User talk:AbramTerger

Hi,

I'm the "evil" vandalizer who's IP code (if that's the proper term) is 67.240.82.233 (right now I'm using someone else's account). I did not know that there was such thing as a talk page or a discussion board, which is why I didn't contact anyone to resolve the editing conflict. I can't seem to contact the dude who blocked me, so I'm contacting you instead.

I have proof that there is a debate about the ending of Harold and Maude. On the IMDB message boards, there are a couple of threads in which arguments have occurred: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067185/board/thread/150602101 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067185/board/thread/143452931?d=143452931&p=1#143452931

Unfortuntely there were more threads (and with more people), but IMDB took them off to make room for other ones. (But since there's no way to prove that, you'll probably think I'm fibbing). Also, in a 34-page booklet that came with the official soundtrack, it mentions that the ending was played around with, which is why some people interpret it differently. I don't have the book, but if you get your hands on it, you'll have your proof.

Anyways, that's all I got, and if it's not enough, then I'll leave the "suicide" section alone.

Templeclay (talk) 02:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)67.240.82.233[reply]

I sent an email to the person who blocked me and provided a quote from the book that came with the soundtrack as proof there was an alternate ending. I thought you might be interested in seeing this quote:

"When I arrived in Hollywood, Hal showed me a rough screening of the film just to acquaint me with it. And at the end of it he said they had two endings. He said, 'We've got another ending where he either dies or he dances off into the sunset. Playing the banjo.' And I was very much in favor of him dancing off into the sunset, obviously. As I think most people would have been, certaintly the studio would have been. Hal had this alternative ending where when the Jaguar catapults into the sea- and by the way, you can see the camera that was set inside the car, come out through the front windscreen. You can still see it- if you watch the car, it flips over in a very flat pancake-y sort of way. It's not a spectacular car crash, it just simply goes off the cliff and lands on its roof. And you can see a little something comes sout of the car and splashed into the water- that is the camera that they mounted inside it." -Paul Samwell-Smith; page 26

Templeclay (talk) 16:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, AbramTerger, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Primer (film). I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Also, just curious, were you related to the making of the movie, or are you just a fan? Again, welcome! ~a (user • talk • contribs) 17:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, You seem have removed a sentence in the film Memento which was stated clearly with a source link from a reliable source. I urge you not to do so as it was clearly stated and did not violate any policy of Wikipedia. (user talk 20:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correction at List of films featuring diabetes! It had been a while since I saw the film. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The recent vandalism you encountered is a problem we've had since December. Please check out the Sockpuppet investigation page and post your comments regarding this issue. - Areaseven (talk) 14:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You need to slow down a bit, because your making some mistakes in your haste to shape the article to your liking. First off, the film is not set in the "Old West". It's set in 1908, well after the Old West era. It's a comedy, not a "Western comedy" - in fact, it's a comedy of manners. Your insistence that interesting and informative material be left out because it's trivial (to you), is a mistake - the provenance of a movie's source material is always pertinent.

How about discussing what you're doing on the talk page, instead of diving in and getting it wrong? BMK (talk) 03:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the previous contributors to {{Infobox film}} or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!

This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just to note that I reverted your edit on About Time (2013 film). We needn't enter a debate about the merits of the spelling of realise/realize. The point is the article's original spelling was "realise", which sits nicely with common usage within the UK. Edits by an IP editor within the last few days changed it, along with changing the spelling of "travelling" to the US variant "traveling". I was merely restoring the article's original spelling in line with guidelines. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that you are rounding dollars in film articles per MOS:LARGENUM. While I endorse this approach (having used this in articles that I work on), you may get some push-back on some articles. Many articles still report the full dollar figure, and some editors will argue that we should report exactly as the sources (Box Office Mojo, The Numbers) do. If this happens, you can start a discussion at WT:FILM about the matter and see what other editors have to say. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would also suggest rounding to the nearest hundred-thousand because articles that report the box office figures often do this kind of rounding, rather than to the nearest million. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Erik:. I started a discussion. We will see how it goes. Thanks.AbramTerger (talk) 15:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like discussion has stalled, but I think rounding to the nearest hundred-thousand seems more accepted. You can see the trade papers rounding this way in running text. I don't know what the verdict is on what to do with the infobox, but I like Masem's point about easy comparison. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Erik: Yes I noticed it has stalled. I took away the nearest hundred thousand for millions of dollars. In a discussion with Betty Logan around some Nolan Batman edits(who also contributed to the discussion on WT:FILM) she did not like rounding with billions (for the comparison aspect) and preferred something like 1,008.4 million instead of something like 1.008 billion so I will do that as well. I have used things like 240 thousand, but perhaps I will try 0.240 million to keep everything in millions, and see what the feedback is. Again, thanks for the suggestion.AbramTerger (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's common to write something like "0.240 million". Looking at this, it looks like the trade papers prefer to write out the full number if it's below a million. Might not be a bad example to follow. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Erik: I am a scientist and we would (especially as a means for comparison among numbers with vastly different orders of magnitude). But it is an accounting number, so I will take your advice. Thanks, again.AbramTerger (talk) 19:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I don't want to use the quote as I don't think it adds anything more to it and since it's not cited is my main issue. I think pointing out exactly what the author's intentions were and what Cameron's response are more valid. No big deal. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. STATic message me! 22:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Mark Poltimore" is cited on imdb as an art auction consultant on the film. The Wikipedia article for Antiques Roadshow links to Baron Poltimore, which in turn states that the current Lord Poltimore "has notably been a director of Sotheby's and appears on the Antiques Roadshow as Mark Poltimore, one of the experts on paintings. In 2013 he appeared in the film Trance playing the role of Francis Lemaitre, an auctioneer." The link in the citation in the Roadshow article links to the PBS biography, which includes a photograph, and is clearly the same man. I've no wish to start an edit war, but why is this even an issue? Do links to the articles of other actors in an article about a film require citations?

