User talk:JarrahTree/Archive 16

Volcanoes in Java

Could we talk about the way to go with this? SatuSuro 12:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

he he - have you checked the article recently? Volcanoes of Java Look - this is just the start. I've combined the two pages the way i suggested - but of course, the info is still the same old s#@$. Yes, now we could work on getting that info in. ie, the suggestions both of us have made. I don't know about you, but my style is to "have a bash" and get something just 1/2 decent, or even less, and then throw it on the table for all to work on. Merbabu 12:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

hmm - i think my idea was not to write a list but rely on linking this category to individual volcano articles. Ie, an auto list. But yes, the catch with that is, it of course relies on each mountain having an article. But that is not impossible - the important mountains already do, and stubs need only be 2 sentences. Merbabu 12:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

PS, i really want to get rid of all that other text. I am reluctant to delete it, in case we can get something out of it, but that is too much effort. lol. THe alternative is to dump it into the individual articles, but that just moves the problem. hmm - i will think about it. Merbabu 12:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

PPS: OK - i can see you edits. hmm - i see. yes, that can work. Good info. we can run with that. i will work on the intro Merbabu 12:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Why the hell am i writing here. This should go on the page discussion. I will copy it over. Delete it from here if you want. Sorry. Merbabu 12:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Japanese Occupation

Hi; by all means e-mail david. I am sure that he would be delighted to collaborate, although if you have read our communications you will know that he feels that he lacks material.--Anthony.bradbury 22:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Signature

I don't understand. — Indon (reply) — 08:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it's all right. I was just helping the wikiproject:Indonesia about the selected articles tag that Imoeng has had created. Cheers. ;-) — Indon (reply) — 08:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

User Page

What do you mean? — Indon (reply) — 10:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah ya, thank you for pointing me that. Dunno about camino. I'm still happy with safari. :-) — Indon (reply) — 10:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't say abandon it forever. The status can be changed at anytime. ;-) I just want to leave it behind, just to know what he/she wants with that article. I'd be very happy if the article is reviewed/contributed by others. I've put the article in the WP:RFF page. Hopefully somebody — an independent reader — will take a peek on it. — Indon (reply) — 10:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

What is a good article

Sorry I can't understand what you were saying. Imoeng 10:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Because I am not a brilliant editor who is always right like you, I just took that from the WP:FA page. Probably you could fix that if you think it is better, as most of the time, what you think is what is the best for Wikipedia ;) Imoeng 10:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The point is, I took that from the recent guidelines, I don't care if it has changed or whatever. Ah so you are at the same age as my grandfather, sorry I couldn't figure out that as from our arguments yesterday, I couldn't see that you are that mature ;) About the language, when I was still in Indonesia, we all asked our grandparents with apa kabar, I don't know about the language you are using, but I am sure because its my mother tongue :) Imoeng 11:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Scope

From WP:STUB, "A stub is an article that is too short to be genuinely useful, but not so short as to be totally useless. It must be long enough to at least define the article's title and its meaning in order to appear in Wikipedia". So, a stub is an article, thus, to be included in the scope. To categorise an article, please use the {{WP Indonesia}} template. Imoeng 12:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

That is true, which I came across my mind as well. Well, the best thing to figure out is that there are many articles related to more that just one country, like 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami for example. Probably it feels strange to have two countries on a talk page, but if you look at Talk:Suharto, the WikiProject Biography has also claimed the article. And its pretty fair, since they also want to expand it. So, the point is, I reckon it is good to have two or even three countries claim and article, for the sake of the article's expansion. Imoeng 12:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the template. However it will be much better if you could decide the class and importance using your own thinking, thats alright. Cheers -- Imoeng 12:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Signing Up

SatuSuro, with all of my respects to you, it is very difficult to talk to you, if you divert the current talk page into other page. For example from Portal_talk:Indonesia/What_is_a_selected_article talk page to my talk page.

Anyway, considering my question that you might want to signing up to the WP:INA is just a suggestion, not an obligation. You edited and watched many Indonesia-related articles. Therefore it would be a beneficiary to the project if your name is there in the list, because we then have an active contributor like you. There is no prohibition that you may edit any project pages and there is no obligation that you put the Wikiproject:Indonesia userbox to your userpage.

