Welcome

Hello, Felix505, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Doc Quintana (talk) 17:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

---

#Eruption history of Rinjani is a link to another section on the current page.

VEI[1]	Date Start-Stop	Lava Volume	Tephra Volume	Area of Activity	Eruptive Characteristics	Note[2]
2	2010 February 2010 May (?}			Gunung Barujari	Smoke Plumes ash eruptions ejected incandescent material fell within Rinjani caldera some ash was blown out of the caldera	SI / USGS Weekly Volcanic Activity Report-Rinjani[3] PVMGV-Evaluasi Kegiatan G. Rinjani}}[4]
2	2009 May 2 2009 Dec 20 (?)			NE flank of Gunung Barujari	Central vent eruption Flank (excentric) vent Explosive eruption Lava flow(s)	Historical Records GVP-Rinjani
2	2004 Oct 1 2004 Oct 5 (on or after)			Summit and NE flank of Gunung Barujari	Central vent eruption Central vent eruption Flank (excentric) vent Explosive eruption	Historical Records GVP-Rinjani
0	1995 Sep 12				Explosive eruption (?)	Historical Records GVP-Rinjani Eruption "Uncertain"
3?	1994 Jun 3 1994 Nov 2			Gunung Barujar	Central vent eruption Explosive eruption Pyroclastic flow(s) Lava flow(s) Fatalities Mudflow(s) (lahars)	Historical Records GVP-Rinjani (VEI): 3?
1	1966 Mar 28 1966 Aug 8	6.6 x 10⁶ m³	2 x 10⁴ m³	Eastern side of Gunung Barujari (2250 m)	Central vent eruption Explosive eruption Lava flow(s) (?)	Historical Records GVP-Rinjani
0?	1965 Sep (end) Unknown			Gunung Barujari	Flank (excentric) vent eruption Lava flow(s) (?)	Historical Records GVP-Rinjani
0?	1953 Oct 15 ± 45 days (end) Unknown			Gunung Barujari	Central vent eruption	Historical Records GVP-Rinjani (VEI): 0?
0?	1949 1950 (months uncertain)			NW flank of Gunung Barujari	Central vent eruption Explosive eruption Lava flow(s)	Historical Records GVP-Rinjani
2	1944 Dec 25 1945 Jan 1 (?)	7.4 x 10⁷ m³		NW flank of Barujari (Rombongan)	Central vent eruption Flank (excentric) vent Crater lake eruption Explosive eruption Lava flow(s) Lava dome extrusion Damage (land, property, etc.)	Historical Records GVP-Rinjani
0	1941 May 30 (end) Unknown			Rinjani summit	Central vent eruption	Historical Records GVP-Rinjani Eruption is Uncertain
2	1915 Nov 4 (end) Unknown			Gunung Barujari (Segara Munjar)	Central vent eruption Explosive eruption	Historical Records GVP-Rinjani
2	1909 Nov 30 1909 Dec 2			Gunung Barujari	Central vent eruption Explosive eruption Mudflow(s) (lahars)	Historical Records GVP-Rinjani
1	1906 Apr 29 (end) Unknown			Gunung Barujari	Central vent eruption Explosive eruption	Historical Records GVP-Rinjani
2	1901 Jun 1 1901 Jun 2			Gunung Barujari	Central vent eruption Explosive eruption	Historical Records GVP-Rinjani
2	1900 Nov 30 1900 Dec 2			Gunung Barujari	Central vent eruption Explosive eruption Lava flow(s)	Historical Records GVP-Rinjani
2	1884 Aug 8 1884 Aug 10 ± 1 day			Gunung Barujari	Central vent eruption Explosive eruption	Historical Records GVP-Rinjani
2	1847 Sep 10 1847 Sep 12			Gunung Barujari	Central vent eruption Explosive eruption	Historical Records GVP-Rinjani
n/a	13th century (?) exact date unknown			Gunbung Rinjani	Possible caldera forming eruption	Speculative date Refer to scientific literature[5][6]

Hi, I replied on the talk page of the article. Equendil Talk 19:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You are invited to participate in the vote at Talk:Science in the Middle Ages#Ballot box as an attempt to establish a consensus. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The French Navy use the terms Frigate, Aviso and Corvette, using an Anglo-Saxon word like Sloop which the French don't even use just wouldnt be right for the article. An Aviso (Sloop) tends to be a heavily armed Corvette which can perform over sea tasks. Recon.Army (talk) 09:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello Felix, and thanks for creating that article. It turned out though that we've already got a stub Central Lombok Regency that should have been used for your content. I've now requested that the new page be moved over that existing name, so the full article can use the English page name. De728631 (talk) 19:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, a look at the revision history reveals that Central Lombok Regency was set up as a stub quite exactly one year ago. And I don't know where the stats in the infobox came from. Coordinates though can be an issue when taken from unreliable directories (I've seen a few web pages referring to something like xx° yy' 60"). De728631 (talk) 21:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there any reason why you are duplicating so much info inside articles? the lombok one has duplicated links and more refs than text and horrible accumulations of links to wikitravel - any reason? SatuSuro 02:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I am somewhat troubled to think you wil go to every single kecamatan/region/regency in Indonesia with something like : -

