Das Ansehnlisch (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
|||
Line 685: | Line 685: | ||
== RE: == |
== RE: == |
||
I know what you mean. I usually reverted those affected articles to the last known OK edit so that it can be a clean slate for other responsible editors to contribute again. Feel free to add or expand the article accordingly. Regards mate -- [[User:Kulikah|Kulikah]] ([[User talk:Kulikah|talk]]) 10:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC) |
I know what you mean. I usually reverted those affected articles to the last known OK edit so that it can be a clean slate for other responsible editors to contribute again. Feel free to add or expand the article accordingly. Regards mate -- [[User:Kulikah|Kulikah]] ([[User talk:Kulikah|talk]]) 10:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC) |
||
==Reverting== |
|||
Quit reverting. People take a lnog time to make this stuff. Screw You--[[User:Das Ansehnlisch|Das Ansehnlisch]] ([[User talk:Das Ansehnlisch|talk]]) 21:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:52, 1 September 2009
OK
Well, i just saw in SatuSuro talk page when i want to reply his comment. And i know, those are just hoaxes. C H J L Discuss 03:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey
Its an indonesian list - they leave the baby and bathwater out :( SatuSuro 05:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Rudd nickname
Did you realise here that you agreed that WP is not a soapbox then immediately got on yours? :-) --Surturz (talk) 07:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- Some soap boxes are more soapy than others. ;-) (OK, a rare and mild indiscretion - he hit a nerve of mine that reacts to tabloid whingeing about pollies. Yes, there are problems with our system, but it's not the money we spend on them ) --Merbabu (talk) 07:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
(in reply to your comment on my page) I'll have to disagree with you. I think Timeshift9 indulged in a clear violation of WP:BITE. The OP obviously spent some effort finding out and typing in the amounts KR has spent on travel. The issue has received page four and five coverage in quality WP:RS newspapers on more than one occasion. I've been watching the issue myself. I think you and Timeshift9 should go and re-read WP:BITE. WP is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, even Boeing employees. --Surturz (talk) 09:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- It was not vandalism nor off-topic, as I have demonstrated. Put yourself in the shoes of a new user making his first edit with that comment, one that doesn't know about any WP policies such as WP:NPOV or WP:RS, and then read the responses. --Surturz (talk) 09:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Check it first
Please check the url first. You seem like my secret agent. C H J L Discuss 10:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Cripes
What strange company you keep - are you joining a troupe of comedians? SatuSuro 10:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Good grief!
As well as History of architecture, there used to be an article called Architectural history which looked at the subject from a point of view of historiography. Have you any idea whatsoever what happened to that article? Were you the person who partly rewrote it from that point of view? Where on earth has it gone? Got any clues?
The History of architecture article is hopeless! It should complement the architecture article. Every time I look at it, I feel I should do something, and get overcome by a fit of what my great aunt would have called the vapours.
I'm writing english cathedrals just now.... in affabecklauder.... but I skipped Canterbury, because I'm a wimp. It is actually the one with which I'm most familiar and once I get started.... Amandajm (talk) 11:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- Nah - I really don't think that was me. Look through the deletion log, and ask an admin if they can give you the text. As for big messes, I often feel the same helplessness, however I am slowly chipping away at improving John Howard after spending a long time procrastinating and fearful of provoking an edit war. One day I will complete the Indonesian architecture article I started. The pre-WW2 stuff is OK, but post-independence (post WW2) is hopeless. I need some better sources.--Merbabu (talk) 11:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- Hi! Gawd the mozzies are bad tonight! Even one can make your life misery when it keeps attacking your ankles! I think you are brave to take on John Howard! As for Indonesian architecture, I know nothing much about the traditional architecture and nothing at all about recent developments. I have fiddled around with a couple of pages of South East Asian buildings, just reorganising the information and pics a little, which doesn't require detailed knowledge. Just literary, organisational and formatting. The problem of jamming in pics was taken to the extreme in the article Painting or History of Painting (can't remember which). Someone had inserted dozens of pictures by a very average contemporary Indian painter.Amandajm (talk) 11:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- Re the pages you have directed me to, my computer has crashed twice in the last 15 minutes, and then my son crashed as well, over the dog and onto the cement. The dog is locked in the laundry and the son is sitting with his foot in a bucket. Now that is out of the way.....
- Regarding the Gothic gallery, what happened is that I got together some useful pics and inserted a number of them in the text, and leaving a few at the bottom which I was planning on deleting. But people kept adding to them!
- The situation at Cathedral is the same. Everyone wants their home-town cathedral represented in that article. I haven't got the heart to delete them all. However, I could be quite ruthless about the Gothic article, which is more finely tuned and is high on the visitor list. I sometimes write for Simple English Wiki for a little light relief. Have a look at this [1] and tell me what you think. I would like to introduce small galleries in the same way to the article here, but there are always negative comments. However, I got away with it at Stained glass and Cathedral architecture of Western Europe. I put the Cathedrals of Western Europe up for FA, and withdrew it because I couldn't hack the flack. They wanted it all written in paragrphs which simple wouldn't work, because it is written in points of comparison. The galleries also came in for criticism. I think we need a bit more flexibility in assessing what is a good article. The style police can be hard to cope with.
- Amandajm (talk) 12:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know why, but I cannot make the first page that you directed me to work without it seizzing up, so I cn't see all the history.
- However, I think that the events went something like this- There was a History of architecture at the page called Architectural History. Someone started deleting it and rewriting it in historiographical form. I had a bit of a dispute over the process, and then split the article, dividing off the material that followed a simple chronological pattern from the rewriting which was rephrasing everything from the point of view of How History is Written. It seemed to me that most students would be looking for basic chronological stuff, and that there was room for both articles.
- At this point in time, I also cleaned up the Architecture article and discovered that whoever had written it, had taken a particular direction that wasn't covered by either of the other two articles, and that the treatment of the article was very consistent from start to finish, with a couple of exceptions, that had been added later, eg Islamic architecture which set out to state every country in which Islamic architecture is found. I tidied up, and added a couple of sections, making it fit as well as I could. The main problem was that even though it was well-written, concise and consistent, it wasn't referenced, and I didn't know where to begin looking, because the nature of the info is quite specific. A history, on the other hand, can be much more simply referenced because the info is more or less similar in a lot of general books.
- At this point, a lecturer gave his students the project of "improving" the article. This was a disaster because the kept adding masses of US specific stuff. I tried to head them in the direction of "Architectural history" and made some suggestions as to which architural historians needed to be read about and written about- John Ruskin, Banister Fletcher, etc, but they didn't take up the challenge. I also thought that they might have a go at History of Architecture which they could share around between them and write about at a fairly simplistic level, to their hearts content, but they didn't do that either. If their lecturer had looked at it more sensibly, they might have been better directed to work on something that dealt with basics rather than theories and practicalities rather than philosophies.
