Caniago is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia soon.

Even though a cited content is generally better than a non cited source, we have to weigh the validity of the source cited. In the case of ^ Davis, Carol (1995). "Hierarchy or complementarity? Gendered expressions of Minangkabau adat". Indonesia and the Malay World 23 (67): 273–292. doi:10.1080/03062849508729853. , the author did not visit the places that she wrote about and therefore the book is of low credibility. Another thing to consider is that when we write about oral traditions, we have to keep what we write as closely matching the actual oral tradition as possible; no version of oral tradition exists that says Malin Kundang's ship was tossed to rocks; all versions says that he and the ship was turned to stone, even though some says that his wife and attendants also turned to stone. The fact is that there is a site called "Batu Malin Kundang" in Air Manis and it is part of the legend, regardless of whether or not that stone is human made or nature made. Ingxiong (talk) 05:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)ingxiong[reply]

When we talk about folk lore, oral traditions and anything that is Local in nature, it is of a high relevance whether an author has actually visited that locality. For example, I have never been to China, therefore even if I wrote a lengthy journal / review / article / book or whatever about oral traditions of China, for example Hua Mulan, then my writings is of a low credibility because that means I have not obtained my information from primary sources. Even if I have been to China, unless I have spent sufficient time in the area claimed to be her hometown and talk to some people who knows the oral traditions, my writing will still be of a low credibility. However, since you insist on citation then I will add citations from Balai Pustaka and eliminate all the less credible cited materials from the article. Thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.210.129.238 (talk) 14:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my articles are already cited and do you already know from my articles mean? I make some articles about towns in Bangka Belitung and administrative village in Jakarta where have a lot of Indonesian Chinese. I want to give people know about Indonesia.

Both of deleting and editing is same as i meant right? I guess, my added article is already suitable for Wikipedia standart. It is not realiabe reason if you removed the added article. If you guess i make mistake in english, why don't you edit that one to become clear, don't remove that. Like my see also in my articles, you should not erased that, but you should change to more relevant.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Calvin Ho Jiang Lim (talk • contribs) 23:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Caniago, why you deleted my added article that i can show to people about chinese in Indonesia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calvin Ho Jiang Lim (talk • contribs) 13:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Bemo, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Bemo provides no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Bemo, 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. CSDWarnBot 21:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You tagged the articles on Madiun Stadium‎, Gelora Bung Tomo‎, and Bukittinggi Airport‎ as patent nonsense. While I have no idea whether these articles were true or accurate, they did not constitute patent nonsense as that term is used in Wikipedia. They looked like perfectly normal articles about stadiums and an airport, respectively. Please don't overuse the {{db-nonsense}} tag. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Madiun Stadium, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 08:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated Madiun Stadium, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madiun Stadium and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Caniago. Please add some rationale on the Talk to your recent move of a table here from Desktop search. At first I thought it was a mistake, but now I seem some of your thinking. Since this article is watched by so many, we should try to avoid multiple reverts if we can. EdJohnston (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Embedded_list#Lists_within_articles. (Caniago (talk) 00:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

An editor has nominated Bukittinggi Airport, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bukittinggi Airport and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You helped me to improve the article Macau and now I am going to help you to improve Indonesia. This is not a bad faith. Coloane (talk) 03:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, by using FAR you are seeking to remove Indonesia from FA status because you don't like Caniago criticising Macau. If you were genuine about actually improving Indonesia, you'd make the changes your self, or just use the talk page. --Merbabu (talk) 04:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Caniago, I've made some edits trying to address your concerns raised regarding the FAC Macau. I hope you'll reconsider your position. At least change "strong oppose" to mere "oppose"? ;)

Thank you for your time. Josuechan (talk) 18:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will come back and re-review after you have had time to address the comments by User:Bogdan. (Caniago (talk) 23:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I just deeply apologised for putting the article Indonesia on FAR if you think I did it on bad faith. Hopefully you can forget this matter. I really want to stop tussling with you. It just wasted too much time on this. Coloane (talk) 18:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I reword your evidence section at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Coloane? Thanks. CM (talk) 17:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, but feel free to lobby some admins, asking them to perform the checkuser. (Caniago (talk) 03:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Hello there. Thanks for your efforts cleaning up the hoaxes - what a drag. Seriously, what is wrong with some people?

I’ve been trying to get some important articles sorted out – at least as much as I can. See Suharto and East Timor (no, not necessarily together!). I redid Suharto's lead - it needs a bit more work, but the next step will be the article itself.

