Archives | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||
Contents
- 1 Your last revision on List of vegetarians
- 2 Google Books Trimming
- 3 Jamie Clarke Snooker player
- 4 ArbCom 2018 election voter message
- 5 My talk page
- 6 Huggums537
- 7 Merry Christmas!
- 8 Xmas
- 9 Happy New Year!
- 10 Gwin poeth sbeislyd i chi ...
- 11 Sorry for butting in...
- 12 Disruptive editor at List of James Bond villains
- 13 Discussion at Talk:Turbo: A Power Rangers Movie#Critical reception
- 14 Thanks
- 15 Number order
- 16 18 March
- 17 partial revert
- 18 the rowspans on snooker world rankings look terrible.
- 19 Table color schemes
- 20 A barnstar for you!
- 21 James Bond bio
- 22 What is the problem with me adding a list of world number one snooker players by weeks ?.
- 23 Notice of noticeboard discussion
Your last revision on List of vegetarians
Betty, as a senior editor you should know Wikipedia does not work by a random 2-1 majority rule but by reliable sources and consensus building. I recently found out that there is a whole book dedicated to the claim Hitler was not a vegetarian. I believe you are very much personally involved in arguing there is no dispute and urge you the second time to leave this matter as it is. Or we can ask for Wikipedia:Mediation.
Sincerely, 08:20, 16 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mateo (talk • contribs)
- Yes, Wikipedia works through building consensus. So far you have not established a new consensus to alter the article so you should respect the editing procedures as outline at WP:STATUSQUO and WP:NOCONSENSUS. Please note that WP:NOCONSENSUS is a policy. Betty Logan (talk) 08:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- I see that i have to dig deep on this one. But because i regret implying you are not acting in good faith, i do feel obliged, before going to a mediator, to show you that there was never a consensus regarding the definition of Hitler as a vegetarian, and that this is yet another evidence that he is a disputed case.
- So up until 2013 there were many cases of people moving the dictator off the list altogether and you and others restored him to the disputed section. The first time i found someone moved the dictator from the disputed was [in june 2013]. The edit summery claimed that all the "major biographies" say he is. You know that this is not so. At least two prominent biographers of Hitler actually claim the opposite.
- Secondly, it never reached consensus. In 2014 alone this edit was reverted at least 5 tims. [[1]] [2] [[3]] [[4]]. The last one added some sources and created a large debate on the matter, and these cases continued [[5]] over the years.
- So unlike your representation of events, the current situation of the article relies on an inaccurate fact, never got to a consensus, is disputed in the biographies of Hitler.
- There are so many different evidence that prove this dispute is not settled, with opinions outside wikipedia claiming so.
- So i ask you one last time, politely, to remove your adamant protection of this unbalanced situation and return this case to where it belongs - in the disputed section.