• West Lombok Regency travel guide from Wikitravel
• Senggigi travel guide from Wikitravel
• Mataram travel guide from Wikitravel
• Tanjung travel guide from Wikitravel
• Mount Rinjani travel guide from Wikitravel
• Senaru travel guide from Wikitravel
• Gili Islands travel guide from Wikitravel

• Kabupaten Lombok Utara the Regency of North Lombok
• Kabupaten Lombok Tengah, the Regency of Central Lombok
• Kabupaten Lombok Timur, the Regency of East Lombok
• Kabupaten Lombok Barat, the Regency of West Lombok

As in the end it sort of questions what the hell about WP:NOT and WP:ABOUT quite seriously - specially when there is more of that than there is text.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Lombok_Regency - but this one then actually has serious issues in relation to its text it looks like a WP:COPYVIO - and has no WP:CITES or WP:RS SatuSuro 02:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there any reason why you are duplicating so much info inside articles? the lombok one has duplicated links and more refs than text and horrible accumulations of links to wikitravel - any reason? SatuSuro 02:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I am working on them now and trying to do them as a set.

I am working on it now the wikitravel links are being used as there is so little WP coverage of Lombok

There will be some content soon but I need to get some other stuff done first

The links are between the 4 different Kabupaten of Lombok. 1 is to the Kabupaten covered by the article the other 3 are the adjoining Kabupaten.

""I am somewhat troubled to think you wil go to every single kecamatan/region/regency in Indonesia with something like : -"" well don't go thinking that as there is absolutely no indication that is happening. These stubs have been there for at least a year, now someone expects full article on each in a day, they have to start somewhere and that is what I am doing. They are not all links, I have got a fair bit of content into lombok tengah and a bit into utara.

I am going to have a look at the Lombok article in a minute. I am a bit tired though so I may not get through it all right away. What in particular is disturbing you?. Felix505 (talk) 02:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Dont worry about my comments - I was concerned that when I first looked at - the refs and ext links really did concern me - but if you are in process of cleaning it up -fine - such a large content of ext links is not what WP:ABOUT - we need the text - but hey there is no time issue - take your time...

You are obviously a WP:AGF editor - if you in process of cleaning up its fine - dont take any unnecessary concern about my comments - but remember WP:RS in the text usually come in preference before damned wikitravel links!!! SatuSuro 02:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

One thing to add stuff - but hey at the bottom of the page when you edit it states Encyclopedic content must be verifiable - where are you getting the info from and why are you not citing it? If you do not understand me or are tired - think about WP:V, WP:RS a little more carefully - otherwise a lot of the text you add is open to question - where is it from and do you know how to WP:CITE ? SatuSuro 03:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Not responding to messages or attributing sources - someone else may well come in and revert a lot of your edits btw SatuSuro 03:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Whilst I am sitting at my computer both answering your messages and editing and inserting refs in articles I read that you think I am not . Well I think you might be craving attention. aside from the Lombok International Airport article all these articles have been sitting on WP going no where for a long long time,generally as stubs. I am trying to do something about that. You are welcome to contribute constructively if you wish. Constantly chiding me is just annoying. If you think something in particular needs a reference then please draw my attention to it instead of just being irritating. Do you just want to chat with someone? if you do I cannot work on the article. Sorry but either query the material directly or just let me get on with it. Felix505 (talk) 03:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - the rate at which i edit i sometimes miss the differences and have probably missed where you have done good stuff - it is very easy to find mistakes and not realise they preceded your edits - apologies - im out of your way SatuSuro 04:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

OK I sometimes get confused as well. BTY I like your lichen foto. I came across it yesterday as I think I stubbled on to your talk page in connection with the issues at Science in the middle ages....catch you later Felix505 (talk) 04:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that SatuSuro 04:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on File:Sea-Chart, Medana Bay-Tanjung, Lombok Indonesia.jpeg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [1], and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

• state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
• add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. Thanks for your additions to Lombok. Do you have an online copy of this source as used in Lombok? thanks --Merbabu (talk) 11:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

No it went offline some months back. I have to clean up the ref where I have cited it but have not got to it yet. I am currently working through the lombok articles I have been editing in the last few days tidying up errors, spelling, formatting etc. I have done extensive web searches but cannot find it elsewhere. I have not done a wayback as I have the article and so do not need to do it. I think it was a pdf anyhow rather than in html. If you enquiry is re the <refs> I will get to it. If you would like to do it I am much obliged by your assistance. If you want it for academic, WP or personal reasons place a note here with your email address. Take out the <at> so you don't get a lot of spam as the spam bots cruise WP. Thanks for your interest.

