Loading AI tools
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Betty Logan. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
Betty, the article I've been wanting to do for a long time now is a TV show and I remember that you are very involved in film and television. It's been a very long time since I was involved in any of those discussions, but I seem to recall that IMDb was frowned upon as a reliable source. Is that correct, or can it be used as a source for certain things? Huggums537 (talk) 04:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- IMDB is not permissable as a source. The relevant guideline is at WP:RS/IMDB. Betty Logan (talk) 04:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Okay, that's what I thought. Thanks for refreshing my memory. Huggums537 (talk) 13:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi Betty, just wondering if took note of this? And if you had free moment, if you could reply to this? Thanks - wolf 03:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Why did you undo my edit? The infobox was broken and I fixed it. Rupert1904 (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- The infobox is not broken. I simply put it back to how it was. Betty Logan (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
It was broken as the box office figures were excluded and I fixed it. Please don’t arbitrarily revert edits and make articles worse and then not even add an edit summary. Rupert1904 (talk) 01:35, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Rupert1904: The infobox was only broken as a result of vandalism, which I reverted. Your edit was only reverted as a consequence of reverting the article to the state before the vandalism. Here are the sequence of edits:
- This is blatantly obvious if you look at my edits. In the future it will be a good idea if you actually CHECK the edit that caused the problem. You can't really complain about your edits getting caught up in a revert when you left in vandalism. Betty Logan (talk) 06:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Flowcode again. Thank you. Guy Macon (talk) 04:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for this. I think I am the only other editor who has stated (with actual knowledge) on-wiki that her health stuff and planned withdrawal pre-dated the case. It's been very frustrating to keep running into "trying to hide from sanctions" accusations (which are also on Wikipediocracy). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Rio 2 § Big Boss's fate. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:41, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
I just blocked a user that edited Star Wars (film) for blatant impersonation of you. Their only edit, but user was "Betty logen". Just in case you want to look out for others. Annoyed anyone in particular lately? :) Canterbury Tail talk 18:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- An IP editor has been spamming my talk page today with James Bond stuff, so they are probably connected. I don't know what has triggered it off though. Thanks for the block though :) Betty Logan (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- No worries, familiar enough with your work to spot a blatant copy straight off. Canterbury Tail talk 20:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
[[ |
The Supportive Award! |
| Happy Valentines day to you! You get this lovely bouquet of roses for being a supportive editor to struggling newcomers like me! Thank you! Huggums537 (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC) |
Hi Betty, How are you ? Sorry for being aggressive that day. But I was quite irritated that day as near about 50 of my edits were reverted. So I am extremely sorry for my behavior. Actually I want to know your comment regarding this article "Top 5 Highest Grossing Anime Films Of All Time"[1] from Otakukart. Please share your thoughts as soon as possible. Thank you. Have a nice day. いちか かすが (talk) 18:19, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
References
- Chauhan, Prit (2021-02-23). "Top 5 Highest Grossing Anime Films of All Time". OtakuKart. Retrieved 2021-03-02.
Please, check the article of Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba the Movie: Mugen Train, a multiple number of IP users are removing the info of the article. They are using abusive language against the editors who are restoring the page. Please help as soon as possible. I am tired of these users. いちか かすが (talk) 12:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello Betty how are you today ?. I want your opinion regarding the above events please. Will you reply to me when you see this and I will tell you my idea, is that OK please ?. Regards 178.167.244.34 (talk) 10:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Since you mentioned a name change in the AFD, I am contacting you to tell you there is a discussion for that at Talk:List_of_films_set_around_Easter#Requested_move_1_April_2021 Dream Focus 20:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Remember to keep an eyes on this show is cancelled or not.2600:1702:1E60:B230:8D3F:1047:2CF6:259D (talk) 20:08, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
https://kvikmyndaskodun.is/aldursmerkingar/ FireDragonValo (talk) 20:37, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, I don't dispute this, but these ratings do not have image files on Wikipedia. See . Please only add file images if they actually exist on Wikipedia. Betty Logan (talk) 20:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
It's not a big deal, but I think a comment you made was unnecessarily inflammatory.
QUOTE: You seem to be taking personal offense at movies you like, (or starring actors/characters you're a fan of), being referred to as 'bombs'. This is just about numbers... verifiable numbers. If a movie loses enough money, it's considered a bomb. It may be a coincidence that, the films you've mentioned above may have lost money, also happen to all [word redacted because it actually tripped the Wikipedia filter and blocked me from editing].
You suggested the idea the original commenter may like those films, and then, knowing that, outright dismissed the films as [redacted]. If you really believed they were already upset at their liked films being labelled as bombs, then you would have known that saying they all [redacted] would upset them further.
They didn't seem to mind, and another user pointed out it was probably a joke. Also you were very helpful and open-minded to that user after the part I quoted. Also you have clearly been making a big effort for that page and are an experienced editor.
I just think that one comment didn't show the consideration and respect of Wikipedia civility and, to a mere non-editor myself reading comment pages, things that look like microaggressions can be unintentionally hostile.
