User talk:SergeantBlackburn

Welcome!

Hello, SergeantBlackburn, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and has been or will be removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other 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. Additionally, 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! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I 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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. McSly (talk) 16:07, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Caution for removal of sourced content, with source and all, and replacing it with an unsourced number. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not introduce incorrect information into article or remove valid information from articles, as you did to AgustaWestland AW101. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox instead. -Finlayson (talk) 14:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at AgustaWestland AW101, you may be blocked from editing. BilCat (talk) 14:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at AgustaWestland AW101. BilCat (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. 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 ~~~~}}. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. 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 ~~~~}}. Floquenbeam (talk) 13:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I had the spare time, I would really like to understand people like you. You're new here, you got 5 messages on your talk page telling you that you need to stop, and yet you seem to think that the only rational way for this website to work is you get to do whatever you want? And you think that this is going to be a successful approach. And then, when you are blocked, you go and do exactly the same thing when you come back after the block? I cannot imagine myself expecting to be able to go to a new website, start bitching at people who are trying to help and who have been there way longer than me, demand things be the way I want, and then be surprised I've been blocked. We are better off without people like that. Either demonstrate some understanding here, in an unblock request, or go away. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:44, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On disruptive editing

Hello SergeantBlackburn. I was not involved with the dispute which resulted in your block, but would like to explain what went wrong. Once a change you make to an article is contested, if you think that your edit is justified and should be restored, a discussion should be started about it on the article's talk page so that consensus can be reached (see WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD). While edit summaries are important, they do not replace said discussion. Restoring the edit again and again when other editors revert it constitute edit warring (WP:3RR), which is considered disruptive and a valid reason for a block. It is also important to point to sources which confirm the claims made in the edit. In case you eventually get unblocked, I hope that this will help to avoid further blocks in the future. Have a nice day, —Paleo Neonate - 13:53, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agusta A.101 was developed by Agusta alone, but AgustaWestland AW101 wasn't

If you're ever allowed to edit the English language version of Wikipedia again I suggest you read up better on subjects (before making changes to articles here) than you have done this time, because you're obviously confusing the Agusta A.101, a helicopter that was developed by Agusta alone during the 1960s but only reached the prototype stage, with the single example built evaluated by the Italian Navy, and was cancelled in 1971 after being rejected by the Navy, with the AgustaWestland AW101, previously known as the EH.101, a totally different helicopter that was developed during the 1980s, i.e. well over ten years after the Agusta A.101 was cancelled, by a joint group made up of Westland of the UK and Agusta of Italy... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]