User talk:58.107.15.245

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, 58.107.15.245, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  SatuSuro 14:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


Hi, please see - and perhaps contribute to - the discussion going on at Talk: Australia (continent). I think we are on the same side. I preferred not to edit Seven Summits until this discussion is resolved. Viewfinder 17:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I have just requested User:Nurg to explain why he has cloned the article under two different names. The discussion page does not seem to explain the action or intent of the new article.58.107.15.245 18:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see the edit history of Australia (continent). Nurg changed the article Australia (continent) to an article about the Commonwealth of Australia mainland only, which according to him covers all of the Australian continent. I reverted this. The issue is now the subject of the talk page discussion. Viewfinder 18:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Sarwo Edhie Wibowo

I removed your large new edits to this article. please provide references before reinstating. see WP:RS. regards Merbabu 09:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I explained on both the edit summary, and above. Perhaps it would help if you explained your additions, and base them on reliable sources. Merbabu 11:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merbabu

Is away for a week - I strongly suggest that if you have issues about edits - that you (a) take up a wikipedia user name/account (b) seek third party opnions re the edits (c) merbabu is a he (d) dont give up - some parts of wikipedia are very quiet... (e) check what WP:RS is all about - cheers! SatuSuro 01:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

With respect - it doesnt matter how long you have been around - at the bottom of this when in edit mode - the expression is made Encyclopedic content must be verifiable and Merbabu is quite within his rights as another editor to revert something that you have not added any citations or sources. One web page is not enough and your comment to me : - is there anything in my entry which is generally unknown? I thought Operation Mandala was well known, monuments have been built and celebrations held in honor of the victory over the Papuans is simply not what Merbabu is making a point about regarding WP:Reliable Sources or my point about WP:Verifiability - you need to address those challenges - unknown, generally known or whatever is unfortunately not what is needed - specific sources that can be cited are what are needed to back the comments found in the article...SatuSuro 13:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

That is correct, I removed some of the addition because of no source provided. I even stated in my edit summary [1]. I also explained it again here [2] Btw, changing people's posts in talk pages is unacceptable - please don't do it again. [3] Also, although I have studied in Indonesia, I am not Indonesian nor has the majority of my education been there. One of the first things I did gain from my education, however, was not to make assumptions. Merbabu 12:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of colonialism

I am reminding you of the Wikipedia policy No Personal Attacks and Assume Good Faith. I reverted your edits not because I am denying the events occurred, just that they were not appropriate for the section of the article you added them to. A statement can be true whilst at the same time being out of context and/or irrelevant, much like if I inserted the sentence "George Bush is the President of the United States of America" in the middle of that paragraph - someone removing that line wouldn't be denying that he is President, would they? Also, you should not accuse me of vandalism, I have been contributing to this article for a long time. Indeed, I am the one that set it up in the first place. Check the history of the article if you don't believe me. Gsd2000 17:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I appreciate your posting of my name on the RFC page. It's a pity that you begin our debate by accusing me of being a vandal, which itself is against WP rules, and then using this ploy. I've done a lot of contructive work on WP, so I'm not worried in the slightest by your tactics. Contributors that haven't even bothered to create a user name for themselves are rarely taken seriously, anyway. Gsd2000 18:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Have you actually read the RFC page? [4]. You obviously haven't, because you did not follow any of the instructions, such as "Do not post an RfC before working towards a resolution with other article contributors first. Whatever the disagreement, the first step in resolving a dispute is to talk to the other parties involved. Be civil, and assume good faith in other editors' actions." We had two - two - exchanges before you submitted an RFC. It might also be worth a careful read of the section entitled "Carefully read the following before filing an RfC": it states "An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors", which means your rather nasty posts on my talk page and your labelling of me as a vandal will be read by others. I, on the other hand, have been polite to you. Discussion and debate are part and parcel of WP: if every two contributors who disagreed with each other ran off to RFC, WP would get nowhere. Gsd2000 20:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
On my talk page you wrote: "Certainly got your attention, didn't it? Now how about trying to actually be civil and talk about the article?": so you are admitting you were doing this as a threat? Whenever you disagree with someone you file a RFC to force them round to your point of view? I'm sorry, but one does not have to alert editors when one changes their edits, that's not how WP works. It's called being bold. You have demonstrated yourself to be a very uncivil editor, and there is no reason to feel proud of what you've done: as the RFC page says, "RfCs brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary are not permitted. Repetitive, burdensome, or unwarranted filing of meritless RfCs is an abuse of the dispute resolution process. RfC is not a venue for personal attack." I am not going to continue this thread any more, but you are welcome to keep digging yourself a hole. Gsd2000 21:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reminder

