User talk:JacksonRiley

Welcome!

Hello, JacksonRiley, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place 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 ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! BracketBot (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pat Riley may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Los Angeles Lakers in 2000-2002, all while Riley failed to win a championship between 1989 and 2005).[http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?page=riley-jackson/page8]<ref>{{cite web |url=http://

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

I've started a new section on the A340 talk page here. Please follow the WP:BRD convention rather than edit-warring to add unsupported statements. --Pete (talk) 04:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Airbus A340

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. 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. --Pete (talk) 05:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are new here, but again I urge you to read up on policy, as per the links you were given when you joined. If you keep on going the way you are, then you'll get to four reverts before I do and I'll report you and you'll be blocked for a day. I could report you right now - I'm counting a whole bunch of reverts over a few days, which will have the same effect, but I want you to cross that bright line so there's no quibbling.

Actually, I'd prefer you didn't go down that path at all. I'd like you to follow the links to the way we do things. The sources you quote simply do not support the statements you are trying to add to our article. No matter how strongly your own opinion is held, it counts for nothing. Neither does mine. We must use external and reliable sources. That's a Wikipedia basic. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Transit City, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Baird. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

September 2014

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Airbus A340. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. McSly (talk) 23:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Airbus A350 XWB shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. 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. - BilCat (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop assuming ownership of articles as you did at Airbus A340. Behavior such as this is regarded as disruptive and could lead to edit wars and personal attacks, and is a violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Denniss (talk) 17:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:JacksonRiley reported by User:Denniss (Result: ). Thank you. Denniss (talk) 09:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

September 2014

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Airbus A350 XWB. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

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

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Wolbo (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Restored edit on Airbus A350

I restored your edit on the A350 page [1] plus many before, however both Wolbo and McSly are actively engaged in a highly disruptive ownership edit warring game, while refusing to engage editors on the talk page.Judithar1 (talk) 17:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once again

You know how it goes by now. Please gain consensus for these contested edits before edit-warring. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 05:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|The blocked IP address 142.205.241.254 belongs to a major company with over 50,000 employees. Can an exception be made for existing legit editors?}}

Based on the major number of warnings on this very talkpage, can you define "legit"? the panda ₯’ 16:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have been engaged in an ongoing dispute over Airbus A340, where I've taken it to the talk page numerous times and asked for feedback from Project Aviation. I have tried to tone down the edit warring in recent days. JacksonRiley (talk) 16:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are 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 adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. PhilKnight (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note about this block

In connection to this unblock request, considering it's because this user is caught in a block intended to prevent a sock puppeteer, I ran a checkuser. From this, I found some odd editing, shown below.

Selected editing history from Airbus_A350_XWB - note how PortugalPepe appears from nowhere to support JacksonRiley

Considering that JacksonRiley is Technically indistinguishable from PortugalPepe, I've blocked both accounts indefinitely. PhilKnight (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]