Finally, I have tried to bring this up respectfully by following what I just read in that Civility link which advised coming to your talk page instead of responding on the original article. I am happy for you to delete this talk page section now that you have read it, I just wanted to point it out. I am a new user and apologise for likely overreacting. Thanks for listening and kind regards. Narananas (talk) 17:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- I have never written such a comment to the best of my knowledge, and it is not my writing style. If I have written such a comment then please provide me with a link to the edit in which I wrote the comment so I can review the context please. From the tone of the comment it appears as if you were in a dispute with somebody, but I have no idea who you are and have no recollection of the comment in question. Betty Logan (talk) 18:54, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Betty. I am very sorry. You are right, and I was mistaken. Here is a link to the specific section of the page with the quote. As you will see, it was actually Thewolfchild who made the comment, and in a following comment said they were joking which makes my complaint totally unnecessary. They put your name at the end of their comment just before their own, which is why I mistakenly thought it was signed by you. Sorry for the trouble. You seem like an upstanding editor, so I'm glad (though embarrassed) I was mistaken. Narananas (talk) 06:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- That's completely fine. My name stands out because it is in red while wolf's was in black, so it was easy to miss. I didn't think I had written it, but sometimes if a dispute becomes heated you can say things out of character. That's why I needed to see the context for the remark. Anyway, that's cleared up and I hope you enjoy editing. Don't worry about Wolfie, his howl is worse than his bite! Betty Logan (talk) 07:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Betty. I am very sorry. You are right, and I was mistaken. Here is a link to the specific section of the page with the quote. As you will see, it was actually Thewolfchild who made the comment, and in a following comment said they were joking which makes my complaint totally unnecessary. They put your name at the end of their comment just before their own, which is why I mistakenly thought it was signed by you. Sorry for the trouble. You seem like an upstanding editor, so I'm glad (though embarrassed) I was mistaken. Narananas (talk) 06:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi I noticed on a talkpage you were looking for a reference or source for this event. May I ask why this tournament has piqued your interest ?. As I see a lot of tournaments on a lot of different players pages that are added on here with no sources at all. I am just wondering why you singled this one out ?. Kind Regards 178.167.156.164 (talk) 22:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- John Higgins is on my watchlist and I had never heard of it. When I saw it was sourced to the Hayton book I decided to check it, but there is no record of it. No tournaments should be added without sourcing really, but sourcing that doesn't check out is a more serious problem IMO because it creates the illusion that the information is cited to a credible source when it isn't. Betty Logan (talk) 23:57, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Betty I have a friend checking the source. I am lead to believe it is in Snooker Scene and the other one was added in error not by him I may say. He won't have access to the material until the weekend due to work commitments. Is that OK?. 92.251.152.178 (talk) 07:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- That's fine. I am very supportive of documenting these smaller more obscure events, but we do need to get the sourcing correct. Betty Logan (talk) 23:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
I am looking for that VHS version I have.....will find. It's in a (junk) room of my house that looks like something off of Hoarders....so that is the reason for the hold up. Regards.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- No worries, there is no rush. Betty Logan (talk) 22:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Do you think what I found is good enough to add to the article (see the Rambo III page)?Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Doesn't your video just confirm what the article already says? Betty Logan (talk) 23:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yes but you said to that other guy (if he found his VHS) something about citing it as a primary source. I wasn't sure if what I found warranted a expansion of any detail.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- If we had a copy that was dedicated "to the brave Mujahideen fighters" then we could cite the video, but we don't really need to cite the video for the "the gallant people of Afghanistan" because it is already cited in the article. Betty Logan (talk) 02:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yes but you said to that other guy (if he found his VHS) something about citing it as a primary source. I wasn't sure if what I found warranted a expansion of any detail.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Doesn't your video just confirm what the article already says? Betty Logan (talk) 23:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Do you think what I found is good enough to add to the article (see the Rambo III page)?Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Can you send me an example of tables at the side for the Canadian film and video rating system? I really appreciate it. Thanks. FireDragonValo (talk) 04:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- What do you mean? There are literally already examples in the article. Just follow the established layout. Betty Logan (talk) 04:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I have a question: in the highest-grossing films page the budget is $55 million, but in the movie page is $59 million, which one is correct? Thanks--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 18:51, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hi, Mom cost 380 million Yuan. Using the currency conversion source at the List of highest-grossing films, the exchange rate for 2020 is 6.9 Yaun to $1: 380/6.9 = $55 million. That figure is correct on the basis of the sources. I have looked at the Hi, Mom (2021 film) article and it is not clear to me where the $59 million comes from. Betty Logan (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
An article you recently created, Snooker world ranking points 2021/2022, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. ... discospinster talk 23:23, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
@Lee Vilenski: Lee, this evening I set about creating the next iteration of the Snooker World Ranking Points articles by creating Snooker world ranking points 2021/2022. My intention was to get this article up and running in the next day or so, as I have done every year for the last decade. Now it seems my work is no longer good enough! discospinster has twice moved the article to the draft space, wiping out a chunk of development work I had already completed but not saved! The sources would have been added over the next couple of days per the previous season's Snooker world ranking points 2020/2021, and the one before it, going back to 2010. It is imperative to get this article up and running in the short season break. I am an editor with over a decade's worth of experience and I am not prepared to be regulated like a novice editor. I am not prepared to develop this article in draft space and have my work vetted to determine whether it's up to scratch. Will you please move this article back into article space so I can complete my work. Betty Logan (talk) 23:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- WP:V is still policy as far as I know. It applies even to editors who have over a decade's worth of experience. ... discospinster talk 00:33, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- It is evident from its nature that the article is part of a well maintained series and would have been developed expediently. You might as well just delete it because I won't be doing any more work on it until there is an article in mainspace to work on. Betty Logan (talk) 00:53, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Discospinster is referring that as the article is completely uncited, there is no verifiability that any of what is written is true. My suggestion is to have some background - things like the start and end dates for the season, how many players are competing etc. This will easily cite bits that are tenious, and give us a really good background for the article. I'd also use for the ranking list going into next season. There is an argument about this being WP:TOOSOON, but considering the first ranking event starts in a month, I'd argue it's suitable. I can give you a hand, but I'm super behind on some other work, but I don't think there is much work that needs to be done for this to not be draftified. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- The season starts next month and the article needs to be prepped so editors can start filling in the points. What I need (and what the snooker project needs) is the article back in mainspace and for discospinster to stop causing disruption. It was a clearly provocative act by them to wipe out the work of a longstanding editor creating an annual edition of a long-standing article series. I was literally in the middle of adding citations when discospinster wiped out my work by moving the article. I added an "under construction" tag to the article to signify I was currently working on it but discospinster simply ignored it. Betty Logan (talk) 08:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Discospinster is referring that as the article is completely uncited, there is no verifiability that any of what is written is true. My suggestion is to have some background - things like the start and end dates for the season, how many players are competing etc. This will easily cite bits that are tenious, and give us a really good background for the article. I'd also use for the ranking list going into next season. There is an argument about this being WP:TOOSOON, but considering the first ranking event starts in a month, I'd argue it's suitable. I can give you a hand, but I'm super behind on some other work, but I don't think there is much work that needs to be done for this to not be draftified. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- It is evident from its nature that the article is part of a well maintained series and would have been developed expediently. You might as well just delete it because I won't be doing any more work on it until there is an article in mainspace to work on. Betty Logan (talk) 00:53, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello Betty. So that I can learn to not repeat the same mistakes when sourcing on Wikipedia, can you explain why the sources I included on the List of natural horror films page were not suitable? They were sourced from the same site as many other films on the page? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elasmogal (talk • contribs) 09:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- Allmovie is a credible source, but if you check some of the other entries you will see that Allmovie categorises them as "natural horror". In the case of The Shallows Allmovie classifies it as a "drama thriller" and The Meg as "sci-fi action". Betty Logan (talk) 10:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
It's Right Betty Logan that Indian Film Industry Is The Largest Film And Bollywood Sells For More Tickets Than Other Film Industry.But If You Including Bollywood.Then You Also Should Include Hollywood Because Hollywood Is That Film Industry Where American And Non American Both Works There And There Are Many Hollywood films which are not American Film. These May Be British Film,French Film,Italian Film As Well As Indian Films Also Produced There. So You Also Include Hollywood There. These Indians Changed His Name Film Industry In The Name Of Bollywood Where Only Indian Hindi Films Released. Bollywood Should Be Called As Indian Cinema. They named it under name as Hollywood. There is Bollywood Tollywood Kollywood Jollywood and Whatever Wood In India. Then It Means Other Two Films Under Category India Should Named Under Any ...Wood In Indian Industry Rizhbergs (talk) 05:31, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello Betty how are you today ?. I am working on some old Tennis players pages on here at the moment. I noticed that some of the players have failed notifications listed from old sources that I did not add of course. Can you tell me what happens when you see this coming up on a page please ?. Regards 178.167.202.59 (talk) 14:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- It's difficult to know what you mean without seeing examples. It really depends on why the editor tagged the source. Betty Logan (talk) 20:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi, in your opinion, this is a mistake? The movie is available on Disney+ since July 9, but I see July 7 and 8 there (sorry for my english, if I made some mistake too)--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 17:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- It's likely that they started streaming it concurrently with the theatrical release. For example, films open at theaters in France on Wednesdays and on Thursdays in Germany (which match the streaming release dates). On the basis of that I don't think it is a mistake. I suggest we just keep our eyes on it for now. I have never seen BOM report streaming revenue before so this is a very interesting development. Betty Logan (talk) 17:31, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- I'm italian, and in Italy the movie was released on July 7 in teathers and on July 9 on Disney+, so this is a mistake, because on the page there is the July 7 date--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 18:30, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- And also, if that is the disney+ revenue, why there is the number of teathers? And also, in France the movie is available on Disney+ since July 9, not July 7 (I used Google translate) --Luke Stark 96 (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- Your guess is as good as mine. What I would note here is that the French streaming gross is for the weekend 7–11, it doesn't break it down by day. That gross could in theory just come from July 11th. As for the number of theaters this does seem to be a mistake, but that doesn't mean the gross is necessarily wrong. The worldwide gross is even higher at The Numbers. We can't really declare it as a mistake unless we can prove it is a mistake. Listing streaming grosses seems to be a new direction for Box Office Mojo so all we can do is monitor the development and see if we can find an explanation. Betty Logan (talk) 19:14, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- I found another mistake, because in country like Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia and Ukraine Disney+ is not available, and I don't think Disney "gave" his movie to another streaming platform.... thanks for your opinion--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 19:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- Does Forbes or Variety or The Hollywood Reporter have anything to say about this? The problem is exacerbated by the fact that the gross at The Numbers is higher. Betty Logan (talk) 19:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- I really don't know what to say, but BOM in the last year made several mistake, and in my opinion this is only another one--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 19:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, BOM has been very problematic, but its mistakes are usually very easy to track down. The most regular type of mistake is duplication of a foreign gross, and this is easy to track down and prove. There are two unusual difference here though: BOM seems to be tracking a streaming gross, which I have never seen before. The other is The Numbers gross is actually higher. I am not saying it hasn't made a mistake here, but it is not straightforward to identify what the mistake actually is. Is this a gross that has simply been recorded incorrectly, or is it a gross that has been