- 10:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mateo (talk • contribs)
- Hitler was moved to the main list over five years ago, and not be me. However I agree that the combined evidence of testimony from the food-tester and the forensic evidence prove he was vegetarian beyond any reasonable doubt. The current version of the article has been in place for five years now and is the "status quo" version of the article. If you wish to initiate an alteration to the article the onus is on YOU to obtain a consensus for such an edit. So far you have failed to convince me and a third-part commenter at the NPOV noticeboard. If you want to seek mediation then that is your prerogative. Betty Logan (talk) 10:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- 10:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mateo (talk • contribs)
Google Books Trimming
The Barnstar of Diligence | ||
Thank you for helping me figure out the google book pieces. Smasongarrison (talk) 16:00, 28 October 2018 (UTC) |
Jamie Clarke Snooker player
Hi Betty Jamie's homepage was changed back to Jamie Rhys Clarke when the player himself has clearly stated his name is Jamie Clarke. Can this redirect be changed back please ?. 77.75.241.2 (talk) 17:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
- My privileges are not high enough to move the article. A move request would have to be filed at WP:RM. Betty Logan (talk) 04:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't know how to do that. It was changed to Jamie Clarke but your friend Armbrust changed it to a redirect for no reason. Can you look into it please ?. Regards 92.251.140.119 (talk) 17:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- Jamie Clarke is a disambiguation page so the article cannot be moved to that page unless it is proven to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. To do that you would have to start a "move" discussion. If you want to do that all you need to do is follow the instructions at WP:RM#CM. Betty Logan (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
My talk page
I do not want your nonsense on my talk page too. So stop it, or you will be reported to an admin for fasely accusing and harassing. Sebastian James (talk) 19:00, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
- By all means report me, but your behavior will also come under scrutiny. Betty Logan (talk) 19:02, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
- I have found out that you do not know what trolling actually means, and I encourage you to read Internet troll. Sebastian James (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
- Your time would be much better spent addressing the real issue at the article talk page. You have managed to escalate an easily resolvable minor dispute into a drama. If you feel that discussion is "stealing" your time then that's a shame because Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Betty Logan (talk) 19:40, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
- I have found out that you do not know what trolling actually means, and I encourage you to read Internet troll. Sebastian James (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
- I have been adressing and will adress the real issue. This minor thing got bigger thanks to you. Maybe I used "stealing" because I think it is extremely hard to collaborate editors like you? Sebastian James (talk) 19:52, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
- You ignored the note and did not provide an WP:EDITSUMMARY when you made the original edit. You also failed to abide by WP:BRD when you chose to restore your edits without once again providing an explanation. This is what makes collaboration difficult, not editors that expect you to abide by established editing practices. Betty Logan (talk) 20:00, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
- Again, I was the one who added reason paramater and updated the subject's new marriage a while ago. I probably have seen the note way before you did. I wasn't expecting to be reverted, so i did not write a summary in the first place. I think continuing to send messages against one's inclination, harassing and calling them "troll" without appropriate situation make it difficult. Sebastian James (talk) 21:30, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
- Asking editors to use edit summaries and warning them about edit-warring is not "harrassment". Posting messages on an editor's talk page insinuating they have a medical problem certainly constitutes trolling in my book. Betty Logan (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
- It is harassment if the editor doesn't want your messages on their talk page. Also assuming you have astigmastim because you wrote "marriage dates changed" was not trolling, I was totally serious and confused. Sebastian James (talk) 11:16, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
- Legitimate notification is not harassment unless there is an IBAN in place. Betty Logan (talk) 15:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
- It is harassment if the editor doesn't want your messages on their talk page. Also assuming you have astigmastim because you wrote "marriage dates changed" was not trolling, I was totally serious and confused. Sebastian James (talk) 11:16, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
- Asking editors to use edit summaries and warning them about edit-warring is not "harrassment". Posting messages on an editor's talk page insinuating they have a medical problem certainly constitutes trolling in my book. Betty Logan (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Huggums537
Hello,
As you know I have been considering this users unblock request. One of the restrictions I am considering as part of this unblock request is to have editors "monitor" his edits (look at them to check them) to ensure that he is not slipping back to what got him blocked in the first place. Would you be prepared to do this?-- 5 albert square (talk) 09:13, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- I am not going to scrutinize every single edit he makes, but I am happy to oversee him in an advisory capacity. Also, if editors encounter a problem with him I am happy for them to ask me to intervene (this could be flagged up on his user page). This might reassure those who oppose his return. Betty Logan (talk) 13:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Betty Logan, Thank you so much for your support during this difficult period. I could NOT have made it through this without your help. You are a saint! Huggums537 (talk) 15:11, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Betty, I know this is really soon, but your advisory capacity oversight could really come in handy right now. I just left a rather lengthy message on my talk page regarding some objections I have to part of the restrictions and I want to make sure I don't offend anyone, while firmly standing up for my personal liberties and not being walked all over like a mat at the same time. It's a very delicate situation, and I'm not sure what the reaction will be. If you could take a look to make sure I'm within the lines, it would be very appreciated. Thank you. Huggums537 (talk) 18:03, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Merry Xmas!
