User:Merbabu/Archive8

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:PID

Merbabu, I notice that the Selected Article and the Selected Biography were not updated lately. I understand that it is sometimes boring to do that every week (I didn't update the DYK for so long either :">). So I want to propose to change how they are updated weekly just like the Selected Picture. In Portal:Indonesia/Featured picture, I put a list of the POTW for every week with the "<WEEK>, <YEAR>" format name, so that it will be automatically updated every week. I don't have to make a new replacement manually. I know that the name does not represent the content, but it is just an intro to the real article so I don't think we need to make it a permanent name. How's about it? Let me know what you are thinking. If you agree, then I can help you to make the AOTW and BOTW just like POTW. One advantage with this system is that we can make some selected articles/biographies in advance for several weeks/months. — Indon (reply) — 10:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Sult Agu

My specialty - do you want to keep it simple - or would you like more on him?....

well, i was just going to copy and paste a few sentences from the article - it's gotta be small anyway for the portal. How about you copy edit anything i write. And then make the actual article FA? ;) Merbabu 13:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Big problem is the sources - I will send a very long boring email before i dissappear at easter...Satu Suro 13:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Your portal summary is fine - I wont muck with it - some issues that arise from this guy are problematic, which I will get around to explain in email (only read if you are having a boring day or etc... :) Satu Suro 13:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You need to archive! Not a sock - the onus on the IP user is to prove in some way he is not. And how come he is a friend? Nah - take it to an admin and leave off! Anything other is buying time/cred for what is probably a sock. Satu Suro 23:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Theres a non urgent gmail Satu Suro 01:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Dayak

Dear Merbabu,

You reverted the version on Dayaks. You should refer to the Discussion Page with regards to the Photo in question. The Image is in dispute and this has been carefully explained in the photo section. What are you trying to do???

Do not REVERT the article on Dayaks. I have followed the Wikipedia rules and I would be grateful if you can show the same courtesy.

Terima kasih dan kerjasama anda dinanti.

Tuai 23:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Told ya

Told ya, Merb. [1] I think any question that may have remained after that debate is absolutely conclusively answered now. :) Sarah 15:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Portuguese Empire

Hello Merbabu! Thanks for your reply. I was going to revert too to your version (I went and read the article on the Banda Islands and saw the references), but had to leave in a hurry. Thank you for you compliment on the map - I did loose some time with it! It is still a work in progress, though. I see that you are a member of WikiProject Indonesia, maybe you could help with more precise locations for the Portuguese presence in the area - actual possessions and for how long, areas of explorations, influence and commerce/trade. Exact locations are not easy to came by! As for the reason for the split into two articles, it was done by an user called The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick. You can check all the relevant discussions (and participate!) in Talk:Portuguese Empire#An exploration = Empire? and Talk:Portuguese Empire#Anachronous map of the Portuguese Empire (1415-1999). Please do! Cheers! The Ogre 14:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

lol, I just can't imagine how that could be useful to anyone... --Kristbg 14:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Garuda

I saw somewhere that you said there are only a few days left for the Garuda article. That was last year so the few days have long past. I don't know much about Garuda. In the article, it says that it is the "national airline of Indonesia". Technically, is there a special designation called "national airline of Indonesia"? Would it be more appropriate to say that it is "Garuda Indonesia is the largest airline in Indonesia and operates the most extensive international route network among airlines based in Indonesia" or something like that? Similarly, is American Airlines the "national airline of the United States"? United used to be larger than American. It is now 2nd largest. At some point, did a court say "United, you are no longer 'national airline of the US', we strip the title and award it to American Airlines.". Of course, not! The decision to edit Garuda is up to you. VK35 21:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

"any idiot"?

Hello Merbabu, per Wikipedia:Civility your edit summary here is not appropriate. For the most part folks who do GA reviews are volunteering their time to help benefit the project. Kindly refrain from making similarly natured commentary in the future. Thanks. (→Netscott) 08:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. However, it was not my intention to belittle the GA process, to which I have submitted articles myself. Rather, i don't want to see GA status used incorrectly. I will try to make amends. thanks and sorry. Merbabu 08:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Please don't mistake me for I am not arguing about the validity of your edit merely the summary for it. Your good faith gesture is good though. :-) Cheers and carry on with improving the encyclopedia. ;-) (→Netscott) 08:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

idiot gmail from idiot :) Satu Suro 09:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Idiot from the west is traumatised by the change on your user page - it had been the same so so long...... Satu Suro 13:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

ha! yes, a well overdue update. Now all i have to do is see if I can get User:Imoeng to live up to his promise to redo the page once i got some content. Merbabu 14:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Keeping up the idiocy - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Quotations#When_not_to_use_quotations - is what he needs. Satu Suro 03:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

