User talk:Merbabu

Sydney

Hello! I saw your comment on my talk page. I didn't add that image, I was merely correcting what seemed to be a grammatical error in the image's caption, which was originally added by 82.25.126.28. I wasn't aware 82.25.126.28's edit had already been undone by MattSucci by the time I published my changes. Sorry for the trouble! I am relatively new to editing Wikipedia. This was unintentional.

Administrative divisions of Dutch East Indies

Hello there Merbabu, thanks for the work you put in on the page Administrative divisions of the Dutch East Indies. It was indeed a mess although someone obviously put in effort to document the 1942 structure. I notice you changed Gouvernements to Governorates, I think that is logical. I just created an article for the awkwardly named Gouvernment of Atjeh and Dependencies but I think per your translation maybe I should just move it to Governorate of Atjeh and Dependencies. The downside is that I could not find any google hits for that term in English in the Aceh context. I'm not sure why or whether there is some other term that is commonly used. But the fact of the matter is that they were governed by a Governor so that works. My only other comment about Administrative divisions of the Dutch East Indies is that it confidently says in the intro that there were 3 governorates but of course they were restructured shortly before the war so that would not include the Aceh one I created and so on. Not to mention all the restructured Residencies that seem to be well documented on the Dutch Wiki: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resident_(bestuurder)#Zie_ook Probably too much for us to sort out ... --Dan Carkner (talk) 02:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 January 2022

• Special report: WikiEd course leads to Twitter harassment

• News and notes: Feedback for Board of Trustees election

• Interview: CEO Maryana Iskander "four weeks in"

• Black History Month: What are you doing for Black History Month?

• Deletion report: Ringing in the new year: Subject notability guideline under discussion

• WikiProject report: The Forgotten Featured

• Arbitration report: New arbitrators look at new case and antediluvian sanctions

• Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2021

• Gallery: No Spanish municipality without a photograph

• Obituary: Twofingered Typist

• Op-Ed: Identifying and rooting out climate change denial

• Essay: The prime directive

• Opinion: Should the Wikimedia Foundation continue to accept cryptocurrency donations?

• In the media: Fuzzy-headed government editing

• Recent research: Articles with higher quality ratings have fewer "knowledge gaps"

• Serendipity: Pooh entered the Public Domain – but Tigger has to wait two more years

• Crossword: Cross swords with a crossword

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Bragoola

You've spread false infomation regarding the MV Baragoola.

She was owned by the preservation group til last October. She sank over 2 days. Captainshaggy (talk) 09:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Deletion of 'completely irrelevant' content

Hello @Merbabu:. I'm SiberianCat. I notice you have deleted part of the content from the page on Tommy_Suharto. Specifically, you deleted the subject's criticism of the Indonesian president (Jokowi). I feel your explanation that such content is "Completely irrelevant. Not about Jokowi" is unmerited. The word 'irrelevant' means having no connection with the subject at issue. Adding the adverb 'completely' means 'to the fullest extent'. In essence, your argument is that the subject's political stance on Jokowi (voiced ahead of national elections, in which the subject himself competed as a candidate for the legislature) has absolutely no connection to the subject. I feel this is illogical.

Should Wikipedia pages about politicians not include their views on political rivals, because such views are "completely irrelevant"?

I think the content is important because it shows the subject's political views toward the Indonesian government. This is indeed relevant because the subject is a politician with presidential aspirations and is critical of the incumbent. Also, the subject is the son of a former president and is making the argument that things were better when his father was in power, which is part of his political campaign strategy.

Can you please provide a reasoned explanation for your deletion of the content? Or do you feel I should open a discussion of this on the article's Talk Page? Thank you. SiberianCat (talk) 02:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

You should raise that on the article talk page.

On a side note, I find uninvited explanations back at me of both the individual words I used, and my actual argument, is (at best) rather annoying, but more heading towards patronising, and thus undermining your potential to succeed at collaboration. --Merbabu (talk) 05:10, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Merbabu:, thanks for your response. I'll take your advice and raise it on the article's Talk Page. I'm sorry you found my unsolicited explanation annoying and patronizing. I just wanted to avoid any edit-warring and therefore explained why I had felt your explanation was illogical. SiberianCat (talk) 06:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)