User:Merbabu/Archive23
 | 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.
Indonesian vs Bahasa Indonesia
Hi Merbabu, Thanks for your comment about English usage, but I'm afraid you're ignoring the reference to the fact that the term is also used in English, see Bahasa Indonesia. So unless that entry is mistaken or misleading, I'll keep using Bahasa Indonesia, if you don't mind. Cheers and keep up the good work, Frank Landsman (talk) 14:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC) Dear Merbabu, Thanks for your swift reply. Far be it from me to disregard conventions, but Wikipedia needs to be consistent. In Indonesian language it is clearly stated that the term Bahasa Indonesia "can sometimes still be found in written or spoken English" and that "Bahasa Indonesia (no italics) has become one of the most widely spoken languages in the world". Another widely quoted source, A History of Modern Indonesia since c.1300 by M.C. Ricklefs, mentions "one language, Bahasa Indonesia, the language of unity" without italics, whereas all other Indonesian words on the same page (p. 186) are italicised. In other words, it is used in English, whether you like it or not. I do agree it would be wrong to state that "one of the modern languages Peter Cook studied at university was Deutsch". So feel free to edit the Wikipedia entry dealing with Bahasa Indonesia/Indonesian language by claiming that it is unacceptable to use the term "Bahasa Indonesia" in English and mention an academic source. If you merely add that "The Australian Wikipedian Merbabu claims it is unacceptable" it could be interpreted as POV, you see. Incidentally, as a non-native speaker I don't feel strongly about this issue at all, but when I used the reference/link in the article about Gus Dur, I simply relied on the contents of Indonesian language. No hard feelings and salam sejahtera dari Bandung, Frank Landsman (talk) 06:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC) Dear Merbabu, Here's another example for your archive: Matt Crook writes "Language is another barrier. The government chose Portuguese as the official language despite most people's mother tongues being either Tetun or Bahasa" [unitalicised] on p. 59 of The Guardian Weekly of 19 December 2008, so I assume it's become common usage. Selamat tahun baru! Frankly speaking (talk) 14:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
==============================================================================
Re: Heroes' Day [new entry) What a lot of... - heroes day should not remain in that form - watch my edit SatuSuro 04:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oh good - i wanted to change it too but u go ahead. I suggest putting a link back to the Battle of Surabaya as the day chosen to celebrate. But Hero;s Day was to commemorate the whole "war" [sic] rather than just Surabaya, right??? --Merbabu (talk) 04:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Nah there is a problem - dont have time to fiddle - could you ringme ?ive lost your numberSatuSuro 04:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm - hang on. I was bout to go for a jog, but looks like I need to get the washing in fast! --Merbabu (talk) 05:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I do a bit re Timór-Leste, too
See this edit to w:tet:Pájina Mahuluk — the main page of the Tetun Wikipedia. That's a major markup change. Pleased to make you acquaintance. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
RISKA
Undoing prod please feel free to contact me about it - cheers SatuSuro 15:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
U2 Songs
For many of these songs, the information included is not referenced or poorly referenced, and the things that are referenced are usually fancruft, like "it has been played only three times in concert", stuff like that. That being said, you can go back through and merge what you think is appropriate, I just do not think that unreferenced material should be kept, much less specifically merged. Just a differing of opinions. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 16:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Padangtegal
Hey, that was rather rude. I am sitting in Padangtegal as I write this. I am planing on writing something up. Jack Merridew 04:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC) With murderous quotes from goldings lord of the flies on his talk and user pages he needs worse than that - Indonesian project is one vast collection of lists and red links - the principle is correct even if he were dreaming in the tropical heat ....SatuSuro 03:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
No Line on the Horizon Tracks
Hey Merbabu, I would greatly appreciate any input you can offer in regards to this discussion. Thanks. MelicansMatkin (talk) 03:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
OK
Well, i just want to arrange that article which not arranged by another wikipedian months ago. Thanks for your advice. CHJL Discuss 13:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
About flag
Hi, i saw in a lot of biography articles are used the flag icon in the birth and death place by another wikipedian. How about your opinion about that? CHJL Discuss 07:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Seep.. I will learn more. Please tell me if you have some advices for me, OK?? Cheers. CHJL Discuss 08:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Port Arthur image size
