User talk:ParaGreen13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Welcome!


January 2008

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]
introduction to editing. Thanks. —αἰτίας •discussion• 06:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Image copyright problem with Image:Milerocks.jpg

Thanks for uploading

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
Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading

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
Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading

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

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 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
]

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,

talk 00:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Breakfast at Tiffany's

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.

You keep making the same edit to the article which contains both original research and
weasel words
. Compare the original edit:
Although her occupation is never explicitly stated, it is implied that Holly makes money by providing wealthy men with platonic company, though no one is particularly happy about the arrangement.
And your edit:
Although we never find out for certain what Holly's occupation is(she doesn't have a real one), it is implied that she makes money by expecting and taking it from financially well-to-do men, without making it "physical", as if it were platonic, except no one else is happy about it.
Obviously Holly is a call-girl, but continually making the same poorly-formatted edit only exacerbates the other editors' frustration with your edits. If you look at your edit above, it is written in the first person and is missing a space before the open parenthesis.
Rather than engaging in an edit war, which this is likely to become, make a contribution that offers additional analysis and less opinion or assumption. Perhaps something like the following:
Capote's novella is more explicit when detailing both Holly and Paul's sources of income. While the film never directly states it, it is implied that Holly is merely providing men with platonic company or, at the very least, is a courtesan. Paul's role as a kept man while a struggling writer is also never discussed in detail, although in one scene his female companion is seen leaving money for him on his nightstand as she exits his apartment after a late-night encounter.

The

Hays code
of 1930 may have also played a role in the specious interpretation of their shared occupation.

Either way, I think its important to not let your emotions get in the way of what you are trying to accomplish. Take a step back and offer communication between other editors rather than getting into an edit war.
talk) 12:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

As a matter of fact the quote you made for the previous edit was not the original edit. It was modified as a result of the editing disagreement after I suggested some compromise. Then I stopped bothering with it since it was then adequate in my opinion. As for "poorly formatted", that's nonsense. If it's the parentheses, then edit it over instead of reverting. That's just an annoying thing to do. Also it was long, but it was originally a single sentence in that section. I didn't want to turn it into an short essay. But it was needed to have it improved since it was misleading about the situation with the characters in the story. I've watched it recently. First person? Since I wrote "we"? As in "we" the audience. That's not a problem. You're nitpicking over your personal style. That's kind of silly. That's a waste of reasoning. Regal us with your preferences, oh sage-like one! Yours isn't the only acceptable way to do it.

As for emotions, that had nothing to do with anything on my part. You assume too much. Para13, about 17:00 GMT.

March 2009

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
]

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

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.
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
File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading

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

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]

June 2009

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Sally Struthers. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Jazzeur (talk) 03:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from being stupid about it. I've not "vandalized" anything at all. Pointing out a degree of something, which is all I actually did, is not vandalism. Besides, how did I deface anything or destroy anything, which is what vandalism really is? Did I delete any useful content at all there? Did I write anything which was false? Did I use vulgarity unnecessarily? Answers all, no, of course. So, piss off please! And thank you, for pissing off. D.J. 12:05PT, June 11th 09.

I see no vandalism. People really should look up the true meaning of the word "vandalism" before they assume such bad faith. Ned ac 13:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then please explain, in your own words, the idea that you were trying to express, or get across, by using the qualifier in question. Thank you. --Jazzeur (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Massive" weight gain is not vandalism, it's mild POV-pushing. However, if South Park itself used that term, then it's not POV-pushing, it's merely a quote. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the Sally Struthers article we are dealing with a real living person, not a fictional character. Also, the phrase in the Sally Struthers article has an internal link back to the South Park episode in question. That's enough. --Jazzeur (talk) 13:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, it's not vandalism. Vandalism is random blanking for no stated reason, or interjecting stupid stuff like "Hi!" in the middle of an article. Your proper course of action would have been to simply revert it and say "POV" or something like that in the edit summary. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I don't think this is "point of view". It's objective, like saying a mid-50s Chevy is rather heavy, or that Alan Alda went grey on MASH. How's that point of view? It's using your eyes. "South Park" made the point and I was making sure that that point was across. The point was obvious. Of course it's not vandalism. People here use that word all over the place here for politcal ends, and quite wrongfully lots of the time. Keep stiring it up, Jazzeur. What a waste of bother. ParaGreen13, 20:00PT, 6-14.

April 2011

Please do not add commentary or your own

your opinion does not belong in a Wikipedia article. Simply claiming it as "fact" does not make it a fact. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 00:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

File:AE-1 closeup.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered,

Wikipedia:Files 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. Cloudbound (talk) 20:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

File permission problem with File:DerekMerlinsuit.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:DerekMerlinsuit.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [email protected].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. Here is a list of your uploads. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 12:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ParaGreen13&oldid=1146697905"