User talk:Tumandokkangcabatuan

Tumandokkangcabatuan, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Tumandokkangcabatuan! 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 peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Theopolisme (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Iloilo International Airport

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Your reason here Tumandokkangcabatuan (talk) 18:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

No reason given for unblock. Peridon (talk) 19:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

---

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.

Good Day! Please refrain from adding Passi City to the city-served section on the infobox of Iloilo International Airport. As per Template:Infobox airport guidelines, the city-served section states: "If the airport is associated with a major city but actually located in a smaller town, list the major city here and the smaller town under location." Based on this guideline, it is CLEAR that Iloilo City is the ONLY city to be placed in the city-served section. This is further proven by the fact that all airlines flying to the airport advertises/markets/serves Iloilo City and not Passi City; if this fact is unclear to you, you are free to refer to the airlines' respective websites.

If you believe that Passi City SHOULD be listed, please discuss this at Talk:Iloilo International Airport or WT:AIRPORT so that a consensus may be reached.

Furthermore,

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. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Thank you. pikdig (talk) 17:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

May I just clarify again, Passi City is NOT a city associated by ANY airline with Iloilo International Airport. The ONLY city that is associated with the said airport is ILOILO CITY. Take a look at Bacolod-Silay International Airport, the airport logically serves both Bacolod and Silay Cities, however, Bacolod is the only city on the city-served field as it is the city airlines associate the airport. pikdig (talk) 17:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Once again, please refrain from adding Passi City until a consensus has been reached by the members of WP:Airports and/or the people who work on the article. However, if you can provide us with a verifiable source that airlines associate this airport with Passi City, feel free to add Passi City. Do note that associate means, in this sense, how airlines market a certain airport/destination. Furthermore, please do not post replies/comments on the article; you may do so, however, on Talk:Iloilo International Airport. Thank you. pikdig (talk) 18:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

My reason for reverting is not an opinion, it is a FACT. pikdig (talk) 18:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Once again, may I remind you not to list down Passi City as a city served by Iloilo International Airport. The city that goes in this field is the major city ASSOCIATED by the airlines flying to the airport. If you may kindly refer to Cebu Pacific, Philippine Airlines, etc. you will notice that they associate Iloilo and not Passi. If you do not know what the word associate means, feel free to refer to a dictionary as well. Any further reversions, unless a verifiable source is provided, will be considered vandalism. Lastly, being a resident of the region is not considered a verifiable source as per no original research. Thank you. pikdig (talk) 03:39, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

May I just add, that the fact that the airport is in Cabatuan is not being disputed. Furthermore, for the people in your region, yes there are two cities within the service area of the airport, that fact is not disputed as well. HOWEVER, what goes in the city-served portion as per Template:Infobox airport guidelines on city-served only the major city ASSOCIATED with the airport shall be listed. In this case, it is Iloilo City only. Have you ever heard PAL or Cebu Pacific say, "Fly from Manila to Passi!"? No, I don't think so. All these airlines advertise, hence associate, this as Iloilo. 03:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. pikdig (talk) 03:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Iloilo International Airport. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum. Thank you. WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 17:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Iloilo International Airport 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. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 18:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

[[1]]. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Name section for Iloilo International Airport, et al.

Hi, Tumandokkangcabatuan. I express very strong reservations about you removing references to the name section of the Iloilo International Airport article. Please note that just because the two references in the Sun.Star Iloilo are invalid now, they are not invalid per se: the articles will still be in the print version of the Sun.Star Iloilo, and the links were valid at the time the section was written (which was, for your information, back in 2007). Just because they're inaccessible now does not mean they're invalid: there is evidence that there was a push to rename the airport after Graciano Lopez-Jaena, even if that is not the case today.

Also, I express very strong reservations about you inserting text pertaining to the location of the airport in the lead. I know for a fact that the airport complex is entirely located in Cabatuan. Heck, having read the AIP for the airport, its official address is in Barangay Gaub. However, there is no doubt that the airport access road (which is completely different from the airport itself) crosses through Santa Barbara for an indeterminate length, especially since it branches off from Bangga Dama before heading to the airport. At the same time, the text you're inserting is directly lifted from the iloiloairport.com website. Such constitutes a copyright violation on your part against the owner of the copyright (which would be Cabatuan.com, and I don't know how connected you are to Cabatuan.com as I know the owner of Cabatuan.com is User:Cabatuan), and it is Wikipedia policy that such be removed. Again, when taking the airport's location into account, the complex is in Cabatuan, fine. But the primary airport access road is not, and there is ample evidence in the references to prove such a point to you.