- So the result was that one article was deleted, the other remained in a ruinous state and the third I watched for a time, and have just now deleted President Bush ..... sooooo, that is what happened. Amandajm (talk) 13:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Ha! Ha! Ha! Just another smalltown Gothic Cathedral!
-
Wells, pop, 10,402
-
Orvieto, pop 21,000
-
Chartres, pop 40,000
-
Lichfield, pop 27,000
- Oh yes! I agree entirely! It just happens that the "Queen of Cathedrals" (Wells) is in a village in the countryside, miles from anywhere.
- In fact, in Europe, particularly Italy, the dioceses are much smaller than in England, and there are considerably more buildings that serve as cathedrals that are not particularly notable. In Italy it is quite common for the cathedral to be less notable than some large pilgrimage church, as is the case in Padova, Bologna and Assisi, where there are churches to Ss Anthony, Dominic and Francis, respectively.
Notorious
Does your self-revert indicate you are now happy with the addition of 'notoriously'? It's not a very different word from "famously" when you think about it. I'm hoping you are happy with it now, it would be a shame if we couldn't add a bit of widely-accepted commentary here and there. We'd be dooming ourselves to very bland articles indeed if that were the case. --Surturz (talk) 01:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- no. I am not questioning it is "notorious" but I still think it is poor form for an encyclopedia. A ref/verification isn't the issue - it's a matter of appropriate content. Yes. A well written encyclopedia is dull. Notability is asserted by mere inclusion not commentary. edit sums and comments above suggest you are aware of the issue. I reverted myself for now as edit warring is lame. --Merbabu (talk) 02:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I'll just have to disagree with you there, I see no reason at all for WP to be boring. When we have articles such as List_of_Dragon_Ball_characters, I think we can risk the occasional adjective or adverb in more serious articles. Just a touch of spice... :-) --Surturz (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think I distracted the discussion. It's not about boring vs spice. Its about pov vs npov.. Of course i dont want boring articles, but Since u raised "boring" I was merely saying it was a lesser evil than commentary. It should not stand as is. Please reword or remove. Thanks --Merbabu (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I'll just have to disagree with you there, I see no reason at all for WP to be boring. When we have articles such as List_of_Dragon_Ball_characters, I think we can risk the occasional adjective or adverb in more serious articles. Just a touch of spice... :-) --Surturz (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Link
The point is that Late 2000s recession is a central article. It outlines all the crap that's occurred, and in the header gives links to various components of the downturn. Timeshift (talk) 11:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Can't wait for my $950, I felt ripped off the first time! :D To be honest I was surprised nobody added anything sooner, maybe it's an indication that the average user has let the page go to certain trolls who shall remain nameless. Timeshift (talk) 11:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the self-revert Merbabu. I don't believe there is an issue with something being "newsy and transient", if it is important to the issue at hand. Wikipedia is an always evolving encyclopedia, and can/will be updated when the opposition come to a decision. Timeshift (talk) 12:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Joop Beek
Hi, Merbabu
saw you took an interest in my humble beginnings. As I'm based in Holland, could you maybe add some more names to the list of former students of Beek's now holding positions of influence? Maybe you could extract something from the Indonesian Wiki? I can't read Indonesian, I'm afraid...
I saw you didn't approve of the conclusion I drew from Hunter's book, about father Beek knowing who was behind the abortive coup and the murder of the generals. If you have a moment, I'd love to hear why.
I'm fairly new on the En wiki, but have been working on the Dutch one for some years now.
Hope to hear soon. You can also reach me at wikipers@gmail.com
All the best, A Webnetprof (talk) 09:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- RE above - I have never heard before of the supposed presence of the individual in question in Suharto's camp - it all sounds like something that needs to be taken with great care - this is an online encylopedia - and I would say for most of the claims in the article - some close and exact citations are needed - just because somebody claims something after the fact - does not make the claims true - I would like to see quotes - and some more effort in specific details - as it stands it remain dubious, spurious etc SatuSuro 13:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, i got the impression that some fairly far-reaching (but not impossible) claims about the a mysterious turning point in the history of the world's 4th largest country were being taken at face-value. Care to be taken indeed. I know enough about this period to smell something's not quite right. --Merbabu (talk) 13:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- RE above - I have never heard before of the supposed presence of the individual in question in Suharto's camp - it all sounds like something that needs to be taken with great care - this is an online encylopedia - and I would say for most of the claims in the article - some close and exact citations are needed - just because somebody claims something after the fact - does not make the claims true - I would like to see quotes - and some more effort in specific details - as it stands it remain dubious, spurious etc SatuSuro 13:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Something fishy here. Just had a quick glance at the indices of Sundhaussen's The Road to Power, Crouch's The Army and Politics in Indonesia, Loveard's Suharto: Indonesia's Last Sultan, Friend's Indonesian Destinies and, for the other side of the story Roeder's The Smiling General: President Soeharto of Indonesia, the Indonesian translation of Legge's Sukarno: A Political Biography and Hughes' The End of Sukarno and can find no reference to Joop or Josephus Beek. Incidentally, the main English reference in the article, Helen-Louise Hunter's Sukarno and the Indonesian Coup: The Untold Story has no bibliography and is rather mistitled, since it repeats the most told story of all - the New Order's version. Still Google produces over 200,000 hits... Davidelit (talk) 14:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Indeed there is a fish - my online source of info says there was recent discussion among some academics in the netherlands just recently about the problem. As for goggle as a way of verifying anything bah humbug SatuSuro 22:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Please note after careful consideration i have placed a Disputed tag on the page - insufficient citing for an article of that subject imho SatuSuro 14:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
IRC
Can you come on IRC later this week? Or, do you have MSN? Ottre 18:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks
It was an accident.. thanks... :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bviadiz (talk • contribs) 08:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Blue Mountains
The reason I put the pix and lead on the BM list was precisely to make it more of an article instead of just a list. Someone called Dimadozen really has a bee in his bonnet over that list because he reckons it just duplicates the categories, so I was trying to make it more like an article.
Sardaka (talk) 11:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- But it is a list. Dressing it up like an article and giving it a different name doesn't hide that. Yes, a list is redundant as one has categories. I suggest that this goes to the Austrlian noticeboard. --Merbabu (talk) 12:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Australian noticeboard
Where do I find this Oz noticeboard?