duplicated? Is this is a mistake it is clearly a new type of mistake, one that I haven't seen before. At the moment the only alternative is to use the figure at The Numbers, but that would actually increase the gross. Betty Logan (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- For me, expecially for the country where Disney+ doesn't exist, is a duplicated gross, but unluckily is only my opinion. Maybe can we ask to other users? Just for have other opinions, maybe the participants of the Film finance task force, or someone else, I don't know--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 20:11, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- Now it is clear that was a mistake and a duplicated gross: they fixed the page--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 09:49, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- Good work! These things are often rectified in due course. Betty Logan (talk) 10:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- Now it is clear that was a mistake and a duplicated gross: they fixed the page--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 09:49, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- For me, expecially for the country where Disney+ doesn't exist, is a duplicated gross, but unluckily is only my opinion. Maybe can we ask to other users? Just for have other opinions, maybe the participants of the Film finance task force, or someone else, I don't know--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 20:11, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, BOM has been very problematic, but its mistakes are usually very easy to track down. The most regular type of mistake is duplication of a foreign gross, and this is easy to track down and prove. There are two unusual difference here though: BOM seems to be tracking a streaming gross, which I have never seen before. The other is The Numbers gross is actually higher. I am not saying it hasn't made a mistake here, but it is not straightforward to identify what the mistake actually is. Is this a gross that has simply been recorded incorrectly, or is it a gross that has been duplicated? Is this is a mistake it is clearly a new type of mistake, one that I haven't seen before. At the moment the only alternative is to use the figure at The Numbers, but that would actually increase the gross. Betty Logan (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- I really don't know what to say, but BOM in the last year made several mistake, and in my opinion this is only another one--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 19:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- Does Forbes or Variety or The Hollywood Reporter have anything to say about this? The problem is exacerbated by the fact that the gross at The Numbers is higher. Betty Logan (talk) 19:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- I found another mistake, because in country like Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia and Ukraine Disney+ is not available, and I don't think Disney "gave" his movie to another streaming platform.... thanks for your opinion--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 19:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- Your guess is as good as mine. What I would note here is that the French streaming gross is for the weekend 7–11, it doesn't break it down by day. That gross could in theory just come from July 11th. As for the number of theaters this does seem to be a mistake, but that doesn't mean the gross is necessarily wrong. The worldwide gross is even higher at The Numbers. We can't really declare it as a mistake unless we can prove it is a mistake. Listing streaming grosses seems to be a new direction for Box Office Mojo so all we can do is monitor the development and see if we can find an explanation. Betty Logan (talk) 19:14, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- And also, if that is the disney+ revenue, why there is the number of teathers? And also, in France the movie is available on Disney+ since July 9, not July 7 (I used Google translate) --Luke Stark 96 (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- I'm italian, and in Italy the movie was released on July 7 in teathers and on July 9 on Disney+, so this is a mistake, because on the page there is the July 7 date--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 18:30, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Hey there. So, killer whales are not properly whales. It's their popular name, but it's a misnomer; scientifically they're dolphins. The Wiki page about them explicitly states it right at the beginning. The so-called (in English) "killer whales" are Delphinidae, whereas whales are not. This said, maybe the best way to go at it is to rename that section "Cetaceans"? So we can also include Moby Dick, for instance? (Not sure that qualifies as natural horror, though). There might be some other natural horror film about Delphinidae (The Day of the Dolphin?), but probably not too many to warrant a category. --Kumagoro-42 (talk) 22:19, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- I did self-revert after realizing my mistake: . The problem with misnomers is that they do tend to be "corrected" over time, so a grouping for whales and dolphins might be a good idea. And per your point about Godzilla: the creature is no more a dinosaur than Pegasus is a horse i.e. they are mythical creatures. If Godzilla qualifies as natural horror through its allegorical interpretation, then it probably belongs in the "Misc" section. Betty Logan (talk) 02:15, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
,
Hi Betty how are you ?. I have noticed recently a few individuals have decided to start removing the number of Runners-up finishes from the players career finals section ie ranking events, non-ranking events and minor ranking events. For example they are now listed like this. The headline reads like this. Ranking finals: 37 (19 titles), non-raning finals: 44 (27 titles) , Minor-Ranking finals 7 (3 titles). This still list all the finals including runners-up but do not include the figure at the top. It makes no sense .When I view a page I want to know exactly how many finals a player has won and how many they have been a Runner-up in. I should not have to start counting in my head how many they have lost. The old way was better. Please give me your thoughts please ?. They would be greatly appreciated here. Thanks 178.167.143.26 (talk) 23:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC) .
- Nobody really cares about runner-up positions...unless they are a Jimmy White fan. Betty Logan (talk) 11:59, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
how do you know nobody cares ?.I care for one so that is your theory blown 178.167.192.240 (talk) 18:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- Are you a Jimmy White fan? If you are my theory is not blown. Betty Logan (talk) 18:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
I see you've reverted my edits for the higher quality paddington movie posters. At least just let them breath because they look much better and are higher quality which that last is everything wikipedia stands for right? I've reverted them back and please don't do anything. You told me to leave a message on your wall if something wasn't right. Well, this is the reason.
Bravetubby (talk) 10:34, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
I saw the message you sent me on my talk page. How about I keep those posters on wikipedia (because I think they're much better), But I can lower the mb size because it's a non-free file. How about that?
Bravetubby (talk) 15:44, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- I've explained the rules to you so you have no excuses now. The next copyright violation is likely to result in some kind of sanction. Betty Logan (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Normally I'd post this comment on User talk:MarydaleEd, below your own, but in this case it may be better not to pile on. I just wanted to say that I'd seen their accusations of "tailing" and thought them (the accusations) weird, and very worrying from a WP:CIR point of view. Anyway, all the best, Betty. Bishonen | tålk 12:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC).
