User talk:JCC199

JCC199, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi JCC199! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like John from Idegon (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

January 2019

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Doncaster Sheffield Airport. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Charles (talk) 10:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Charlesdrakew: Why is your argument inconsistent removing only certain routes and leaving others? None of that is promotional, it is not written in a promotional way it's informative. JCC199 (talk) 11:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Luxor International Airport, you may be blocked from editing. Charles (talk) 10:55, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Charlesdrakew: You haven't answered my question. JCC199 (talk) 11:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alitalia's Milan operations

According to the airline's formal schedule the new routes from Malpensa Airport are SEASONAL. Thank you.79.176.49.10 (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@79.176.49.10: None of the references state it is seasonal, also the winter 19/20 schedule has not been released. JCC199 (talk) 22:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have to stop editing by your wishes only! If you don't have references that proving your claim just don't do it.

I added some new references which proves that Alitalia will resumes it's routes from Milan to the Middle East and Russia by SEASONALLY operation. From the end of July to the end of October. please stop doing edit wars.Friends147 (talk) 11:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Friends147: I do have a reference the ones I have provided DO NOT state the route is seasonal, where is your evidence? The Winter 19 Schedule has not been released yet so saying that it is not on the schedule is not valid evidence. JCC199 (talk) 11:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My evidence is from Alitalia's website, which it states that the new routes from Malpensa are SEASONAL.

https://www.alitalia.com/en_eg/fly-alitalia/news-and-activities/news/milan-flights.html https://www.alitalia.com/he_il/fly-alitalia/news-and-activities/new-flights/milan.html Friends147 (talk) 09:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Malpensa Airport. Friends147 (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring warning

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo: I have tried to resolve this on the users talk page and he has come back with something childish. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JCC199&diff=885248549&oldid=885244937 JCC199 (talk) 22:12, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You also continued to edit war despite my warning above and you are beyond WP:3RR at Bandaranaike International Airport, therefore your account has been blocked for 24 hours. Yes, SLAviationLover's edit on your talk page was completely inappropriate (and they have been blocked as well), but that doesn't give you licence to continue edit warring.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Airliner1987, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Charles (talk) 22:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of CBG17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|I have nothing to do with these other accounts, I have never even seen these accounts before so how can I be the owner of them.}}