Sardaka (talk) 09:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Please remember that when adding non-free images to a page, that you add a rationale for it. Really, we should have four rationales as it is but we don't for that image... Timeshift (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Todays teacup storm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indonesia#Rulers_of_Indonesia
Your prognostications would be appreciated on the subject if you are able SatuSuro 04:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Re: NLOTH
Hey, thanks for the heads-up. With Universal being the source this time I really wonder how they managed to mess that up. I haven't listened to it yet; I'm gonna hold out for at least March 2nd. But that's mostly because my laptop's busted and the computer I'm on now doesn't have speakers (plus a broken soundcard). Great to now that it's the best thing since Achtung though, especially as that's my favourite album. I really have high hopes now! MelicansMatkin (talk) 23:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Date System
Hi again!
I don't know if you know this (I assume you don't - as you did in Sudharmono article - see our earlier conversation). I found how to change the date system in the infobox. Just put |df=y (day first = yes) at the end of the date. The opposite way is either to leave it blank or put |mf=y (month first = yes). I have modified Sudharmono's and Soeharto's article w.tanoto-soegiri (talk) 01:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Replied
via gmail SatuSuro 13:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Nice work on trying to clean it up. I started on New South Wales but has gone back to having too many images. Bidgee (talk) 09:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yer I see what you mean. I've given up on the Melbourne article with the poor edits made by Millere08 only to have them revert so I've just given up on trying to get that article to GA status. Another article I've been having issues with OR, POV ect is the 2009 Victorian bushfires article and again I've just given up. Bidgee (talk) 09:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello
Hey Merbabu, just checking in to see how you're doing. Hope you haven't been too badly affected by all the ongoing wildfires. MelicansMatkin (talk) 05:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Kate Ellis revisions
I am interested in your reasons for maintaining such a tight edit on Kate Ellis' page.
I have checked the revisions of unreferenced material you have undone, and have found each additional piece of information to be substantiated by material published online by the ALP, most often on Kate's wn website. The material you removed is not contentious or malicious. It is simply fact.
Are you suggesting that each part of each statement be footnoted?
For example: Ellis was born in Melbourne (1) and grew up in rural South Australia at Mannum (2) on the Murray River where her family owned the local bakery (3) and her mother was a primary school teacher (4) etc.
Most other Wikipedia articles are not subject to that level of referencing. Why would you insist on that standard for Kate Ellis? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sallykoep (talk • contribs) 14:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
No article no list...
...isn't a rule. Quite to the contrary. Try WP:LISTS. But, I just don't have the time. Cheers. --Mr Accountable (talk) 13:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- What exactly am are you suggesting I look at in WP:LISTS? You don't have time to explain, but you suggest I take the time I read the whole article? Perhaps you could go to the Indonesia project page then and change the convention used - oh, but don't bother if you don't have time (although, I would then not recommend any further unexplained reverts). --Merbabu (talk) 13:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Bono
I know you've done a lot of work on Bono in the best; a few days ago I did a copyedit and added several {{fact}} templates where there was uncited information. Thing is I know I've read all of this before, but as I don't have any of my U2 books with me at University to check and add where necessary. Would you mind terribly with helping me find these sources. I think they were in either U2 by U2 or the Bono: In conversation with... book (maybe both). MelicansMatkin (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC) an class="autosigned">—Preceding unsigned comment added by Zevion (talk • contribs) 01:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Benny Wenda article
hi Merabu
I just wanted to raise a couple of points about the changes you have made to Benny Wenda's biography.
I think it is inappropriate to call Benny Wenda a 'lobbyist for secession' as you have changed it to. He is an independence leader widely regarded as the next President of West Papua should it gain independence. He leads the independence movement.
Also, you have changed all my usage of 'independence' to 'secessionist'. Again, I don't think 'independence' is too strong a word to use to describe these people and their struggle. They would certainly not descibe themselves as 'secessionists' as this would indicate that they accept West Papua is part of Indonesia and are seeking to break away. The reality is that no one in West Papua has ever recognised that they are part of Indonesia, and it is that very reason why there is an independence struggle happening there now. When you look at the background of West Papua, you cannot call this 'seccessionism'. It is an independence movement
I hope it will be possible to revert some of the changes you have made I appreciate the need to keep a neutral point of view, but I think this does not justify dilluting the description of the struggle or the position of the Papuans leader.
many thanks Zevion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zevion (talk • contribs) 01:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I think you have just shown what half the problem is with the West Papuan situation. In your eyes, because the international community recognise Indonesian soverignity over West Papua (mainly because the majority of them have multi-national interests and arms deals with Indonesia), you are using that as a means of justifying a declassification of their struggle.
The fact is that Papuans do not recognise themselves as Indonesian. They never have and never will. Surely it is on the human side how something like this should be defined, not on the governmental/political side. Why not give recognition to the Papuans view on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zevion (talk • contribs) 01:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Gerbangkertosusila
Go ahead and delete the pop. table, when better references become available or are found, I will use the history to put the table back in with appropriate figures and references. Currently the available online data for East Java is sparse and scattered. Doseiai2 (talk) 19:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
re: at U2
Yes, I've often used it when editing No Line on the Horizon to try and replace the links to the "Next album" section, since it'll be wiped clear when the next album starts being made. I've never gone further back than 2007 though, so it's something I'll have to check out more thoroughly in the future. MelicansMatkin (talk) 15:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
No Line on the Horizon "Reviews" discussion
There's currently a great deal of edit warring going on in regards to the reviews section of the infobox in No Line on the Horizon. Your input on the talk page regarding this matter would be much appreciated. The relevent discussion can be found here. Thanks, MelicansMatkin (talk) 04:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
re: 10 reviews
Yes, I have both MSN and email, they're just unlisted on here. Both are mdatkin@live.ca MelicansMatkin (talk) 14:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)
The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Islam In Australia
Hi Just doing some edits on the article. it paints a single sided picture and leaves out many issues that majority of muslim population is facing in downunder. The point is not necessarily to enforce one view but for the article to present as many sides of a topic as are avaible.It is all referenced and read through, feel free to check. ta
Mosman/ Northern beaches
I actually have a very large backlog of images covering this area. I do plan on adding at least one image to each article. I don't think there is anything wrong with contributing photos to wikipedia as long as articles do not end up like this Cronulla, New South Wales . Adam (talk) 06:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
islam in australia
Please refer to me where the edits hold personal analysis? Most of the wording that were added in my edits are from the reference sources that can bechecked and were provided with edits. I didnt try to force it through editing, simply couldnt work out whether i loaded it up or not. Now that i have worked out merbabu talk i am using it. Anyhow ,most of the material i put forward in edits was from human rights reports or reports carried in several sydney universities, couple of them were from media resource, once agian reference was provided. I donot think publishing comments from sources that are from academic background be considered personal analysis. I hardly paraphrased any information so i quite at loss how it can be percieved as pesonal analysis. I didnt in any of edits removed any material from the current article , i added the information that i felt should have been provided in a "factual balanced "article that does the job of presenting different ideas.
Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
MOS
I explained my reasoning on talk. On reading the comments there again, people supporting his addition should state it, people objecting to his addition should read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions??? Talk about holding POV. Garion96 (talk) 09:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Islands
I didn't know islands required a source. I thought their mere existence made them notable, geographic features are notable. I can provide sources such as maps, but I didn't know I need them. Also, which places need sources to say where they are? Is there any definition? Does Java island need a source to say its a real island and the location? How about Lombok? How about islands off of Lombok? What requires one and what doesn't? Any explicit rule explained in Wikipedia? Doseiai2 (talk) 10:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Re
You should have seen the one that added "number of arms" to the infobox. MelicansMatkin (talk) 14:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
U2 3D A-Class nom
I have nominated U2 3D to be A-Class article for WikiProject Film at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Assessment/U2 3D. I would appreciate any feedback that you may leave for the article. Thank you. –Dream out loud (talk) 17:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)
The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
RE: Howard Government
Yeah it's not about Coorey as such. He only started out in 2006; so you know, I've been a hack longer than him.
An opinion piece is only reliable for the purposes of maintaining a wiki article if it actually broke news. This column only serves to reiterate the same line on border protection that was in the SMH every week right up until Oakley stood down. What we're actually looking for is something approaching a television reference in transcript format.
And how is 'god joke' uncivil for an Australian society-related article which is mostly edited by Aussies? I don't think you quite grasp the concept of editing culture, but then I think you also choose to ignore a lot of such inconveniences. Ottre 16:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Howard Government - Timor
Hi there. Months and months ago you asked me to look at the Timor section of Howard Government, because you wondered whether it was too long. The article as a whole is looking good, and this section is OK, but I decided to 'be bold' and make a proposed change. It is designed to reduce slightly the level of in-depth background, to tighten the focus on the Howard government, and to deal with an untidy sentence in the second para. I hope it remains accurate. In both the original and revised versions, it is not clear what the chronological and causative relationship is between the Habibie proposal for auntonomy and the Howard proposal for referendum and possible independence. Do published sources have any consensus on this? Regards. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Chris Berg
I'm interested to know why you are so dismissive of him. Ottre 04:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- you're making adsumptions and missing the point. Not the right place. Answer already on article talk page. --Merbabu (talk) 04:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- I wasn't asked anything on the talk page though. All you've done is throw around highly questionable assertions about a respected political commentator, then feigned ignorance. Not very polite IMO. Ottre 23:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh dear
You may get a laugh or two out of this. MelicansMatkin (talk) 04:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Never a laugh out of this
Tullamarine waiting for about a couple of hours - got the kids sorted out (they are on the other two machines at this station) - will try to check backlog - trust all is well SatuSuro 05:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm what a mess - not sure I like the chances of having a clean Indonesian music thingo ever - they seem eternally lacking in inggeris and confused to say the least :( SatuSuro 07:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Benny Wenda
Regarding the Benny Wenda article, the story in the Jakarta Post was not reported anywhere else. It was widely suspected that the incident was carried out by Indonesian backed militias acting as Agent Provocateurs to help crackdown on members of the independence movement. As there is no evidence that a policeman or taxi driver were killed in this attack, it is only correct that it should not be included in Wikipedia, which as you state is only concerned with the facts. Also, why did you delete my entry stating that the trial of Benny Wenda did not meet international standards in that charges were levied before proper and just legal proceedings had taken place. This information may have been linked from a petition site that you point out is not neutral, but there can be no denying that from whatever viewpoint you look at it, the trial did not meet international standards. This is not about taking sides or 'causes'. It is about ensuring the correct facts are published without the stain of Indonesian propaganda hanging over them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zevion (talk • contribs) 11:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
asylum
and do you really think the British Government would give political asylum to Benny Wenda if they thought for a minute that he was a murderer wanted on charges of killing a policeman and attacking a police station? If they did then they would have put him on the first plane back to Indonesia. They know as well as the rest of us do that the whole incident was set up by Indonesian authorities to provide them with the perfect opportunity to put on trial a leading member of the independence movement.
The reality is that Indonesia is as far removed from democracy as can be. It has a pitiful reputation for human rights, is riddled with corruption, racketting, prostitution. And lets not get onto the genocides of the people of East Timor and Aceh while we're at it, or the ongoing one that is being committed on your country's doorstep in West Papua now. The human rights of each of us are denied, if the human rights of others are denied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zevion (talk • contribs) 11:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Indonesian version do you think?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Australia/Conventions SatuSuro 00:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Benny Wenda article
As relayed to another Australian moderator, the reason why I removed that information from the Benny Wenda article is there is not any other sources which back it up. If we should use Government controlled newspapers as primary sources then clearly Wikipedia is not as neutral as I thought it was meant to be. The BBC, ABC, CNN - these are neutral sources. Do you think for a minute that the British Government would give Benny Wenda political asylum if they thought he was a terrorist wanted on charges of bombing a police station in Indonesia? I can assure you that if they thought he was involved in any such incident he would have been put on the first plane back. It is a disturbing that 'rumour' and 'progaganda' coming from the Indonesian government is used as fact on Wikipedia articles in an attempt to blacken someones name. This is not about causes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zevion (talk • contribs) 12:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
yeah
know the second one well - it brings me out in loudly yelled fierce swear words, hives and general hysteria, then i close the page - what to do - well put it up for afd I suppose SatuSuro 13:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Hurrumph - have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_numbers_in_Australia - format might be better in the indonesian one but I think ytou were too bold there - the wikipedia wide precedent for bloody phone number lists is there mate :) SatuSuro 14:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Why they even have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Former_Australian_dialling_codes - so take care! SatuSuro 14:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Hahahahaha - tell the precedence one to the cfd mafia :) - if you want real fun try watching the list of gamelan ensembles in the us - there you have a lot of time wasted just keeping up with the arguments to and fro SatuSuro 23:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
FYI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indonesian_films - not really bothered what happens with it either way - but hey it is a monolith of vacant space and red links SatuSuro 01:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Now now
Dont libel Woy Woy - Spike Milligan tried to get over some of his depressions by visiting his mum there :( SatuSuro 15:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Huh?
