required. This famously occurred on Superman 2.
• The existing source actually gives four figures: 260, 270, 285 and 360. Who knows which one is correct? As the lead explains for the purposes of ranking the lower-bound figure is used when there are conflicting estimates.

Hope this clarifies the issue. Betty Logan (talk) 16:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I got your point, but if you look on the internet "$281 million" is the most frequent figure, and its not even mentioned in the article right now.--Mazewaxie 16:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The chart ranks by the lowest sourceable estimate not the most frequent because that is open to personal judgment depending on which sources you look at. If you have a source that actually gives a figure of $281 million as opposed to three separate figures that add up to $281 million then I would recommend adding it to the accompanying note, which does already include other figures: List_of_most_expensive_films#cite_note-lord_of_the_rings-120. Betty Logan (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added it, I hope its ok. Happy editing!--Mazewaxie 17:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since I see you giving templated 3RR warnings to regulars who haven't violated it, I felt I should come by to let you know that yesterday you violated 3RR on List of highest-grossing films, with a total of 6 reverts within 24 hours. Reminder that 3RR cuts both ways. -- ferret (talk) 14:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferret: A sequence of reverts count as a single edit and are sometimes necessary during the course of reverting an edit if the edits were subsequently made to the edit you are reverting. I could have made just one big revert but this would have wiped out correct and legitimate edits, so a piecemeal approach was more appropriate. I think if you review my edits you will see they were conducted in good faith with proper reasons behind them. The "three" reverts I made yesterday related to the following:

1. Reverting original research that violated Wikipedia's rules on verifiability: [2] (three continuous reverts and one edit). My revert was not contested and you will see I am actively involved in good faith discussions on the talk page in attempt to resolve this issue with the adjusted table.
2. Reverting the addition of an image: [3] (two continuous reverts). Again this was not contested, and this is also an issue under discussion on the talk page.
3. Reverting the addition of sortability to one of the tables, that does not actually sort the table [4] (1 revert). This is a contested revert, and the only edit I made yesterday that could constitute edit-warring.

I realize it is also your prerogative to warn editors for edit-warring but the only revert that could constitute edit-warring on my part is the revert to the sortability of the table i.e. reverting a revert. However, as you will see from the discussion on the talk page there is no consensus to add sortability to the table, mostly because it does not sort. If an editor is a regular then I am sure you will agree with me that the regular should also know they should take the dispute to the talk page, which is why I left an edit-warring notice. The edit-warring noticeboard actually recommends that you warn an edit-warring editor using this notice if you intend to report them. There is a discussion on the talk page regarding this issue where another editor supports my position. I reverted this editor twice and started a discussion about the issue; the editor trying to force through the issue has now pushed through the edit three times and is yet to join the talk page. If the other editor does not join the discussion within 24 hours I intend to revert him again in accordance with the two views expressed at the discussion, and if he reverts after that without joining the discussion I will report him for edit-warring. I am confident that an admin will see that I have taken reasonable steps to resolve the issue because at the end of the day WP:Communication is required. I hope I have provided sufficient context for my actions and you are satisfied by my response. Betty Logan (talk) 18:13, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Betty I noticed Ronnie's "current ranking" is missing from his page in his infobox whereas all other player's have their current ranking intact. Can you tell me how to edit "current rankings in the players infobox as I never see it in there ?. I only ever see "High Rank". how do you edit it so please ?. Regards 92.251.173.108 (talk) 14:11, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you get my message ? 178.167.211.161 (talk) 16:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see the ranking when I go to his page. It is between "Highest ranking" and "career winnings" in the infobox. The rankings are updated automatically so editors don't need to worry about it. If there is a problem it is best to drop a note at the snooker project. Betty Logan (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Mrs. Logan. I have recently found inflation adjustment box office articles on IMDb and found them to be pretty sensible. Guinness method of inflation adjustment was quite faulty placing Titanic behind Star Wars even with the former's much much bigger box office gross and success outside the United States. In the US, I found The Numbers adjusted list to be much better consolidated since theatrical admissions in the Box Office Mojo list for E.T. and The Sound of Music were overestimated, because of faulty calculation in the former movie's case, and lack of sufficient theatrical ticket prices data in the latter. With all due respect, I hope that you consider my edits on this page to be genuine and in good faith. Thank you Movieboxoffice MovieBoxoffice (talk) 13:04, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is not a reliable source and you provide no evidence that Guinness' inflation adjustment is "faulty". You also provide no evidence that the data provided by The Numbers is more accurate than that at Box Office Mojo. If this were indeed the case the source would need to be switched over for the whole chart and not cherry-picked for a few films. Betty Logan (talk) 13:15, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit I only changed Middle-earth series to Middle-earth series. It somehow automatically changed "title= " too. It was not my intention. Sorry.--Mazewaxie 09:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why but it changes this automatically. Maybe because I use wikEd? I'm sorry for that, I'm not doing that on purpose.--Mazewaxie 16:15, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have picked this up at Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_films#The_Towering_Inferno_source with a fuller explanation of the problem. Maybe you should explain at the talk page exactly what is happening and somebody may have a solution. Betty Logan (talk) 16:21, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm sorry for my mistake, I misread an article and thought that Captain Marvel ended its worldwide run. Anyway, how can I know when a film end its run worldwide? Here it seems that Captain Marvel isn't in cinemas anymore. --Mazewaxie 11:07, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The worldwide chart on BOM uses US release dates. You can see which countries it is still playing on the "foreign" tab: https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&id=marvel2018a.htm. It was still playing in Brazil, Finland and Germany as of last week. We won't know if it is still playing this week until next week's box-office update. However, it is not a big deal if the film stays highlighted for a couple of weeks after it closes. It is more problematic if the highlighting is removed, people stop checking it, and we miss further updates. Betty Logan (talk) 14:48, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you don’t like Stephen Hendry does not mean you should set out to sabotage his page. “Arguably the greatest...” is a neutral term which the mainstream media use all the time. If you continue to breach the 3 edits rule you risk being banned. Alwaysrightman (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The mainstream media use the term because more often than not they don't have facts to back up their claims. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not the mainstream media. "Arguably" is WP:EDITORIALIZING and is probibited. Betty Logan (talk) 16:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Battlefield Earth (film)#Regarding a certain detail in the plot. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