To gain some credibility you need to: -

  • Get yourself a user name and register.
  • Understand WP:Wikiquette
  • Try not to pick fights over articles.
  • If you have a problem seek out third opinion style mediation rather than one to one confrontations with other editors. You have been warned SatuSuro 02:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Even if I have it completely back to front (as your message to me implies) the seeking of third parties opinions (non necessarily Rfc) is usually well worth the effort... SatuSuro 09:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed RfC

Howdy! I've removed the RfC you added to the User Conduct page because it linked to a non-existent page. Please create the RfC first, then link to it from the WP:RFC/U page. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 06:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying this link example does not show on your browser? It links to the edit history showing Gsd2000 removing another of my previous edits after he seems to have decided to attack.58.107.15.245 07:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Nope, I'm saying that you listed an RfC on WP:RFC/U, but it linked to a non-existent RFC. There's more to the Request for Comment process than listing a complaint on that top level page, you need to write up a formal RFC document. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 07:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Is he intending to trace me all the way back to 2001 and delete articles like Kangaroo just because I started them? Where would it end, will he track back my sister's edits and delete all those as well? I would appreciate your help if you are willing to give some time by reviewing my edits he has been removing from the History of colonialism article. I do not understand, my edit is based on the US Dept. of State own records about US actions in 1962.

If there is no option but to continue with getting others to sanction his ongoing behaviour, which frankly is attempted intimidation of people he thinks are less experienced than himself; will you assist with that? - And THanks for response:).58.107.15.245 07:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC) - I'll be busy for an hour or so, am running awful late preparing the dinner tonight.58.107.15.245 07:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I can't help you with this issue, I have no experience with the user or articles you mention, but if you post a description of the problem and a request for assistance at WP:AN/I, you may find someone. I was simply removing a malformed RFC from the page. If you look at the other items listed there, you'll see that they go to a document describing the nature of the conflict and or the issue where comment is being requested. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 07:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A few things to note about Wikipedia

Simply reverting someone's edits does not constitute grounds for a Request For Comment on User Conduct, and is not against any Wikipedia policy. Furthermore, I went to the trouble of explaining why I reverted on the article talk pages. I have been contributing to the colonialism space for a long time, and yes, I did have some disagreements with another user on colonialism, but you trawling through my conversations with him (and others) is one step towards WP:HARASS. I have done nothing wrong here, I suggest you follow SatuSuro's good advice. Gsd2000 13:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What talk page headers contain

  • This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Indonesia article.
  • This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
  • Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (SatuSuro 14:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)).
  • Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
  • New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.
  • Be polite
  • Assume good faith
  • No personal attacks
  • Be welcoming
  • Article policies
  • No original research
  • Neutral point of view
  • Verifiability
  • Please note that your talk page discussions are close to WP:SOAPBOX and if detected by some reasonable admins - they would be asking you to desist - even if some other editors are engaging with you.. SatuSuro 14:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
If you are not afraid of expressing yourself on something that is googled within the first page almost every time - and you have a traceable Ip address - best to get a blog page - youd be less likely to hve problems there... SatuSuro 14:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indonesia

My last comment was a specific one about your remarks about the 1949/50 period and the RUSI and RI where you appear to rubbish established and universally agreed facts of that period by respected historians. Yet, you reply with wide-ranging comments about a whole host of other issues including three indonesian presidents and funding for TNI. I'm not interested in holding a discussion that way. Nor am i really interested in having an uncivil editor try and bully me (and others over the last few days), particularly that I've given your comments careful consideration, made changes as a result to the text, filled in gaps in your knowledge (ie, Sukarno) and provided references. As I did in your sarcastic partisan comments on the religions map where from memory you rubbished my good faith comments also. And your comments about myself on the Wibowo artilce. It seems I'm not the first to comment on your wikipedia style in the last few weeks (especially the last few days). Merbabu 13:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

58.107.15.245, you seem to have a biased anti-Indonesia agenda to push. Such views would be better kept to free-Papua movement advocacy websites and such. We're trying to build an encyclopedia based upon neutral point of view here. (Caniago 11:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC))