Heheh you wanna hava argument about where Indonesia related lists tag goes or not :) - SatuSuro 03:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Imggona ring you up in a mo SatuSuro 05:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC) BTW - I have removed all the inactive eds from the wp Indonesia members list :) SatuSuro 13:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Michelle Leslie
I agree re the relevance of the quote, though there was relevance in the quoter.[2] UncleG is right re the importance of removing unsourced material from BLP's rather than simply commenting on it. The "stop talking and do something!" message is one he puts forward often, and though he can be a bit aggressive in wording he's basically right about the principle. That said, Wikipedia is a big place occupied entirely by volunteers, and we could all carry out essential tasks for the next hundred years and not get everything done. So - we should have copyedited the article as well as commenting on it but the failure to do doesn't invalidate our AfD input (or any other useful things we might chosoe to spend our time doing). Euryalus (talk) 12:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- It wasn't quite the message in this case. The message in this case is don't let an editor who makes mistakes in how xe draws a BLP problem to general attention distract one from the fact that there is a BLP problem to be addressed. If an editor is cackhanded about such things, remember that xe might not have the best judgement, or simply lack experience, in how to handle article problems that xe comes across. It does not mean that xyr motivations are poor. Sometimes people do things a lot worse than prepend {{subst:afd1}} to an article, when they see BLP problems. They edit war. They do things that would otherwise seem like outright vandalism. They screech and insult and threaten on talk pages. I've seen all of these. Treat these as very inept ways of drawing our attention to the problem. We can still point out that they are doing things wrongly, and if necessary deal with their behaviour as well as the problem with the article. But policy rightly tells us that we shouldn't ignore the article in favour of the behaviour of the editor pointing out the BLP problem. In some cases, after all, the behaviour problem corrects itself, if the BLP problem that the editor is cackhandedly trying to point out actually gets addressed. ☺ This is, again, because whilst the actions may be bad, the motivation is still to fix a BLP problem in the encyclopaedia, and so once that actually happens, the bad actions stop. Uncle G (talk) 14:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Neutrality tag in Rudd section
Do you think it's warranted in your opinion? Timeshift (talk) 11:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Howard govt interest rates
I've got no problem with the text itself per se, only its location. The 2004 election promise to keep interest rates lower than the ALP, and subsequent interest rate hikes is definitely notable (esp the election eve one). But the promise was fairly blatant electioneering - the promise itself was carefully worded so that it could not be measured or falsified - and it seems out of place in that section which otherwise covers actual government actions. --Surturz (talk) 02:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
deputy sherriff
...to what I think are the essential (if, as I maintain, the needless) elements...
- A nice turn of phrase there, I particularly like the use of the word 'essential' :-) --Surturz (talk) 07:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
About Indonesian killings of 1965–66 and something else
I'm pretty noob at wiki editing, so I need your help. I would like to make a suggestion on renaming it to Indonesian Communist Purge of 1965-1966 so as to soften up the harsh title. I don't think that page gets lots of discussions so I would like to ask how it is that I would get support or opposition in renaming the article if there is no one to discuss it with? And how would I get the page moved/renamed?
By the way, I noticed your userbox contains
This User believes that one can sum up one's entire political, social, and Wikipedia policies beliefs with a creative userbox, such as this one. |
And yet none of the userboxes state anything about your religious beliefs! =P
Lastly, how do I get the text up there to not appear beside the userbox but below it? >_>
Okay, that wasn't lastly, I also plan to go back to go to id:Museum Satria Mandala the next time I return to Indonesia and this time I plan to bring a camera and spend some time taking photos of everything and I'll upload the photos for use here. I might be able to get some close shots of the photos posted there.
So yeah, thanks for reading my incredibly well structured message, Hamster X 09:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Leslie
Regardless of your intentions (which I am sure were without malice to Leslie), you directly related Leslie's notability with Glover's. You mightn't like to be told that, but it is a fact and it was objectionable. Secondly, I did tell you directly, I posted my response directly below your comment at the AfD.
I am still amazed that you feel your action is somehow OK because you didn't mean any harm. That is the problem with these articles, most people of goodwill (which is most of us here, incuding you) don't mean any harm but it happens anyway. It happens because we treat people as abstractions rather than as people with feelings. When we do that, comments like "may i ask rhetorically whether perhaps we should delete the John Wayne Glover article to preserve dignity for his family" in a discussion about a girl with two pills in her purse is the result.
The major problem with BLP1E as it is applied at present is the notion that once someone appears in the press, even as marginally as Leslie (who was no Jennifer Hawkins by any means) they therefore forfeit any rights to privacy. If they are lucky they will get what "we" (not the subject) determines to be a NPOV article (which, again even with the best intentions, rehashes the muck and makes it available to a wider audience) and if they try and edit it, we then block them for breaching COI!
Look, you won, I lost. The tribe has spoken and I have no intention of taking this to DRV. However, in my opinion, the way we treat our living biographical subjects here at Wikipedia is a scandal. I have a quote on my user page I found around the traps. You can read it at User:Mattinbgn/Resources#Good advice. The last line says "Either you get on this train of thought, or you're going to be left behind, because this is the direction the encyclopedia will go. End of story" Unfortunately, this is not true and until such time as we make a total hash of something and someone gets seriously hurt, it is unlikely to change. -- Mattinbgn\talk 09:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- "Berate" must be one of those irregular verbs: "Merbabu discusses assumptions, Mattinbgn berates"!
- In my initial comment at the AfD I said "I have given this one a bit of thought as some editors I respect have argued for keeping this article". You are one of those editors. That doesn't mean that I will agree with you all the time or find every comment that you make praiseworthy. I think you were wrong to support keeping the article, but people will disagree and it seems your point of view on these articles is supported by the community and mine is not. I think this makes the encyclopedia less worthy, again you disagree.
- I think you crossed the line badly with the Glover comment and I said so at the time. What was the purpose of raising Glover at all if not to compare his situation to Leslie's? I know you did not intend to compare Leslie to a serial killer, it was merely a rhetorical device; but compare them you did and it was wrong to do so. As such I feel quite comfortable citing that comment to ensure a courtesy blank of the AfD discussion where the objectionable statement was made. I also note that you have not commented on your incorrect claim that I "seem to be replying to a lot of people about [your] comments except not to [you]" even after I demonstrated that I did reply almost immediately to your comment.
- My views on BLP articles are not new, I have held them for some time and they were crystallised in the Corey Delaney case. Things have not improved in the way BLP articles are treated here, and indeed the Leslie case indicated they are going backward. You disagree and you have the right to do so, but there is no point getting upset with me because I disagree with your actions and see them as bad for the project. As I said, you won and I lost. End of story. -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Rudd election win and swearing in to government
The information on the Commonwealth of Australia page is wrong about the election of 3 December 2007. It happened on 24 November 2007. Rudd did not become Prime Minister until 3 December. He took a very long time to form a government unlike Whitlam. Please check your facts. Finneganw 11:25, 4 May 2009
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)
The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Magnificent video
I haven't seen the official video yet, but the Somerville video is amsolutely amazing. It's going to be amazing seeing that one live; that and Breathe anyways. Thanks for the heads up about the video, I'll definitely check it out now. MelicansMatkin (talk) 02:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- That wouldn't surprise me. It was really well shot though; when I first saw the Somerville video I thought it was the offical one until I remembered they were shooting it in Fez. I like both of them, but I think the Somerville one may just barely be my preference. The Fez video is definitely refreshing though, given the number of live videos they've done in the past. It's got a really nice feel to it. MelicansMatkin (talk) 02:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Image on Jakarta article
Hi Merbabu, Thanks for your advise. Please do not remove all the pictures in this article as I think they are relevant to the information provided in the section they are placed. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkurniawan (talk • contribs) 10:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
What the?
