User talk:Happylobster

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

[edit]

Here are some tasks you can do:


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:

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)

Contents

[edit] Patton

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)

[edit] List of villains

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)

[edit] Arrested Development

I have made the change you suggested. I like your wording. Michael L. Kaufman 06:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] It's/its

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)

[edit] Greatest films

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)

[edit] Wikipedia:Community Portal/Opentask

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)

[edit] You helped choose Mark Twain as this week's WP:AID winner

 Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Mark Twain was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help.

→AzaToth 00:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Build support for your position

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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/a/p/User_talk%7EHappylobster_8652.html"