User talk:Mawcowboybillsbrick7

Unable to stop automatic deletion of image for illogical reason

Hi Herbythyme, I now realize what favor you have done for me in removing SOME of the violations HOWEVER I am concerned about some pages like https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Henry-moore-flathead-v8.002.commons.jpg a very private family story and other copyrighted documents. All articles here ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles?limit=50&user=Mawcowboybillsbrick7&ilshowall=1 ) may be removed for conflict of copyright violation however please save https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AGATE_IMG_4478.jpg (scheduled for automatic deletion in two days) and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Windows-document-properties.jpg for my articles. I am currently unauthorized to edit and message on commons.wikipedia.org domain but would like https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Henry-moore-flathead-v8.002.commons.jpg removed ASAP -- Mawcowboybillsbrick7 (talk) 11:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Herbythyme, I added https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Prevent-harm.001.jpg to my please keep for sharing list -- Mawcowboybillsbrick7 (talk) 12:23, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It really is not about what you want us to "keep". It is about what is appropriately licensed and within our project scope. Given that a vital part of that is images that are of use to other projects I'm concerned to see that your contributions here do not seem to add to the encyclopedia. It is likely that your uploads are out of scope regardless of licensing. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about misunderstanding but I thought the AGATE_IMG_4478 to be both rare and worthy of commons images, I have claimed no copyright and I am both the author and source. -- Mawcowboybillsbrick7 (talk) 15:01, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The other part of my confusion stems from reprimand for some (accidental) uploads of images which include the word 'Copyright' but not others? I honestly believed I was required to include the word 'Copyright' but not use the words 'All Rights Reserved." regards, Mawcowboybillsbrick7 (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your purpose in being here?

You have not made a single edit to any main space article and made no other useful edits here. It would seem that WP:NOTHERE applies. Theroadislong (talk) 12:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to be here to argue about images on Commons, because they've been blocked there. Seems very much like WP:NOTHERE applies, as they haven't shown any intention of trying to improve the English language Wikipedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Theroadislong I disagree with WP:NOTHERE. First, you should examine my edit history. I have contributed to a number of articles. I am just learning. Some people may not like all suggestions for article I have requested however I feel I have been putting my best foot forth in effort to improve the validity of Wikipedia and provide a non-bias POV, as difficult as that is where personal conflict of interest exists. Mawcowboybillsbrick7 (talk) 13:14, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your last mainspace edit was on 14 November 2012. And in the last month, you've made 60 edits mostly to your userspace with no attempt to actually improve any articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have been suggesting (attempting) a verifiable 'Keyfile CORBA (1991) vs Microsoft DCOM (1995)' document management desktops comparison. -- Mawcowboybillsbrick7 (talk) 14:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Joseph2302 (talk) 14:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your drafts

I am sorry to have to tell you that your Agate and Prevent Harm drafts are totally inappropriate for Wikipedia. They are so inappropriate that until now I thought they were just personal doodles.

Wikipedia already has an article on Agate; so if you have something sourced to a published reliable source, you should add it to that article. Wikipedia does not allow more than one article on the same subject.

As for Prevent Harm, its appearance is totally unencyclopedic, and I can't imagine its having published reliable sources. As you have been told before, articles on Wikipedia must be sourced to published reliable sources. —teb728 t c 10:13, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for misunderstanding. I am of limited

physical ability and thought it would be OK to keep DRAFT article material here. My introduction to Agate was for myself or other people to incorporate freely within my ( or their) article. Feels like retaliatory censorship to me, sorry to say how I feel here. Mawcowboybillsbrick7 (talk) 15:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can work on draft articles in user subpages (but not on this user talk page, where you originally created them). (User talk pages are only for communication with other users.) My point in this thread is that the two user subpages I mentioned are not suitable IMO for articles and look like just personal material. Wikipedia is not a web host for material unrelated to the encyclopedia. —teb728 t c 08:01, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Mawcowboybillsbrick7! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.

The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023

Welcome to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, content you added to Younger Dryas impact hypothesis appears to be a minority or fringe viewpoint, and appears to have given undue weight to this minority viewpoint, and has been reverted. To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. Feel free to use the article's talk page to discuss this, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Hypnôs (talk) 14:59, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Talk:Mawcowboybillsbrick7 has an edit summary that appears to be inadequate, inaccurate, or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. You did not "removed unused references" Doug Weller talk 07:34, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Misrepresenting source at Younger Dryas impact hypothesis

That’s a quote from Martin Sweatman, not a reliable source. And of course quotes need attribution. Doug Weller talk 18:57, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am not disagreeing with your suggestion of a quote , I do not judge who or what is a reliable source , HOWEVER , The article referenced [8] explicitly states " “Probably, with the YD impact event

essentially confirmed, the YD impact hypothesis should now be called a ‘theory’.” "

which is opposite of and is contradictory of the phrase "The role—if any—of comets in bringing about the start of the Younger Dryas has been rejected by most subject matter experts."

I recommend the phrase ( for removal ) as both fallacy and misleading of who are the 'subject matter experts' . Where is the list of 'subject mater experts' ?

No, the author of the article does not say that, he quotes someone else. Someone who fails WP:RS. It should be obvious that there could never be a list of subject matter experts, I can't imagine why you would think there could be. Doug Weller talk 07:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Um , because the article suggests 'subject matter experts' is defined , or worse , is being defined within the article , thus , as such , is misleading .. which is my point . I would like to assist more with Wikipedia articles , in general , however until such day that I can use easily use a fallacy 'prover' , something ChatGPT can't do yet , I must address every fallacy on Wikipedia individually , which requires more time than I can gift Wikipedia ( of my time ) . regards , Mawcowboybillsbrick7 (talk) 13:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, this belongs on the article talk page. Doug Weller talk 13:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your consideration , regards Mawcowboybillsbrick7 (talk) 13:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copy & paste move

Hi, you seem to have created Henry Moore (mechanic) by copypasting content from the pending draft at Draft:Henry Moore (mechanic). In the future, please don't do this, as it creates all sorts of problems, not least of which is the loss of the edit history. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]