Now, if you would like to talk about this further, please feel free to start a discussion at Talk:Iloilo International Airport. Thanks. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 18:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The source page should contain items that support the materials being posted. A source page with an "error not found" message, or a source page that does not contain the supporting items, render the source invalid. Thank you. Tumandokkangcabatuan (talk) 04:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I will limit my response to improving the article. As Wikipuppies said in the section above this, "Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum." Tumandokkangcabatuan (talk) 04:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe you're mistaken. A source page with an "error not found" message is still valid. Have you at least tried checking the Internet Archive if they have a copy of the page in question? Or Google? There are better ways with dealing with link rot (which is a problem both on and outside of Wikipedia) than with removing material altogether. Again, please let me reiterate that these were valid sources at the time I started working on the article, which was back in 2007 prior to the airport opening. Just because the links don't work now does not mean that they are invalid: they still exist, but either on another corner of the Internet, or offline.

Also, please tell User:Cabatuan (and the other Cabatuan.com admins) that I have read said notice. Thanks. (However, I don't buy the "you can post as you see fit" part of his/her notice as a notice condoning verbatim copying from the iloiloairport.com website: that is still copyrighted text.) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 11:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

In fairness to you, I will read again the materials you posted and challenge only the items which I find very inaccurate. An accurate material sourced from a link rot is fine. But an inaccurate one is not.

With copyrighted materials, the copyrightholder has the sole prerogative to allow or not allow someone to reuse the materials.

I think my research skills are still in top shape here. I've been editing way longer than you have, so don't tell me whether something is accurate or not. I know whether something is accurate or not. The fact that you remove references to a proposal to rename the airport after Graciano Lopez-Jaena, even if the links all point towards the existence of such a proposal in 2007 and even if such a proposal exists and has existed, does not help your case. (I believe the Sun.Star Iloilo maintains an archive in their office: ask them if they have a copy of the article.)

Also, a copyright holder may give permission, that permission has to be written. Unless the contents of iloiloairport.com are explicitly in the public domain, Wikipedia cannot just presume that there is permission for you to reuse the content: there automatically isn't unless we know. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 22:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Whatever you post, is subject to challenges for verifiability and accuracy. This is written in the verifiability page of Wikipedia. Just because you are in Wikipedia longer than I am is not equivalent to accuracy.

The onus to prove the accuracy of the materials lies on the person who posted the materials, not the reader.

As you are already aware, I have asked permission from the admins of the website to reuse. That was contained in the message for you on the website which you said you have read.

I was trying to accommodate you when I posted that I am going to check your postings on an individual basis. Maybe you are interpreting that differently.Tumandokkangcabatuan (talk) 00:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

By the way, SkyHarbor, thanks for the new paragraph on the Tomas Confesor airport name proposal. That was one of our points of contention before, because you were insisting that there was no such proposal when in fact there was. Thanks again. Good job! Tumandokkangcabatuan (talk) 11:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring at Iloilo International Airport

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Iloilo International Airport. 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 appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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.

The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Tumandokkangcabatuan reported by User:Hell in a Bucket (Result: 48h). EdJohnston (talk) 04:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

The issue has already been resolved. See below. Thanks.

Decline reason:

When people don't agree with me, it is I that they revert. I have no control over them. If I can't revert back, what options are available so that accurate information can still be posted? And honestly, I haven't even learned how to "revert" yet. By this I mean, reverting to an earlier version. I just edit.
Yeah... it doesn't seem like you see the issue with edit-warring, so I'm going to just let this block play out. -- tariqabjotu 21:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

---

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.