Just because Treasury put up interest rates 12 months ago, that suddenly means we can decide ourselves that what they say is no longer noteworthy? Treasury says that without the stimuli unemployment would be up to double the current level. That is noteable. Is that the real reason you self-reverted? And how is watching this funny? Timeshift (talk) 13:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- It's not funny. It's hilarious. Hence my removal from the revert war - better from the sideline. --Merbabu (talk) 13:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Long lost user and long lost bot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AlexNewArtBot/IndonesiaSearchResult is now dead for 10 days and I am in panic - and your mention of Indon makes me nostalgic for the old days SatuSuro 12:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Provinces of Indonesia
Hi Merbabu, in the article on Indonesia, chapter Administrative divisions, it is announced that the Indonesian provinces and their capitals follow. But what follows are seven things with the provinces below or inside them. In many countries, such official groupings of first-order administrative divisions are called regions, so in Argentina and France, for example, but not in Indonesia where they are officially called Geographical units. This is not highly relevant by itself, but I strongly feel it is relevant when they are listed and the reader doesn't know what they are, especially when he expects the provinces. Maybe there is a less confusing way to add this information to the article, try it!--Ratzer (talk) 18:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Discussion on Talk:U2
A new discussion here over some edits to the lead in the last few days which you may be interested in. MelicansMatkin (talk) 23:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Discussion on Benny Wenda
Please familiarise yourself with the meanings behind independence and secession before making edits. I know secession is a more romantic view for the Indonesian lobby, but in Wikipedia's NPV it is not seen as this. Please see BBC News's take on the struggle. A wholly neutral POV http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7942026.stm Clear as chips their headline reads "PAPUA'S STRUGGLE FOR INDEPENDENCE". I will be reverting with primary source evidence regarding regarding the reasons for the UKs refusal of Indonesia's extradition requests, which you have also removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zevion (talk • contribs) 00:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Opera House Image
Agree, I was going to delete it as well but thought I should discuss it first. Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 08:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- I forgot there's no Harbour Bridge image anymore. A pic of the bridge probably needs to be in there. I just don't understand why you need to have a climate graph and climate table, with the table showing nothing the graph doesn't. Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 08:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Sydney_Harbour_Bridge for Bridge images. Either the 1st or 3rd should be added. Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 08:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Climate section is also very big, strange there isn't a Climate of Sydney Art. Is the Sun Times image really needed? Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 08:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- There is an art now ;) Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 09:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Climate section is also very big, strange there isn't a Climate of Sydney Art. Is the Sun Times image really needed? Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 08:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for fxing my mistake on Australia. Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 11:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Front page
You know, when I saw that U2 was going to be today's featured article I figured it would be getting a hell of a lot of vandalism, but this is just ridiculous. MelicansMatkin (talk) 04:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Universitas - ready for inspection
Reckon you should give it the once overe there sp mistakes everywhere :) SatuSuro 08:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC) Agreed-that should have at least 2 or 3 redirects if it is finally titled either way SatuSuro 08:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC) Your presence at the Indonesian project discussion page would be appreciated SatuSuro 23:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Article Indon.
Why yes. Based on the referance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PRIMARY#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources :-
- "Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." As there is no interpretation, only as a fact that it is being used by reputable publisher. This is because a lot of people claim themself read a lot but unable to find it being used. I submit on "xamplefarm" because you cannot prove that the abbr. is use a lot with small sample, when someone keep saying that 2 / 3 is does not qualified as wide usage. Yosri (talk) 08:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- Exactly, you are making interpretations based on primary sources. It says "use care" (you haven't used care) and it's "easy to missue them" (you have missued them). While I've somewhat fixed that (a few times), their inclusion as examples of notability is in itself interpretation. Fortunately for you it's such a minor and non-notable article that gets no attention. --Merbabu (talk) 08:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- That is your interpretation. The fact is big establish notable publisher is using it. Period. Whether it is widely use or not, I let the readers to be the judge, I don't make interpretation. No more of you personal opinion please. Yosri (talk) 08:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- No more of my personal opinion? But yours is OK? It's clear you didn't understand the distinction between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. You have not found 1 single source commenting on the use. You have only found examples. That's poor quality editing. --Merbabu (talk) 09:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- That is your interpretation. The fact is big establish notable publisher is using it. Period. Whether it is widely use or not, I let the readers to be the judge, I don't make interpretation. No more of you personal opinion please. Yosri (talk) 08:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I deleted Westholme, which was probably not notable, but West Maling is one of the earliest Queen Anne homes in Oz and one of the most outstanding, with writeups in at least two books. I would have thought that was notable enough; more so than The Manor, which you thought deserved its own article.
It would be better to tell me what things you think are not notable and I can take it from there, instead of putting notability tags on the whole article because of a few things that might not be.
What are the problems that need cleanup?
Sardaka (talk) 09:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
heritage homes
Back again. Have now made it so that all homes in article have a listing except The Manor. I presume that satisfies notability criteria.
Sardaka (talk) 09:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- Well. Notable enough for an article, and notable enough for a short mention in the Mosman article. But, while the house is certainly big, I don't get what is notable from a heritage point of view. Certainly not architectural merit. It would have been the Prix d Amour of its day]. Perhaps of marginal note is the fact that it is occupied (owned?) by a religious group. hence my annoyance that it takes up so much space in the Mosman article. I'm not saying it's not notable as a building, but I don't get the heritage significance. Is there any listing? --Merbabu (talk) 09:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)
The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I was talking about the article in general, not just the Manor. If you can't explain a notability prob with the article in general, I'll delete the tag.
What are the probs that need cleanup for Wiki standards?
Sardaka (talk) 09:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
...
This has to be the lamest source of conflict ever on Wikipedia. Yeesh. MelicansMatkin (talk) 19:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
You're right.
Sardaka (talk) 09:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
U2 COLLECTION
HELLO I BOUGHT THE U2 COLLECTION WHEN IT FIRST CAME OUT I TRIED TO BUY THIS UPGRADED VERSION on 5-31-09 , THE NEW 256 VERSION BUT THIS IS A ERROR, VIA ITUNES I CONTACTED ITUNES SEVERAL TIMES THEY HAVE CONFIRMED this is a internal error nobody is able to upgrade the u2 collection the 446 song are not in line to be upgraded the state the upgrade is $45.00 each song to upgrade .30 cents 446 X .30 is 133.80 $45.00 price is a error —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.163.218 (talk) 03:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- hi
- do you have the 446 itunes u2 collection?