- To my recollection I have never interacted with MarydaleEd before this incident so I just regarded their answer as deflection from the real issue. In truth I am slightly puzzled by the whole incident. Editors of 10 years in good standing don't suddenly go rogue do they? Just doesn't seem to add up. Take care Bishonen. Betty Logan (talk) 15:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
I suspect that MarydaleEd is Ed from Marydale and "she" might not be appropriate. If it matters. NebY (talk) 12:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- Ah thank you. I suspect you are probably correct. Personally though, I think it only matters if an editor makes it clear it matters on their user page. I am always happy to respect a fellow editor's pronouns if they make them known to me. Betty Logan (talk) 14:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- Quite so - and I could be guessing wrong or it might even amuse them! FWIW, at first glance their recent talk page edits look to me pretty consistent with some of their oldest ones. I could be wrong there too .... NebY (talk) 17:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi Betty, I hope you're keeping well. I just dropped back into WP to check on something, and saw the James Bond (literary character) article has become a bit of a mess in the last few years. I tried to tidy it up a bit, which included removing unsourced information, changing US punctuation to UK and trimming out some really nonsensical rubbish (the IB has "significant others" as "Bond girls", for crying out loud! If they don't have a name, how can they be "significant" for goodness sake), as well as taking out quite a lot of OR and fancruft and a floating, largely pointless quote box that is out of place and context. I've been reverted (twice now) by Lobo151 with a rather dubious rationale that doesn't deal with any of the problems I've outlined, and re-introduces all the same problems as were there before. I really don't care enough about the niceties to get involved in protracted talk page discussions about having to maintain adequate standards for GAs, but perhaps you could cast an eye over the changes and provide any thoughts you may have. Cheers SchroCat (editing from 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:381A:9440:A51D:1FA8 (talk) 18:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC))
- ps. This was what happened to the messages left on Lobo's page about the reason I undertook both the original edit and the reversion. I'm not convinced my rationale was received, but heigh-ho! SC, from 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:381A:9440:A51D:1FA8 (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Schro, great to see you around! You have been missed. I've just taken a look at the edit and I think maybe (and perhaps understandably) Lobo slightly jumped the gun and reverted in good faith. The James Bond articles as you know get targeted a lot and even though I am not all that familiar with Lobo as an editor he does seem to be a force for good on them. I think what has happened here is that he's seen an IP remove a chunk of content and had a bit of a knee-jerk reaction. If you look at the diff it is difficult to discern exactly what you've done. Obviously I don't doubt the integrity of these edits, I know the article is in safe hands, but Lobo may not be familiar with you as an editor. I notice you have restored your edits and Lobo has not reverted you this time so maybe he has taken a closer look at them? If he reverts again, let me know and we can sort it out on the talk page. It might helpful to let him know you are the editor who brought the article to GA status in the first place. Betty Logan (talk) 11:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Betty, I'm only passing through, rather than returning. Every time I've edited as an IP I see a harder and harder line against any IP editors, and the idea of 'the encyclopaedia anyone can edit' seems to be dying by inches, which is a shame. I struggle to recognise the place nowadays, but life is much less stressful as a result! I'm on the talk page there now, as a few CN tags were removed without anything being done to sort the problem, but hopefully we'll be able to sort that one out quickly. Cheers - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:7007:3D98:FCBB:6145 (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Schro, great to see you around! You have been missed. I've just taken a look at the edit and I think maybe (and perhaps understandably) Lobo slightly jumped the gun and reverted in good faith. The James Bond articles as you know get targeted a lot and even though I am not all that familiar with Lobo as an editor he does seem to be a force for good on them. I think what has happened here is that he's seen an IP remove a chunk of content and had a bit of a knee-jerk reaction. If you look at the diff it is difficult to discern exactly what you've done. Obviously I don't doubt the integrity of these edits, I know the article is in safe hands, but Lobo may not be familiar with you as an editor. I notice you have restored your edits and Lobo has not reverted you this time so maybe he has taken a closer look at them? If he reverts again, let me know and we can sort it out on the talk page. It might helpful to let him know you are the editor who brought the article to GA status in the first place. Betty Logan (talk) 11:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
This is not true and you know it. I removed the CN and replace it with a source. Lobo151 (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- What is not true? The fact you added an unreliable source to replace one of the tags, but didn't do anything to cover the other two that also need looking at? Please don't add links to fansites or bloggers pages - they are not WP:RELIABLE. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:7007:3D98:FCBB:6145 (talk) 16:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- What is not true is the part "removed without anything being done to sort the problem" You can't denie the fact I tried to added reference Lobo151 (talk) 16:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- As I have clearly said both here and on the article talk page, your removed THREE tags (two CN and one 'failed verification'). In place of one of the tags, you added the bare URL of an UNRELIABLE source. You did nothing to deal with the other two tags you removed. It's what you did in this edit; I don't see what is untrue about that. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:7007:3D98:FCBB:6145 (talk) 16:23, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- The fact is that I still was busy adding them, but you already start to revert the edit before I could added them. The fact they are UNRELIABLE is a different point. Going to a different user talkspage and telling not the whole story .Lobo151 (talk) 16:28, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- I wasn't trying to tell any story. The thread on the article talk page is where this should be being discussed, which is why I gave very few details here, besides chatting with an old friend who was one of the people I worked with to get several of the Bond articles up to GA standard.