- Merry Christmas Betty Logan! Thank you for helping me to enjoy a free and happy X-mas on here! All the best to you and yours. Huggums537 (talk) 17:35, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- You too Huggums! Betty Logan (talk) 18:22, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Merry Christmas!
A very happy Christmas and New Year to you! | |
|
Happy Christmas! | ||
Hello Betty Logan, Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD|Talk 08:06, 18 December 2018 (UTC) |
Merry Xmas | |
Merry Xmas and Happy New Year! Thanks for all your help :) 5 albert square (talk) 19:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC) |
Merry Christmas to all of you too. Hope you all have a pleasant holiday! Betty Logan (talk) 18:24, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Xmas
Happy New Year!
Happy New Year!
Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year snowman}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.
Gwin poeth sbeislyd i chi ...
... gan yr hen Gymro; rwy'n gobeithio eich bod wedi cael gwyliau Nadolig gwych ac rwy'n dymuno 2019 heddychlon i chi! That is Welsh and translates to: Spicy hot wine for you from the old Welshman; I hope you have had a great Christmas holiday and I wish you a peaceful 2019! Thank you for your excellent work on the 'pedia. Sincerely, Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 11:11, 1 January 2019 (UTC) | |
Sorry for butting in...
Hope my comments to Huggums weren't out of line? I'd really like to see them succeed here, but...well, I think the comment I left spoke for itself. I'm glad you're trying to help them, though right now they seem to be their own worst enemy. Unfortunate. DonIago (talk) 16:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- He's under some pretty tough sanctions so I can understand why he's not happy about it. He feels he has "served his time" and his punishment is being unjustly extended but there was considerable opposition to him being unblocked (including another admin). 5 albert square took a punt on him and many admins wouldn't have done given the level of opposition. He needs to earn some goodwill from the community before the sanctions are reviewed. Betty Logan (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- That was the sense I'd gotten, for better or worse. I just hope he can live with being unhappy but keeping it under his hat for awhile versus being unhappy and chomping at the bit over it. DonIago (talk) 03:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- I couldn't help but notice the conversation here, as it's on my watchlist. This is a perfect example of how misunderstood my position is, and of what a totally foreign type of subculture Wikipedia is to me. I honestly believe the whole thing has more to do with Wiki-politics/culture than it has to do with my ability to collaborate, or the actual level of trust anyone has with me.
- The reason I say this is because hardly anybody actually listens here. They just follow Wikipedia norms in a sheepish manner, without questioning if there could be a better way, or thinking for themselves about better ways to accomplish things.
- I say that because if anybody had listened to me from the very beginning, then they would know that this notion that I'm somehow unhappy about my unblock could not be further from the truth.
- I don't know if anyone reading this has been lengthily blocked before, but I can tell you from experience that I'm very happy to be unblocked, and to have talk page access again. The difference in freedom is unbelievable.
- It's just that I disagree with so many aspects of the unblock conditions, in terms of consensus, procedure and from technical violations standpoints.
- These violations were not in my favor, but in favor of those "Standard Wikipedia norms" I spoke about earlier. This is just fundamentally wrong. Anyone who does not see this and realize it must be what I would probably call, "Wikipediliazed" (A term I just now came up with on the fly that is a variation of the term Institutionalized).
- I have actually espoused these feelings since before my unblock, while discussions were still in UTRS, but immediately made them public at the very moment of my actual first comment upon returning from being unblocked...See diff here.
- It is for this reason that I see fit to forgive anyone of the ignorance of their misperceptions, because they did not have the admin rights that are required to see what was going on at the UTRS in order to get the full picture and formulate a correct opinion.
- Can I live with it? Sure. It seems I don't have much choice if I am but a single person attempting to reason with so many people who have been "Wikipedialized" in the confines of a system that is well known for showing favoritism to admins, and not being so partial to newer users.
