User talk:RiverBissonnette

License tagging for Image:Hovind-booking-photo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Hovind-booking-photo.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Kent Hovind's pic

Typically, Wikipedia doesn't use mugshots as infobox images unless that what these people are known best for. And your image was used under a fair use licensing, which would be considered unsuitable when a free alternative is avaible. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 00:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hovind copyright

Please look closely at the sentence you inserted a link to reference a claim. The link you added is cited. That is, the very link you inserted appears at the end on the sentence in the < ref > format.

Moreover, I have no idea why you did a screen shot of his webpage. Also you only gave a partial screen shot because at the bottom of the page that he says none of the material is copyrighted, it says everything is copyrighted. I quote: "ALL MATERIAL (UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED) IS COPYRIGHT © 2007 CSE MINISTRY "[1] Arbustoo 01:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opps, I did the same thing that "Concerned Reader" did in not making sure the reference was already there. Sorry about that. The reason I added the screen shots (I needed two for the entire page to be copied) was to have a way to show that the copyright statement did exist being that things have come down from the CSE page in the past when they have been pointed out as incorrect and then Kent would deny that the article/claim existed in the first place. RiverBissonnette 19:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YEC page

Thanks for the censorship of YEC on the YEC page. I see that this wiki takes a bias view by deleting everything that I wrote. I will be making a note of this on my website and leaving a link to that page. It will be included in my evolutionist hate section of my website. And will be included on the forums I help run, and the ones I am a member of.

As far as a discussion goes. You guys already made up your mind on this. Just delete away. That page just proves the claim about censorship that YEC says exists. So thanks for another example of evolution hate. I will also be including the user names of the people who kept deleting everything I type.

Also, can I just delete stuff I don't like on the evolution page as well? Or would I get banned for doing it? Don't worry I don't stoop that low. And the person who runs this can delete my account. There is no purpose in taking the time to write things that just get deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ikester7579 (talk • contribs) 04:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Actually, Ikester7579, if you had read my reason for taking your "Eternal Time Creation" down you would have realized that I was not censoring you, but telling you that your concept should either be moved to a new subsection of the YEC page or that you should create a entirely NEW wiki article for your ideas. You are the first person (with your websites yecheadquarters.org and sixdaycreation.org) to introduce this concept and as such it did not belong within the already established article focusing on mainstream Young Earth Creationism. If you feel that "Eternal Time Creation" should be part of Wikipedia then create an article of that title and explain how it differs from Young Earth Creationism.

I am sorry you interpreted my trying to help you solidify your idea in wiki as censorship and feel that your need to threaten people at Wikipedia and make such angry unjustified statements would have never occured if you had taken the time to understand the reasons for removing your addition to the YEC entry. RiverBissonnette 19:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Baugh fish.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Baugh fish.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Y.E.C. Headquarters

A tag has been placed on Y.E.C. Headquarters, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. -- Recurring dreams 01:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information on how to keep this article from being deleted and the criteria for an article about a website. I am a relative new and enthusiastic user who focuses on subjects I have personal interest in and appreciated any help in understanding how to improve my role as an editor of Wikipedia. RiverBissonnette 03:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I am not convinced that the subject of the article fulfils criteria listed in the policy WP:WEB. A large portion of the page is concerned with Wikipedia editing which is not notable and violates WP:OR, and also possibly Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I appreciate that you are new and are trying to contribute to the project, but I don't believe this topic belongs in the encyclopedia. Happy editing. Recurring dreams 04:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the page does fail the notability criteria for websites outlined in WP:WEB. To sum it up, for a website to be included it needs to be a major subject of articles published by reliable independent sources, and websites run by cranks maintained in the nooks and crannies of the internet usually don't qualify. Don't be discouraged, though. Thank you for your contributions. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 06:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm sorry but I have deleted this article. It clearly took you a long time to put together so if you want a copy of it let me know and I'll provide it for you so you can work on improving it outside of article space. The reasons for deletion (and so the issues you need to address before reintroducing it to the encyclopaedia) are the notability of the subject isn't asserted, in fact the title of the article seems to have little to do with the content. The article is self-referential to Wikipedia which should be avoided, we're not here to document ourselves. As DrNick said above, it was pretty much an attack page. No matter the provocation or how much we are baited, we never begin articles with the purpose of denigrating the subject, if I were a Christian I'd tell you to "turn the other cheek". If others have time to waste attacking an encyclopaedia website that thousands find useful every day, fine, let them, they won't gain anything, they are after all entitles to their opinion. And that's all it is! Malla nox 11:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

Hi there RB.--Filll 13:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Jack Akin

A tag has been placed on Jack Akin, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD A7.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Toddstreat1 00:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Put on the hangon tag and let's flesh it out a bit.--Filll 00:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Akin

Sorry it took so long to get back to you. Your article on Akin was deleted for a few reasons. Primarily, there wasn't any obvious assertion of notability beyond Akin being a blogger and podcaster. This, unfortunately, is insufficient for inclusion within the encyclopedia. As a rule, very few bloggers/podcasters/webcasters make the cut (please review the notability criteria for biographies for futher information). The other issue is the lack of independent, reliable sources.

Let me know if you have any further questions or concerns. Cheers, Caknuck 17:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanation. I was not sure how notable a person had to be for this rule to apply. RiverBissonnette 14:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Kent Hovind Booking Photo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Kent Hovind Booking Photo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 14:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This photo is currently being used in the article on Kent Hovind under the section on Legal Problems and therefore is not an abandoned photo nor applicable for speedy deletion.

"Speedy deletion" is a misnomer here. Please read WP:NFCC for some of the problems. (For what it's worth BetacommandBot has been censured by a number of admins for using improper language in notifications, but WP:CSD#I6 would apply. I've formatted the justification to some extent, but it needs some more work. If you can provide the date the photo was taken, and the photographer or original publication it appeared in, it would be helpful. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Acalypha virginica, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Parsonsfield (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]