- Yes, I reverted your addition of an UNRELIABLE link: it should never have been added. An unreliable link is as bad as no source at all. It has to be a reliable source that covers all the information it is supposed to be supporting - this is the basis of WP. Please do not try to add fansite or blog links again (to any page, not just this one), but use published material from books, if possible. - The editor formally known as SchroCat, editing from 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:7007:3D98:FCBB:6145 (talk) 16:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- The fact is that I still was busy adding them, but you already start to revert the edit before I could added them. The fact they are UNRELIABLE is a different point. Going to a different user talkspage and telling not the whole story .Lobo151 (talk) 16:28, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- As I have clearly said both here and on the article talk page, your removed THREE tags (two CN and one 'failed verification'). In place of one of the tags, you added the bare URL of an UNRELIABLE source. You did nothing to deal with the other two tags you removed. It's what you did in this edit; I don't see what is untrue about that. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:7007:3D98:FCBB:6145 (talk) 16:23, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- What is not true is the part "removed without anything being done to sort the problem" You can't denie the fact I tried to added reference Lobo151 (talk) 16:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your work on this list! DonIago (talk) 00:06, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- You're welcome Doniago. I hope you weren't too perturbed by the fact I had reverted you, but it was the easiest way to work back through the problematic edits. They were clearly done in good faith and the editor added a few good new entries, so I don't really mind cleaning up when there is a net gain at the end of the process. Betty Logan (talk) 00:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- Nah it's fine. One of my (probably not uncommon at least) failings is that I do tend to initially get my dander up a bit when I see I've been reverted, but when I saw it was you I figured there was probably a good reason for it, and while I didn't reivew the changes you made especially carefully, I'm willing to assume you made improvements. :) DonIago (talk) 01:24, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi Betty, I hope you're keeping well. I was trying to remove the 1954 Casino Royale from the table at List of recurring characters in the James Bond film series, but am struggling with some of the rowspan/colspan settings, and whenever I've tried to remove it, it breaks the formatting of the rest of the table (it moves people out of the right cells into the wrong roles). Can you have a look and see what you can do? Cheers - SC 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:A8DB:6284:D2D7:F53D (talk) 14:13, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- Ugh! Christ that table is a mess. I will never understand the Wikipedia obsession with using rowspans to make a table ugly and virtually impossible to edit. I will take a look at it and see what I can do. Betty Logan (talk) 03:49, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- You’re a star! Thanks for that. I hate rowspans - I’m an experienced editor and one-time Featured List co-ord with 50-odd FLs to my name, and I still can’t work them out, so what hope does a passing newbie have to correct something?! Thanks so much for that. Cheers SC. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:E463:1219:59DF:7A50 (talk) 05:41, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
I have undone the edit. I assume SC asked you to do that edit for the same reason they asked me to undo the name change of Casino Royale (1954 film): User_talk:SilkTork#Page_move, under the belief that the 1954 Casino Royale is not a film. However, it is a film, as pointed out in the article it was recorded on Kinescope, and has been released as such by MGM, who bought the rights. The film is regarded as part of the James Bond canon, as indicated on fansites, such as jamesbond.fandom.com, and universalexports.net, etc. I understand the thinking that the original episode was live tv drama, but as a film of that drama turned up in 1981, and has been available publicly on DVD since 2003, it is now regarded as a film, and so needs to be included in List of recurring characters in the James Bond film series. SilkTork (talk) 09:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
It is a tv episode, not a film. The change of the article name( witout a discussion) doesn't change that. Also the given reasons are not making it a film.Lobo151 (talk) 10:42, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- Hi SilkTork, I'm not sure it's right to say it's a film (it was only ever known as a television production, and not even a "TV movie"). When MGM have released it on their DVDs, it's always been as an extra. Yes, it was on Kinescope, but that's because the format was the only way to preserve live tv broadcasts at the time. There was a discussion years ago on the Bond Project that agreed it was a TV programme (13 years ago and only 3 people taking part) which is possibly the only discussion (although I thought I'd been involved in others, although I can't find them now). Certainly the other Bond pages we have all refer to this as a TV programme rather than a film (eg James_Bond#Adaptations or Template:James Bond films) or ignore it entirely from the page if it is focused on the films alone (List of James Bond films, Wikipedia:Featured topics/James Bond films, etc). Cheers SC - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:C874:46E5:B7A5:3989 (talk) 12:44, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Betty Logan removed the itens "King Kong" and "Jurassic Park" from Natural Horror page, but these Itens should be there, because they are Natural Horror Movies that should be included Gabriel Rodrigues Loschiavo (talk) 16:30, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker)Can you please provide a WP:DIFF? Were the films possibly removed because no sources had been provided, or because the sources did not claim that these films are Natural Horror films? Betty is a pretty competent editor, so unless this was done by accident (which is entirely possible), they probably had good reasons for their edits. DonIago (talk) 17:36, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Gabriel Rodrigues Loschiavo: If you want to discuss article content then please start a discussion on the article talk page, and as DonIago says, please provide a diff if you are going to challenge a particular edit. I would only ever remove entries for two reasons i) it is unsourced ;ii) the source does not qualify as a WP:Reliable source (in this case I would try to replace it first). Betty Logan (talk) 20:20, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Seeing that you seem to be undoing any edits about this, I'm letting you know about https://www.newcastleherald.com.au/story/2115744/topics-mystery-of-mad-max/ which clearly states that it isn't true.
Sometime in the next week I will edit it, and the other entry (Stockton Beach or Tin City) where it is also claimed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenstat (talk • contribs) 02:54, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- I don't have a clue what you are talking about. Please provide a link to the edit I have apparently reverted please. Betty Logan (talk) 04:21, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mad_Max_(film)&diff=864133809&oldid=864133551
- I am slightly confused as to why you are even raising this issue on my talk page. Let's review the course of events:
- I reverted one edit three years ago. That is hardly "seem to be undoing edits about this". No, I reverted one edit about this. Three years ago.
- I did not revert the edit on the grounds of factual accuracy, I reverted the edit on the grounds that an editor removed sourced content without providing any evidence to the effect that the claim was not factually accurate. This is crystal clear from my edit summary. This is in accordance with Wikipedia policies WP:Verifiability and WP:Original research.
- You now have a source for the correction. As you have clearly trawled through three years of page history it will also be apparent to you that this source was not brought to my attention at the time.
- Why would I recall a single edit from three years ago? If you have a source that corrects the claim then just correct the information with the new source. Betty Logan (talk) 07:59, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi, can you check this edits? Are they correct? Thanks--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 19:24, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi Betty I am looking for some information can you help me out please ?. i want to use a source that someone has linked to a page, but the headline needs to be changed is that possible to do or is the reference title locked once it is created please ?. Regards 178.167.192.240 (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- I don't understand the question. It should be possible to change anything on Wikipedia unless the page is protected. Betty Logan (talk) 18:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Sorry i will try to explain better somebody saved an old article from DragonStars.de snooker site to the wayback machine but their is an error in the url (in the name title) and i wanted to change it, of course the original it was taken from is now defunct. Hope you understand me now ?. Regards 178.167.192.240 (talk) 19:03, 8 September 2021 (UTC).
