Jump to content

User talk:Merbabu

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Zevion (talk | contribs) at 13:22, 9 August 2012 (→‎The Signpost: 06 August 2012). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

ArbCom has proven how dysfunctional it really is to support a desysop of not one but two good servicing Sysops (Admins) over one small incident.

It looks like we're safe!

It appears that we don't need to worry about Jrtayloriv starting an edit war on the Indonesian killings page, since he has left it alone. Thank goodness! He can be a real pain. I have no idea how he can accuse me of "deleting well-referenced material", since he's made a career of it. On articles like Hugo Chavez and Che Guevarra, he has freely removed thousands of characters and offered one word explanations like "POV". He once deleted 41,000 characters from the "bureaucracy" article. Even if this was justified, it boggles the mind that he would demand an explanation for each sentence I cut in the Indonesian article; surely he knows that bold changes can be neccessary. The issue may be that he is obsessed with bizarre conspiracy theories: For example, he argued (in the article on CIA activities in Iran) that there should be a section devoted to allegations that the Iranian Revolution was really an Anglo-American plot to surround the USSR with hostile Islamic states (based on worthless sources, some of which were profoundly misread or even unrelated). I did remove that eventually, but predictably he now accuses me of being a "censor". The fact is, I generally avoid editing articles that he frequents, because those (like him) with enough time and dedication will eventually be able to shape Wikipedia to their will. Without endorsing or rebuking your proposal to integrate the section on "foreign involvement" into the rest of the text, I will say that at the very least "foreign involvement" should not attract the same level of controversy as a section specifically devoted to condemnations of the US.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether the situation has improved, as I don't get around wikipedia as much as I used to a few years ago, however, it used to be that "US Involvement" sections were everywhere, and were largely a dumping ground for condemnation of the US, often with undertones (or overtones!) of CIA conspiracy. Or just plain old leftist bias against the right. They weren't much better than the "Criticism" sections that are also becoming less prevalent. Oh, and there were also the issues that you raised. The silliest thing was that editors building up that section never talk about Sukarno's relationship with China and the USSR, let alone in equally condematory tone.
I'm by no means an apologist for the US, and indeed one of the main drivers of me creating the article (and I didn't write a short article either!) was my continued sadness that these events are barely discussed in Indonesia. They are certainly not part of any school curriculum. The New Order version remains the "true", indeed the only version - i.e., that evil communists murdered 6 national heroes (the generals) and that the implication was that Sukarno was involved. There was a literal book burning (in 2004?) of a new school text book that touched on the fact that there were also mass killings. There's never any credence paid to credible (but unproven) theories that Suharto may have been behind it, in full (unlikely) or in part (not improbable).
The best thing that has come out of this - an I'm quite proud of this and wikipedia - is the article has been translated into Indonesian wikipedia and it is a feature article on their site. AWESOME! the info is there for people to read, even if the schools don't teach it.
As I mentioned before, that section had long bugged me, but wasn't brave enough to clean it up. However, let me suggest that the reason it stuck - so far at least - was because your/my case is sound. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 09:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Horhey420 "suspects" you! He's on to us!
LOL.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Niether Horhey's line of reasoning or indeed his use of English are making much sense (not to me anyway). He won't address specific questions, but at the same time comes back with incomprehensible, irrelevant, and/or strawman arguements. It reminds me of that "playing chess with pigeons" joke - ie, they kick all the pieces over, shit all over the board, then march around victorious. Oh, and Horhey throws in a bit of moral outrage - ie, "shame on you".
I only respond further because it seems that he feels he is in the right and I sense that if he's not convinced otherwise, he will end up re-instating the bad version. On the other hand, responding just seems to feed him (no, I'm not saying he's a troll) and drags the fruitless discussion on and on. I'm going to resist responding further. --Merbabu (talk) 23:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merbabu, thanks for this discussion on Horhey's TP. It's laugh out loud hilarious to see how paranoid and vituperative he is in response to the most innocuous requests. It may even be good evidence to show admins. I lost it again when he started talking about his love for partying and videogames on Jrtayloriv's page.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 12:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I hope sanity is returned to that article. He claims consistently that we just want to remove everything, when that's never been said. And this edit summary (one of his very few) is a case in point. [1]. --Merbabu (talk) 12:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Indonesians