Also, there’s discussion about the name of Indonesian Revolution of 1998 at that article’s talk page (also see Satu Suro’s talk page for some background - if he hasn't already done his daily archive, lol). Please add you suggestions. The proposed Downfall of Suharto is better than the existing, but not perfect. We want something that will take into account the 96 to, say 2000 transitions. regards --Merbabu (talk) 01:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Huh? (cool toy - but it kind of removes the mystery) --Merbabu (talk) 14:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• woah. What a shame it's in such a bad way. What's the bet that is all the journos? --Merbabu (talk) 14:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Heath Ledger --Merbabu (talk) 14:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - it might not be obvious vandalism to outsiders, rather just lousy editing. He looks like he has no idea/respect for 3RR, so any more crappy edits can be reported to 3RR board instead of AIV. How's Minangkabau going by the way? --Merbabu (talk) 15:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without the additional colors for the country titles, and without a keyword actually indicating it is the name of a country it is really confusing. ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 04:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? The country label is centered. You have the flag next to the name. If there are multiple countries they are separated by a horizontal line. If you look at the actual articles using the template (eg. [[1]]), it doesn't seem confusing at all. I don't see what the problem is. (Caniago (talk) 06:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

How do you even know it's a country. It doesn't have the country label on it either. It could easily be some kind of state with its most populous city listed underneath. ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 13:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What it is doesn't matter, its a title for the section and its meaning is implicit within the context of the section. Show me an example article where there is any confusion. (Caniago (talk) 13:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Put yourself in the shoes of someone who does not know anything about the particular island and check La Hispaniola. ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 17:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how adding an extra background color helps to clarify anything. (Caniago (talk) 09:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Geting all the dreamy situations - references to Indonesia wikipedia as a reference, and all the rest - will be trying to put something on the main WP Indonesia noticeboard about guidelines and hunting down all the arts that need cleaning up - what do you think? SatuSuro 09:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted my change to Pontianak, Indonesia (diff). Why? All I did was add a coor title tag, which is standard for articles on cities all round the world. Was there some problem with it? --David Edgar (talk) 18:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The coordinates already exist in the infobox on that page. There is no need to duplicate the same information twice. Please see [[2]] for more info, specifically "As of August 2007, there are several different high-level ways of entering coordinates, with no clear consensus on the best way.". (Caniago (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, I saw they were already in the infobox, but this is also the case for most other cities - for example New York City, London and Shanghai. I think it makes it clearer to have it the information here too, especially as the coordinates are particularly significant. --David Edgar (talk) 19:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the page I quoted above. There is no WP policy on how coordinates should be displayed. Repeating the information twice in close proximity on the page is just silly. Just because some other city pages do it that way doesn't make it right. (Caniago (talk) 23:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Religion is not a compulsory trait in defining an "ethnic group", unlike any ethnoreligious group. U cant claim that all Tamil people are Hindus, all Javanese ppl as Muslims, all Arabs are Muslims. Because there are Christian Tamils, Javanese, and even Arabs. But Malaysian Malays are all, always, Muslims. As defined in the constitution. There are also article written about it: [3]. I think one of us misunderstands the meaning of ethnoreligious. Is it u or me? kawaputra^torque 06:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you don't mind a butt in here Caniago, "Malaysian Malays = Muslims" is simply the Malaysian govt's definition. It may be the only legal or official Malaysian definition but that that doesn't mean it's the correct, or the sole definition. If someone is born a Malay, is a Malaysian national, and is Muslim, and they choose to change religion they are still Malaysian, Malay, just not Muslim - it doesn't matter whether it's a breach of the constitution. --Merbabu (talk) 08:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they are still ethnic Malay no doubt, but they cease to become a Malaysian Malay. ie: if they convert out of Islam they cease to be a Malay as defined by the constitution. Im not claiming that an ethnic Malay is an ethnoreligious group, im saying that a Malaysian Malay is an ethnoreligious group. Isnt that what this article is about: Malay as defined by the constitution? kawaputra^torque 08:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a reference which states Malaysian "Malays" as defined in Malaysian law is a ethnoreligious group then add a sentence in the article saying so. Please don't add it to the "See also" section, it not appropriate since the ethnoreligious article contains no information specifically about Malaysian Malays. (Caniago (talk) 14:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indonesia#Lists_in_Indonesia_Project - your comments would be appreciated - thanks SatuSuro 11:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had hoped you wouldnt do that - it needs to go to the project noticeboard and out of personal and article pages into an area- as there are other list pages to work out as well SatuSuro 13:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just getting my frustration out :-) That user and the 125.164 editor need a good kick. (Caniago (talk) 13:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