Betty logan Those changes reflect some of cinemas most renowned films belonging to the genre . If people click onto the movie title they will be redirected to its main page . Do you think people are unaware of jurrassic park, jurrassic world, Godzilla , Godzila ( 2014) and Anaconda . This "unsourced content" argument by editors is becoming tiresome. I won't try and make those changes again and I'm done with it all . Everything must be according to experienced editors wishes and if you argue with that then they get insulted and start with threats . At least you didn't. Hpdh4 17:30, 13 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HPDEATHLYHALLOWS4 (talk • contribs)

Everything must be done in accordance with policy, in this case WP:Verifiability. Some of those films you added may well belong on the list, but others are more questionable. Is Jurassic World really a "horror"? Highly questionable. Wikipedia is for facts not our own opinions, even if they are correct! Betty Logan (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, if you look at the "Date and age range definitions" section, you will find that most of the definitions used state that Millennials were born some time between the early 1980s to the mid-1990s. So that was perfectly reasonable. Nerd271 (talk) 02:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The dates given in the article for the end years comprise 1994, 95, 96, 99, 2000, 2001 and 2004 (with the latter date given by the authors who coined the phrase "millenial"). The current version of the lead encompasses all the dates given. It is not necessary for the lead to become selective, its function is to summarise. The lead has been discussed at some length already and this is the wording that was settled on. If you want to re-open the discussion then please start a discussion on the article talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 02:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when summarizing it is often necessary to be selective. Most sources use the period 1981-1996 as the birth years of Millennials. A few stretch it to the late 1990s and only two to the early 2000s. In the lead of the article, it is a good idea to use the most commonly used definition, if there are more than one definition. Nerd271 (talk) 02:30, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sources used in the article may favor the 1996 date but that is not necessarily reflective of how much credence is given to that dates in general usage. There is substantial variation of opinion and you would need a source that specifically quantifies usage to draw such conclusions. But regardless, the wording of the lead was discussed at length and reflects the existing consensus, and my talk page is not the place to build to a new consensus. Betty Logan (talk) 02:47, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at List of highest-grossing films shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- /Alex/₂₁ 02:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One further revert and you will be eligible to be reported to WP:AN3. -- /Alex/₂₁ 02:22, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Just for the record, there were only two reverts and Alex removed the image that was agreed in a discussion on the talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 21:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Betty, I think I saw an edit where you reverted an IP editor's removal of italics from the film infobox's "Based on" value. I had to revert similarly here. Do you know the backstory for this behavior? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It has been going for a week or so now. I have tried to discuss the issue but the problem is the editor's IP number keeps changing so I don't know if he ever gets the messages. I revert it whenever I see it but he makes such huge sweeping changes it is difficult to keep up. I don't know how to resolve the issue really; there is clarly a communication problem, blocking would have no effect and there are too many articles to protect. Betty Logan (talk) 21:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for sharing. I'll revert when I see it and track similar edits under the offending IP address. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, following deletion of the category, let me know if it would be useful to archive the talk page Category_talk:Articles_with_images_not_understandable_by_color_blind_users somewhere. – Fayenatic London 18:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I am pretty sure that everything that needed to be preserved has been copied into H:Colorblind. Betty Logan (talk) 21:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Betty, Nice to meet you ~ I was going to give a you cup of tea ~ but ~ I see you have been here for a while ~ I added The Terminator to my watch page a few days ago when I had to reference the article here, and I was just checking the last edit and saw a red name ~ which led me to you ~ so here I am ~ if I can do anything for you please let me know ~ once again it's nice to meet you ~mitch~ (talk) 01:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mitch, nice to meet you too. Betty Logan (talk) 11:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Betty Logan, would you like to take a look at the page List of highest-grossing openings for films. At the moment, I think many users are processing incorrect information. I am not very well known in the English wikipedia but I saw your name in the history of the page, and with your Wikipedia-experience I think I can best ask you this. If I use this [link] I get other data for example at: The Lion King. Maybe you could help me out and control the page. Thank you in advance. RuedNL2 (talk) 21:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's the correct link but the source says that The Lion King had an opening of $246 million, not $543 million. Betty Logan (talk) 22:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know what the source says and I knew that the opening was not $543 million, that's why I approached you and another user. That other user had already adjusted it before you responded. But thanks anyway. RuedNL2 (talk) 17:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For your guidance and for your contributions on List of highest-grossing films. Mazewaxie 14:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I understand, but why don't the numbers match the ones here? https://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm 2A02:C7F:8CA1:C900:F0FB:A2CF:8C1E:758D (talk) 08:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably just a rounding error. The dollar figure only has three digits whereas the gross has nine digits. Betty Logan (talk) 09:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then it should round to $974, not $990.

