User talk:Dr. Hannibal Lecter
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
[edit] Original research
There have been at least three Wiki users (myself, CyberGhostFace and Gdo01) that have objected to your original research and/or speculation.
Your future as a Wikipedia contributor isn't going to be a very long one if you can't learn the rules and abide by them.GuruAskew 01:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Vandalism on Hannibal Lector page
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Some of your recent edits, such as those you made to Hannibal Lector, have been considered unhelpful or unconstructive and have been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
My apologies. Upon futher review of the former warning a glitch in wikipedia caused me to see Hannibal Lector is a "real person" that was simply because Wikipedia somehow reverted the page to the former by itself. That happens sometimes. Sorry. You did not vandalize. 204.52.215.128 20:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Don't try to pass your POV edits off on anonymous IP's
Here is the statement that YOU added to the "Red Dragon (film)" page that I objected to and removed:
"and actually more accurate in many respects than Red Dragon'"
That statement is clearly and undeniably POV and can definitively be attributed to you via your 00:03 January 30 2007 edit.
The first part of the quote that I edited was from an anonymous IP (71.243.141.131) but your elaboration on said comment was every bit as POV and subsequently my edit was valid. Once again I suggest that you familiarize yourself with the difference between fact and opinion.GuruAskew 04:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Please research before editing
In the article Manhunter you wrote "The film has a 94% rating of "Fresh" on Rotten Tomatoes one away from a "Certified Fresh" rating, for which a 95% is needed". This is not true.
"Rotten Tomatoes awards the Certified Fresh accolade to theater releases reviewed by 40 or more critics (including 5 critics from the Cream of the Crop) that score at least 75% or higher on the Tomatometer. A film remains Certified Fresh unless its Tomatometer falls below 60%"
Manhunter didnt get Certified because there were not enough critics. Please research next time. 204.52.215.128 20:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Not a problem, btw I apologize for the early misunderstanding with vandalism see above. 204.52.215.128 20:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] User talk:Kazantakis60
With apologies, I've removed your warning; the user already had been blocked for the activity you noted. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 14:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Manhunter
Hannibal is called 'Lecktor' not 'Lecter' and he was a serial killer who preyed on women specifically in that film.--CyberGhostface 22:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Regarding your question about Ulliel--in this interview he states "Obviously I knew that the audience would expect some similarities with Anthony Hopkins so one part of my preparation for the role was to observe Anthony Hopkins and pick a few details and mix it with my own character. So yes, I tried to pick a few subtle details in his performance." Thats the only one I can find now, but he has made numerous references in other interviews to watching Silence of the Lambs again and again to catch up on Hopkins's mannerisms. Hope that helps.--CyberGhostface 18:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Aaron THomas
Someone nominated this for deletion. I chipped in; you might want to as well...--CyberGhostface 17:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Hannibal
Hey man, I just put a load of good stuff in there. That ariticle was a piece of crap before, ive tried to build it up. I put the important trivia stuff in the article itself,. Why have you reverted it so far back, all the good images have gone? That was all godd stuff, not perfect.
[edit] Hannibal
I didnt actually take much away- "Plot" is intact, so is "differences from the novel", I moved the box office and reactoin stuff to the bottom where it should be, took the trive section out. You seem to have reverted it way to back, so it has mistakes in now. What was wrong with the images of the concept sketch of verger? Or the title image? Trivia doesnt belong in good articles, so what? Whataboutbob 00:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Hannibal
Well, if I just try to explain in a logical way.
The whole article has been classed as a “start” for a long time. That is a long way from FA article status. Because im a big fan of the film, and Ridley Scott I’ve done a huge amount of research into the film – which I’ve tried to cover an “encyclopaedic “ overview. From background information –too promotion of the film.
There are some very interesting developments which happened in getting this film made – which had a direct impact on what it became, ive tried to document this with an obvious view of further help and contribution by anybody, that’s what its all about.
I appreciate what you say about the length, and I should point out what I added was far from perfect and could certainly do with polish/deletion etc from anybody who sees fit and it was something I was going to work on. I thought it was important to get up what I had and go from there.
Also, the headings are laid out in such a way that it’s easy to dip in and out of what you want. The contents allow this - you don’t have to read it al, there is structure there, as I’ve used some of the better articles as guidance.
Can you please revert the article back slightly? I actually began to amend mistakes, and had added some useful images which gave depth to the article. Do you not think these relevant? I don’t know if you did this because some sections I moved – and placed at the bottom, as this would seem logical. Is it not an article about the film “Hannibal” rather than “Differences from the novel?” I agree, it is an important and interesting section that of course should remain, but like “box-office and reaction” (a section a made a mile better than it was a while ago) should also follow the logical flow – coming after “production and post production” to the films eventual release.
This is a “start” article!!!! It didn’t even have any references in until I put some in a while back, and nobody seemed bother to improve this article. Whataboutbob 12:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Ive put the article back to how it was before you took all the images out etc, but ive but the articles (original) back where they were for now, so this might please you a bit. I took TWO BITS of trivia out which i included in the main article. As I've read so many times, if its trivial - it doesnt belong, if its important - into the main body.
Im not suggestion what I started and put up up is perfect or far from finished. Its work in progress. But a good one at that!Whataboutbob 12:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Georgia WikiProject
Please check out the discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Georgia_.28country.29 Chris 03:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Possible alterations on the Hannibal Lecter article
Hey Dr. Hannibal Lecter! I am thinking about major alterations to the Hannibal Lecter article, I just want to know what you think about this. I detailed explanation of what I feel that we should do is in the Hannibal Lecter talk page. Thanks for your help! --Majinvegeta 14:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
