User talk:Happylobster
Welcome!
You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try. (See Wikipedia:Maintenance or the Task Center for further information.)
Help counter systemic bias by creating new articles on important women.
Help improve popular pages, especially those of low quality.
Hello, Happylobster, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
I found you, by the way, via your note on Talk:Extreme Ghostbusters. I made the change you recommended, but remember, at Wikipedia you're invited and encouraged to be bold!, and make corrections yourself when you see them. No sense waiting for someone else to do it. I'm sure you'll have a blast here, once you get the hang of it. -GTBacchus (talk) 19:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Just wanted to say I admire your knowledge of Doonesbury. Thanks for punching up my additions. Czolgolz 07:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Patton
[edit]I did respond to your comment "What about Patton" with regards to Rommel. This was on the original article, I think. The other gentleman read this and then sent me a mail. As I mentioned, Rommel is not depicted as a villain in Patton. In fact the main one who might be a villain is Patton himself. But you could hardly add him to the list, as he is also the main hero. In addition the film is mainly non-fiction and shouldn't really be mentioned. Wallie 15:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
PS Found it...
Turnstep, I do not really want to add more names to "redress the balance". This is just compounding the situation. I would not think of many people as villains anyway, although I work with a few! The thing is that the list of non-fictional heroes was deleted, and that was saying positive things about people. This section is to my mind there to stereotype in a very negative way certain races, particularly the Germans. I know that you will say, like Basil Fawlty, "well, they shouldn't have lost the war"... There is not one American in the military leaders list, and a few presidents in the politicians list. To say that "Hitler, the last 10 days is fiction is really stretching the point." I removed Rommel. He was portrayed in a very heroic manner, not as a villain, in the Desert Fox movie, and that is not POV... If you don't believe, watch the movie! Wallie 15:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- What about in Patton_(film)?--Happylobster 16:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- That one portrays Patton as a villain. Have you seen it? Watch how Patton deals with the horse and cart on the bridge in France trying to block his divisions (of tanks). Or how he deals with the guy with shell shock in the field Hospital in Italy. Wouldn't want to be around that guy in a bad mood! Rommel is hardly mentioned. Wallie 20:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
List of villains
[edit]Hey, Happylobster. (Does a happy lobster dance the Lobster Quadrille?) I'm sorry that the anon's continual reversions have put you off editing List of villains. It's annoying to me, too, so I've put up a vote called for a straw poll in order to make what I thought was an implicit consensus (to move towards a categorized list) explicit. If you're still interested in working on the page, you might like to come and vote help us figure out the next step. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC) (Edited by Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC))
- Will put back companies when I get a chance, but I think it will crowd the page a lot to add companies for all of them. We can discuss more on the talk page. Turnstep 19:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I have made the change you suggested. I like your wording. Michael L. Kaufman 06:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
It's/its
[edit]No problem. I've been making that sort of mistake increasingly often myself in the last few years - I never used to do it, but my grammar seems to be eroding with the passage of time... --Calair 00:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Greatest films
[edit]I removed nothing that hasn't been discussed before. I removed entries that are 1) not clearly "the best" but only "one of the best", 2) entries which are not substantiated with a poll or awards, 3) personal choices by critics. There are millions of critics on earth and unless we are elitist, we won't want 1 million critics' choices on the list.
I'm sorry if your favorite movie got axed, but the entry is already overlong. If you want your favorite movie to be there, you must substantiated with a poll/awards result. Best picture winner 19XX is not good enough - that only means it is the best picture winner for that particular year. I'm sorry I'm must be so strict, but otherwise this will (or has) degenerate(d) into fancruft. Mandel 15:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Why did you add Category:Wikipedians interested in film to Wikipedia:Community Portal/Opentask, thereby putting almost every wiki user's talk page in that category?