(here is the ref you will need to use the edit function to read it------web| last = | first = | authorlink = | coauthors = | title =From Ancestor Worship to Monotheism, by Sven Cederroth, Politics of Religion in Lombok | work =NB this article is not currently available from previous URL source (Aug 2010) | publisher =Temenos 32 (1996), 7-36. | date =1996 | url =http://www.abo.fi/comprel/temenos/temeno32/ceder.htm (1 of 21)13/6/2005 1:16:38 PM | format =acrobat pdf | doi = | accessdate =(1 of 21)13/6/2005 1:16:38 PM}}----. Felix505 (talk) 12:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I refer you to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Airports/page_content. Please note that it's been agreed upon in the past to not list code-share airlines in the tables. If you got any questions, please discuss at the talk page, thanks. Sb617 (Talk) 14:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

OK [Sb617] if there is common previous editing agreement on code shares not being listed I will not, and thank you for informing me on that. If appropriate I will describe them as "operated by" when the flight termination DPS is advertised by an airline but the final leg is completed by Garuda or Silk air as in the case of AMI. Problem here is that an editor is reverting and meddling in a quite destructive manner restoring outdated and incorrect information clearly without interest to fact, refs or doing some basic research for example: AirAsia don't do Penang, Batavia not yet to Perth, Wings do Mataram', Trevira no ops, pulling out Batavia air destinations, why?, Batavia air, BTY that link is written in plain english, maybe traces of 'indolish' but quite reasonable understandable English. On 27th august the listing Batavia Perth [Begins August 26] was sitting on the article user [Rabbit 20] removed the August date. Knowing that Batavia was not yet operating DPS-PTH I put a date date and source in there. [124x247x221x146] keeps on relisting Batavia Perth despite it not currently operating.The listing keeps on being restored without qualification which leads to the article being incorrect in fact and misleading.

Further in regard to Batavia they currently list ex DPS to Cengkareng, Jakarta, Kupang, Labuanbajo, Maumere, Surabaya. [124x247x221x146] keeps on deleting Cengkareng, Kupang and Maumere. He also keeps on re-listing Aeroflot as operating into DPS yet they are not until later this year. Pelita, again, no ops, no operating schedule out of DPS, they stopped it, yet [124x247x221x146] keeps on re-listing Ende, Kupang, Labuan Bajo, Waingapu as Pelita destinations ex DPS. Apparently time for edit wars and undo's but not a moment to check facts or follow a weblink. A reader could see that Aeroflot is not yet servicing DPS if he stopped deleting the link to Aeroflot and the service commencement date. There are more but it is tiresome to list them again. Interestingly despite this editors enthusiasm for deleting current flights and listing not yet commenced services as active he seems to work to a different standard on other articles. On the Lombok International airport article he turned up and deleted the entire destinations section. The reason he gave was that the airport was not yet in operation. Yet the destinations described the islands current services that will with absolutely no doubt commence at that airport when the services move across from the current airport. Indeed the airport is being built for the purpose of serving these same destinations (and hopefully some additional ones), that is why the information is/was in the article. As the current nearby airport is closing when the services move across these are the new airports destinations. It is not like it was not quite clear in the article that it was a yet to be opened airport. I can speak with reasonable authority on that as I authored the article.