- have you been able to upgrade all 446 songs to 256 format? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.163.218 (talk) 03:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
hi you wrote "whether it's true or not, it's trivia. not for an encyclopedia" what do you mean by it's trivia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.163.218 (talk) 04:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- Please read WP:TRIVIA for an answer to your question. MelicansMatkin (talk) 04:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- Once I thought about it, it's just not necessary to mention whether one can upgrade to a higher bit-rate version. It's not really what wikipedia is about. --Merbabu (talk) 04:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
RE: John Howard
Have you read doi:10.1080/10361140701320018? I'd like to remove all of the news articles about refugees used in the Howard bio, and directly cite the Australian Election Study. Hopefully then we can include some commentary on the policy drafting, which--you're right--really only deserves a brief mention in the legacy section. Ottre 07:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- Firstly, you haven't identified what's wrong with the news articles. As you may recall, I don't understand vague or esoteric explanations written on the internet. And then, if you add some commentary, then it can be removed. --Merbabu (talk) 07:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
2009 assults on Indian students
Thanks for your contributions. The website (and its parent, Indian Australians) had attracted significant and partisan attention from a US based IP address. I hope that what I made recently gave it at least some structure. Do you have any more details of Australian reactions? I am sure the nazi website was not the sole contribution!
I have also requested temporary page protection. Kransky (talk) 01:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Please note that referring to a white supremacist by his ideological affiliation does not constitute WP:NPA but is fair comment in this case.70.112.199.223 (talk) 01:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
ITN for 2009 attacks on Indian students in Australia
2009 attacks on Indian students in Australia
Thanks for being neutral here. Appreciated. I strongly believe blind nationlism shouldn't affect the editing of the Wikipedia. For example Rahul Raj encounter , an article on allegedly police brutality happened in India and obviously "some people" wanted to AFD the article : Being neutral, I Improved the article, saved the AFD, got speedly deleted the copyvio image on the article and nominiated it for a successful DYK. -- Tinu Cherian - 09:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Barnstar
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | ||
In the last week you've been all over the articles in my watchlist reverting vandalism and nonsense. As such, you've easily earned this barnstar. Nick-D (talk) 08:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC) |
...aw, shucks. thx! --Merbabu (talk) 08:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
West Maling
Hi. Did I convince you that West Maling is notable enough to be in the article? I think it's worth having, but it's not worth having a revert war about it.
Sardaka (talk) 09:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Template:Politics of Indonesia
Hello there! I removed the templates from older election pages because the template did not have any direct links to these articles. The template displays the most recent elections. Additionally, many of these election pages are quite short, so using a long template like this just seemed kind of silly. Perhaps we should make parts of the template collapsible... If the consensus is otherwise, feel free to restore them. Arsonal (talk) 05:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
SBY Selected Publications
I included them to display some of his published works. I've seen this done in some articles and thought it was appropriate. Sort of like a "further reading" type of material. Was this put out of practice? Arsonal (talk) 07:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Article?
I have no idea what article your referring to.--Porsche997SBS (talk) 18:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, well I think your talking about my edits to Borneo, Sumatra, etc. Well, the point of those edits was to illustrate the population density of those islands (the CIA World Factbook does the same thing, but I guess that's not an encyclopedia, is it?). Oh well, whatever.--Porsche997SBS (talk) 19:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Currency Edit on 'Australia' Page
I'm sorry if this edit was unconstructive. However, changing it back was irrelevant, since all Country articles on Wikipedia use US Dollars for the GDP, so it didn't really matter anyway. As I said, all GDP's on here are in US Dollars. Bearing this in mind, please do not be alarmed again if it is ever changed back. Also, I hardly see that edit as 'unconstructive', considering (And I won't say it again) all GDP's on here are already in US Dollars. So there is no need to panic. I'm just clearing this minor issue up and informing you not to be alarmed if it happens again, because of the above. Thank you. --Billsta1 (talk) 11:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Look, I'll say this again, I think you are being a little too picky over the entire issue and I hardly see how anything was reverted. All I did was fix some slight grammatical errors you made (e.g. when you are reffering to people or an ethnic group as 'White' or 'Other', you should use Capital Letters, whereas it is different when referring to something like colours or objects). Alright, I will leave the Currency as US Dollars. But I believe you are making the mistake here and not me. I simply wish you are not alarmed by this and for the issue to be cleared up as quickly as possible. --Billsta1 (talk) 03:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)
The June 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
WikiProject Invitation
Hi Merbabu, I have made WikiProject Indonesia Invitation. Is it good? — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 02:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
WikiProject Indonesia Invitation
|
No Line on the Horizon request
Hey Merbabu, I have a request for you regarding No Line on the Horizon. I've put the article under a peer review in my quest to get it up to FA, and the feedback from it has been great. I've addressed most of the points that were made, and all that's left is a clean-up of the prose and a copyedit. Since your eyes are much fresher with the article than mine, could I ask you to take a look and help me to copyedit the article? Cheers, MelicansMatkin (talk) 23:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)
The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
and you wonder why I don't participate in WP:INDONESIA
Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Australia as an island/continent
Well put! The desire of some people to argue about minor points never ceases to amaze me. My favourite example is the Pacific War article, where almost all the edits relate to adding or removing countries from the infobox, despite the fact that the article is in poor shape. Nick-D (talk) 02:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I see you've been responding to the GA Reassessment for the Old Man. I'll wait until you're done and then see if I can add anything. Incidentally I see you have standardized the spelling on British English. Is there a standard for the Indonesian articles, or did that never get resolved? I tend to use American English because most of the English language sources past and present do. And yes, perhaps a photo of his house would be a useful addition to the article :-) Davidelit (talk) 16:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ricklef's English isn't particularly clear: I interpret "[[the G30 troops]..occupied three sides of Medan Merdeka commanding the Presidential Palace, the radio station and the telecommunications centre..." as meaning they occupied the south, west and north sides. Some G30S leaders went to the palace to look for Sukarno, but I don't think they occupied it as such. It would in any case have been at odds with their aims. Davidelit (talk) 16:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Rather imperialist of me to call it British English! Yes, I agree. Although Ricklefs is English, others such as Feith, the Cornell University gang and modern sources such as the Jakarta Post and Tempo use US English. Davidelit (talk) 16:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, that's better. However I don't like "Suharto had no affinity to Sukarno, nor any special Islamic conviction with which to oppose him. He despised disorder, but was known for prizing opportunity; General Yani and [?] disciplined him several years before for the Diponegoro smuggling affair, thus removing any affinity he might have for Yani", which is lifted verbatim from Friend and doesn't really fit. Also the Diponegoro smuggling and Suharto's 1959 dismissal (by Nasution, NOT Yani if I'm not mistaken) are not mentioned in the given reference. Perhaps it would be better removed entirely? Davidelit (talk) 16:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Firstly the 1959 dismissal and shipment off to Bandung is fairly important - not withstanding our possible factual accuracies you mention! I think the Friend text is helpful for creating context, but I agree it is border line POV - but one that I believe stands up to scrutiny. It's a hard one. that he wasn't wedded to Sukarno, and his love of "order" is fairly important - but how to put it in better? ANyway, I have to sleep. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 16:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, that's better. However I don't like "Suharto had no affinity to Sukarno, nor any special Islamic conviction with which to oppose him. He despised disorder, but was known for prizing opportunity; General Yani and [?] disciplined him several years before for the Diponegoro smuggling affair, thus removing any affinity he might have for Yani", which is lifted verbatim from Friend and doesn't really fit. Also the Diponegoro smuggling and Suharto's 1959 dismissal (by Nasution, NOT Yani if I'm not mistaken) are not mentioned in the given reference. Perhaps it would be better removed entirely? Davidelit (talk) 16:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Rather imperialist of me to call it British English! Yes, I agree. Although Ricklefs is English, others such as Feith, the Cornell University gang and modern sources such as the Jakarta Post and Tempo use US English. Davidelit (talk) 16:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I must bow to your superior knowledge about the criteria for FA status. However in my opinion, the introduction (lede?) is too long - I seem to remember reading somewhere that four paragraphs is about right. Davidelit (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
RE: Australasia (Australia and New Zealand)
I have boldly nominated this fork for deletion ... or, in the least, its contents should be merged into Australasia. In doing so, I replaced your merge notice, since I believe the creator(s) of this fork will enter into a revert cycle to restore it without definitive action. Thoughts? My apologies, nonetheless. Bosonic dressing (talk) 04:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ah; OK. :) Feel free to comment. Bosonic dressing (talk) 05:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Kopassus
Seriously, I read through the entire article and found it to be wanting, especially in the section of neutrality (read WP:NPOV). Has it been always like this? If not, is a "Neutrality disputed" template/tag be place on it? --Dave1185 (talk) 00:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Stand by edits and comments on other users pages
My arguments are entirely substantiated by peer-reviewed, referenced easily/readily accessed google books, which meet and exceed all Wikiepdia criteria. I suggest those who continually defame, libel or slander my nation and its security apparatus, have an extreme conflict of interest, which is best served not on Wikipedia but on a suitably receptive forum more amenable to such malcontents.
It is entirely within the spirit of Wikipedia articles to balance all provocative unsubstantiated allegation, with verifiable counter-argument.
I will also point out, my edits were the most extensively referenced and substantiated of the entire article- which, if Wikipedia directives on verifiability were adhered to in full and rather than selectively would instead result in the removal of all non-referenced elements of the article.
All edits meet and exceed verifiability, do not constitute Original Research, conflict of interest nor POV.
As Goebel's noted: :"repetition of a shamefully big enough lie often enough and the masses will uncritically accept it as fact" is entirely pertinent to well-documented Western, notably Austrlian agit-prop regarding the defamation of TNI, ABRI, Suharto and Kopassus- the point being- however many times a lie is repeated in the Australian print/academia does not make their lies a truth. I further argue to consider an Western source as ever being more authoritative than an Indonesian source is offensive, biased in extreme and without any factual basis. What periphery arguments and pertinent mitigating information I included was more than adequately documented- furthermore from admittedly Leftist Australian authors- which, by virtue of their shared political slant provide even greater credence/credibility to any Centrist or Rightist arguments. I have been tagged for "civility"- an wholly subjective and entirely contentious issue by Dave1185, though I was under the impression that whatever mutual ill-will remained was long extinct: there is no real valid reason for his involvement nor interest unless motivated by petty grudge. Far from being uncivil, my comments are brusque and any offense taken is an emotive reaction reading into them. I have read other parties comments that my edits were "aggressive"- hardly an emotively neutral accusation.
I point to the sad realities of US- Austrlian military intervention (many scholars argue brazen textbook Imperialistic aggression) in East Timor, the Australian client state]s of Papua New Guinea and greater Oceania and Iraq- these (a sophist may argue erroneously superficial) peripheries are wholly pertinent/relevant as substantiation of widely held views in the sphere of public debate/knowledge- and discussed openly on American-Austrlian television, such as John Stewart, Colbert and even Fox news. Furthermore regarding Indonesian law and libel, I write to inform all editors as an informed expert of situational reality: Indonesians and those resident are bound by the same laws of libel and defamation, as well as the complex issue of les majestice regarding the President and that which is reflective of his/her rule. Hardly a threat- it is a timely reminder of legal reality and a desire for all matters pertinent to Indonesia to abide wholly to the spirit of Wikipedia's retreat from opinion-editorial to objective article- as discussed at length by by Wales. Vested interest NGO hearsay based on uncorroborated flimsy tertiary sources damages the credibility of Wikipedia.
I take issue with all accusations and suggest this isolated discomfort in de-beatification of dearly-held "Sacred cows" needs urgent redress to be brought in line with the views of demographic majority. In regards to Indonesia, Australian (and lesser extent American and UK) opinion departs/deviates markedly from established majority academic discourse and output, thus reality especially as advocated by Wikipedia: "democratic objectivity/truth/reality"- as embodied by Wikipedia's own doctrine regarding articles.
Thus my edits golbally are patently not a crusade to deviate from majority discourse to correct/amend/edit articles of a defamatory and slanderous nature- but wholly authentic to the spirit, directives and guidelines of Wikipedia editing. I am more than willing to work co-operatively and constructively with any Wikipedia member to provide afore mentioned balance as required. Starstylers (talk) 16:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
the gallery tag
We have it for a reason; galleries of images. Jack Merridew 14:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Re:
No probs- I used it because in Dreamweaver- sometimes the explorer vs mozilla rendering s slightly different and thought the br tag was included as a universal fix. Will double "enter" all paragraphs etc from now on.
Indonesia page
Read your reply on Talk. Sent you email with more info.
Unfortunately, I don't have good source about land reform -- verbal explanation from eyewitness. Martindo (talk) 00:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
RE:
I know what you mean. I usually reverted those affected articles to the last known OK edit so that it can be a clean slate for other responsible editors to contribute again. Feel free to add or expand the article accordingly. Regards mate -- Kulikah (talk) 10:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Reverting
Quit reverting. People take a lnog time to make this stuff. Screw You--Das Ansehnlisch (talk) 21:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)