This isn't really important, so sorry for wasting your time, but couldn't I resize the image for these reasons: Images containing a lot of detail, if the detail is important to the article Images in which a small region is relevant, but cropping to that region would reduce the coherence of the image
The actual gaol takes up maybe 1/10th of the image, and in thumbnail form is just a band of indistinguishable pixels. Yeah, you can kind of make out the buildings, but you can make out the buildings much better with a minor forced resize, imo (and, imho, looks much better overall). Plus the larger version doesn't look any bigger/take up more space than the Captain Cook image to the left of it. I've seen other FAs with "forced" image sizes such as that one, so it doesn't detract from the quality or feature-worthiness of the article. Anyway, you seem much more experienced at Wikipedia than me, so ultimately I will take your word for it :) GarrieFerron (talk) 10:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think I'll change the preference on images, I'd rather see the default preference that is universal for most wikipedia users. It's not that I want all images to be larger, or most images to be larger for that matter. There's just some that I feel might look better with a subtle englargement, for aesthetic reasons, or something like that :) Also, I should probably bring this up on Australia's talk page, but since you're a respected contributor to the Australia article, I was wondering what you'd think of having a Society subsection for the main Culture section on Australia's page, similar to what the Germany page has. GarrieFerron (talk) 10:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Alright, I agree with you regarding subsections in country articles; usually results in info-overload. But could we have Society as its own section below Culture then? It could cover many of the things that typically have their own sections in country articles, like folklore, cuisine, holidays, tourism, fashion, architecture, science and technology/inventions etc.. and the general lifestyle and attitudes of the Australian people, and how we are perceived on the international stage (we're consistently ranked the friendliest and most open people in things like the Nation Brands Index, and the greatest place to live according to global polls by the Pew Research Center...) But yes, it should be kept broad and general, and maintain the structural balance you were talking about. GarrieFerron (talk) 9:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Sydney pic
Thanks for the heads up. As I have explained on the talk page (and I would have thought would be obvious to the original questionner if they had ever actually visited the Opera House), the building has sails that face the other way as well, and the rear of that - in shade - is what they are seeing. It most certainly has not been photoshopped. My PS skills are infintely more advanced than that and I wouldn't release anything that was tampered in that way anyway. best. Mfield (talk) 16:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
About independence
Hi Merbabu, i guess adding a independence link is the good way for reader to know about it. CHJL Discuss 08:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Rudd Government
I just created this article as a stub - it seems long overdue, and it's better to have something totally unsatisfactory than nothing at all... Nick-D (talk) 11:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- God help us. :-). I'd help you out, but I'd predisposed treading on POV egg shells in the two JH articles. ONe suggestion - why not create it as a kind of Timeline of the Rudd Government. It might stop arguments over notability and there seem to be more than enough editors with a penchant for recentism and just slapping in the latest news - a timeline style article would make great use of those tendancies! seriously. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 11:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
About date linking
Hi Merbabu, i was linking the birth date because of any articles that i've seen such as Silvia Abascal was linked by any wikipedians. And i guess some of articles was linked by wikipedians because of the date of birth only. But i will remove the links. Cheers. CHJL Discuss 13:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ok. But bot works so late i guess, some of the wrong articles were edited by wikipedians in a long long time ago, i've read one of the articles that has a mistake of linking (i forget the article) is already 3 months not in edit. CHJL Discuss 14:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Hasan di Tiro
Just what am I supposed to do? I only add what the sources say. Then the IP sock puppet changes it back. I ask for a third opinion and Twice the third opinion has agreed that only information backed up by sources should be added into the article. What else can I do? -- Esemono (talk) 07:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- You asked what I've tried to do resolved the dispute. As shown on the talk page I've tried outlined the dispute but what it breaks down to is I think only information that has been sourced by Verifiable sources are to be used in the article.
- I've tried to be cool, talk and reason with the IP sock puppet but he doesn't listen.
- At first he straight out edit war violating 3RR rule but because he uses mulitple IP sock puppet accounts I couldn't get an admin to stop him
- I've asked for a third opinion, twice, and both times the third opinion has agreed that only information sourced by Verifiable sources are to be used in the article. I've also requested for comment on the Biography board.