Why does a simple suggestion become so hugely debated? — Indon (reply) — 13:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi

No. I never did. Davidelit 13:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Carnac

I thought maybe a case of mistaken identity too ;). You posted your warning on his main page instead of his talk page which is why I missed it. Perhaps you should move it to his talk. -- I@n 14:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks again for the great lunch the other day. I enjoyed myself and I hope we can catch up again soon - perhaps with others ;). --I@n

Hope you got my email about that, felt very self concious afterwards about all the name dropping :) SatuSuro 14:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I generally don't check email on w/ends. -- I@n 15:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually it was used as a native (only I think) prison in the very early days of SWC. See Yagan. It'd be interesting to get a bit more detail on that particular subject. -- I@n 06:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

It's still in my sandbox

Hello, stalker. The Muhammadiyah article in my sandbox is still unpublished. That is why I put it in my sandbox. I only can disscuss the article when it is already published, all right. If you have a knowledge about a certain article, then please write it on the article itself. Thank you. — Indon (reply) — 03:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Importance assessment

Yes I agree with you. However if you look at the assessment page, it is very hard to rate an article, both quality and importance objectively. From my point of view, living person should be rated from High to Low, since its hard to figure out a person who could get a top importance. But again, its my opinion, and it is very subjective. So, the best thing is to use your own thinking to rate the importance. In the end, if you've found a rhyme or a clue how to rate it, please feel free to change the standards. Cheers -- Imoeng 03:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

No worries, I like answering messages. Cheers -- Imoeng 04:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Well thanks, but I just looked at the current similar project on Wikipedia. Cheers -- Imoeng 04:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

hmmm - yes it is subjective. But it's not just "up to us". You still have to use discretion and see the bigger picture. Subjective is not just an excuse to do what you want. How come Madurese is high importance but Balinese is medium and equal to Indian Indonesian? Merbabu 07:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Cheers for tagging articles, thats plenty. However, I agree with Merbabu that "subjective" is not an excuse to do anything you want. You've probably noticed that A-class is written above GA class, thus, those articles with A-class rating should be better than GA-class, and have passed GA (Good articles nominations). Please ask me if you don't understand, I'll gladly say that again so there will be no this kind of mistake in the future. Cheers :)-- Imoeng 07:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I am sure i have made "mistakes" too in rating. just highlights that we need to be consistent and see the bigger picture. Ie, if i rate an article i think what would rate below and above it. Merbabu 07:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Umm, about the message you've sent. I think the amount of time used is still the same, whether you tag it without a rating or with a rating. In the end you still have to read the articles and classify them. Please ask if you don't understand as I will explain it again :) Imoeng 07:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

AHD

No idea. I saw the article as well, and marked it in need of a category. Perhaps Geography of Australia, but to be honest, I don't know. Mountains aren't usually my thing ;) -- Longhair 10:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Changes?

In what way it has changed? I don't really understand as the pages look fine for me. Cheers -- Imoeng 10:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, that is pretty strange, but just assume good faith. However if you think natural history should be included there, please discuss on the talk page, which of course he/she should have done first. Cheers -- Imoeng 11:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Beel

Was that really necessary? Was what necessary? Re-ranking and backing up my change, very necessary.
unsigned whoops - well, you know it is unlike me and that i know anyone can work out who.
and on a talk page of a subject, surely you should have sent that to my talk page Where else? I think changes to articles should be put where anyone can see. But had i wanted to ask you first it would go on your talk page.
and what's the point? point of what? re-ranking? There are two many highly ranked articles (ie, mid or higher). WHo is going to go through each of these? With e need a realistic and achievable scope - not a wishlist. At least one that is prioritised. Merbabu 13:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Kettle Pot Black

It would be a good idea to have a read of Wikipedia:Etiquette and take it easy. SatuSuro 13:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you serious? That is a rather ironic statement given your edits on a number of people's user pages in regarding what you refer to as "Proyek Gila". There is much advice I could give you but have chosen not to. Actaully, I am not sure what you are specifically referring to. You are implying some fairly wide and general allegations. "Wikipedia Etiquette" does not say i cannot change something i don't agree with particularly if i provide decent reasoning. Merbabu 14:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I was under the possible misapprehension that the ultimate aim of the portal/project was to have all related articles tied in over time. Lets assume good faith on this one :) SatuSuro 14:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh come on! isn't one meant to assume good faith on every "one"? Assuming good faith is a two way street so please return the favour to myself and other editors on the "Proyek Gila". Vague but harsh criticism to "consult Wikipedia etiquette" and to "take it easy" is hardly assuming good faith. I certainly assumed good faith, I commented about why i changed things, and either told you where i agree or didn't touch your ranks. You haven't even told me what your problem is. And what is with the constant smiley face on every comment you post?

As for the ranking of importance, why else would it be done if not to work out priorities for the project? Merbabu 14:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

---

My full and complete apologies if you feel that my response to the Beel talk page is over the top, I will gladly refrain from causing you obvious agony by classifying any articles if that is the issue. SatuSuro 14:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

well, suit yourself. But I think that is a perfectly childish response. You will spare me the "agony" of ranking? lol - i think you should grow up. I think you are the one who is upset that someone dare change your edits. And although i would't call it upset, i certainly don't think much of your reaction. Merbabu 14:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)