Hi did that make it any easier ?. 178.167.192.240 (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi betty did you understand my question ?. i have noticed an error in the url is there anyway to fix that please ?. 178.167.192.240 (talk) 20:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- If there is an error in the Wayback screen capture then there must have been an error in the original page, because Wayback just copies the page as it was at the time. If you can still access the Wayback page why does it matter if there is an error? Anyway, you can't alter anything in a Wayback page. If you are the owner of the site you can request that the page is deleted and that is all you can do. Betty Logan (talk) 20:35, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
it matters because the tournament was an invitational non-ranking and they have exhibition in the url on wayback, because there was an exhibition speed cup event also staged during the tournament, like the one in the Paul Hunter Classic in 2019 a few years back. SO i wouldn't want some people to remove it as a source thinking it was an exhibition event. it was german i think there may have been a mix up in the translation. do you get me ?. Regards 178.167.192.240 (talk) 21:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- I get you but you can't edit things in Wayback, that would defeat the object of an archive site. All I can suggest is that if you want to use it as a source you should add a note explaining th error. Betty Logan (talk) 00:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
That is a great bit of advice actually betty i would never have thought of that to be honest. How would you go about adding the note please ?. How would you phrase it and where would i place it ?. Kind Regards 80.233.85.251 (talk) 23:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- I don't really know what the error is so you would have to determine that yourself. But what I would do is point out what it does say, and what it actually should say so there is no ambiguity. If you are using a reference template I would format it like this: <ref>{{cite web ... }} NOTE: The source includes an error. The source states ... and what it should say is ... </ref>. Something along those lines. Betty Logan (talk) 23:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
It is on a draft page here if I showed it to you, would you be able to help me out please ?. Kind Regards 77.75.244.22 (talk) 15:57, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- I can take a look at it but I need the link. Betty Logan (talk) 08:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
In one of the movies, for example, the international box office has not increased since three weeks. Surge_Elec (talk) 09:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- Near the end of a run Box Office Mojo doesn't always update the box-office total on a weekly basis, but usually the international charts are still updated. For example, F9 was still playing last weekend in New Zealand and a couple of other countries: . It might well have close this weekend, but it won't be obvious until later this week when this weekend's charts are updated. Removing the highlighting as soon as a film finishes its run is not an urgent requirement; on the other hand if it is removed too early editors may miss later updates to the gross. Betty Logan (talk) 09:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- The box office counts of F9, Black Widow, and The Suicide Squad have not changed. So, can it be removed now? Surge_Elec (talk) 16:31, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- All three films are still playing in Australia so it is best to leave the highlighting in place for now. There is no hurry to remove the highlighting; if editors are aware they are still playing then they can periodically check for updates. Betty Logan (talk) 18:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Can you please give a source / link that says they're running in Australia? (I would like to use it.)
- If you go to Box Office Mojo and click on the "Australia" tab for each of those films you will see that Box Office reports were filed for 4–7 November, so we know they were still playing last week. BOM is not reporting weekend estimates any more for these three films so you have to wait a few days for the actuals (they will get added later this week if these films were still in play this weekend). It is not necessary to add sources that they are still in play; the highlighting is really there only to let readers know that the numbers are subject to change, and they are technically sourced anyway through the existing references to BOM. Betty Logan (talk) 18:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you. Surge_Elec (talk) 18:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- You're welcome :) Betty Logan (talk) 19:22, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you. Surge_Elec (talk) 18:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- If you go to Box Office Mojo and click on the "Australia" tab for each of those films you will see that Box Office reports were filed for 4–7 November, so we know they were still playing last week. BOM is not reporting weekend estimates any more for these three films so you have to wait a few days for the actuals (they will get added later this week if these films were still in play this weekend). It is not necessary to add sources that they are still in play; the highlighting is really there only to let readers know that the numbers are subject to change, and they are technically sourced anyway through the existing references to BOM. Betty Logan (talk) 18:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Can you please give a source / link that says they're running in Australia? (I would like to use it.)
- All three films are still playing in Australia so it is best to leave the highlighting in place for now. There is no hurry to remove the highlighting; if editors are aware they are still playing then they can periodically check for updates. Betty Logan (talk) 18:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- The box office counts of F9, Black Widow, and The Suicide Squad have not changed. So, can it be removed now? Surge_Elec (talk) 16:31, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 | Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
I wanted to view a link from a source. It says the usual archived from the original and the dates are given for the original as 31 Aug 2009, it says it was retrieved on the 23 March 2021. But when I click on the source link it goes to a page and says "This plug-in is not supported". Can you explain to me what this means please ?. Can other people view it or is my device not up to date ?. Any reply would be greatly appreciated. Kind Regards 31.200.187.229 (talk) 12:53, 20 November 2021 (UTC).
- I can take a look at it but I need to know the article and link. Betty Logan (talk) 14:43, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Ok but what I want to know is the link alive and is it just my phone that is wrong ?. Can you explain why it would say "This plug-in is not supported". Can you tell me what that means please in lay man's terms. I am not great at this stuff ok ?. Thanks 31.200.187.229 (talk) 15:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
How do I add the link to your page ?. 31.200.187.229 (talk) 15:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- Just tell me what the article is and what the citation number is. Betty Logan (talk) 01:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 |
Happy belated Thanksgiving! |
| I know it's an American holiday, and a little bit late, but happy holidays to you anyway! Huggums537 (talk) 09:49, 26 November 2021 (UTC) |
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:5BA:4F6C:DBDA:D476 (talk) 16:40, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi, (sorry for my english) can you help me with the update of this page? I have just updated The Lion King (1994) issues and Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone issues, but I'm not very practical with en.wiki tables, can you help me to add new issues I found? I found these two (UK and Australia) for The Lion King (2019), this (UK) for Beauty and the Beast (2017) and this for Star Wars - The Rise of Skywalker--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 12:20, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
- I'll take a look at it in the next day or so. Betty Logan (talk) 19:00, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Luke Stark 96: Some good catches there, keep up the good work.