Definition of edit warring

Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of confrontational edits to win a content dispute. It is different than a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Correcting inaccurate information is the right thing to do. Unless you want false information in Wikipedia Tumandokkangcabatuan (talk) 05:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

If you can show one valid source showing the statement it serves the other city I'll readd it myself. Without that it is WP:OR and WP:SYN Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate. There is only one airport and two cities in the whole of Iloilo Province. The airport is located midway between the two cities. I believe this information alone is sufficient. I can provide a map. Tumandokkangcabatuan (talk) 05:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

You can also check this page http://www.iloiloairport.com. It is also mentioned in that website. Tumandokkangcabatuan (talk) 05:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that would be considered a Reliable source, I have raised the source on the talkpage and suggested we make it Iliolo Province which basically covers both concerns. If no one objects I will make the change. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you again. Both "Iloilo Province" and "Iloilo City, Passi City" are accurate. Tumandokkangcabatuan (talk) 06:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I saw the update. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Iloilo_International_Airport#City-served ... Iloilo Province is just as accurate. ... Can you lift the block now? Tumandokkangcabatuan (talk) 06:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, I doubt it will be lifted just because we did actually find an agreement though. The main issue is that had you responded to the other two requests for discussion by two other editors. I would take a few minutes and read the guide to appealing a block and reformat your request, you'll have a much better time getting the block lifted then, but as I say I'm not an admin so your current unblock request may granted as is but in my experience it will be slightly lacking. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I understand. That's alright, I'll just take a break for a while ... I was able to respond to the two discussions before I was blocked (url below). I am not sure, but perhaps, my efforts to abide by the rule statement of Wikipuppies (in the immediate previous section of this page) may have gotten me the block instead. The rule statement of Wikipuppies states that "discussion in talk pages should be limited to improving the article and that the talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum." So in one of my responses, I stuck to that and refrained from adding my own opinion, and quoted the statement. Perhaps the admin who blocked me thinks I am not willing to listen to others. Because from his entry in blocking my account, that appears to be so. But as you and I have proven, that's not the case. I agree to others as long as accuracy is not compromised, and it is also to Wikipedia's advantage that accuracy is not compromised. It is good that you're around. You're a great asset to Wikipedia. Looking forward to your being an admin. Tumandokkangcabatuan (talk) 09:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tumandokkangcabatuan#Name_section_for_Iloilo_International_Airport.2C_et_al.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Iloilo_International_Airport#City-served

Thanks but honestly it would be a cold day in hell before I am ever an Admin lol! I have my flaws for sure and I wouldn't be that suited for it but I appreciate the thought. 48 hrs isn't too long as you say. Talkpages are to discuss the changes to the article, they aren't there for you to express an opinion on the subject (like for dinosaurs to ask others do you like t-rex?) but for content disputes is primarily why we use them. Appreciate you talking it out though, cheers! Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

If it were up to me whether the block is lifted, I would like to see some acknowledgment from User:Tumandokkangcabatuan that edit warring is not the way to approach disagreements. Also, a promise not to keep reverting in the future when it is clear that people don't agree with him. His statement, "I agree to others as long as accuracy is not compromised" sounds like he will feel free to edit war whenever he is sure he is right. EdJohnston (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I will submit it to dispute resolution instead. I am relatively new to wikipedia and I am not yet acquainted with the options available to me. I will use the proper options as I am aware of them. If you go over my postings in that article, I always take the time to explain what and why I was doing it. I don't "revert". I don't know how. As far as I remember, I clicked the "undo" link only once. On the other hand, others just revert my actions without saying anything. And they are allowed to. If there was any edit war going on, it was them against me, not me against them. Tumandokkangcabatuan (talk) 15:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Since 20 June you made approximately 15 reverts, changing the 'city served' line of the infobox. Every time somebody else removed your edit, you changed it back, to restore Passi City as one of the cities served. For example, here. This was a revert war. If you don't understand our WP:Edit warring policy, it seems likely that others will still have problems working with you in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 15:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I also want to learn how they do that Twinkle thing. Perhaps you can help me. Thanks Tumandokkangcabatuan (talk) 15:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I have explained my actions everytime. That including Passi City would be the accurate thing. When Hell in the Bucket suggested to put just Iloilo instead, I agreed immediately because it is just as accurate as well. Others are not accurate. And by agreeing with Hell in the Bucket immediately, I have proven myself to be able to work well with people. Especially considering that it was Hell in the Bucket who requested my being blocked. Tumandokkangcabatuan (talk) 15:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The fact that Hell in a Bucket has reached an agreement on the content issue does not tell us whether you are going to revert war in the future. Admins need some assurance about your own behavior. The fact that you see nothing wrong with your past reverts causes concern. 'Explaining your actions every time' does not grant you an exemption from the edit warring policy. EdJohnston (talk) 15:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I will go the way of dispute resolution instead. I have seen the link though I don't know how to use it yet. Disagreements exist all the time. There are people who wants to vandalize the article, and there are people who wants to make it accurate. I am one of the latter. Tumandokkangcabatuan (talk) 15:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you can be my tutor on how to do it the proper way when I see an inaccurate information Tumandokkangcabatuan (talk) 16:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I will be away from the computer for several hours. You'll need to persuade the next admin reviewer that your block is no longer necessary. A good beginning would be to apologize for revert warring, and promise not to keep reverting in the future when it is clear that people don't agree with you. EdJohnston (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

