User talk:ParaGreen13

Welcome!

January 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Mr. Brooks, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. 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. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Mr. Brooks was changed by ParaGreen13 (c) (t) making a minor change with obscenities on 2008-01-04T17:27:04+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd forgotten about this, but there shouldn't have been any problem with the edits on this("Mr. Brooks") film. In fact I added information about the scene which would of just made things more clear, part of it specifying the victims were more noteworthy for doing one thing, being more pertinent, rather than another. It feel this was a brainless revision based on some "bots" (robots) programming. I've no idea why something like that is ever used. It's idiotic. I'll adjust this back to something comparable soon. As for the word I used being obscene, not everyone wants to sound like he's writing for some woman's magazine. The word I used was the better one. Besides, considering that people were being brutally murdered in the scene and in the film, how is it a problem over wordplay? Explaining "shot at close range with a pistol in the head" is OK, but a common word for sex is not? Seems radically out of proportion.ParaGreen13 (talk) 03:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean there was nothing wrong with the edits you made... you changed the words "dancing couple" to "fucking couple". That immediately sparks the bot to know there is vandalism. The point is that you are trying to get attention by replacing words with more offensive terms when there is no need. The word 'fucking' makes no advantage over 'dancing', does it? —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 10:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you watching my things or making comments? You just can't seem to sod off can you? Being the Party's spy? The bot is unthinking and unreasoning. I've explained mine. Now you expect me to force feed it to you? For the record, there wasn't any "vandalism". I wasn't defacing anything or ruining anything. I added content, and yes replaced "dancing" with "fucking" since they were fucking in the scene not dancing in the scene. Therefore that is far more noteworthy as to identifying the characters. So yes it does have advantage, and that's what I mean. It had nothing to do with getting attention. You're trying to apply some sort of teenaged mentality to me, making really dull assumptions in the process. It had to do with having the scene being explained better and in a more pertinent way. Have you even seen the film in question? You ought not be making any comments if not. Of course you'd probably want to stick your nose into matters regardlessly, to display your superior morality and mostly to just get the last word in! Now that I've had to make more comments on this, because of your irritating capacity for acting like a spy and being nuisance, is that enough? ParaGreen13 (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So why use the word 'fucking' in place of 'intercourse' or 'sex', or 'African-American' instead of 'negro'? You have an obsession with helping articles become unnecessarily borderline or offensive by their use of words, and then you claim you're adding stuff to the article. I applaud you on your correction of 'dancing', but using the word 'fucking' wasn't necessary in the slightest. You clearly won't accept this POV, but it's one almost everyone here shares and one which has been established through our policies. Just because a term isn't offensive to you, doesn't mean other people take it with the same light hearted attitude. As for why I keep replying, it's because you're watchlisted since our last encounter. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 17:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Jim Jones. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Lazulilasher (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

-- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the recent edit you made to Sarah Connor (Terminator) has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. —αἰτίας •discussion• 06:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Milerocks.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Milerocks.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 07:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:AE-1 closeup.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:AE-1 closeup.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sdrtirs (talk) 05:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:BakerwGG.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:BakerwGG.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sdrtirs (talk) 08:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Camera articles

Please don't insert personal opinions into Wikipedia articles. Factual contributions, especially when sourced, are welcome. Also, I don't feel that photos of you using particular cameras add anything to Wikipedia; they don't illustrate much about the camera that's not better illustrated by a photo without you in the shot. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My opinions were valid for generalizing about the worth of the camera system. I have a lot of working experience with both Canon AE-1 models. However you could make the case it was subjective, and not as specific as other details in the articles. However I've seen heresay there, which was left intact, which knocked the camera. I happen to know better.

As for my photos which you hastily deleted, in both cases they added value; 1)Another valid picture of the exact model. 2)An actual working model shown instead of a camera which might be basically a paperweight sitting in someone's closet for years. 3)Camera with lens identifed excactly. One of the pictures was actually taken by the camera at hand, demonstating the current results. Most people will not bother to use the actual camera, get the film processed, and get it scanned. I did. That's a lot more effort and that wasn't already in the article. When you add these things up, you have enough worth to justify these picures being included.