I think this editor is just causing trouble, wasting time and trying to draw attention to himself. He is not doing anything constructive and frankly looking at his edits I can see a pattern of destructive and disrupting behaviour. If he felt the codeshares were inappropriate then there are better and less destructive ways of dealing with this, like editing them to list as "operated by" as in this case that is what they are. With both Lombok and Bali there is an issue with Lion air/Wings operations. Wings air operate the flight, It code shares with Lion Air. Lion 100% own Wings. The fights are described both as Lion and as wings. In air services information such as airport arrivals and departures lists they are described only as Wings as the aircraft are registered to Wings and carry Wings tails and call signs. To keep on deleting the cross reference is disingenious. Wings do not have a noticeable public interface, it is done through Lion. Indeed they do all there web interface and such things as internet bookings through Lion. They have not have a website to describe schedules,it is all done at Lion.id. Delete the references I put into the article and the Airline and the flights disappear. I have done some edits on the wings article to assist with this but I expect in due course [124x247x221x146] will come along and delete those edits well as as he appears to be stalking now. This clown should be blocked.Felix505 (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a fixed way in which airport destination tables are to be shown. Please see any other airport article to understand that (eg London Heathrow Airport or Narita Airport or Cairo Airport). Please also see the style guide at WP:Airports before making any more edits that are inconsistent with the rules. 124x247x221x146 (talk) 16:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ngurah Rai International Airport. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Please take this to the talk page. Mjroots (talk) 17:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Felix505, thanks for your comment, and the comments on the talk page (which you forgot to sign). Looking at the talk page of 124x247x221x146 (talk · contribs), it would appear on first sight that that is where the problem lies. I'd really like to hear from that editor before taking any further action, and I do have another admin in mind to ask to cast an eye over the situation. If the situation continues, then maybe a report at WP:AN3 or WP:ANI would be in order. For the moment, I'd suggest that you don't revert any changes made by 124x247x221x146, even if they leave the article at the WP:WRONGVERSION. Other editors are free to revert changes, which adds weight to the argument that 124x247x221x146's editing is not constructive - 1 editor vs another editor = edit warring that is likely to get both blocked, 1 editor vs several editors points to a problem with an individual editor. Mjroots (talk) 04:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Mjroots thank you for your input. Yes I am keeping away from the articles. There is nothing constructive to be gained from me reposting an edit to have this individual jump all over it again. In any case seeing as he is obsessing on it he will either get tired or may even have an epiphany of some kind and do some research. 124x247x221x146 (talk · contribs) has recently done some more editing on one of the articles and left a list of questionable greivances on Talk:Selaparang Airport. I would appreciate your looking over it with anyone you feel may spare the time. Certainly my own objectivity has limits and I think I am going to answer his post and then disengage lest I say something unfortunate to him. Thanks for pointing out I did not sign on talk page, the power is off and on again here today and I had trouble getting the content restored, must have been distracted and forgot to add my signature back on. Power failures here often put me off air for hours in the middle of an edit.Felix505 (talk) 05:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I've asked fellow admin Milborne One to look over the issue. He's been a admin a lot longer than I have, and has lots of experience with aviation articles and issues. Mjroots (talk) 07:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mjroots, I think it would be good to have a serious administrator level overview on this with some multiple inputs. This individual is not performing in the best interests of WP and I think he has some issues that need to be addressed with some urgency as he is no doubt creating havoc in other articles as well. His destructive behaviour on the 3 articles I have been involved with today and yesterday illustrates somewhat disingenuous tendencies. He is apparently on some personal mission that he places well in front of the core task of providing objective, verifiable and appropriately contextual material to an article. Indeed I strongly doubt he shares any common objectives in that regard what so ever. His behaviour is draining, counterproductive and appears to be deliberately malicious. He edits without regard to accuracy or verifiability and seems to have no regard for encyclopaedic integrity or intent. He has not responded to appeals to provide sources where he has deleted verifiable and referenced material and replaced it with information he has been clearly advised is incorrect in both in content and fact. He is belligerent and insists on deleting anything he is not directly controlling. I note he behaves with an air informing of some degree of editing history yet his talk page only has 3 days of history.

The first time I viewed his user/talk page it was full of complaints from other editors. I note that it seems to have now been sanitised a little. His edit history starts on the morning of 20 September 2010. At current count in around 3 days he has performed 465 edits. I assume this individual has more than a 4 day WP history and has no doubt been blocked and created a new username. He has now made a mess of 3 articles that I have been involved in editing and his actions have considerably diminished the quality and verifiable content of each one. It has taken up a great deal of my time and the effect is that I have now had my energies sapped by the complete nonsense arising from this individual.

The plans I had to further resolve my edits on the pages concerned have now been shelved and my interest is quite diminished. Where the articles would have no doubt gained from my energies being further expended on the articles they have instead been dissipated dealing with total rubbish. Efforts to correct or mitigate the problem have been further vandalised and due to his bullying and aggressive editing he has successfully taken over the articles.

Particularly in the case of Ngurah Rai International Airport he has been successful in editing a considerabIe amount of junk content into the article at the expense of properly researched and verifiable content. That he has been successful in doing this with limited challenge and no blocking is disappointing. I noticed from a brief overview of his editing history elsewhere that he has a fondness for reverting edits of others. Maybe he sees this as his mission at WP.

Looking at the volume of his edits in the last 3 days I think I can understand he is focussed on something other than encyclopaedic content and article integrity. No doubt he has run this course before. I think an IP block should be applied to him before he does any more damage. There may be some issues with that though as 124.247.221.146 appears to be have a history of the same activity, tellingly it is appears to be on aviation related content. Seems he was short lived at User:124.247.221.146 before an IP block was raised. and apparently this IP address has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia. A look up on the IP brings up IP Address:124.247.221.146 ISP:IPVPN/INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER Region : Mumbai (IN). Maybe the WP block has since been lifted.I looked on the block list and could not find it but maybe it eluded me. The User talk:124.247.221.146 seems to have a certain resilience. It is not hard to assume that User:124x247x221x146 is User:124.247.221.146. It is also not all that hard to see who he was before he started using User:124.247.221.146. Looking at the style of edits and frequency of reverts on aviation pages there seems to be a lineage as there is a certain signature style to this individual that can be readily identified skimming over an articles edit history. The previous user name is fairly readily identifiable just by looking over some page edit histories. Just look for patches of conflict and there he is. I note he likes to come back to revisit some people using a new identity. I am confident that there will be WP administrators who are familiar with who this person is. Maybe it is time to use the broom. It is not hard to pick his previous User names, just look for the conflict patches, especially with Indian related content. Thanks for you interest and I hope my input assists in some way in mitigating further problems. I need look no further to see for myself that this behaviour is part of an ongoing pattern of serious conflict, disruption and trouble making. I hope that his IP logs will tell the story and that he can be permanently blocked. Nor doubt he will find a new IP but at least some attempt should be made to mitigate his behaviour. Felix505 (talk) 13:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Quick update for you. MilborneOne is of the opinion that 124's editing is generally in good faith. I've given him some advice on his talk page re leaving edit summaries and discussing issues on article talk pages. Should he not heed the advice, then I'm afraid the next action will have to be a short block to grab his attention. I hope it doesn't come to this. Mjroots (talk) 06:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but really, If you had spent even a tenth of the time and effort into looking at the Wikipedia guidelines (available at WP: Airports, as I pointed out several times) inspead of writing entire theses (which were too long and painful for me to read completely, I will admit) on the ANI page, on my talk page, on the airport article talk pages, then you would have realised that what I did was to make corrections, that's about it.