- Yikes! I had no idea I did. I must have confused pages while trying to improve my own. My apologies. Has it been reverted? --Happylobster 15:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
You helped choose Mark Twain as this week's WP:AID winner
[edit]
→AzaToth 00:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Build support for your position
[edit]Happy, I have to wonder about the approach you are taking with the greatest films list. There are many listings of more than one greatest film. You haven't removed the IMDB list of 25, you haven't removed other multiple entry lists. When I reduce a list from 5 to 2 you decide to take action. It seems rash to me. If a comprehensive survey identifies a hundred or several hundred great films it doesn't seem unreasonable to say what came in second (and perhaps even the top 5 or 10). Nobody has responded to our discussion, so what is wrong with keeping the status quo? The guidelines have been posted, without objection, for many many months. You are changing my edits that are following the guidelines. If you want to change the guidelines, work on building support for the change. Until then, I think we should continue to follow the guidelines. -- Samuel Wantman 08:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
The article is "films considered the greatest ever". If a film is #2 on an extensive list of films that is verifiable and significant. I think guidelines should be manageable and verifiable and should reflect the consensus of what editors do. Having the top ten films in the main categories and the top two in the nationality and genre categories is common practice, verifiable and manageable. I think it is more significant that The Rules of the Game was #2 on several Sight and Sound polls, than its one obscure mention as number one. Having the 10 ten IMDB picks is useful to the subject. Certainly we have to draw a line somewhere, but why fight making the article more comprehensive? I don't want to strip the academy awards section to mention just the 3 films tied for the record. I don't want to strip the IMDB section to one film. There is a difference between saying "one of the best" which is too vague, and documenting what was #2. My bigger point is that the burden of making this change is on you, not on me. I don't see a consensus to stop adding the #2 spots. -- Samuel Wantman 18:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
WP:FILMS Newsletter
[edit]The December 2006 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Please also, if you have not already, add your name to the Member List. Cbrown1023 00:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Re: Why?
[edit]I didn't "knock out" anything. I didn't "cut" the data, though not as you seemed to think. I editted the "Amon is dark CM3" analysis, as that was nagging me for a while. I guess your edit was the last scraw, in a semi-good way. I also separated the section into two paragraphs. No sentence was wholly deleted, I merely rephrased a few things. Your addition: "Those hopes are shattered shortly afterwards when, during a conflict with the Suicide Squad, Osiris uses too much force and tears the Persuader in half." was not even reworded. Next time, keep cool and try to look closely at content before you bite someone's head off. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 20:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
List of dystopian films
[edit]Hey there. Just wanted to let you know that I've posted my reply to your comments regarding List of dystopian films on my talk page. Thanks. - Walkiped (T | C) 21:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Doonesbury Trivia
[edit]Uncle Duke was revealed as the founder of Dr. Whoopee on May 12, 1987. He was still running Baby Doc College at the time. Later he got mixed up with a shady financing deal, having something to do with William Casey (deceased director of the CIA), and wound up being forced to give a 90% interest in the Dr. Whoopee company to John Gotti at the end of October 1987. I don't recall that anything much has been mentioned of the company, or Sal's franchise, since then. Duke, of course, went on to another scheme, winding up first homeless, then in the hospital, then at Bellevue, and finally working for Donald Trump on board the "Trump Princess". --JohnDBuell 01:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
WP:Films Newsletter
[edit]The January 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Nehrams2020 06:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Films February Newsletter
[edit]The February 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Cbrown1023 talk 23:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
March WP:FILMS Newsletter
[edit]The March 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This is an automated notice by BrownBot 00:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
April 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter
[edit]The April 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This is an automated notice by BrownBot 21:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
May 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter
[edit]The May 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated notice by BrownBot 21:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
June 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter
[edit]The June 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Please also, if you have not already, add your name to the Member List. Nehrams2020 08:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
July 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter
[edit]The July 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This is an automated delivery by BrownBot 18:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
August 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter
[edit]The August 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This is an automated delivery by BrownBot 03:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Films roll call
[edit]
An automatic notification by BrownBot 23:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Films September 2007 Newsletter
[edit]The September 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Please note that special delivery options have been reset and ignored for this issue due to the revamp of the membership list (outlined in further detail in the newsletter). If you would like to change your delivery settings for future issues, please follow the above link. I apologize for the inconvenience. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 23:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Films August 2008 Newsletter
[edit]The August 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
WP:FILMS Questionnaire
[edit]As a member of WikiProject Films, you are invited to take part in the project's first questionnaire. It is intended to gauge your participation and views on the project. At the conclusion of the questionnaire, the project's coordinators will use the gathered feedback to find new ways to improve the project and reach out to potential members. The results of the questionnaire will be published in next month's newsletter. If you know of any editors who have edited film articles in the past, please invite them to take part in the questionnaire. Please stop by and take a few minutes to answer the questions so that we can continue to improve our project. Happy editing!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
[edit]
Hello, Happylobster. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!