- That is the system I chose to join, so I guess I have to operate under those "rules", even if they technically are not actually the real rules, but are just the unspoken ways of how this system really works around here. (That's the Wikipedia subculture I spoke about earlier that is such a foreign concept to me.)
- If anyone would like to tell me, "You just don't get it", then let me save you the trouble and freely admit that I really don't get it, and I truly wonder if it would even be the right thing for me to have any desire to "get it"... Huggums537 (talk) 13:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- Huggums...to be brutally honest...TL;DR. You seem well-meaning, and I believe you want what you believe is best for the project, but I'm not heavily invested in this and I don't want to be heavily invested, and consequently I'm disclined to spend the amount of time and effort necessary to review blocks of text such as the above. I wish you all the best, but I think you're asking a lot of editors/admins when you respond at such length, and my concern, which perhaps I didn't verbalize as clearly as I might have, was that the merits you outline in such lengthy responses may be outweighed by the fact that you're going to such lengths in the first place. If I had one suggestion for you, it would be that you be more concise when expressing yourself. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 16:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- No worries. I was thinking about one day responding to the TLDR essay with a humorous counter-essay of my own entitled, "Too inconsequential; didn't evaluate". I'm not begging anyone to give a hoot, it's up to each person if they choose to or not. I appreciate the suggestion. I choose to express myself as much as I feel is needed. I hope my brevity here proves my ability to be concise enough. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- Huggums...to be brutally honest...TL;DR. You seem well-meaning, and I believe you want what you believe is best for the project, but I'm not heavily invested in this and I don't want to be heavily invested, and consequently I'm disclined to spend the amount of time and effort necessary to review blocks of text such as the above. I wish you all the best, but I think you're asking a lot of editors/admins when you respond at such length, and my concern, which perhaps I didn't verbalize as clearly as I might have, was that the merits you outline in such lengthy responses may be outweighed by the fact that you're going to such lengths in the first place. If I had one suggestion for you, it would be that you be more concise when expressing yourself. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 16:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- That was the sense I'd gotten, for better or worse. I just hope he can live with being unhappy but keeping it under his hat for awhile versus being unhappy and chomping at the bit over it. DonIago (talk) 03:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Disruptive editor at List of James Bond villains
Guess what? That IP's back again at List of James Bond villains! Just letting you know. --TedEdwards 13:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC) I've also told Bishonen, who's previously blocked the IP. --TedEdwards 13:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC) And Bishonen's blocked them for a month. Phew! --TedEdwards 13:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, Ted. Relieved to have missed the drama; nobody needs that on a Sunday. Betty Logan (talk) 13:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- No problem! Although I haven't reverted their last edit, because that would mean I would have breached WP:3RR. That may sound pedantic but I'm like to be strict with myself, otherwise I would break it left, right, and center. Wondering if you could do it? --TedEdwards 13:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- Done. Betty Logan (talk) 13:34, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- No problem! Although I haven't reverted their last edit, because that would mean I would have breached WP:3RR. That may sound pedantic but I'm like to be strict with myself, otherwise I would break it left, right, and center. Wondering if you could do it? --TedEdwards 13:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:Turbo: A Power Rangers Movie#Critical reception
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Turbo: A Power Rangers Movie#Critical reception. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 10:01, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks
Hi!