Lombok Airport is not even operational. How on earth can one include a table listing airlines that fly from there? As it is the information in the table was wrong (see below). So I removed that. Names / email addresses / mailing addresses / telephone and fax numbers of random people do not belong in an article, so I removed that.

Selaparang airport, on the other hand, is operational. Lovely. However, the airlines table had several significant errors (which I already pointed out):

• The table used is incorrect (airport-dest-list table should be used) - not a personalised table
• The airlines are not in alphabetical order - "I" does not come before "B"
• The destinations are not in alphabetical order - "S" does not come before "J" and "D" does not come before "B"
• Flightstats is not an approved Wikipedia source (because it is frequently incorrect) - this is true, Flightstats is "blacklisted"
• The operated by listing does not follow the guideline - Simply list the operating carrier only. If a franchise operation, then say XX operated by YY. That's it. No convoluted combinations such as "some flights operated by..."

For Ngurah Rai, I'm not the only user who had the same input. Before me, another user made similar changes, and said the same thing: Please see "WP:Airports and it's content page, and per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY." Random comments, random changes in font size, vagueness, unconfirmed services, approximate start dates - these do NOT belong.

Please look at the guidelines first. Understand them. Also look at other airport articles (I already suggested Heathrow, Cairo and Narita). And then make further edits. It will only save you from wasting time and energy. Because if what a user does is incorrect (or not in line with the standard guidelines) someone will come along and undo it. Simple as that. 124x247x221x146 (talk) 04:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• In reply to your commentary above, (my reply is bulleted and italicised):

"...you would have realised that what I did was to make corrections, that's about it."

• What absolute nonsense, you have engaged in wholesale content ablation and destructive editing on 3 articles that I have been editing. You have deleted correctly sourced, up to date and correct information and replaced with obsolete, inaccurate and unsourced content. When asked to stop you have started an edit war. The result being that Ngurah Rai International Airport's Destination table is now full of inaccurate rubbish content. Stop pretending you do not understand what you are doing not just on these three articles but on many other aviation articles every day using various user names. You behave as though you are some sort of WP authority but here you are with only a few days of history. That is unless there is a little bit of enquiry and then your style just leaps off the Aviation articles edit histories. So what happened. Get blocked and reinvent yourself. How many times is it now? Contributions of User 124x247x221x146 is illuminating. So is Contributions of User 124.247.221.146. So many memories, but so hard to delete in this part of WP. At least that one gets us back to 30 June 2009. Now having more than just your last few days efforts to look at your style really starts to show itself off, guess what, this Username's second 'ever' edit on 10 July 2009 and you were already lecturing someone on WP policy. Here is your edit summary, bring back some memories? ..."(→Airlines and destinations: Grind your axe elsewhere! The Otopeni page perhaps? Not here.)". Now here is something odd, this user only started on 09:31, 30 June 2009 but on your 3rd edit and the you are already lecturing someone on WP protocols on their Talk page, and in some considerable detail. Indeed rather a lot of detail for someone on just their 3rd edit. Shortly after you were going into detail about the "many" times you had told a user about some thing or another. So I think it is rather more than certain that you had to change your User name and came back as your IP. Now I wonder what could possibly have gone wrong. Forget your password and user name perhaps, or maybe it was a permanent ban due to bad behaviour. You have so many Undo's and multiple deletes on other editors work using just these two User names that you must be aiming for a daily record, it is simply staggering. No wonder you do not have the time to read an article or digest any comments about your silly behaviour.
  So I will try and get some sense into your head one more time. Silly for me to try I know as you clearly have a long history history of highly inappropriate behaviour and of getting away with it. Well you should not have poked me much, your nastiness made me curious and now I see clearly what you have been doing this sort of thing for quite a long while. I think people have been far too kind to you. I won't tell you what I really think of you I will just stick with the most apparent and recent facts in the context of your attacks upon my edits.