U2

Done, after I saw your message. But not to the edits I made prior to it. I guess it's not possible to add an edit summary to an edit that's already been made? Willnz0 03:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Pictures in Islam_and_animals

Why did you remove pictures from this article? I'm putting them back in. You take them out again, I'm going to take this up to the authorities, alright. --Matt57 19:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Addressed on your talk page and article talk page. Please don't make threats. I can report that to 'the authorities' if you'd like. Merbabu 03:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I didnt make any threats. By authorities I obviously meant RfC and stuff. I've replied. I'll take this up to the authorities if its necessary. --Matt57 11:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

lol - how is your post not a threat: "You take them out again, I'm going to take this up to the authorities, alright". Yes, it is obvious you meant rfc or something, doesn't change a thing. Furthermore, lecturing me about WP:AGF in Talk:Islam and animals after this section I find a tad ironic. How is your post here not an assumption of bad faith?Merbabu 12:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'll deal with this topic later some other day. Our common mission should be to improve articles, not censor information and subdue it. --Matt57 15:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, that is why when I removed the pics, i moved the cited text into the article proper. Yes, I trust you will 'deal' with it. ;) regards Merbabu 16:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Reverting edits of blocked user Davidyork

Can I ask why you're reverting ([2], [3]) valid good edits of a blocked user? If I edit articles today and my edits are good, and one day I get blocked, does that mean all my edits should be reverted? They looked like good edits to me, but if I'm wrong, I apologize. --Matt57 15:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Those were some good edits from that user. You're very biased towards that user because you didnt agree with their edits on Islam. That doesnt mean all their edits wrong... puhleez. Can you please go back and see if you reverted his edits wrongly? I reverted some. He had put in some good pictures in the articles and text as well. If you leave them as they are, people wont suspect because you wrote in the summary "reverted edits of blocked user", which is true, but some edits were valid and not related to his blocking.--Matt57 15:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, i don't see the need. If someone is blocked, it doesn't mean they can go and edit under another name. I don't mind if other users put them back - if they are 'good'. You could be that person. I don't see the need, but am open to new reasoning.

Again, i don't like your assumption that I immediately remove DY's edits. Yes, i have problems with many of DY's edits (nor am I alone), but once again it's not an Islam thing. I agree am fine with many of his edits in the slavery article, as I was in the INdonesia-Australia relations efforts which he improved (even though some were plain lousy). Merbabu 15:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, what are you talking about? You made atleast 2 wrong reverts e.g. [4]. It doesnt matter WHO the contributor was. You reverted a good valid edit and that is wrong. --Matt57 15:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Matt, I've already said I disagree with you - ie, i don't see a problem with removing edits by sock puppets. However, if you feel they are good, then you can re-instate them. I know I am not alone on this, and I find it difficult to understand why you keep requesting I change it. How about this edit summary, I've said something similar here: [5] ONce again, please make the changes as you see fit.Merbabu 16:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thats the only article I care about so I undid your RV now. In the future, please dont undo valid edits, no matter who made them. All that matters is that they're valid edits. The fact that they belonged to a now-blocked user is of NO consequence at all. You're welcome to ask admins to confirm this, but I think this is really commonsense. If a serial killer came to my garden and took out the weeds, and I found out later that he was a killer, I wouldnt go and put all the weeds back in. This example should be enough to illustrate what I'm trying to say. Hopefully I wont see you reverting like this again.--Matt57 16:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me you are trying to bully me of late. I find your tone is uncivil. I'm happy to hear if you disagree with me if it is civil, and in this case I've told you I disagree with your assessment so please stop your condescending me what you hope I will or won't be doing. Not once did i try to stop you reverting them yourself. Merbabu 16:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of a block is to stop people editing. There is therefore nothing wrong with removing the edits of a sock puppet of a user who has been blocked. In fact it is not valid to leave the edits of a blocked user or their socks in the article. (Caniago 16:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC))

