User talk:ParaGreen13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] 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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

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)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:AE-1 closeup.jpg

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)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:BakerwGG.jpg

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)

[edit] 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)

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

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)

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)

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)