"The table used is incorrect (airport-dest-list table should be used) - not a personalised table"

• Pedantic, all you needed to do was just change the mark up on Selaparang Airport table if it upset you so much. However it was already was a working well presented table, so your complaint is frivolous. Surely there are more useful things for you to do on WP. In any case you know that is not the issue here. Using non WP:AIrports guideline wikitable mark-up is not a good reason for deleting the entire Terminal column and pulling out destinations for Trans Nusa, Wings and generally muddling up the table so it lost it's accuracy. WP:Airports is just a "guideline". The table displayed and worked fine. Indeed it is not all that dissimilar to the one you refer to other than it has all columns set up as sortable.

"The airlines are not in alphabetical order - "I" does not come before "B"

• OK, so what, just move it and move along, that is called editing

"The destinations are not in alphabetical order - "S" does not come before "J" and "D" does not come before "B"

• What on earth are you talking about, that is no reason for deleting things. A reasonable way of going about doing an edit on something like that would be to put them into alphabetical order, not delete the ones you don't like. Is this why you deleted the Terminals column, was it not in alphabetical order. I think I can hear the hinges squeaking all the way from Mumbai. Better buy a can of oil.

"Flightstats is not an approved Wikipedia source (because it is frequently incorrect) - this is true, Flightstats is "blacklisted"

• OK, if it is that's news to me. Strange there is no mention of this on WP:Airports. Is this perhaps another of your DIY rules. Are the airlines and the airports blacklisted as well. You have been wholesale deleting all of the airline sourced -ref's- on three articles that I have been editing. If Flightstats is indeed black listed OK but it is blacklisted for what and by whom exactly. Of more importance is verifying WHO is operating into the airport Are you suggesting they are generating false airlines and origins. In any case around the time when you were in the process of letting me know that Wings do not operate into AMI I could actually see the aircraft on their final approach to the airport YES, original research, go digest it and please don't come back with another WP:XXXX, just try and grasp the reality of it instead. Yes, aircraft with Wings titles, Wings registration, Wings flight number and Call-sign. No, I did not have to go to the airport to check, I just already know they are crewed by Wings as well. Still don't believe me, well I just don't care if you do or not. As I mentioned earlier I don't think you would get it if the aircraft flew right into your head!

"The operated by listing does not follow the guideline - Simply list the operating carrier only. If a franchise operation, then say XX operated by YY. That's it. No convoluted combinations such as "some flights operated by..."

• my edit was not convoluted at all, indeed it was quite clear. As for your dictatorial style to other editors ... that is clear as well, indeed it is staggering!

"Before me, another user made similar changes, and said the same thing"

• I am surprised you look to Toyotaboy95 for support, in case you had not noticed that user is trying to get you blocked for your crazy editing. Content can be fixed by editing, disputation or accepted editing policy misunderstandings by discussion. Maybe it is your own editing and your aggressive disputation and content destruction that is the problem not the content of other editors contributions.
  BTY without your intrusion and belligerent behaviour that issue would have been fixed within a very short time, I note that the editor you refer to does not appear to have a history of disputation or problems on WP and is an editor of good standing. Oh, sorry my mistake, yes he does have a disputation history, with YOU!
  You just don't want to understand do you, it is not everyone else that is the problem. It is YOU!

"Random comments.."

• There were no "random" comments, get your facts right.

"random changes in font size..."

• Not random, the font sizing I used was quite consistent in use, again get your facts right.

"vagueness"

• Not vague at all, concise, clearly referenced to airline, aviation and travel industry sources. Unlike your own edits mine are actually factually correct, did you ever check? Looks to me that you were too busy compulsively deleting the sources to check them and that you still have not

"unconfirmed services"

• I guess absolute confirmation is when the flight leaves the airport, but then again I notice that you choose to ignore even that reality when it is happening. Best then to rely on airline or industry sources, I did, with quite adequately sourced -ref's-, you just came along and deleted like you do 24/7 all over WP. That is until you eventually you get blocked, then it seems you just come back with a new user name. I also note that when the flights are documented on one of the sources as arriving and departing from the airport you are still in denial. On Ngurah Rai International Airport you have deleted active services and put in non-existent services, WHY meddle like this. If you don't understand or cannot understand the airlines scheduled routes and arrivals and departure lists generated by the airport operator then please just stay away. You are a pest.

"approximate start dates...these do NOT belong..."

• If given by the airline then that is a documentation of a primary source, if given by reasonably reputable aviation or travel sourced and is verifiable it is quite reasonable to put it in the article.
• Have I missed something here, have you been appointed as an arbitrator on WP by anyone else other than yourself, or as an a dictator of policy, I don't think so. You keep on referring me to WP:Airports. Yes, of course I have looked there and guess what, no mention of approximate start dates being unacceptable, I remind you of the function of WP, it is to inform. You seem to have issues with that unless of course it is you informing another editor about the detail of one of your self realised editing restrictions. No I don't mean self realisation, I am being ironic. Despite your proximity to to so many people who are self realised I think it will be eluding you for a while yet.

You behave at WP with such belligerent arrogance that it is simply stunning. Yes, I have looked at your history.