ParaGreen13 (talk) 16:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)Derek Jolly[reply]

There shouldn't be hearsay in the articles at all, actually, but I know it creeps in. As to the photos, I'm not sure if the camera being a working example or not matters to the reader at all - as long as the camera shown is complete and in as good condition as we can find. I stand by what I said that the camera un-obscured by the operator is a better picture for an encyclopedia context, unless there is something particular about the operation that needs to be illustrated - something I'm not sure is the case with the AE-1. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the AE-1s didn't come with any power winders at all, normally. I've never had one for it. So it's stupid to mention a frame rate with it. ParaGreen13 (talk) 06:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However a power winder was made specially for the AE-1; I don't see it hurts to say what frame rate it gives. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please upload photos to commons

Thank you for uploading images/media to Wikipedia! There is, however, another Wikimedia Foundation project called Wikimedia Commons, a central media repository for all free media. In future, please upload media there instead (see m:Help:Unified login). That way, all of the other language Wikipedias can use them too, as well as our many sister projects. This will also allow our visitors to search for, view and use our media in one central location. If you wish to move previous uploads to Commons, see Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons (you may view images you have previously uploaded by going to your user contributions on the left and choosing the 'image' namespace from the drop down box). Please note that non-free content, such as images claimed as fair use, cannot be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. Help us spread the word about Commons by informing other users, and please continue uploading! -Optigan13 (talk) 05:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Anastasiablue.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Anastasiablue.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 16:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you may not know that Wikipedia has a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Using different styles throughout the encyclopedia, as you did in Rastus, makes it harder to read. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. You might think "African-American" is a silly politically-correct word, but "Negro" and "Black", when applied to African-Americans, can cause offense. Slashme (talk) 09:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, List of pornographic movie studios. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. Thank you. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Anastasiablue.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as Image:Anastasiablue.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

A source and a {{Non-free media rationale}} are especially needed.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Obesity, you will be blocked from editing. Please refrain from making your personal views affect your editing judgement. 'Negro' is not a politically correct term for the description of African-American women. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't care about being politically correct? Fine with me, but you cannot throw insults at any population here. If you do, you will probably end up being blocked. The same applies to insulting people as you did to me on your email. If you have something to say to me, do it here, or I will not respond. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 14:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"...and that only because you blocked me for your nonsense." Where did I block you? I am not an administrator, I cannot block you. Instead, I warned you for disruptive editing because the term 'negro' is by no means more appropriate than 'African-American women'. Instead, it is (as I'm sure you're away) considered offensive towards many. Isn't this being "unnecessarily vulgar"? If you didn't realise this, fair enough, but now you know. As for the "real boneheads" and those who delete valid content, they will be warned too whenever caught. As for you only trying to be "constructive", this isn't shown by your block and warning records above, is it? Kind regards, —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 22:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Newf-1.4side.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Newf-1.4side.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 00:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Breakfast at Tiffany's

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Breakfast at Tiffany's, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please stop adding your personal views to the article. Regardless of whether or not you personally find the scene offensive has no bearing on the reaction others have. What you personally deem as "oversenitiveness" or criticism by "people who should know better" is not applicable. Sottolacqua (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record I only let someone else's opinion stand that you had removed. This had to do with people's knee jerk reactions to the unpleasant oriental character. So he was making the assertions there. I was just supporting it a little from your heavy-handed invlovement. As for the table of contents modification, well that WAS Political Correctness entirely, so it was just properly descriptive of the section. Even the hard corps left would admit to that. If there were any counter-arguments there, then I wouldn't have changed it like that. 20:24PT, 2-27.