When people don't agree with me, it is I that they revert. I have no control over them. If I can't revert back, what options are available so that accurate information can still be posted? And honestly, I haven't even learned how to "revert" yet. By this I mean, reverting to an earlier version. I just edit. Tumandokkangcabatuan (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

And if I may comment on the entry of EdJohnston when I was blocked. He said that while I know how to use the talk page, I seem to feel no need to get consensus for my views. I believe he was saying that while I know how to use the talk pages, I did not respond to earlier invites for discussion. For the record, my responses in the two discussions that were linked on that block request were my very first two postings in talk pages. It's a learning process, as you can see. ... Before the two postings on those discussion pages, I have not posted in talk pages before. It was therefore ironic that my positive steps toward dispute resolution actually became the main reason for my getting blocked. Tumandokkangcabatuan (talk) 12:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

tariqabjotu, Thank you. ... If I may comment, I have said several times that I am going with dispute resolution next time. Like I said, It's a learning process. I have already taken positive steps by discussing the issues in talk pages even before I was blocked. And in this discussion, I have been seeking help on how to do things properly. If you interpret it otherwise, that's your prerogative. Tumandokkangcabatuan (talk) 22:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Reformatting comments

When someone has replied to your comments even if it's on your own talkpage please don't refactor them [[2]] it's considered bad practice because we need the original comments for our records and changing them can change the context of the replies. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. That comment I changed has not been replied to yet. It is still at the last of the thread. And it has only been up for a short time. Tumandokkangcabatuan (talk) 14:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, 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 necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 09:14, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tumandokkangcabatuan. Thank you. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I absolutely do not have multiple wiki accounts. Please check my IP. Thank you. Tumandokkangcabatuan (talk) 07:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I would like to put it on record that the report was withdrawn at the request of the filer. Thanks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tumandokkangcabatuan/Archive Tumandokkangcabatuan (talk) 15:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Warning

please stop your disruptive editing on Iloilo International Airport, if you continue to edit war you may have your editing rights removed, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 09:42, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "iloilo international airport". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 21 December 2013.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 22:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for two days

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for disruptive editing and long-term edit warring on Iloilo International Airport after being warning more than once to stop. 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 appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=I have a pending request for mediation (link below) on this issue, but MilborneOne refused to undergo mediation. This shows that I have tried my best to resolve it. I have even commented on that mediation page about MilborneOne's block warning. I don't believe I have violated WP:3RR recently. Thank you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/iloilo_international_airport ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  User:Callanecc (talk) 11:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I have a pending request for mediation (link below) on this issue, but MilborneOne refused to undergo mediation. This shows that I have tried my best to resolve it. I have even commented on that mediation page about MilborneOne's block warning. I don't believe I have violated WP:3RR recently. Thank you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/iloilo_international_airport Tumandokkangcabatuan (talk) 18:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The block isn't for WP:3RR, it's for long term edit warring; a look at the history for Iloilo International Airport shows you've been carrying on an edit war there for quite some time, and the previous block apparently did nothing to convince you that you must not edit war. If you can't get your way on the talk page, you're not going to get your way. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

---

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.