Look, I will send them an email, and I will see what they can do, but what are we going to do about our pickle? 2A02:C7F:8CA1:C900:F0FB:A2CF:8C1E:758D (talk) 09:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a rounding error so you don't need to do anything. $974,117,051 is the same number as $974,117,000 at three digits of precision. Betty Logan (talk) 09:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then it should read $974 million, not $990 million 2A02:C7F:8CA1:C900:F0FB:A2CF:8C1E:758D (talk) 09:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It reads $974,117,051, not $990 million. I don't know where you are getting the $990 million figure. Betty Logan (talk) 09:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The top box here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_films_in_the_United_States_and_Canada 2A02:C7F:8CA1:C900:F0FB:A2CF:8C1E:758D (talk) 09:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They use different inflation indeces. The top table uses the Consumer price Index and the bottom table uses Box Office Mojo's ticket price inflator. They are just different methods of inflation. If you look at Avatar and Titanic they are also different in the two tables. Personally I agree it is confusing, but as it stands it is correct. Betty Logan (talk) 09:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So which one am I meant to believe?2A02:C7F:8CA1:C900:64E1:8A0B:390F:A8E5 (talk) 11:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They are both right. They just use different methodologies. However, the figures in the bottom table are more commonly cited. All it means is that ticket prices have increased in price at a slightly lower rate than general inflation. Betty Logan (talk) 11:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So that means that TFA did $774 Mill? If so then gr8. I did not like that movie, but I LOVE Endgame!2A02:C7F:8CA1:C900:64E1:8A0B:390F:A8E5 (talk) 12:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The domestic figures don't matter. Endgame trounced The Force Awakens worldwide. Betty Logan (talk) 12:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Your change was better than mine but more importantly better than what was there before. -- 109.255.158.125 (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome! Betty Logan (talk) 10:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BL, I am attempting to come to an understanding with you?  Is that a possibility?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When there is a dispute about article content the correct place to come to an understanding is the article talk page, as explained by WP:BRD: "Discuss the contribution, and the reasons for the contribution, on the article's talk page with the person who reverted your contribution." There are no further disagreements between us beyond the scope of one particular article so there is no value in moving the discussion elsewhere. Betty Logan (talk) 13:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is inaccurate; this goes beyond content. I have a personal dispute with you; I find your behavior disruptive. As I have stated, I have found you to be dishonest, prejudiced, and controlling.  I am asking if you are willing and able to display empathy.  That would be the first step in correcting your behavior so that we may collaborate more effectively.