OK see my gmail about that SatuSuro 13:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have dutifully ignored you post on Talk:List of schools in Indonesia. I do not respond to personal attacks. Take care. -- ML Saturn (talk) 20:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly where is the personally attack, I don't see it? (Caniago (talk) 21:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Your sarcastic remarks about the To Do List on Talk:List_of_schools_in Indonesia are not appreciated. If you have a problem with me as a user, please be polite and either reply to this edit or discuss it on my talk page.ML Saturn (talk) 13:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate if you could have a look and make comment re the two current categories mentioned at the WP Indonesia noticeboard - unfortunatley the eds who either nominate or comment appear to be totally unaware or uninterested of the projects existence - it would be really good for any comment to assert that we are in fact interested in our project and its management SatuSuro 00:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have thought about it carefully - it is crazy - proyek gila - in Indonesian - I will try to ask all involved for it to be abandoned SatuSuro 14:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism_in_Indonesia - the latest find in the migration from one project to another and what it does - I really think we need to find an WP:AGF way to nuke the migration before it wrecks the english project - any suggestions? probably best on gmail if i think of some ideas :( SatuSuro 00:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it worth taking to some part of the Wikipedia project so that evrytime you go on you dont have to spend 1/2 an hour dealing with it? SatuSuro 12:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Borobudur is one of world heritage site according to heritage website. Why did you delete may infobox about borobudur temple compounds? Thank you before.Mfa fariz (talk) 17:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Borobudur#World_Heritage_Site_box. (Caniago (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Can you help translate from Bahasa Indonesia into English? I need it for an article related to Gerakan Pramuka. Thanks! Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Im not a native speaker sorry, and User:Davidelit and User:Merbabu have a much better grasp of the language. You could also try [4]. (Caniago (talk) 18:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Glad you can recognise the dog like nature of my indonesian experssion when used on talk pages :) SatuSuro 15:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Melayu Kingdom. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. If you have a reason for removing content, please use the edit summary to provide an explanation. Thanks! ThomasOwens (talk) 12:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

bugger - i was trying to extensively wikify the coffee art and you put the merge tag - lost it all in edit conflict - oh well thats life :( SatuSuro 12:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

could you please indicate either on wki talk (or off) when i could catch up for a few short term emails please SatuSuro 05:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

also I might leave this to you to check http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Minangkabau&diff=230366575&oldid=229959831 as you would have a better idea whether to simply delete or to partly modify - cheers SatuSuro 08:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

cripes you are elusive! hope to catch sometime :) SatuSuro 02:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. E-mail sent. Davidelit (talk) 15:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

The point in making these changes "for coding simplicity" is that it is then trivial to fix things if they get "screwed up". Can you explain what was wrong with the appearance which justified a revert? If so, I'll attempt to fix it in the new code layout. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me turn that question around. What was wrong with the old layout, setup by a few people, which justified you coming along and deciding without any discussion that you should just radically alter it and in the process breaking numerous pages? (Caniago (talk) 12:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Read WP:BB. The changes were for the sake of future maintainability, ease of editing, project consistency and interoperability. There shouldn't have been any fallout. If you can identify anything which doesn't work in the new layout, I'd be happy to fix it. I can hardly be expected to do so if you can't give me actual examples of what "broke". Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you really need to read WP:BB - "Although it is generally fine to be bold in updating articles, it is easier to cause problems in other namespaces by editing without due care. The admonition "but do not be reckless" is especially important in other namespaces. Being bold in updating or creating categories and templates can have far reaching consequences. This is because category changes – and even more so template changes – can affect a large number of pages with a single edit. Templates, moreover, may have complex source code that can easily be broken by untested changes (which can fortunately be corrected with a single revert). Because of these concerns, many heavily used templates are indefinitely protected from editing. Before editing templates or categories, consider proposing any changes on the associated talk pages and announcing the proposed change on pages of appropriate WikiProjects.". You did break the pages using this template and in my opinion degrade the visual appearance of the template. You should not be directly making major changes directly to templates used by hundreds of pages without consensus and testing the changes actually work. (Caniago (talk) 15:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

The changes were hardly "reckless" - I'm an experienced template coder. The word "consider" implies that making edits to templates without first getting the blessing of involved WikiProjects is not verboten. The changes sat unmolested for over three weeks without any complaints. If you aren't prepared to actually tell me what "broke" (which implies there's something more than personal aesthetics in play here) then I can't really accept that you have a point here. If we got off on the wrong foot here then I apologise, but you haven't given me anything to work with. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just really appreaciate if next time before making major visual changes to templates used by lots of pages you firstly communicated with the people who have worked on it what you are planning on doing. Secondly, it would be great if you took the approach recommended on [[5]], that is, make your changes in your own sandboxed version of the template first before doing some testing and then merging the changes in. My specific concerns with your changes were: 1. lots of ugly lines added between rows. 2. some fields of the template not working such as "country largest city". Everything seems ok now. (Caniago (talk) 15:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I firstly appologize for mistakes done by me.