Have Now Provided the Reasons for Unblock appeal

Peridon , Hi, I have now provided the reasons above for my appeal. I'm sorry for not including one when I first posted the appeal. Please reconsider. Thank you.

I was just tidying up - I usually keep out of edit warring debates. I did see you had another request open, so I closed the unnecessary one. Peridon (talk) 20:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Peridon , Thank you. I really appreciate. Merry Christmas and I hope you have a great time during the holidays. Tumandokkangcabatuan (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning iloilo international airport, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, Sunray (talk) 06:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Blocked for sockpuppetry

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I use only one account. I have no other wiki accounts. Honest. I reviewed all claims of sockpuppetry against me. One was withdrawn by the filer, and the rest were found to be inconclusive by the checkuser. Everytime somebody posted in my favor in the talk page, I get accused of sockpuppetry. These accounts are not mine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Iloilo_International_Airport#Location_of_Iloilo_Airport https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Iloilo_International_Airport#Contractor_comment Other accounts are not mine as well. These claims of sockpuppetry are just attempts to silence one side of the issue. The other side wants me and those who agree with me to go away. They do not want anybody left to assert that the alternative name Sta Barbara Airport is false. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Iloilo_International_Airport#Duyan_Duyan_Cabatuan_Iloilo_Airport If there is something that you'd like me to clarify, I'd be happy to respond. Thanks Tumandokkangcabatuan (talk) 07:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Based on the edit patterns and the evidence posted at the SPI and the discussion below here, I agree that this appears to be meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry of some kind. As Jéské Couriano, the chances of these new users popping up here for these edits is extremely slim, and I tend to agree with the more likely scenario. only (talk) 11:15, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

---

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.

The reason I filed the sockpuppet investigation isn't to silence anything, it's because there are brand new accounts who sole edits are to support yours, and have not edited since or again, not even to contest their blocks. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:13, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

If they are new users, then it could be expected of them to still be trying to find their way in wikipedia. They may not have known yet how to use the talk page, nor have known that they were accused of being sockpuppets, nor even aware that they were blocked. Or if they are aware that they were blocked, they may not have known yet how to contest their block. Certainly, this is proof that those are not my accounts - because I know how to contest while they don't. Tumandokkangcabatuan (talk) 16:00, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

In the event that multiple users are behaving in an identical manner, they are all treated as one user with sockpuppets unless it can be proven otherwise. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 03:58, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a pattern of multiple users behaving in an identical manner. I have always been both editing the article and commenting on the talk page, and I don't think any one of these accused sock accounts even came close to that behaviour. Nereo has not even edited the article at all, from what I've seen. He had only posted and commented in the talk page several times. I have also searched for the IP of the contractor (who posted using his IP at the article talk page) in the article edit history page and also cannot find an edit. He too had posted in the talk page only. On the other hand, others may have edited the article only and not commented on the talk page.

Tumandokkangcabatuan (talk) 04:51, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Even I, who had been in wikipedia for several months already, still stumbles to contest a block correctly. How much more if they are newbies? Tumandokkangcabatuan (talk) 16:00, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Somebody at the talk page, named Nereo, who had been accused as my sock, had commented several times already. The contractor posted only once. And another account that had also been accused of being my sock had edited only, but not commented. Their varying levels of activity indicates that they are different people and another proof that those accounts are not mine. Tumandokkangcabatuan (talk) 16:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

You requested for checkuser to get technical evidence. The checkuser found them inconclusive. Therefore there is no technical evidence either that they are my socks. It is obvious that their IPs are different than my own. Those people are innocent. Tumandokkangcabatuan (talk) 16:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

"Inconclusive" doesn't preclude a sockpuppetry block - Checkuser only looks for technical evidence, not behavioural. See also my comment above. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 03:58, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

If their sole purpose is just to support me, they could have supported me all the way. I don't remember somebody expressly agreeing with me. All I can read is that their views are similar to mine. I would assume then that their purpose is not to support me but to state their own views. It just happened that their views and mine are similar. Tumandokkangcabatuan (talk) 16:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