Where is the Wikipedia policy that states that all valid edits of a blocked user should be removed? --Matt57 16:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you think a block is for, mate? It isn't so people can create sockpuppets to evade the block. I suggest you consult a friendy admin to clarify your understanding. (Caniago 16:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC))

I have consulted the admin (read my post below). How long have you guys been editing on Wikipedia for? Actually you just need commonsense to know that, an edit should only be reverted on the basis of the edit i.e., if its a wrong edit - NOT on the basis of who made the edit. This is actually unbelievable. I will store the link to this whole discussion on my user page sp people can read and be amused at reading what you guys are trying to suggest, which is again: Revert the edits of a sockpuppet, EVEN if they are valid edits. I'll also mention what the admin said, which confirms what I have been trying to say. Amazing. Really, people have let go of all rationale here and becuase of what? Becuase they disagreed with what the user was trying to do. --Matt57 20:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to let this go, but since you posted [6] some things need clarifying (again). The discussion is about sockpuppet edits and not about removing "all edits by a blocked user" as a matter of course - that would imply pre-blocking edits. No-one is suggesting that. Merbabu 18:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

As clarity might be an issue, here is my initial reply on this topic (now pasted from User Talk:Matt57) [7]:

Sockpuppetry

They are edits of his sockpuppets made while under block. Please do what you think fit with them - revert if you think they are good. kind regards Merbabu 15:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

yeah, i see what you mean Merbabu. it seems to be standard practice on Wikipedia to revert contributions, including those who restore the contributions of sockpuppets. but anyway, i am not so concerned that i will revert further. regards, ITAQALLAH 18:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Who says the standard practice is to revert edits of sock puppets, even if they are VALID edits? Any evidence of that, ItaqAllah? I guess you guys refuse to take in commonsense from me because of my opinions of Islam, but hopefully you'll listen to an ADMIN who agrees with me. Please read that. The real motivation of your reverting David's edits was so you could revert his edits on Islamic Terrorism and Australia, which I revreted back here. But you could'nt revert that edit of his, unless you reverted some of the other non-Islam related edits. Nice move, but sorry it didnt work. Everyone can see whats going on. And you have all been proven wrong. The admin has CONFIRMED what I have been saying in all this: It is wrong to revert VALID edits of a user. It doesnt matter if its a blocked user or a sockpuppet or whatever. The revert must be done on the basis of the EDIT, not the user. I'm amazed that you guys are so brave to go against all commonsense. Now can I hear a confirmation that you agree with the admin? --Matt57 20:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  - I've read closely and will continue to follow the comments on User_talk:Bbatsell#A_small_question_about_blocked_users and User_talk:Gnangarra#User:DavidYork71.3DUser:BongHitz4Musa. I have no problem with anything the admins say nor do their comments change anything for me. Don't worry, you won't need to notify me with your interpretations of what they say or didn't say - I'd prefer to follow it myself. As for the rest of your most recent post, I am not sure that it is in a collaborative spirit and thus I am not interested in the discussion further. Many thanks, regards Merbabu 04:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  - <ec>Matt, please read the blocking policy: "Edits made by blocked users while blocked may be reverted." Sarah 04:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It is a widely accepted principle that edits made by users evading a block or ban should be reverted on sight. This should be seen as a form of block or ban enforcement, rather than as a judgement of the quality of the contributions. Hesperian 04:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Your move of current talk content

May I ask the reason for your moving the Talk section for reverting David's edits in the middle? Perhaps it was a mistake. Please confirm. I have moved it back. --Matt57 20:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Something went wrong with my archiving last night: [8]. It looked like there was an error, but i'm guessing it may not have been refreshing properly and confused the hell out of me. You can see in that diff I managed to reintroduce what I'd only archived a day or so ago. Guess it is a case of "This user reserves the right to completely screw up his or her edits." he he Merbabu 04:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Project newsletter

We need one - how difficult to raise one in short term? Satu Suro 06:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, could be difficult for me today, but let's see what i can do. Is there an urgency? What do you think should go in it? cheers Merbabu 06:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Not so much urgency - better small and small bits than a long wait and a big one imho Satu Suro 08:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

ha ha, 'y o' is not 'h'. let me know of your ideas for contribs - even expand a bit, e-mail if you want. Merbabu 08:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Oops, did I make a promise to spam the new one? :"> — Indon (reply) — 08:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Rick Rubin

