Talk:Indonesia/Archive 8

message: Please note that Archive 7 contains extensive downloaded material relevant to the next section.  Archive 6 and 7 were created as the size warning was showing in the edit page format. SatuSuro 09:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving page 6 and 7

message: From the article:
"Ethnic and religious differences between these immigrants and the local peoples have been blamed for numerous difficulties, sometimes culminating in bloody conflicts such as those between the Javanese and the Maduranese,[75]"
Aside from the apparent misspelling of "Madurese," a claim is advanced which apparently is not supported by the source cited in the footnote. I searched for the word "Javanese" in the source, and no instances of that word at all were found. Instead, the cited article covers the massacre of the Madurese in Kalimantan extensively. So unless I've missed something in the source material, someone needs to edit the citations and delete the above phrase.
Michael 13:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, i noticed that some time ago but didn't act on it. I will have a another look to make sure I am absolutely correct. Merbabu 13:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: UPDATE: I've now removed "conflicts between javanese and madurese". Maybe this did actually happen, but to be reinserted it needs a citation that actually refers to it! Merbabu 13:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Conflict between Javanese and Madurese?=

message: The top of this place is like messy campus notice board. Do we need all those tags? I've removed old peer review and FAC and GAC tags. All suggestions in those have been addressed now. Merbabu 13:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tags

message: 'Medieval' in the lead section.  Since this term applies only to European history (see linked article), what is the proper term to be used here? Hmains 05:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Medieval

message: There was no prior notification. It is deleted. I'll find an alternative picture for Indonesia article. Pictures of Tambora are likely to be deleted also by a wacko at Commons. :( — Indon (reply) — 14:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is no technical reason or explanation - the editor doing it needs apprehending! SatuSuro 14:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The details of who deleted it is here:  (Caniago 15:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: that is claimed to be a copyvio - I am not well equipped to test that one out - I will opt out of that one. SatuSuro 15:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: All right, I've commented the image in the Indonesia article. I'm not going to push Undeletion request because the image is not so important, though I still think it was inappropriately deleted. No prior notification, or whatsoever (huh, I hate Commons' admin). I'm going to save valuable pictures for Tambora, instead. Look how he pooled a lot of pictures in the Deletion Request here: . I'm going to try OTRS ticket at Wikipedia. — Indon (reply) — 22:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, not too good. Where did the pic come from? You got it right, Indon? Has anyone made contact with the so-called "Wacko" (he, he)? Merbabu 12:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The DPR image was taken from the official DPR website, which I believe it is a government work, isn't it? I don't know who is the person who requested it to be removed. I guess that it was speedy-deleted, so no debate on it. However, usually when an image is going to be speedy-deleted, a prior notice is sent first to the uploader, but this is not the case with this image. Well, I'll let it go then. It is not such an important and good quality picture anyway. Who's in Indonesia right now who can take Gedung MPR-DPR picture? Maybe I can ask Imoeng; he is in Indonesia right now. — Indon (reply) — 13:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image Gedung DPR-MPR RI was deleted 

message: What point does this article get protected from red link vndls? SatuSuro 01:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have my support for semi-protection (Caniago 03:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: OK

message: As far as I can tell, the article fulfills all GA criterias. Naturally, I can not tell if everything important about Indonia has been covered, but I believe that is more of a case for peer review. 
Fred-Chess 13:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA passed 

message: I've made a few changes to try to remove references to the term Malay since it too contentious and ambiguous, as we have seen on the Malay people article. (Caniago 19:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: Regarding Michael's change to the presentation of the list, I think it is FINE as long as we know it is factually correct. . I tried to put the islands into some sort of grouping by their general area, and yes, Bali was kinda the odd person out. If Lesser Sunda's is correct I am happy to go with it. But I have never been sure where it actually fits. Ie, geologically, Bali is seperated from Lombok and the rest of that chain by the deep Lombok straits. Thus I wonder is not actually part of the Greater Sunda Group? Something we need to confirm either way. Merbabu 00:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or we can use something similar with Australia or Turkey with , but the template still has a caveat that the image width is fixed. — Indon (reply) — 00:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: According to Lesser Sunda Islands, Bali is included. Britannica also says the same  (Caniago 01:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: hmm - OK, well it is good how it is now then. thanks  Merbabu 01:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Administration division list

message: What "immense natural resources" is the article referring to? And does it mean resources of the "Republic of Indonesia" inside Java, or does it mean the OTHER PROVINCES of Indonesia have "immense natural resources"?58.107.15.245 12:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Misinformation

message: i love the artical —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.170.252.30 (talk) 19:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indonesia 

message: I didn't follow the discussion but remember: Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. — Indon (reply) — 12:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment about dispute above 

message: The flag looks like it's just a red rectangle unless you highlight it. --82.36.177.31 20:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Flag

message: I have removed that specific assertion due to a very large size of this article and the assertion is too specific. The assertion has been added to Chinese Indonesian#Language. — Indon (reply) — 12:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unencylopediac and ignorant of historical reality did not really help that section either SatuSuro 12:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to delete it lol, but maybe I'm a bit too kind :P. Imoeng 23:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to delete it but got 'edit conflict'. Merbabu 00:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to delete but being WP:AGF, I moved it. :-) — Indon (reply) — 08:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Historically innacurate - see Anti-Chinese legislation in Indonesia - the transferred material mentioned above assumes no historical context or legal strictures upon the usage of chinese cultural material during the new order SatuSuro 08:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language section about Chinese language