We call this meatpuppetry, and it is just as sanctionable. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 03:58, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Jeremy I also absolutely deny any meatpuppetry. Since the article is about an international airport, not a small municipal airport, we can fairly expect that the visitor traffic for this article would not be small. And if one or two or three of them, out of the hundreds or thousands of visitors, wanted to correct an error, I think that would be normal in wikipedia and has nothing to do with me. Tumandokkangcabatuan (talk) 13:18, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

If they are new users, then they behaved exactly as we would expect new users to behave. Had they behaved like experienced editors already, like knowing how to contest a block, that would be more suspicious. Tumandokkangcabatuan (talk) 02:21, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

It explicitly tells you in the block template how to contest a block. Whether one contests a block or not isn't strong evidence either way. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 03:58, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, they are Wikipedia readers who had spotted the false information and wished to correct the error. It is not surprising for new editors to come on board at this time because the false information was only added recently. Tumandokkangcabatuan (talk) 07:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

If the topic is new or obscure, the likelihood it's legitimate new users as opposed to meat-/sockpuppets is low. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 03:58, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I absolutely deny any meat or sock puppetry. Tumandokkangcabatuan (talk) 13:18, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

only , New Wiki accounts are being created all the time. I am penalized for something with no solid proof. Only with trumped up "more likely" accusations. Just because somebody (who did not even edit the article nor have the same IP as mine) appeared and posted something similar to my view is enough? Despite your decision, I still maintain my innocence. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. Tumandokkangcabatuan (talk) 20:40, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

And how would you know their IPs? Registered accounts' IPs are hidden by default, and IPs are often shared. The more you talk, the more of a hole you dig. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:51, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I am absolutely sure that they have a different IP because they are not my accounts. I did not make them. In fact, the checkuser found them inconclusive, which proves also that they have a different IP. All I said was that they have a different IP than mine. I did not say I knew their IP. You are putting words in my mouth. Tumandokkangcabatuan (talk) 20:52, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

No, "inconclusive" means they can't tell if they're your IPs one way or another. And, again, IPs are frequently shared amongst all users using a particular network/wireless node (especially common in airports, coffeehouses, universities, corporations, and restaurants), so again, how do you know their IP? —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:05, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Since I did not make those other accounts, I am absolutely sure that they don't have the same IP as mine. If they are the same, the checkuser could have confirmed that, but it didn't. Tumandokkangcabatuan (talk) 07:43, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not in a shared IP setting, like those you mentioned. In fact, according to my cable internet provider, a unique IP address was assigned to me as part of their internet service. If my IP address is unique, and I did not make those other wiki accounts, then those other wiki accounts cannot have the same IP as I have. I don't know what IP addresses do those other wiki accounts have, but I am certain that they're not the same as mine. Tumandokkangcabatuan (talk) 07:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Jeremy Anything more that you need me to clear up? .. From my standpoint, everytime there is somebody else that appears to have a view similar to mine, I get falsely accused of sock puppetry even when that other person had not done any edit on the article at all. Because of this, it is apparent that those claims are merely attempts to silence one side of the issue. Tumandokkangcabatuan (talk) 22:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Iloilo International Airport

I have collapsed your recent entry on the Talk:Iloilo International Airport page as for you to raise the issue again is clearly disruptive. To keep raising the same issue and the same points time after time is not really helping. Please consider not raising the subject again or the matter of a topic ban on pages related to Iloilo International Airport may need to be considered, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The item is new. This is the first time I have brought up the WP:Inaccuracy page as a reason for excluding the term as alternative name. Tumandokkangcabatuan (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration request....