User:124x247x221x146 (talk) /blocked User:124.247.221.146 (talk) (and your other prior User identities), you are involved in edit wars 24/7 primarily on aviation pages. An incredibly large number of your edits are deletes and reverts and your Talk page fills up with complaints at a blinding pace. You seem to be involved in edit wars at an astounding frequency. I can easily see where you have been as your behaviour especially on Indian aviation related edits leaps off the page, just look for disputation and edit wars and guess what, you are right there in the middle of them, every day. I note though that you reign of argument and destruction is not limited to Indian articles and is quite wide in it's scope and range.

As for you deleting the entire Destinations section at Lombok International Airport. That is outrageous. Did you read the content first. It was clearly described as representing the start up carriers planned at that airport. If this section so upset you then why did you not just suggest a section heading change like any reasonable editor would have. If you had read the article and looked at the sources and the context you may have understood this, or maybe not, indeed I wonder if you ever read the articles you edit. I suspect you just look for things you can delete or argue over. You had no business deleting that section and when you did you should have at least put some text in there with a link to the Separalang Airport article to facilitate a link to the desciption of current operating carriers. If you visit the page you will see that is what I did after your vandalism. I did not put the table back in as only to avoid an edit war with you. I assume though that is what you are seeking.

Does it ever occur to you to do some research, maybe to improve an article rather than just delete bits. Maybe that is why you have so much trouble with other editors. It is your editing and you attitude that is the problem, not other people, it is YOU. Try and understand that or leave. This is why you keep on getting blocked. I have seen your history. It stands out on the edits, big ugly patches of disputation where ever you go. Trouble is people don't look over your entire history so you get away with it. Administrators try to conciliate and appease, other editors either give up or eventually end up in an edit war with you. You are behaving like an intolerable pest and time waster. Maybe it is you that does not belong rather than other editors contributions. Perhaps you should learn how to edit rather than just engaging in compulsive deleting. Your deleting of sourced and accurate information, correctly formatted and correctly attributed to reliable and verifiable sources is just destructive behaviour. You are playing games, WP is an encyclopaedic endeavour. Go to a gaming forum to play games.

By the way as you keep on referring to WP:Airports/page content maybe just try reading it yourself and you might come across this statement (it has been bolded on the page)... "Finally, remember that you're in no way obliged to follow all, or even any, of these guidelines to contribute an article." I looked at the history of your (current) User name and see that never stop flying (talk) drew this to your attention only as long ago as 18:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC). It appears that as usual you have not been reading things before you click on the Save page button.

I will not be replying to any more of your stupid and vacuous antics so don't expect any further responses from me, I know you are just seeking attention, I hope you are sated now. Might be time for you to wander off now and think up a new user name and get a new IP address. If you do come back with a new identity try and act like a normal person, I encourage you to consider not coming back at all.Felix505 (talk) 04:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Felix, re your edit to 124's talk page. Generally, an editor is allowed to remove content from their talk page if they wish to do so. The exception is that they are not allowed to removed block templates whilst they are blocked, although these may be removed after the block has expired. An editor may also remove a warning from their talk page, but doing so is taken to mean that they have read and understood the warning.

I suggest that it might be better if you did not edit 124's talk page unless it is really necessary. You are not the only editor on Wikipedia, there are plenty of others about to flag up any issues if necessary. Mjroots2 (talk) 15:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes of course he can move around any of his edit trophies, that is his prerogative and I note that he exercises it frequently. My point was explained by my actions, he apparently likes to delete without due thought process so I gave him the opportunity to see the message again. It was done both to inform him and to annoy him, I would not think to pretend otherwise. Frankly I think you should have let him remove it himself, I don't think appeasement will work with this guy. It has been tried many times before and he is apparently emboldened by it Felix505 (talk) 20:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not a case of appeasement, it's being fair to all when there is a dispute in progress. If 124's editing of others talk pages needs to be brought to his attention, then it will be; in the same way that your editing of 124's talk page was brought up here. Mjroots (talk) 10:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

[Mjroots], I hope you did not misunderstand, I have no personal criticism of you in mind in regard to that matter. However I think he has different lenses in his glasses to the ones you are using. Indeed if I had speculated that you (as an admin) would revert it then I would probably not have done it as no doubt the person of the many numbers will see it as appeasement. This only makes your commentary on the the inappropriateness of my doing the restore to his Talk page ever more valid. So I am not directing any slight at you, rather at the whole situation. However having said that I don't think you should have done that revert. Firstly for the just stated reason but also because what I did was not too dissimilar to my simply posting the same message information again, with essentially the same wording. This done on the basis that he was apparently not understanding the issue that others feel he is well off the make both in his constant citing of WP:Airports to other editors but even more so that he does not seem to understand WP:Airports himself. Hence I re-posted my previous note to him and at the same time re-posted another User's deleted note directly referring to his misunderstanding of the apparent intent of WP:Airports. Mysteriously you did not revert that one, maybe you didn't notice it. I feel that was reasonably justified as well as I was drawing his attention to the content of a post that another editor made on his Talk page. However you are just as entitled to edit it out as I was to edit it in so I think there is enough said on that matter by me...and I have no issues with you over it, my decision-my action, your decision-your action. Like I have stated before I think this guy is a pest and a time waster and again time is being wasted over him.

