User talk:Bmcassagne

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Bmcassagne, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay.
Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!
If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up very shortly to answer your questions. Don't be afraid to ask!
If you would like to experiment with Wikipedia, I invite you to do so in my own personal sandbox (just follow the simple rules!) or in the Wikipedia sandbox.
When you contribute on talk pages or in other areas, it is important to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date.

Again, welcome! — ßottesiηi ^{Tell me what's up} 21:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Venomous snakes[edit]

In case you read through my diff messages, just thought I'd leave you a note so you wouldn't think I was just being rude. The information on the snake pupils is sort of misleading, as there are a few snakes that are pretty much harmless in the US with vertical pupils, such as the night snake and the lyre snake - and typically if you're close enough to see the pupils, you're probably too close anyway. :)

General information on telling a venomous snake from a harmless one should probably be in the article, venomous snake, instead of within each individual species account. I'd like to work on it with you if you'd be interested in that. I bet we could manage to come up with enough pictures of harmless snakes that are commonly mistaken for venomous ones and do a sort of comparison photo gallery. I think that is the kind of thing that people would find quite useful. -Dawson 06:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

J-Lo[edit]

Hi, in response to your message, I didn't delete the J-Lo Booty page, i redirected it to Jennifer Lopez, where there is a section dedicated to Jennifer Lopez' buttocks, covering most of the information you added. If you can add anything to that section, by all means go ahead! Jdcooper 15:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it can be good to split the information into more specific topics, but in general, and especially with a topic like Jennifer Lopez, its usually better to keep all the information on one page. If people want information about Jennifer Lopez's arse, they would generally go to the Jennifer Lopez page first, so we put the info there. If the page ever gets too long (not that i imagine it will to be honest), then we can decide, via the jennifer lopez discussion page, which bit to break out, but until that time its probably better to keep it all in one place, its easier to navigate. Jdcooper 02:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blowout[edit]

I hope you will understand why I removed your name from the Blowout (well drilling) article. Wikipedia is meant to not include any original resource and cite verifiable sources for any facts (as per WP:CITE, WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR). In it's stubbed status as it is now, the general consensus is to not insist on citations, but any expansion of the article would need to cite verifiable sources. Cheers! — Донама 05:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On apostrophes, "BOP's" is a contraction for BOP is, like for "this BOP's not going to work" --> "this BOP is not going to work" so that's why I don't think it is useful to use an apostrophe after an acronym when you're making it a plural. The problem with this habit is well documented. Also, even if it's common on the oil field, people outside the oil field will want to be reading this article. Common usage on the oil field doesn't make it right. It makes it like jargon that's all. — Донама 02:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Post-Katrina images[edit]

Hi. Thanks for uploading your post-Katrina Chalmette images! Might I suggest you upload them and any similar images you've taken to the Wikimedia Commons? There are a good number at Commons:Category:Hurricane Katrina aftermath in Chalmette, and many more in the higher St. Bernard Category, etc. -- at present, the majority are my work; I've uploaded a few thousand I've taken around the Greater New Orleans and surrounding area since I got back at the start of October; there are also some excellent photos by others and I hope we can keep building even more documentation. Best wishes, -- Infrogmation 04:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, images of the effects on the Mississippi Gulf Coast would be appreciated-- we only have a few so far. I've been meaning to make day trips to visit some friends on the Missippi Gulf Coast and take photos, but alas have been too busy in town to go any further than half day drives to Yscloskey and Slidell. -- Infrogmation 04:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please comment if you were the actual photographer of the images in question? Thanks. -- Infrogmation 00:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons[edit]

You need to log in and create a user name seperately at commons.wikimedia.org, if you havn't already. You can use the same user name as on Wikipedia if you like (many of us do as it helps identify who you're dealing with across projects). Once you've started an account there, uploading your own images is pretty much the same as here. Please include a relevent category in the image description when uploading; note Category:Hurricane Katrina has subcategories by subject and geographic location. Feel free to ask any Commons related questions at my talk page on Commons as well. Thanks, cheers, -- Infrogmation 14:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your photographic contributions![edit]

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		Recognising all the top notch photos you've provided for Wikipedia under the GFDL license in your short time here so far, Brad – especially the oil rig blowout pictures. Look forward to more. — Donama 05:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jolene Blalock desktop 1920x1200 copy.jpg[edit]

Thanks for your contribution of Image:Jolene Blalock desktop 1920x1200 copy.jpg. However, I just need you to confirm that you took the pictures involved. That is, you physically took the pictures of Jolene Blalock used to make up the picture. If this is true, can you please note this on the image's page and remove the no-source warning. If not, can you please replace the license with a correct one indicating under what license and detailed fair-use rationale you are permitted to use the images? Thanks. --Yamla 14:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:J-Lo Booty.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:J-Lo Booty.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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 13:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Kawasaki Ninja ZX-14[edit]

Hi, you need to have Wikipedia:reliable sources to back up your claims. --Marc Lacoste 22:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block[edit]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bmcassagne (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been blocked with no explanation posted on my page. The block says massive copyright violations, which is unsubstantiatiated and untrue. I will admit that I have used some photos without permission, but this was intended to contribute to the page, not to take credit for the photos. The vast majority of the photos I've posted were taken by me. Also, I have made significant contributions which gives should give me right to a temporary ban at worst. I have already apologized to the photographer that I offended on the relevant forums.

Decline reason:

It appears you have repeatedly lied in images uploads, making false claims to be the photographer and copyright holder of images that were not yours. — Infrogmation 00:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Comment: I understand that you have been warned repeatedly about problem image uploads. Your comment above suggests that you still don't understand that uploading copyright infringements is not only a legal offence against the copyright holder, it also is contrary to the entire goal of Wikipedia as a free content encyclopedia and a potential threat to its continued existance. -- Infrogmation 00:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bmcassagne (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I don't know what you mean by repeatedly. I have been warned once before, which is still in my user talk, other warnings I am not aware of. In the previous situation I had heavily edited the photo and thought that was acceptable. You can see that since then I have not been very active on the sight and I had forgotten about the couple of other photos. My intent was not to take credit for the photos, but to contribute to the site. The pictures I used without permission were very basic and of no real value except for information and reference. I thought I was doing something good by posting them but I guess I was wrong. I am happy to remove the couple of photos that are not mine if I am unblocked. I think the many pictures that are indeed mine, are valuable to the site. Even if I had been repeatedly warned, which I have not, the policy says that my ban should not be indefinite since I am a significant contributer.

Decline reason:

Your block has already been reviewed — ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Nomination of Company man for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Company man is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Company man until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Chidgk1 (talk) 11:21, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]