True, there could be something decent in there but this trivia was just...crap. Rick appeared in the music video for X, Rubin also appeared in the music video for Y, also appearing in the video for Z, and this "While Slipknot recorded their lastest Album, Vol. 3, the lead singer reportedly saw a ghost in Rubin's Mansion." gave me a laugh because it's so stupid. There also wasn't any references for the whole section, so yea goodday to you :) M3tal H3ad 11:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

smiling

We are editing the same sections at the same time. I'll let you finish drop a quick note when your done Gnan garra

deleted

to protect you I deleted your posting to my page. Please if you have a special problem with one page tell me. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh. To protect me? Not sure I understand, but I will get back to you. thanks, i guess Merbabu 14:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

again deleted to protect you. if you do not reply to my questions, I don't want your words on my _talk_ page. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

pls respect WP policies

disputed changes like [9] should never be marked as minor. The policies are also there for you to respect. As they are for me. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Tobias, I think you are going over the top a bit there. It was probably a slip/typo. It's not a big deal. The edit has an explanation so i honestly don't know how you'd miss it. Do you make explanations on your moves? Merbabu 12:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Removal of Pop Culture from Sydney Opera House

Funny you should mention that. I wasn't sure whether to revert that edit or not, but since it seemed unneeded, I just went ahead and did it. Now I can see I did the right thing... --AAA! ^(AAAA) 12:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Removal of external link for Rinjani, Bromo and Batur

Please could you explain how the trip report in the external links for Rinjani is included but the external link I added was regarded as 'spam'. The Rinjani page lacks information and photographs and I felt the link would be useful for others.

There is also a lack of similarly useful links for Batur and Bromo. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.241.199.114 (talk) 17:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

I see this has now been answered on your talk page. Merbabu 22:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

BOTW

I extended the Sultan Agung biography on the portal. Hope that is what you want. — Indon (reply) — 08:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Borneo History

Have put together some history info on the talk:Borneo page, please add, edit and verify! ;-) I have just seen the article Timeline of Indonesian history, as a spezific question: any idea how and when the Dutch established their control on Borneo? --T.woelk 08:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Oops!

how r ya? sorry I blanked it…I’m fairly new to Wikipedia and have not fully mastered how to operate everything.

Angel2001 15:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

?

What's onus? I put a reference for Chinese Indonesian. What's it? But I explained that Asian American and Chinese Indonesian is the same meaning. but just different countries. (69.117.20.128 - talk)

The on-line dictionary definition of Asian American you supplied to define the Chinese Indonesian article is not a reliable source. Merbabu 15:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

te lawrence

That's fine. Maybe I'll put it back up. The truth is, while he does fall under the purview of the project, I dont think they have anything particularly necessary to contribute that isnt there now. Good catch! VanTucky 16:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh I see

I noticed that in the footnotes people write Levy (1957), p. so i thought it is a mistake. I don't know which versions the authors have used. --Aminz 06:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. --Aminz 06:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

British anti-invasion preparations of World War II

I thought that you might like to know that British anti-invasion preparations of World War II, an article to which you have previously contributed, has been put forward as a featured article candidate. Thank you for your help. If you would like to comment on this article's nomination, please see here. Your opinions will be most welcome. Gaius Cornelius 12:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Michael

do you understand why he talks different, compared to what he did himself? [10], look the template, he dabbed en masse. IMO it was good, but I now think he is only xenophob towards me. And he also made mistake with Pontianak ... no problems with that, but WP Indonesia should be more relaxed towards mistakes others commit. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for making accusations about me behind my back. If you want an answer to a question like that, have the respect/courage to ask me directly please. You simply like to deploy DAB pages more freely than I do. I consider whether it is the most appropriate of the possible solutions to resolving ambiguity rather than DABing every term under the sun. I don't deploy DAB pages on a massive scale like you do without consulting anyone about their views. When I deploy DAB pages I attempt to fix up the links I break, unlike you. As for Pontianak, what is this mistake you talk about? People would be more relaxed about you if you consulted them more before making bulk changes and did not leave a broken mess of pages in your trail. (Caniago 04:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC))

question was raised 4 minutes before at WP Indonesia talk [11] . Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Stubs

Tasmania and Indonesia projects are sitting ducks for deletionists finding one line stubs - I havent thought through the issue sufficiently to further explain here - probably a gmail later today - cheers Satu Suro 03:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Tagging

Thanks. A bit quicker now I've discovered the script, but still slow and steady! Have fun. --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 04:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Indonesia collaboration

New collaboration...

