User talk:Cowboycorvette

Welcome!

Hello, I am Eman235.

I hope you like Wikipedia and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly.

By the way, I noticed your revision to Tennis Elbow contains an "imitation" reference, written like this: [29]

The page Wikipedia:Citing sources should be helpful for fixing this, especially the section Wikipedia:Citing sources#Inline citations. Again, welcome! Eman235/talk 03:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bigfoot edit request

Hi Cowboycorvette, I noted your edit request on the Bigfoot talk page and I have now restored a previous version of the caption. Now it is more neutral and no longer reads like a fact. I also noticed that you have made a couple of errors with your edit request, and your message has (maybe unintentionally) been included in a previous request. You should use the add topic button when creating a new request. Thanks, Melonkelon (talk) 09:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2019

Hi, Cowboycorvette. Text that you add to Bigfoot (or to any Wikipedia article) needs to be sourced to a reliable secondary source. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. It's not enough to quote a journal entry from 1811, as you do here; that would be a primary source. And referring to "multiple scientific publications" by Jeffrey Meldrum won't do either. Please give a specific source, so that the reader has a chance to evaluate the circumstances under which it was published — for instance, if it's an article, that it was in a peer-reviewed publication with a reputation for for fact-checking; or, if it's a book, that it was published by a "real" (preferably academic) publisher. You also need to provide the relevant pages in the source.

Secondly, please don't remove sourced information (the suggestion about bear tracks) and sources, as you did here, with an aggressive edit summary. Are you a published Bigfoot researcher? If not, you can't remove stuff based on your own opinion. Please see Wikipedia:No original research.

And thirdly, about your posts on Talk:Bigfoot, are you aware that typing in ALL CAPS is regarded as shouting, and is rude? Especially if you say things like "Otherwise — IT STAYS OUT", as if you have authority over the text of the article and other editors must obey you. That is not the case. Please discuss civilly. Bishonen | talk 20:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC). P.S. I've noticed that you originally posted these on User talk:LuckyLouie and he moved them to Talk:Bigfoot (which I agree is a better place for them). Of course it's no better to shout on a userpage than on article talk, or to try to hector an individual editor with stuff like "let's stop the pissing contest here boss". You'd honestly get further with a little politeness. Bishonen | talk 20:35, 10 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]

September 2020

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 23:11, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Acroterion (talk) 23:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Bigfoot, you may be blocked from editing. bonadea contributions talk 19:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not here to build an encyclopedia

I've no idea why the admin who revision deleted this amazing edit summary didn't block you as not being here to help build an encyclopedia. Perhaps they assumed it had already been done. Anyway, better late than never. I have blocked you indefinitely for utterly unacceptable violations of WP:BLP. Your recent edit at Bigfoot shows that you have in several ways no business to be editing an encyclopedia anyway. Bishonen | tålk 20:26, 6 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Adding: If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | tålk 09:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

UTRS 40408 has been declined

UTRS appeal #40408 has been declined.

You have not addressed the reasons for your block. You are not blocked for edits to Bigfoot. You are obviously not here to build an encyclopedia. You really NEED TO STOP SHOUTING. Be all of that as it may, please see boiler plate that follows.

I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you at this time. Please describe in greater detail how your editing was unconstructive and how you would edit constructively if unblocked. ( Please read Wikipedia's Guide to appealing blocks for more information. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks) As you still have access to your talk page, please post your unblock request to your user talk page, omitting any off-Wiki personally identifying information. If you have not already done so, please place the following at the bottom of your talk page, filling in "Your reason here "

{{unblock|reason=Your reason here

--Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:46, 11 February 2021 (UTC)}}. Thank you for your attention to these matters. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:46, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]