I'm not disputing the TNI has had a bloody role in Indonesia at times. However, I think you are starting to cross the line by calling Yudhoyono a tyrant and comparing him to Suharto. Provide an academic citation proving such a claim, and the claim about the TNI being an "organised crime body" and I'll withdraw my remark. The other claims you cite from historical newspaper clippings would be better sourced from contemporary peer reviewed journals and books; we all know journalistic reporting is often incorrect in hindsight. (Caniago 15:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC))
The anon editor has already raised these concerns on the Indonesia talk page in a list ofabout 9 or 10 statements. I was quite specific (although perhaps not 100% complete) in addressing them - i even changed a few points of the text. No specific reply was given, rather a whole lot of new ones provided and his bemoaning of everyone else's ignorance, and the trumpeting of his unique insights. Again, none of my specific replies were in turn added specifically, thus the diffuculty I'm now having taking the editor and his intentions seriously. My favourite of his was that due to my 'Indonesian-education' I am not aware of the topics he was discussing. I think picking fights has been mentioned a few times already. Also, another apt comment previously made to him by another was that wikipedia is not 'truth' but verifiabilty. Merbabu 19:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm aware of his involvement in East Timor, etc. Regardless, I don't think tyrant is an appropriate description for (1) someone exercising their orders as part of military chain of command (2) a democratically elected leader. I doubt you will find any peer reviewed journal using such a description for him. (Caniago 07:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC))
I agree with Michael re the above. As for the suggestion that your references are being removed from Talk:Indonesia i can't see that that is correct. I checked the version history to see if I have inadvertendly removed anything - but it's all intact.Merbabu 10:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to get into a long debate about what human-rights violations SBY did or didn't commit, or a broader debate about the TNI, and I certainly don't want to become Indonesian's PR officer. The facts are that as a military officer he would be court-marshaled if he didn't follow whatever orders he was given. As a politician in a newly democratic country he will be removed if the Indonesian people prefer someone else. The fact that he can be removed indicates he doesn't have absolute power. The article Tyrant describes the modern use of the term to describe someone who place their own interests or the interests of a small oligarchy over the "best" interests of the general population which they govern or control. I would say that keeping East Timor and Papua within the Indonesian nation is definitely in the interests of the broader Indonesian population. The methods Indonesian governments and military have used to achieve this may not have been ethical, moral or even legal from a human rights perspective, but they have not been tyrannical. BTW, its probably also in Australia's interest that these territories are retained as part of Indonesia, as witnessed by the mess we now find ourselves in with East Timor. (Caniago 12:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC))

[edit] SBY

Yes, it’s a big edit. Thus, can you let me know which parts got removed since you’ve found them already. It might also be helpful to raise it with the actual editor, on the article’s discussion page or on the WikiProject Indonesia Notice board. Regards Merbabu 05:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

hmmm - no response??? I had a quick look and could not find info that had been removed. Can you be specific please? Merbabu 10:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation requests...

Regarding your comments in edit summaries on Western New Guinea.

  • You need to put in in-line citations - that is what the {{cn}}requests are for. It is very poor wikipedia form to remove them. There is currently no reference to these in the article - they need to be specific. Not tacked onto the end of an article, or refer simply to a large document with no page numbers or section references.
  • With reference to your comment about me "marking my scent" please consult WP:CIVIL.
  • With reference to pushing "whatever my POV" is I'd recommend you consult WP:AGF. A broader comment, is that I see your talk page entries oozing contempt for people who don't see things the same way you do.
  • As for the accusation of pushing a POV I merely added in a few {{cn}} tags, where the reality is more are justified. You on the other hand have a track record of pushing POV not dissimalar to that of a Papuan advocacy group. While advocy is seen by many as an admirable thing, no one pretends it comes from a position of neutral point of view. SO i think that your suggestion of my POV is both incorrect and hypocritical.

Perhaps if you stood back, considered these points (and also in the light of your previous comments on user pages) then maybe you will find that it no longer feels that everyone on wikipedia is against you. --Merbabu 10:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent additions

re [5] and contribs today WP is not about tit for tat. Please stop picking fights on wikipedia. I am happy to bring this (and many other issues with your contribs) to the attention of the wider wikipedia community. What do you think? Merbabu 11:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

PS, what motivates this? [6] Merbabu 11:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Please consult WP:POINT Merbabu 11:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

