User talk:Betty Logan

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

Message to Betty Logan

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)

Merry Merry!

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

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

Butterbean's Cafe

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)

List of biggest box-office bombs

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)

Icelandic rating system

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 [1]. Please only add file images if they actually exist on Wikipedia. Betty Logan (talk) 20:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Scottish Challenge

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)

Rambo III

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)

Ok. I just wanted to check with you on this.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Motion Picture Rating System

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, Mom budget

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)

Snooker world ranking points 2021/2022 moved to draftspace

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 [2] 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)

failed verification on Wikipedia

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)

Black Widow

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)

Killer whale

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: [3]. 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)

,

Runners-up finishes being removed from Snooker players profiles

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)

Hi betty can you help me out please

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)

Paddington Posters

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)

Suggestion

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)

Literary Bond

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)

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)

MarydaleEd - a quibble

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)

"Stalking"

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)

List of natural horror films

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)

List of recurring characters in the James Bond film series

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)