...I'd suggest you withdraw it, as the basis for your case ("an Involved Admin misusing his admin tools to gain advantage for his position.") is completely in error: no admin tools have been used in that dispute. Collapsing a section is not an admin tool: ANY editor can collapse a discussion. Warning that a topic ban discussion may initiated is not an admin tool: ANY editor may propose a topic ban. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I suggested it be withdrawn yesterday, to no end. Clearly you do not understand the project. Clearly you don't understand its processes. Clearly you don't understand WP:OR and WP:RS when they're explained to you. Most airports exist in a different municipality than the city they are designed to serve. That was always intentional - keep the nasty airport out of the residential boundaries. Toronto Pearson Airport for example is located in Mississauga, and as I stated earlier, Ottawa International Airport is located in Gloucester, Ontario. So, you will ALWAYS find sources that the airport is in a different municipality than the community it serves. Unless you have a source (a reliable one, that is) that states that the airport has an alternative name (such as the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport where the Greater Cincinnati Airport isn't just in a different community, it's in a different State), then STOP saying you have a source the panda ₯’ 09:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I was only responding to your Ottawa-Gloucester analogy. You said that although Gloucester is the location, it is not the alternative name. I was giving you a source that on the other hand, with regards to Iloilo-Cabatuan, Cabatuan is an alternative name, unlike Gloucester. And my source was reliable and authoritative. ... The community that Iloilo Airport serves is Iloilo City and Iloilo Province. And to think that MilborneOne even refused earlier to recognize the Iloilo Airport name as an alternative name. Tumandokkangcabatuan (talk)

You've only shown a source that showed that the airport was geographically-located inside a different municipality. You have shown NONE that refer to it by the alternate name. Again, your misguided ArbCom request is outside their remit. Close it down. I'll work with you here to show you what's wrong with your logic/sources. But you really need to drop this before it does go all wrong for you the panda ɛˢˡ” 10:32, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I did. see the second paragaph on this link below. the Cabatuan Airport being referred to in that second paragraph is no other than the Iloilo Airport. ... This is the official website of the town of Oton. Oton is another municipality in the Province of Iloilo. ... I appreciate your concern and your willingness to talk it out. Thanks.

http://www.oton.gov.ph/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=44&layout=blog&Itemid=75

Tumandokkangcabatuan (talk)

Ok, please ensure you go back to ArbCom and withdraw your filing - it's being declined anyway, but it was a bad, bad idea full of inappropriate and WRONG accusations.

Grammatically, I don't find that reference at all convincing - "Cabatuan Airport" in that context merely means "the airport in Cabatuan". I am seeing some other possibly-valid references that might be considered to be reliable. the panda ɛˢˡ” 14:07, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

What you see is what's in there. You can convince yourself all you want and it will still be Cabatuan Airport. Tumandokkangcabatuan (talk)

Stop acting like you are - it's not acceptable on Wikipedia - is this REALLY how you treat people who are trying to help you a) with content, and b) prevent you from the inevitable block that's rapidly coming your way? I've advised that until you withdraw your poorly advised and failing ArbCom request, I won't assist further - yet you have yet to do the right thing and withdraw it (although mathematically, it cannot be accepted now anyway). Smarten up the panda ₯’ 09:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I see that you have answered using EatsShootsAndLeaves and DangerousPanda. You have multiple wiki accounts? That's interesting. Tumandokkangcabatuan (talk)

You should try reading WP:SOCK#LEGIT someday. As an administrator, I have my admin account I use on "safe" networks and a non-admin, (but properly-linked) non-admin account for unsafe networks. So, the person who's trying to help you now gets unwarranted bad faith allegations that I'm doing something wrong? Really? Your interpersonal skills leave a lot to be desired the panda ₯’ 10:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

All I said was, interesting. Meaning, I'd love to have one too if I could. But that's ok. I'm busy anyway to be of much help here in wiki. Tumandokkangcabatuan (talk)

No, it was clearly an accusation. It's not that you're too busy: it's that you're too unwilling/unable to read the policies and processes, or even too unwilling/unable to understand the community nature of this project. You're welcome to come back and help when you ever do the panda ₯’ 13:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive conduct as described here. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.   Sandstein  08:33, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I was blocked only because the other side cannot prove its claim. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Iloilo_International_Airport#Original_Research Newyorkbrad was perfectly correct when he said that this is not an issue of location anymore but an issue of name, because with regards to location it was already proven that the airport is not in Santa Barbara. but MilborneOne keeps bringing back the location because they have no support for the name issue. And when that again was clarified to be incorrect, they blocked me. Newyorkbrad added that the proper venue for discussing the name issue should not be at arbitration. This is the reason why I opened a new section at the article talk page. Tumandokkangcabatuan (talk) 03:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You were blocked for various kinds of disruption, none of which you addressed in this unblock request. In other words, this particular unblock request was, like the arbitration attempt, a timesink. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