March 2009

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Roger E. Mosley, you will be blocked from editing. 'Negro' is not a politically correct term for the description of African-Americans. Sottolacqua (talk) 19:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC) That's the whole idea, not being politically correct! Politially correct is being politically biased and it's favoritism as well. Ordinary white people do not say "African American". It's a politically loaded, slanted, and racial pandering type term. Furthermore it's an invention of the left wing and it ought to be shunned. On the other hand "negro" is a proper English word for any negroid, and it is completely neutral, unbiased and inoffensive. Besides of course applying perfectly. Perhaps you ought to consider these things before you goose step off correcting people, you ninny. Look up the word in the dictionary! You might as well theaten me for refering to white people as white or Englishmen as being English! For that matter, I like Roger Mosely. No insult intended there. So I've made my point. Go find someone else to annoy now, or maybe make corrections about something where there has been actual wrongful editing. 3-4-09, 1321PT.[reply]

Taking you at your word, let's look it up in Merriam-Webster's dictionary: negro. See the bits where it says "sometimes offensive"? And let's be honest, you know fine well that people take offense, which is why you're using the word. And that's a very pointy thing to do. Expect little sympathy for your hollow argument. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to Breakfast at Tiffany's, you will be blocked from editing. Sottolacqua (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did nothing disruptive, you overbearing, narrow-minded jerk. I've vandaized nothing. I've only added content in a reasonable way with good intentions. Bugger off! ParaGreen13, 19:32, Mar. 5th.

ANI on you

I see that not a single editor had the common courtesy to inform you that an ANI report has been filed against you at ANI. Caden S (talk) 17:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And neither did you until now... —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Caden. Rough days with the Thought Police. Derek, 14:00PT, 3-5-09.

You're welcome Derek anytime. It's such a relief to see another editor who's got balls around here. Let me know man if you ever need any help with anything. Caden S (talk) 04:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will not warn you again, please cease your personal attacks such as referring to me as a "wordplay NAZI". Insults against me are personal attacks, especially when you have no evidence. Instead, I base my comments about you upon your actions. Even if you do not wish to accept the term is offensive these days, you cannot change 'African-American' in articles to 'Negro'. It's unnecessary and clearly does cause offense to some, so why do it when African-American is just as descriptive, without the offense? Consider this a final warning, and I do not intend to speak to you again directly. Instead, if you continue, my actions will be based over at ANI. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 10:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You will not warn me again? Oh and "final warning" too? Super. I don't give a crap for your warnings. I think your warnings and reasoning are muck. As for what I called you, that's pretty reasonable, since you've been a bean counting little prince making a stink over wordplay. That's your evidence. So, I'd say it's dammed applicable. So stamp your feet and keep making a fuss. Go lodge your complaints. You might of taken it in stride like a man, but I guess not. What the devil do you expect the way you've been dumping on myself and Caden? You started it fella. ParaGreen13 (talk) 18:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)10:50PT, 3-7.[reply]

File copyright problem with File:DerekMerlinsuit.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:DerekMerlinsuit.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

Corrected this yesterday. ParaGreen13, 11:47PT 3-6-09.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. — neuro^(talk) 06:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for incivility in edit summaries and on talk pages.. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sarek, would you mind explaining this nonsense or is that asking too much? Hopefully it's only your ears which are pointy and not your whole head. Yeah I like Star Trek too, even Mark Lenard. Watched it twice a night in the late 80's. This whole thing is very poor chess, so wisdom or fairness is asking a lot, perhaps too much. ParaGreen13 (talk) 04:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that responding to a block like that will not help your case in the slightest. If you wish to be unblocked, place your reasoning in the {{unblock}} template. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 16:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about your opinions kid. You can shove them. Why are you addressing me? Didn't you say you wouldn't be? I don't care for you, your Thought Policing club, your reasoning, or Bolshevik tactics, as weasel-like as they are. Furthermore, I don't care about anything like pleading my case to a bunch of narrow-minded, arrogant, circle-jerking brats. I don't need or want your approval. In fact I'd feel like I dishonored myself if I sought to get it; I know what I stand for. Now go sod off and whine some more, and pull some levers over how bad of a person I am for telling you what I actually think. ParaGreen13 (talk) 21:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The next time I'm accused of being uncivil, I'll just point them your way for comparison. 0:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can go do that. He had it coming Mr. Bugs. Till he tossed a wrench in the works I had some rather pleasant e-mail exchanges with him, and found some common ground. I'm actually a very affable sort of guy. People who know me learn that. But this whole "witch hunt" (to quote Caden) business just got under my skin. How is it not going to? Sometimes I lack tact, but the devil, people get my meaning.ParaGreen13 (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]