User talk:Buccaneer008

You are a genius jd — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.25.11.38 (talk) 06:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Competition between Airbus and Boeing, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Denniss (talk) 01:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Alainmoscoso, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. Hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may be removed if they have not yet been. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. As well, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

Hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian. Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question. Good luck. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

• It would be really helpful if we could discuss disputed content rather than hammering the revert button. Please use the article's talkpage.
• If 70.168.134.209 and 68.100.216.166 are also you, then you're now well beyond the bright line of WP:3RR. bobrayner (talk) 15:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at [[1]] regarding repeated disruptive edits. The discussion is about the topic Competition between Airbus and Boeing. Thank you. —WatcherZero (talk) 23:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider removing the section you started here and relocating your comments to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Competition_between_Aitbus_and_Boeing. There's no need for two discussions. Tiderolls 01:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Disregard. The situation's been addressed. Tiderolls 02:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. Give poor Sinebot a break! Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 03:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you made a change to an article, Boeing 747, but you did not provide a reliable source or at least where you got it. If you'd like to include a citation, please do so. Thank you. Fnlayson (talk) 16:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just added the source. Sorry for the missing information.Alainmoscoso (talk) 18:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good deal. Thanks! -Fnlayson (talk) 20:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Embraer, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages MRJ and CRJ (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 12:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there as contributor to aviation pages, I wondered if you'd chime in on this discussion. I'm trying compromise on some parts of overhauled lists that I've done, or maybe I have it wrong - Regards

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Buccaneer008. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Competition between Airbus and Boeing, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Denniss (talk) 09:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please elaborate. buccaneer (talk) 13:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop reverting on this article and seek consensus on the article's talk page. Tiderolls 14:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All past years have included orders and deliveries for the P-8 Poseidon on the Boeing side (the 2016 orders by itself contains 19 orders for the KC-46 and more than 20 for the P-8 Poseidon). The same has been done with the Airbus A330MRTT. These variants are built on the commercial line and then moved to their defense division. Why the change for 2017?buccaneer (talk) 15:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not commenting on your content. Read WP:Edit warring. When an editor continues to revert an article to their preferred version without obtaining consensus, they are edit warring. Edit warring jeopardizes one's editing privilege. Tiderolls 15:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What consensus have been reached then? Should we take away all P-8 Poseidon orders and deliveries from previous years and in their respective articles too?buccaneer (talk) 17:24, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You will need determine the consensus for the edit you wish to make. You have been reverted by two editors. That demonstrates that there is a lack of consensus. Tiderolls 18:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Provide evidence the A330MRTT are accounted for in the civil Airbus O&D summary/statistics - I can't see them there. --Denniss (talk) 22:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Airbus shows 58 orders and 40 deliveries for its A330 as part of its Government, Executives & Private division. Can you provide evidence that none of them are MRTT's? It's impossible that all of them are ACJ's. All of a sudden, Boeing orders are being reduced for 2017 alone? Why is that?buccaneer (talk) 00:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the evidence you were asking for: https://twitter.com/buccaneer008/status/860653018743795712buccaneer (talk) 01:34, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you revert edits on this article again I will block this account for edit warring. You have been warned previously; you have also been instructed to determine consensus before reverting. Please make use of the article's talk page. Tiderolls 20:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the same to you. Why is more important what you put than the rest of us? Why don't you wait until the consensus is done? If you take away the 15 tankers from 2017, why you keep the 23 in the tables from previous years? Wouldn't the same be applied to the P-8s?. In a certain way, you have too much power. buccaneer (talk) 20:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've been editing here since 2012; learn how to indent. Consensus is determined through discussion. You are not discussing; you are reverting. To complicate matters I'm now convinced you are editing while logged out. That is no problem per se. However, if you are executing edits while logged out to avoid scrutiny, then we have another problem. Please see Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. If you go back to the article and self revert it would demonstrate to me that your editing while logged out was accidental. If you do not attend to this matter with some haste I will block this account. Tiderolls 00:16, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You just added some absurd conspiracy to this matter. I don't need to hide behind "dark" accounts. Check your sources before accusing.buccaneer (talk) 00:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, one of the IP addresses directs to Auckland, New Zealand and the second one directs to London, England: http://www.iptrackeronline.com/. Again, you didn't even take the time to look up where the edits were coming from. buccaneer (talk) 14:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Tiderolls 00:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should you seek unblock you will need to convince any reviewing administrator that you understand the issue(s) that resulted in your block. Specifically reverting to your desired version without regard for consensus and editing while logged out to avoid scrutiny. Additionally, you should outline how those issues will be avoided in the future. Tiderolls 00:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What ever makes you happy bro... I'm one of the few who updates the Spanish pages in a timely manner. Wikipedias's loss not mine. buccaneer (talk) 01:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, 101.100.138.190; 162.246.184.67 nor 101.100.138.190 is me. You blocked me without any merits. I asked you to check your information/sources before making any accusations. You didn't even take the time to check on that.buccaneer (talk) 01:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Buccaneer008 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