Hello everybody. I’ve updated the current Indonesia collaboration to > > > Central Java < < <

This article’s not in a very good condition but such a significant part of Indonesia, the cultural heart of the Javanese. Please contribute! Thanks to all those contributed to the previous collaboration Sidoarjo mud flow particularly Indon.

The next collaboration...

For the next collaboration in a fortnight, I’d like to try something different. Let’s chose a stub rather than an already well-developed article. Here is a list of Indonesian stubs to choose (there’s two pages). Please check the article's importance rating – let's chose an important and significant article that will appeal to a broad range of people. Please do not choose an obscure and/or esoteric topic that is not very important. Please place your nomination here.

Any questions, please let me know. Kind regards --Merbabu 05:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah thank you. Definitely I will contribute. That is where both my parents come from. BTW this article is a featured article on the Indonesian Wikipedia. Perhaps it is possible to copy some materials from id:. Meursault2004 08:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the Indonesian version is largely based on the official site of Central Java, i.e. this site. However this website doesn't cite its sources either. Well, we'll look around. Meursault2004 09:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I wish I could be more often here too :-) Meursault2004 09:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, why is my name there? There are other editors who helped the article. — Indon (reply) — 20:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Proudlyhumble07

Hello Merbabu. We seem to be having a problem with this user and his POV edits. I see that he reinserted the collaborationist label in the Sukarno, Bung Tomo and Mohammad Hatta pages, (undoing my reverts - I see you've been there too) plus added (or rather re-added) the "mass murderers" category to Mohammad Toha. He's done some edits to Suharto but it looks harmless. If you look at his edit history, he seems to have some kind of an anti-Indonesia chip on his shoulder. Do you happen to know if he is a sock puppet? Davidelit 05:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Proudlyhumble's categories

Some of his categories seem rather POV to me, and it's rather obvious from his AfD participation that there's a disruptive streak afoot. Since you've got a bit of knowledge in the area, do they seem like the kinds of things which should be deleted? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Brideshead

Thanks for a sane word in my enraged ear. This user has consistently behaved so atrociously that I was furious at the recent attrocities!! lol. I've modified the wording as they were indeed inappropriate. Cheers! --Brideshead 11:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: 82.11.242.122's edits

This anonymous user was the one who recently placed the speculative information in the U2 article about their alledged net worth, and he or she has done it to a bunch of other articles as well. I have reverted all of the edits, but I need a good warning tag to place on his or her talk page to attempt to dissuade him from repeating this action. Do you have any suggestions? Thanks for your time, as always. ---Charles 22:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

images not loading properly

tagging arts over the last couple of hours there seems to be a lot of images not loading - maybe systemic Satu Suro 14:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Prabowo

Yeah, I'll keep checking it and this user today. Rigadoun (talk) 16:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi from WikiProject Indonesia

Hi Merbabu! How are you?

WikiProject Indonesia invites you to join the project, and we are sure that you can help us greatly there. WikiProject Indonesia is a project dedicated to improve all articles related to Indonesia and currently we have got 37 members.

Here are some things you can help us with:

Assessment: It's where you can tag Indonesia-related articles out there with our project banner and help us gather all articles.
Cartography: Or maybe you can draw maps? It is a very important sector of our project, since Indonesia is a big country with thousands of islands, maps could be very useful.
Collaboration: Every fortnight, we choose a short article that needs to be looked at and we improve that particular article together. The main goal is, of course, to reach featured article status.
Or you can just help us expand articles related to Indonesia.

Have fun and see you there!. -- Imo eng 13:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, look whos spamming?? I've put this into 70s Indo users, hopefully they'll turn up, hopefully.

Re: Indonesia articles...