As for 60s vs. 60's, I'm unaware of either (a) the authority of film credits as style guides to proper grammar, or (b) a Wikipedia style guide that states that film credit grammar is to take precedence over basic grammar rules, but if you feel that strongly about it, I won't start an edit war over it. Have a nice day. Laura1822 (talk) 14:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

British peers use their title as a surname. They do not use their surnames at all. "Poltimore" or "Mark Poltimore" is how the current Baron Poltimore would sign his name, whether personally, professionally, or formally. It has become somewhat common for contemporary peers who do not wish to be known professionally as "Lord X" or "Baron X" to use this style.

Here are some links for you in case the above is not sufficient to "prove" that it is the same person. Please note that media almost always get titles wrong; "Lord Mark Poltimore" is as incorrect as "Mrs. Mark Poltimore," but for some reason journalists and editors (and even copywriters at Sotheby's, who really ought to know better) refuse to consult a correct form book.

• http://www.sothebys.com/en/specialists/lord-poltimore2/bio.html
• http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/04/a-conversation-with-sothebys-lord-mark-poltimore/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/4753884/Blue-blood-values-meet-the-web.html
• http://www.poltimore.org/index.php/the-trust

Laura1822 (talk) 22:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

your request for citations in Baron Poltimore is reasonable. I note that you have them immediately above. What iys unreasonable and a breach of wiki rules is an edit war or reversion without discussion. Please leave well alone while I ask a supervisor to intervene. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Christopher Nolan shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. —Farix (t | c) 14:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TheFarix: I have been trying to have a discussion. I have offered 2 alternate compromises that maintain the accuracy of the information in the table, but so far there has been no responses. I don't mind alternative presentation, but the information that is there should be accurate. I have been reverting to try and maintain accurate information in the table, from the misrepresentation in the one particular version. Any suggestions?AbramTerger (talk) 20:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rendezvous (1935 film). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

I note from this page that you have a history of edit warring, as recently as a week ago, but to this point have avoided being blocked for it. I suggest that you stop now before this becomes your first block. BMK (talk) 14:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input on "The Wolverine" discussion. I appreciate your help. At the moment you seam to be the only one who is seeing my side. Thanks again, hope we can reach a consensus soon. Warner REBORN (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reference next to Victoria and Andrew's names clearly states that they were made series regulars; just because they weren't credited as such for the Pilot doesn't mean they shouldn't be listed as regulars when they clearly are, especially when Cory Michael Smith (who was made a series regular at the same time they were) is.DigificWriter (talk) 16:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DigificWriter: The report is flawed since Corey Micheal Smith IS a regular already in the pilot. if they all became regulars at the same time, the 2 would not be guest stars in the pilot. The question about the other 2 will be resolved in less than week: we should know Monday if they are regulars or not, and if so we can upgrade their status.AbramTerger (talk) 16:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Person of Interest (TV series) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. . You are now at 4RR. Please stop edit warring, which appears to be a problem with you. You don't own the article, and you don't get to make decisions on your own. What an ego! --130.182.29.28 (talk) 03:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see your having similar trouble with Drmargi, care to discus it? --User:DanDud88

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]