falsely accused of editing while logged out to avoid scrutiny buccaneer (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You receive a final warning for edit-warring, and immediately afterwards IP editors turn up to make exactly the same edits you made previously. That's supposed to be a coincidence? Sorry, I don't believe that. Huon (talk) 19:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Telling the truth doesn't convince anybody nowadays. Either you believe it or not, a fact is a fact and again, as I mentioned before, neither 101.100.138.190; 162.246.184.67 nor 101.100.138.190 is me. My home IP address is 68.98.132.115.buccaneer (talk) 14:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Buccaneer008 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Falsely accused of editing while logged out to avoid scrutiny. Neither 101.100.138.190; 162.246.184.67 nor 101.100.138.190 is me. My home IP address is 68.98.132.115. buccaneer (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are focusing on one aspect of your block while completely disregarding the most concerning reason for the block - your inability to edit collaboratively without resorting to edit warring. The blocking admin clearly noted you needed to address this in any unblock request but you have only used your appeals to deny logged-out editing.Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I'm aware of the policy in this regards, that's why I did not revert the editing after my second time. If you read above in my page, I brought up this issue into discussion earlier this year and, I was going to bring it up again before being accused of editing while logged out and being blocked. buccaneer (talk) 22:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Non-admin comment Again, it is just coincidence that after you received a final warning for edit-warring, IP editors showed up and continued to restore the changes you made? Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 21:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You just gave a very lame analogy! buccaneer (talk) 21:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Buccaneer008 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Falsely accused of editing while logged out to avoid scrutiny. I'm aware of the policy in regards of editing collaboratively without resorting to edit warring, that's why I did not revert the editing after my second time (If you read above in my page, I brought up this issue into discussion earlier this year and, I was going to bring it up again before being blocked)buccaneer (talk) 22:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per your comment below, it appears that you somehow believe that Tweeter posts are reliable sources. Also, I see you were evading the block recently ([2]) to continue the same edit-war, which does not help your effort to get unblocked. Sorry, but you did not convince me that you will change your behavior if unblocked. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

{{tl:unblock|reason=Falsely accused of editing while logged out to avoid scrutiny. I'm aware of the policy in regards of editing collaboratively without resorting to edit warring, that's why I did not revert the editing after my second time (If you read above in my page, I brought up this issue into discussion earlier this year and, I was going to bring it up again before being blocked) buccaneer (talk) 00:12, 6 May 2017 (UTC)}}[reply]

• One request template is sufficient for the request to appear in the queue. Tiderolls 02:41, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't read it yet, here you have the evidence showing that Airbus includes its MRTT's in its commercial division: https://twitter.com/buccaneer008/status/860653018743795712buccaneer (talk) 03:27, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Buccaneer008 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Falsely accused of editing while logged out to avoid scrutiny. @Vanjagenije, Scott Hamilton is a well respected aviation editor/director. Also, did I get into any edit-war by updating delivery data?buccaneer (talk) 00:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Editing logged out while your account is blocked is de facto block evasion full stop. It does not matter if your IP is still blocked, if the IP block expired, or if your cellphone is blocked too. Blocked is blocked, and means you as a person. SQL^{Query me!} 03:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

How do you mean "falsely accused"? You admitted above that your home IP address is 68.98.132.115 (dif). That IP was used in violation of your block. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How can I be in violation of my block when that block had already expired?buccaneer (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• You were indefinitely blocked on 8 April 2017 (log). That block has not expired. WP:Block evasion is a serious offense. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My account was blocked indefinitely, that is correct but, administrators put a expiration date on my IP Address and that expired some days ago. Besides that, I was wrongly accused of reverting edits while logged out. I provided proof that my IP address was not the same as the ones doing the reverts but, it's like they don't care.buccaneer (talk) 19:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. You are blocked as an individual. How can you have edited here as long as you have and not know how this project operates? I'm quickly coming to the conclusion that we are dealing with a competency issue here. Tiderolls 20:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but, I'm not the one who gave expiration date to my IP address. Still, none of you mentioned anything about the reverted changes having done by somebody else.buccaneer (talk) 20:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was blocked based on assumptions not on facts! No one gets it. Keep bringing the same accusation without reviewing the facts! Last time I request to unblock me. Adios!buccaneer (talk) 03:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]