Done Betty Logan (talk) 19:44, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the help, I hope the will fix the issues in the future--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 20:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Hi, in the last day BOM increase F9 box office from 721.1 million to 739.6 million, it is another issue? For example this seems wrong, what do you think?--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 10:39, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
- I think it's probably correct. I suspect F9 has now closed internationally and the distributor has issued a finalised list of grosses. This is fairly common. If you compare the current list of international grosses to the one from a month ago you will see there are several differences at country level. China, for example, has jumped $13 million and there are countries on the list that weren't there before, such as Thailand. Betty Logan (talk) 12:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
- So the Ireland gross is correct? Because there is no info about it, just the number (15 million)--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 12:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
- There is no way of knowing, but Ireland hasn't caused the fluctuation: BOM had it down as 15 mil last month, when the worldwide total was $721 million. The fluctuation has come from countries like China and countries that weren't include before. Betty Logan (talk) 13:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks for the explanations--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 13:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
- And..... they changed again, the box office decrease from 739.6 million to 726.2 million, and the Ireland Gross disappeared, but the China gross is the same (216 million)....--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 23:31, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks for the explanations--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 13:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
- There is no way of knowing, but Ireland hasn't caused the fluctuation: BOM had it down as 15 mil last month, when the worldwide total was $721 million. The fluctuation has come from countries like China and countries that weren't include before. Betty Logan (talk) 13:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
- So the Ireland gross is correct? Because there is no info about it, just the number (15 million)--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 12:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
- I think it's probably correct. I suspect F9 has now closed internationally and the distributor has issued a finalised list of grosses. This is fairly common. If you compare the current list of international grosses to the one from a month ago you will see there are several differences at country level. China, for example, has jumped $13 million and there are countries on the list that weren't there before, such as Thailand. Betty Logan (talk) 12:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
- Hi, in the last day BOM increase F9 box office from 721.1 million to 739.6 million, it is another issue? For example this seems wrong, what do you think?--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 10:39, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the help, I hope the will fix the issues in the future--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 20:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I’d like to ask why my edit of Gone Girl under the “In popular culture” section was removed. Thank you. 115.66.42.100 (talk) 01:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- As I explained in the edit summary, it was original research. If you want to include it then find a source that discusses the film in the context of "missing white woman syndrome". Betty Logan (talk) 02:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
You are making mistake with Pirates of the Caribbean 5 budget. Disney confirmed that Pirates of the Caribbean 5 - Dead Men Tell No Tales budget was only $230 million and not $320 million. The news of $320 million budget was reported by the Daily Mail that Wikipedia banned as reliable source. When Daily Mail reports that budget news the others newspapers reported that budget but Disney confirmed that the movie costed only $230 million. 79.35.220.18 (talk) 05:51, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
- Please keep discussions of specific article content at the relevant article talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 06:39, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
- The IP is this user on block evasion--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 15:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 |
Holiday cheer | |
| Here is a snowman a gift a boar's head and something blue for your listening pleasure. Enjoy and have a wonderful 2022 BL. MarnetteD|Talk 19:27, 19 December 2021 (UTC) |
.jpg)
I wish that you may have a very Happy Holiday! 
Whether you celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Hogmanay, Festivus or your hemisphere's Solstice, this is a special time of year for almost everyone! May the New Year provide you joy and fulfillment! Thanks for everything you do here. Huggums537 (talk) 19:00, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Coffee/Holidays}} to your fellow editors' talk pages.
In spin-off series Joey, Joey tells his sister Gina that all of his friends are married, meaning Rachel married Ross in the end after all. Shooting Spirit 007 (talk) 07:37, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- Or it could mean that for some reason Joey no longer considers them friends. Unlikely, but not impossible. I haven't seen the show and I'm not sure what the context of this thread is. DonIago (talk) 16:35, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- I have fleshed out the context of the dispute at Talk:Rachel_Green#Rachel_and_Ross_remarried?. Betty Logan (talk) 17:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
In joining the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:David Gerard violating Wikipedia:Deprecated_sources#Acceptable_uses_of_deprecated_sources, I intended an inclusion of the link to February's Talk:Don't Look Now#Daily Mail, but decided against linking it without your permission and that of the other two participants, David J Johnson and Erik. Having also considered linkage to last year's Talk:RoboCop (2014 film)#WP:DAILYMAIL, in which you and Erik likewise participated, I ultimately settled for this comment, but that thread was closed 13 minutes after I posted the comment. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 19:05, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Roman Spinner: I have no objections to you citing either of those discussions, or quoting my comments directly. I always thought the removal of content at the Don't Look Now article was a gross misapplication WP:DAILYMAIL. Clearly the Daily Mail has been problematic in recent years when it comes to factual reporting, but I always felt the good intentions behind curbing its inaccuracies were misappropriated to purge it completely from Wikipedia. Betty Logan (talk) 23:57, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- I appreciate your kind reply. My outlook on this matter is the same as yours. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:19, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with Betty's comments above. David J Johnson (talk) 12:35, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- I appreciate your kind reply. My outlook on this matter is the same as yours. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:19, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
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) 03:38, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
I have a source I want to add to Wikipedia and I have it saved as a PDF file and I have it saved to my Google drive as the original link is now gone so I was lucky to save it. The problem is if I add it as either a PDF file or from my Google drive to use as a source on Wikipedia it says my Gmail account has to be open for people to view the link. I don't want to have my personal email on Wikipedia. Plus as soon as I log out if I try and view the source it says log into your Gmail account showing my name again to everyone. How can I add this link to Wikipedia ?. There must be a way to do it is there ?. I hope you can help out ?. Regards 80.233.31.168 (talk) 12:54, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- You don't need to upload a PDF. Just cite the URL for where you downloaded it from. If it's a scan of a print source then just cite it as an offline source (remember to include the title, name of the author, the publisher and the date). Betty Logan (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
The website is closed down. I'm not sure I remember the URL. I had it saved on my tablet and sent it to myself via email to keep it. As the original site is closed I only have an email copy which I downloaded. By doing it your way nobody would see the page is that correct ?. It would just give a source with a name and dates. I want to show the article. How else can I add it please ?. Regards 80.233.31.168 (talk) 16:56, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
What good is an old URL if it has been shut down how can anyone verify the source ?.Thanks 80.233.31.168 (talk) 17:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- You would be better off asking at WT:CITE. I have never come across this situation before. Betty Logan (talk) 17:52, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
But the old URL is no good if it is closed down right ?. 80.233.31.168 (talk) 17:54, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Wikiwand in your browser!
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.