Just wanted to say thanks for your help with Huggums -- 5 albert square (talk) 21:43, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- Not sure it counts as "help" when he seemingly managed to piss off every admin on Wikipedia but I appreciate the sentiment! Betty Logan (talk) 23:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Number order
But that's a rank, How can two films with same budget can be in different rank ? Wiki KuthiVaiyans (talk) 00:52, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- Entries on the same budget should have the same rank. But similarly, if two entries share a rank then the next entry needs to skip a rank i.e. if you have two entries at #10 then the next rank is #12, not #11, because there are already 11 entries in the chart. Betty Logan (talk) 02:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
18 March
Would you please mind if you reply my opinion in Talk:Motion_picture_content_rating_system? I wrote it 2 days ago (16 March).Zenkaino lovelive (talk) 03:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
partial revert
Hi, Betty Logan. Is there some reason my edit was partially reverted? Angela Maureen (talk) 01:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Per my edit summary "partial r/v to MPAA wording" i.e. I have restored the actual wording used by the MPAA rating in the given source. This is also the grammatically correct conjunction for how the rating operates. Changing the "and" to an "or" alters the semantic meaning of the rating i.e. the rating could be used to bar 17 year-olds but allow in those under the age of age 17, or conversely permit 17 year-olds and bar those under the age of 17. The rating is intended to prohibit both audiences aged 17 and audiences under the age of 17, not one or the other, which is why the "and" is the correct conjunction to use. I appreciate it is only one word but it alters the meaning of the sentence. The rest of your changes were fine though, so thank you for those. Betty Logan (talk) 03:33, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
the rowspans on snooker world rankings look terrible.
it looks much better the way I had done it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.229.38 (talk) 03:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- I don't agree. When players "share" a position it is always clearer when rowspans are used. This is also common practice on other snooker articles such as Maximum break. Betty Logan (talk) 03:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Table color schemes
Hello, Betty! I'm just letting you know that I responded to your points at Talk:Motion_picture_content_rating_system#RfC: Should we install a color scheme with 9 colors in the comparison table?. If you're still interested in helping out, please let me know and we can organize something.Zenkaino lovelive (talk) 04:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- It is an RFC. We don't organize anything. It is a community decision now. Betty Logan (talk) 04:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
The RfC is working. Can I change color right now? See:User:Zenkaino_lovelive/sandboxZenkaino lovelive (talk) 00:50, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- You don't seem to understand. The point of an RFC is to hand a dispute over to the community. We can't change anything now. It is up to the community to decide what happens. Betty Logan (talk) 09:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Original Barnstar | |
Thanks for the correction. I truly apologize for my mistake and will do my best to not repeat it. Sc2353 (talk) 00:54, 2 April 2019 (UTC) |
James Bond bio
Greetings. I noted that you indicated that the second half of the sentence added is not in the source. My copy of Moonraker has a a footnote towards the end indicating that the date of the Moonraker test launch (thus the day Bond defeated Drax) was November 1954 (I forgot the exact date). Was that footnote not from Fleming? Emperor001 (talk) 11:59, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, the way I interpreted your edit was that the date itself was not explicitly given. Rather than use vague phrasing such as "indicate" perhaps it would be better if you simply incorporate the above in the article to avoid potential confusion. Betty Logan (talk) 12:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Just changed the wording a bit. Emperor001 (talk) 14:56, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
What is the problem with me adding a list of world number one snooker players by weeks ?.
Can season's not be broken down into weeks ?. Don't disrespect me by calling my work a mess btw ok. This has been broken down into weeks by World Snooker and others previously. DooksFoley147 (talk) 13:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Are you saying this is not a mess: [6]? Anyway, in answer to your question, Hendry was not #1 for 471 weeks in a comparable sense to Selby's 321 weeks. I get the sense you are a young person who is a new fan of snooker, and you possibly don't understand how the old ranking used to work. But the point is that under the old system a player only had to be ranked #1 after the world championship to be ranked #1 for a full year, but in the modern system the rankings are updated after every tournaments. It is a false comparison, because Hendry literally only had to be #1 for one week out of 52 to get a full year at #1, whereas Selby has be #1 for 52 weeks out of 52 to get a full year. There is a full explanation at List_of_world_number_one_snooker_players#Players_ranked_number_one_at_the_start_of_the_season. That is why why we have two separate tables, one for the annual updates and one for the rolling ranks. The only way in which the two eras are comparable is on a seasonal basis, which is why we also have a list showing the ranks of each player at the start of every season. Betty Logan (talk) 16:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Concerns Regarding User:Bbb23 and Possible Misuse of Admin/CU Abilities". Thank you. Notifying you as I mentioned your name. Nil Einne (talk) 10:22, 10 April 2019 (UTC)