Well
Well, i did it because i've read one of the articles before, PKB if i'm not wrong. It was bolded by another wikipedian. So i into him/her to bold all of the articles. But thanks for your advice. I'll take it. CHJL Discuss 16:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Merbabu, i guess you are wrong about my contributions to moved a lot of pages. I just moved 2 pages only, and one of them was vandalized by my brother. I will not do that since you gave me the wikipedia policies. Cheers. CHJL Discuss 08:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Boring heading
What's the policy when it comes to altering talkpages to give a false impression? "Emotional" sigh is his wording, not mine, I changed it to a more appropriate title for the discussion, but he keeps changing it to emotional sigh. This gives the impression that it is my title as I created the discussion. And selectively removing replies? Timeshift (talk) 08:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hmmm. Well, I'd discourage it - strongly. I don't know if there is a policy but I do notice that admins aren't rushing in to get involved in the Oz Pol discussions - lol. Perhaps the best way forward is two pronged: for us is to think in advance about what might bug someone (ie, our choice of headings or selectively remove comments). While it could be said that changing headings is minor trolling (especially in this environment), perhaps thinking about what headings we use would be helpful. Just write something plain and boring for a heading - the heading is not your message, at the end of the day it just separates your discussion from the one above right? Personally, I'd let it go to the keeper. While I think it's poor form to selectively remove comments, it's also his right to remove the whole section. Perhaps *we all* need to relax more, focus on what's actually really important, and be careful what we say (ie, do as I say in this case - not what I do. lol). --Merbabu (talk) 08:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Bullsh**t
Well, whatever consensus is, the text that was originally there had it at some point, due to it being nutted out on the talk page first. Skyring, myself and (now retired) Matilda all opposed the inclusion of the quote at all. I think you did too. You should have jumped on Lester's unannounced new version and told him that he was flogging a dead horse. It was even raised again in early December and quashed then. Trying to "fix" his version just signals to him that if he pushes it enough, it will eventually get in. Do we really want to return to the bad old days of edit warring and page locking over this quote? As for my behaviour, I think it is much improved, look at the similar "reckless spending" quote discussion over at Kevin Rudd. Sure, I'm pushing hard for it, but my argument is well referenced and I haven't disrupted the article over it like Lester is wont to do. --Surturz (talk) 12:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- I actually did initially revert Lester, but then, tinkering with the section just seemed like re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The thing got included which is the problem, not tinkering with it now. Inclusion was like the construction of the Toaster building - the disaster is that it got built (and will be there for some time), if they want to then change the window frame colour to hot pink, well, so be it. Why get in a tiz about it? It's just the window frames on a big ugly building in one of Australia's best spots.
- I don't know that there is anything really wrong with your "behaviour". (but I did think it odd that you'd reverted the Obama change a three times in the last day or so, but then bemoaned edit warring - he he - but you were just trying to return to what you thought was consensus. I get that, and I did it too to be honest. Re Kevin Rudd, a tip would be next time to list changes individually for clarity.
- To me the real issue is all the time wasted talking about the Obama quote on the Talk page. We went through an exhaustive consultation and arrived at some compromise text. It is not edit-warring to revert to that text when an individual editor tries again and again to push in his preferred version. w.r.t to Kevin Rudd, perhaps I should make the reorganisation changes first (I think they are noncontroversial), then the reckless bit can be considered on its own merits. --Surturz (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
More Di Tiro
Sorry to bore you with all this ridiculousness. Just saw the your post on the talk page and wanted your advice. One of the problems is that to an outsider just coming in the ANNON sock puppet looks ligit. He's even started copying what I say in the edit summaries as you saw when a responsible editor changed the article to reflect what the sources say the ANNON IP editor changed it back and called it vandalism in the edit summary to confuse onlookers.
Now I know you don't want to get into the details but could you advise me on how to respond to one of the issues? This is about the creation of GAM and I'll simplify it so you don't need any background. The third opinions and I agree that the sources say point A, B, C, D. The ANNON only recognizes source A. He doesn't have any sources that disagree with B, C, or D points. But has concluded, through his own original research, that because source A doesn't mention B, C, or D that they don't exist. I don't disagree with source A but all the sources, and the third opinions agree with me on this, that IN ADDITION to A, points B, C, and D should be included. -- Esemono (talk) 09:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Krak
Would appreciate a very quick once over of the mess i have created relative to Krak - any comments welcome. Taking the dogs for a walk wont be back on for an hour or so - Krakatoa of course :( SatuSuro 09:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Pls contact off wiki re the template of ind hist - I havnt been following the issue but it seems to be having some odd edits SatuSuro 12:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
John Howard
Sorry, It was an accident :( Sydney Know It Alltalk 07:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
templates
Thanks Merbabu! Slac speak up! 05:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
No content in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of User:Domaleixo
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of User:Domaleixo, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 04:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Alfred Russel Wallace
I don't know if I would call the Wallace edits vandalism, but they certainly were not correct. The issue of Wallace's nationality has been discussed extensively on the talk page and is addressed in the article itself. Thank you for reverting the edits. Rusty Cashman (talk) 04:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
U2 discography
Regarding this edit, that information is standard on discography pages that include albums/singles that have yet to be released. Your edit summary implies that it was nitpicking, however, I added that before the single was released early by iTunes. --JD554 (talk) 11:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok
By your latest comment. I will take your advice and try do my best. C H J L Discuss 09:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- The sources are very difficult to find. There are just a little number of reliable sources for the DPR/MPR building. I have not some books that tell us about it. C H J L Discuss 09:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
And
I keep finding more nggg lists that have nbot been adequately identified in the project yet :( SatuSuro 14:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Re: Architecture
I'm doing some history merging to fix a couple of botched cut and paste moves from 2004. Graham87 14:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- The architecture page itself is fine now; you might see some weird stuff on your watchlist about the talk page though. Graham87 14:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
More on architecture
I notice you seem to be watching that page. I gave up on it for a while, because a university lecturer had asked his students to use it as a project, so that every time I looked, they had added highly detailed, irrelavant and US-specific information.