---

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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Thank you for the clarification. Please allow me then to address those. ... It is incorrect that my account is single purpose dedicated only to disputing the inclusion of an alternative name in the lead of the article about an airport. I have been in other issues before, and not just this one. And I have also proven myself to be open to, and accepting of, compromise. If you read my talk page from the top, that will help. About edit-warring, as a newbie wiki user back then, I still had to learn the rules in wiki. And when I inadvertently violate one, I didn't do it again. It was for this reason that when MilborneOne threatened me with a block lately, I was hesitant to post a new section at the article talk page. But the arbitration committee was almost unanimous in saying that dispute resolution had not been exhausted yet. Newyorkbrad further said that the discussion should only be about common names, but the proper venue for that is not in arbitration. This being a new issue, I came back to the article talk page and posted it, thinking that I had the ok of the committee. I had not edited the article itself, I merely posted a new section at the talk page. I agree with Newyorkbrad that the issue should only be about common names, not location, as location had already been settled. But MilborneOne keeps bringing the location back, to which I had to clarify again. About Sockpuppetry, they were not my accounts and I had nothing to do with them. The checkuser who verified was NativeForeigner, also a current arbitration committee member, and the connections were found to be "inconclusive." I was willing to submit more evidence to prove myself innocent even after my two-week block had expired, but AGK emailed me on behalf of the appeals board that there was no more need as I am not blocked anymore. That this issue is trivial is also not correct. We are talking about an international airport. We have a lot of international readers. It is important that the readers are given the correct information. Tumandokkangcabatuan (talk) 04:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You have been persistently disruptive over a long period, and you simply will not accept that consensus is against your view. It is clear from what you say that you have no intention of dropping the stick now: on the contrary, you make it abundantly clear that you wish to be unblocked so that you can continue in the same way as before. You have been blocked repeatedly over the course of ten months, and the time has come to say enough is enough. Unblocking you would simply enable you to waste yet more time of other editors, who have already wasted far too much time over your stubborn campaign to impose your view, no matter what others think. To prevent you from wasting more time for administrators who could be spending their time on more productive tasks, your talk page access will also be revoked. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

---

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 can't seem to put my whole response in full earlier. Here it is again.

Thank you for the clarification. Please allow me then to address those. ...

It is incorrect that my account is single purpose dedicated only to disputing the inclusion of an alternative name in the lead of the article about an airport. I have been in other issues before, and not just this one. And I have also proven myself to be open to, and accepting of, compromise. If you read my talk page from the top, that will help.

About edit-warring, as a newbie wiki user back then, I still had to learn the rules in wiki. And when I inadvertently violate one, I didn't do it again. It was for this reason that when MilborneOne threatened me with a block lately, I was hesitant to post a new section at the article talk page. But the arbitration committee was almost unanimous in saying that dispute resolution had not been exhausted yet. Newyorkbrad further said that the discussion should only be about common names, but the proper venue for that is not in arbitration. This being a new issue, I came back to the article talk page and posted it, thinking that I had the ok of the committee. I had not edited the article itself, I merely posted a new section at the talk page. I agree with Newyorkbrad that the issue should only be about common names, not location, as location had already been settled. But MilborneOne keeps bringing the location back, which I had to clarify again.

About Sockpuppetry, they were not my accounts and I had nothing to do with them. The checkuser who verified was NativeForeigner, also a current arbitration committee member, and the connections were found to be "inconclusive." I was willing to submit more evidence to prove myself innocent even after my two-week block had expired, but AGK emailed me on behalf of the appeals board that there was no more need as I am not blocked anymore.

That this issue is trivial is also not correct. We are talking about an international airport. We have a lot of international readers. It is important that the readers are given the correct information.

Tumandokkangcabatuan (talk)

Case request declined

The arbitration request (Airport Alternative Name) involving you has been declined by the Arbitration Committee The comments made by arbitrators may be helpful in proceeding further. For the Arbitration Committee,--S Philbrick(Talk) 11:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)