Thanks! I love Image:BureNavala2.jpg.--cj | talk 13:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Alfred Russel Wallace

I am strongly consdering putting Alfred Russel Wallace up for FA. I would appreciate any feedback you have on the article. Thanks. Rusty Cashman 19:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI I have gone ahead and nominated. I have also created an article for his book The Malay Archipelago that might be of interest to project Indonesia.Rusty Cashman 02:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

In to en

Di dalam gmail Satu Suro 02:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC) I would say your anxiety re the transfer is justified for the credibility of the English language Indonesian project - but suggest great care not to alienate potential editors - very tricky Satu Suro 02:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Religion

That's cool, thanks for the info. I couldn't even remember when we wrote that. Imo eng 06:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Morning

(...and I'm almost midnight now.) I just nominated one article at FAC secretly. :-) — Indon (reply) — 21:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Toraja: Thanks. Actually it's not we, but I did that a few minutes ago. I thought ethnic group name is more appropriate than ethnic group, but I think I concur the last version. :-) — Indon (reply) — 13:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks very much Merbabu for reverting my userpage. Cheers, --Aminz 05:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

No worries - although I admit, it is odd (but harmless in my mind) to have both categories. But as no offence is apparent and not explained by others, it should be up to you what you have. Merbabu 05:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

AOTW

Just to ping you about the portal's article. :-) — Indon (reply) — 10:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:Catholicism in Indonesia

Thank you for your kind words :-) Yes indeed. The information in the article actually comes from the article by Adolf Heuken, Karel Steenbrink and Robert Cribb. I find Robert Cribb's book (Historical Atlas of Indonesia 2000) very valuable. Besides compact information, he also gives the readers lots of detailed maps. At this moment I am still not able not get my hands on the book about Van Lith. But I hope I can go to the library today an borrow this book. Yes I think I can incorporate some citation. Is it better to place it in the text or in the footnotes? Meursault2004 00:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a Sock

I understand your anxious desire to clobber David York as soundly and sincerely as possible but this does not reduce the requirement for some checking of edit history before adding your tags.

For what it's worth, yes I'm a friend of David, I know he gets difficult at times but we need people who hold unpopular views otherwise all progress grinds to a halt. 61.8.12.133 23:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Assuming your story about being 'a friend' of community banned User:DavidYork71 is indeed true, my suggestion is to read WP:MEAT. Also, maybe have a look hereand here. Happy to discuss further if necessary. Merbabu 23:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I find it rude that you would attempt to suggest I'm a liar by putting friend in quotes. Yes I have read WP:MEAT and I find it double-rude of you to suggest that I am not entitled to either express my point of view nor even capable of having my own point of view. I have asked you to provide specific evidence of your claims and I am still waiting.

As for the treatment of David, I took the trouble to read through some of the old edits (I intend to read more) and what I believe is that there has been systematic whitewashing of the Slavery and Islam page to the point where editors have been finding any trivial nitpick just to get inconvenient pieces of history removed. David was so enraged by this, that he started going overboard (as is his way at times) which got him into trouble (as it does). To put this another way: his behaviour was poor but his grievance was genuine. 61.8.12.133 09:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The reasons for the community ban are no secret and support was widespread and unanimous as you would no doubt have read about. bye. --Merbabu 11:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I am asking you to justify [this specific sock tagging], and I am asking you to explain what evidence you used to decide that this sock-tag was appropriate. I am not expecting you to explain the actions of the wider community, only your own actions. If you are going to refer to WP:MEAT then it would be nice if you could explain which part of it is relevant.

I can accept that I was wrong, but wrong doesn’t mean unjustified – certainly not at the time. Note, that since you brought it up yesterday I have not reapplied the tag as I would have if I was still confident you were DY71. I also gave you the benefit of the doubt by providing some info on the DY71 banning. Perhaps if yesterday you had not said you were a ‘friend’ of DY71 and then tried to excuse his poor behaviour I may have been more interested in discussing it further. But, you can be sure that if I was certain your comments here since yesterday were DY71 I would have simply remove them. As for the other sock tags, I think you will find them all justified and placed by a range of editors.

As for evidence, DY71 has a history of using socks and IPs to get around blocks/bans. And this is the stupid off hand comment that he would leave around. And there are several to his talk page and Islam and slavery. As I said, I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt, but me being wrong does not mean it was unjustified at the time.

As for my comments on the unanimous community consensus of the block, it appeared to me that you were trying to excuse DY71 and suggesting that he was hardly done by - but if I’ve misinterpreted your comments, I am glad that you agree there is need to go there again.

Perhaps you’d like to explain what you mean by you are ‘friends’ with D71? As for the reference to WP:MEAT, I’m suggesting it would not be appropriate for DY71’s ‘friends’ or others to act as proxy editors for him, whether by off-wiki communication or other on-wiki means. I am not suggesting you have done that. regards Merbabu 23:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.