I have just cleaned it up, removing a lengthy passage about US tax incentives, George Bush, and how some US company set up a display in a shopping mall.
I also removed several pics. They were perfectly nice pictures, but there is a limit to how many will fit. People who add them often don't comprehend the fact that the pic illustrates the text. There is a page of drawings of Persepolis illustrating the subject of "Treatise" so someone immediately shoves in their tourist shot of Persepolis by moonlight, not comprehending (I suppose) that Persepolis is not the subject of the article.
Anyway.... Some un-named editor had removed the whole section on the origins of architecture. The heading was left behind which was a dead give away that there was a problem. The experienced editor who came along behind them and made new edits was you. Can I ask you, as an experienced editor, to check out what has been done before you, particularly in the case of edits by the un-named. Because if you, as a trusted person, then make some contributions, the vandalism that you have missed can simply pass unnoticed for months. Or forever, unless someone who knows what ought to be there comes along and specifically checks the whole article, as I have just done. I had a whole section in the life of Fra Angelico go missing in the same way, and didn't pick it up for about 8 months.
Thanks for your help. Amandajm (talk) 01:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the cleanup - I agree with your edits, as you have described them here (I didn't go thru the history page in detail). It's one of those pages that you'd like to get more involved with, but can't for time. I've tinkered a bit over the months - including removing the eiffel tower(!?!) as the lead pic. Missing that section removal is just symptomatic of not having enough time to check every article we'd like to be able to check in detail all of the time. --Merbabu (talk) 02:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- PS, people forcing there own pics into articles - even when they are already pic heavy - is a problem everywhere. Particularly location and architecture related. Look at Southeast Asia, Mosque or Tourism in Sydney. (although, architecture does have a large visual aspect to it and *some* allowance for more pics can be made. --Merbabu (talk) 02:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Australia
Thanks for the message. Sorry if I'm coming off as aggressive, but I think we've reached a good size. Australia is actually the smallest country FA; I figured a little expansion wouldn't hurt. I don't plan on adding anything else in the near future, and I'm willing to discuss possible changes to the article. --GarrieFerron (talk) 02:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
re: U2
Guy, relax on your edits without considering the context of the entire subject first. Thanks! 69.129.170.102 (talk) 05:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
There's a smell
There is more of it coming i think - hati hati - either a blind eye, gas mask or adminship perhaps? SatuSuro 10:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
U2 stuff
No problem. I suspect the U2 related articles are going to be the targets of a lot of uncited POV and speculation for a while. --JD554 (talk) 12:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
re:Sudharmono's lead
Sorry. I just copied the style from several articles I saw, which normally includes date of birth/death in introduction, but then only includes place of birth in Early life section. w.tanoto-soegiri (talk) 13:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with you about date format. I've been making those change (always) from mmddyyyy to ddmmyyyy formats everytime I saw Indonesian topic using US Date format. I also tend to remove (st, nd, rd, and th from the end of a date). i.e. 17"th" August. However, in the case of Sudharmono's infobox and several british people's biographies, we cannot change it unless we put the date manually (not using this: {{birth date|1927|3|12|mf=y}}) w.tanoto-soegiri (talk) 13:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Architecture
Yeah, that arrangement looks better. I removed a third pic that had been jammed into that section. It was a good pic, but not as ground-breaking as the Opera House. Amandajm (talk) 01:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)