I am also now wasting further time justifying the detail of my edits to comply with the process as per protected page template. I must admit I find that process a little bit confusing but I assume I have it right. My understanding is that I upload the proposed edit to Editing MediaWiki talk:Protectedpagetext (new section) with a summary and list the reasons to edit. Must admit this issue makes me seriously question the amount of time taken up to review and update an airport article's destination table. I have made some pretty strong suggestions that the clown should leave the circus, but maybe I am the one who should leave. I will finish this incredibly long winded airport edit as I think the current article is absurdly misleading in detail to any article user who should venture to use it. Also my researching of the data took a long time due to the number of destinations and airlines to check and so it is a bit of a waste to just leave it as is. After that maybe I will just walk away. Just too much nonsense going on here at WP. I do really appreciate your efforts to assist and to strive for impartiality and balance. However I think the guy should just be blocked from editing completely, he is clearly a complete pest and I think it most probable his re-inventions of User name are due to his past editing issues. I am sure he would just come back with a new user name again but at least he might get some sort of message from it. If you and other administrators really think that editor is making a useful contribution or even vaguely in good faith contribution to WP then I must strongly disagree and that in part is why I feel that WP is in deep trouble in more general terms. WP article content is sometimes absolutely terrible and if this is a measure of the effort required to enter (what should be) simple and completely non-controversial facts into an article then the situation is quite ridiculous. I was not editing a controversial political issue or some highly contentious religious matter. Just well researched airline details and destinations that are available from the airport operator and the airlines themselves. Eventually it seems this loony tune has conceded several of my edits but it involved 3 days of unpleasantness. All he had to do was click on some links and have a look for himself, rather than deleting everything I put into the table. He apparently feels that nothing I edit can go into that article unless he personally filters and gives it his own approval. So apparently not only a pest but a megalomaniac as well. Many of the links to the respective airlines were readily available to him as he had recently encountered them when he deleted them out of the Selaparang Airport article. Later I put a comprehensive list of them, by now in a table form, into the Ngurah Rai International Airport article. I think really think you guys need to get a bit more proactive with reining in aberrant WP editors. Then again if you think his behaviour is OK or WP acceptable, then I am certainly spending my time in the wrong place. Whatever, I do appreciate your contribution to trying to sort out the mess, it strikes me it must be a pretty thankless task, so thankyou. Felix505 (talk) 13:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

To request an edit to a fully protected page, start a new section on that article's talk page, head it "edit request" or something similar. The first line should be {{Edit protected}}, with details of your proposed edit following on a new line. An admin will look over the proposed edit, and either post it, suggest amendments or decline the edit. Mjroots (talk) 18:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Mjroots, I am most gratefull you mentioned that, I was just about to upload to MediaWiki talk:Protectedpagetext (new section) I will do as you suggest. I was a bit worried about it as not quite knowing where that would go I assumed it would not go to the Discussion page that would then cut other editors out of the loop. Thanks, I will do another read of it and put it there shortly. Felix505 (talk) 19:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello - This is regards to your recent revert of my edit to the above article. I removed the airport tax information, because such things are absolutely not to be included in Wikipedia articles. This is not a travel guide, and things such as prices, schedules the do not belong here (those may go on Wikitravel if you want). While a link to any official site that lists prices may be included, please remove the rest of the pricing information. Thanks, Jasepl (talk) 15:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Felix505 (talk · contribs),
I replied to your friendly message of about 8 days ago on my talkpage, in case you didn't see it. Sorry if you expected a 'Talkback', I am used to editors 'stalking' my talkpage! or at least 'watching' it after posting.

I know I have a COI having 'invested' in the 2010 eruptions of Mount Merapi article, but I am dissapointed that the Mount Merapi article is getting far more page views. I changed the dab page at Merapi to put the mountain back on top where it was till recently. I also added a specific link to the eruption article. On 7 November 'we' got 9.3k hits, Mt Merapi on 7 November got 19.7k, down from 34k on the 5th when 'we' got only 3.9 k!

If you can, I want to suggest creating a re-direct, as typing "Merapi" in the search box only gives Merapi or Merapi volcano which both go to Mount Merapi. If we have a redirect page called, "Merapi, 2010 eruptions of" linking to 2010 eruptions of Mount Merapi. This way when 'Merapi' is typed in a reader will see 'Merapi', 'Merapi volcano' and 'Merapi, 2010 eruptions of' .

Hopefully 'traffic' to 'Eruptions' may increase significantly, if this is a permissible type of re-direct?. Of course this is all in the interests of our 'customers'! Regards, - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 12:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)