I saw you removed the Chinese characters from the article and intend to also remove the Indonesian phrase ostensibly because this is the english wikipedia. Let me suggest the reason we should leave those phrase in, is because those are the names the subject of the article are called in their native languages. We don't need to limit ourselves to the English language, particularly when the subject is a non-english language subject. For any subject, we use and define the proper terms as they would be used within the field. Trackinfo (talk) 11:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who's we? So your answer "it's what we do"? How are chinese characters useful in English wikipedia? --Merbabu (talk) 12:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The selective use of a few Chinese characters doesn't seem to do any harm and is (for some of us) quite helpful. In fact, the use of Chinese characters is increasing in Indonesia so to have access to rather selective illustrations of a name (of a person, for example) in Chinese characters surely does no harm, and for some English users of Wikipedia is useful. I would support the selective use of both bahasa Indonesia and Chinese characters when it is reasonable to do so. At least one minister of the current government has Chinese characters listed against the name on Wikipedia at present and it would be a great pity to change this. If Chinese characters have been removed as Trackinfo says, then I'd like to see them put back again. Pmccawley (talk) 10:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Chinese names everywhere. Let's throw the Jawi names into. And the Javanese script just to be sure. What about Dutch? What are my Dutch, Jawi, Chinese, Malay, and Malaysian names? --Merbabu (talk) 10:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. And I admit that I'm not quite sure exactly how to deal with the issue. For me, it needs to be a matter of judgement. And reasonable people will doubtless disagree at times over what the right judgement is. I agree that it hardly makes sense to have lots of entries about Indonesia on Wikipedia deliberately scattered with lots of Javanese (or Sundanese, or Balinese) words, or any of the other numerous languages that one might cite. My own view -- which some will disagree with -- is that the "reasonable" and occasional injection of non-English references is not inappropriate provided it is done with care. I'd argue that this will often enrich the text. But I realise that there will be differences of view about this. Pmccawley (talk) 14:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesian destinies

In Talk:Indonesian occupation of East Timor#Friend (2003) you mentioned it was by Donald Friend. Did you mean Theodore Friend, and is it this? Thanks, CMD (talk) 06:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! Not Donald Friend. Indeed, it was Theodore. A very good book. --Merbabu (talk) 07:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 July 2012

Sense

Actually, I think it makes sense to show the full heading instead of an abbreviated one, but after I did it I realized that the short version was the standard format for that list, so I won't be doing any more, biut I still think the full headings are more logical.

Sardaka (talk) 12:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 06 August 2012

Are you really as impartial as you would like others to believe? It seems 90% of your posts are about Indonesia, and you seem intent on wiping away anything that highlights the corruption that is rife there. Even the badminton cheats at the Olympics. As long as primary sources are provided, why do you question a contribution to wikipedia?? Next you'll be claiming that Indonesia really is a democracy, and not run by a horde of former Javanese war generals. (do you want me to provide sources to back that up too??!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zevion (talk • contribs) 11:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it not the case, that you just can't stand to have a bad word said about Indonesia? You claim that you are an impartial moderator on here, but were more than happy to state Indonesian state propaganda as fact on the basis of an article in the state run Jakarta Post (the false allegations about Benny Wenda), and then get upset when I do an edit highlighting that the Indonesian badminton were cheats at the Olympics. You appear to spend more time on this site than most, so sure you can update the Chinese badminton page too.

Judging by your profile, you seem to have a deep regard for Indonesia, but I suspect you are are bit blinded by the reality of that country. Holidays in Bali and Lombok will never give you a true picture of the socio-political nature of Indonesia.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Merbabu&oldid=506555652"