As you know I have raised these issues before both on the discussion page and when no-one appeared to care enough about the article to address these issues I had to insert a notice on the article; which I think you objected to, and removed.58.107.15.245 12:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
That is a fairly inaccurate account and we've been over that before on this talk page and others. So let me just paste this in from this page above:
The anon editor (58.107.15.245) has already raised these concerns on the Indonesia talk page in a list of about 9 or 10 statements. I was quite specific (although perhaps not 100% complete) in addressing them - i even changed a few points of the text. No specific reply was given, rather a whole lot of new ones provided and his bemoaning of everyone else's ignorance, and the trumpeting of his unique insights....Also, another apt comment previously made to him by another was that wikipedia is not 'truth' but verifiabilty. Merbabu 19:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
NOt only did i change parts of the article, i even suggested that you make some changes with advice on how they are most likely to be accepted. maybe you should revisit that page and my specific responses before you bring it up again.Merbabu 12:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I do know something about the history of the Republic of Indonesia and Sukarno, it is not a speciality of mine but I do know the article has had a serious problem for some time.
You should also observe that I do generally read the articles and consider their cited references / note etc before I delete or insert citations threatening to delete content. Speaking of which, Please consider removing the Pramoedya Ananta Toer. "Sukarno", TIME, 23-30 August 1999. Retrieved on 2006-12-11. - even the opening paragraph is over the top embarrassing. Sukarno certainly wasn't "all bad", but nor does he seem to have been motivated by altruism before or during the Pacific War or afterwards. Personally I think the best I can say of Sukarno is that he gave the Americans a run for their money; he had ability but it is a pity he used it the way he did.58.107.15.245 12:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
You need to provide references - Wikipedia is not really interested in what we have to say "personally". Although, as I've stated in your comments on Talk:Indonesia (which you are now suggesting never happed!?!?) given that Indonesia is a hugely broad topic word length comes into play. Although, other POV's can only enrich other more detailed articles such as Sukarno.
By the way, I'm not sure why you need to question whether Muslim traders introduced Islam to Indonesia, or that the Dutch colonised Indonesia or that the Spice Islands are in Indonesia. But as i did previously, I'm addressing each one.
The citation of Pramoedya's article in TIME can be easily changed - no problem. (Something tells me you may be interested in Pramoedya Ananta Toer (if you are not already familiar). Read here on WP (altough I'm not familiar with the coverage) or better still one of his works. Merbabu 12:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Personal opinions belong on the discuss page, not in the articles. I am sad to see you have enlisted and thanked Arjuna808 for sharing your revert load for the 24hour period - it is sad that you wish to have ownership of an article and edit sections/subject which you have not yet read about; you should at least read the references already listed on the article before you decide to revert subjects you are not yet familiar with. I do welcome another person reading up on the subject.58.107.15.245 13:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand:
  • It was you who said PERSONALLY, I think the best I can say of Sukarno is that he gave the Americans a run for their money; he had ability but it is a pity he used it the way he did. That is what I am referring to. In fact, personal opinion only belongs on a talk page if it is directly relevant to the discussion of an article.
  • I did not enlist Arjuna. The history page shows he only edited yesterday. Yes, i thanked him, but the intent of my (first known) communication with him was to suggest that most of your additions are probably verifiable, but that you fail to provide in-line citations. You continue to make up rubbish which border on WP:PA and show complete failure to WP:AGF. How do you suggest I 'enlisted' him?
  • Could you provide specific reference of my apparent claims to ownership - on this point i suggest you are full of it. I merely requested in-line citations with specific references. According to WP:ATT the onus is on you to provide them.
  • I have not reverted any changes. On the contrary, you are the one who removed my citation requests.
--Merbabu 13:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you did not start another edit war.58.107.15.245 13:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I have started no edit war - i requested in-line citations (before you added you lazy general reference at the bottom), you reverted and failed to provide requested in-line citations before removing request, so i put them back, you removed them. The history tab shows it. As for an edit war, it should be pointed out you placed the apparent 'tit-for-tat' citation requests in Indonesia and ignore many previous attempts to communicate with you. Merbabu 13:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
[7] oh - so now you provide inline citations? although you mask it with incivility in the edit summary. Merbabu 13:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
THese templates will help you keep your references tidy: WP:CITET. I trust of course your edits will be encyclopedic and NPOV. Furthermore, it could be suggested Papuan independence advocacy web sites are about as POV as a TNI pamphlet. Ie, i am suggesting caution as to how they are used, not suggesting they shouln't be used. An encyclopedia must acknowledge all POV's and report POVs as POV, not fact. Merbabu 14:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your allegations

Re [8]Your allegations against me are incorrect, have been ongoing for long period and increasingly serious - did I mention incorrect? Given that they are false, they run counter to WP:AGF and WP:CIV and are perhaps even a WP:PA.

As for your complaint about Transmigration program the only edit I have made to the article this year was this one [9] where i actually repaired your link that did not work. Check the article history for yourself. Get your facts straight please.

As for your general and unsubstatiated with evidence allegations of POV i merely point to your contributions history and ask what is your understanding of the expression 'pot kettle black'? Merbabu 14:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nice Find

Nice find:[10]. I used it for an inline citation:[11] There are probably more places it could be used in the article and I will use it Indonesia. Thanks (really) Merbabu 13:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)