I see other country's articles on en.wiki are so very much and colourful in words and images, once somebody clicks the article, very much information he/she will get.

A little different approach was standardized by the admins for Indonesia's, for I can not think well on it.

By the way, thanks for infos

Bye, wiki Reindra (talk) 18:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Caniago, if having a "Red Cross" instead of a "Red Crescent" is not significant to differentiate Indonesia from a Muslim country, what is? :-) Djoehana (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The aim of the lead section is to summarise the country in a few short paragraphs. There is certainly no room for very specific facts like this. (Caniago (talk) 15:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Your insistance on "poverty (as) a defining feature of contemporary Indonesia" mystifies me. What are your criteria to define it? The Human Development Index? Djoehana (talk) 22:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope people don't mind me butting-in. Djoehana, are you suggesting poverty isn’t a major issue in Indonesia – maybe *the* biggest problem? Why not read the economy section of the article, and the supporting references provided. It’s a question of the netural point of view. Wikipedia provides encyclopaedic information on countries, not advertisements or promotions. --Merbabu (talk) 22:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow no poverty? SatuSuro 23:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ta for that - so bogged down in other stuff keep missin it all ta for our help and all - cheers SatuSuro 14:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, may I know why you didn't agree (removed) with the category boxes that I added onto the Indonesia page? It seems appropriate to do so; if you look at the other country pages (singapore, malaysia etc etc) they would have that. Are you going to remove those as well then? Thanks! - regards User:AhdytUser talk:Ahdyt 03:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this edit. I was pushing 3RR so my hands were tied. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 16:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers --Merbabu (talk) 11:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hope your christmas/new year is going well cheers and good to see your contribs SatuSuro 11:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Experienced editors are, I'm afraid, bound by the same rules as newbies. The article gave no indication of how she met the notability guidelines, and in fact had no sources at all, so it's a clear no-discussion speedy. jimfbleak (talk) 18:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't "nominating" for AFD, just speedy deleting. You querying how CSD works (rather than just why your article was deleted), so there is probably a more appropriate forum if you want a change in procedures which would effectively make all non-notable good faith articles go through AfD instead of CSD. I'll put the text here so you can work on it before reposting. jimfbleak (talk) 20:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. It's just templates.
2. it sorts better.
3. I'm planning to complete them.

Bennylin (talk) 07:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For cleaning up the mess trust all is well thats a lot of edit changes you have to revert SatuSuro 11:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed a couple which involved double redirects. If you need any other admin assistance on this (as the moves required deleting a page) feel free to shout out. Orderinchaos 12:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will edit however I wish. You need to stop living in denial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrownEyedGirl11 (talk • contribs) 08:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Caniago, i undid your last revision in Pontianak article by you because i already redirect the Pontianak, Indonesia article which very long title, that's why i moved it to Pontianak. The disambiguation (Pontianak (folklore)) is can be found in the Pontianak by reader. Thanks.  CHJL  ^Discuss 11:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh i see, but i guess we should change the Pontianak, Indonesia article's title. Maybe like Pontianak town or sth.  CHJL  ^Discuss 11:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we need to ask for protection for the Hist of Ind template - I havent been following the issue at all SatuSuro 12:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you get a chance - please see what I am trying to do with the minangkabau category business - but please if necessary either email or talk any comment before worrying about it - there are some tidy up issues - as there have been some low WP literacy eds creating some off bits and pieces - any suggestions of how to go from here would be appreciated - a category or two might need some readjusting - cheers SatuSuro 07:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indonesia Please see the section re rulers/palaces etc - thanks SatuSuro 04:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please at least give some kind of explanation in your edit summary instead of simply undoing the edit with no explanation? That is very annoying to me and I'm sure other people. And I've noticed you've done this in the past on this article, for example deleting templates other editors have placed on the bottom. Just because this article is featured doesn't mean it can't change. Anyway, here is what I did:

1. I moved the navigational template in the "see also" section to the bottom of the article and replaced it with List of Indonesia-related topics, Outline of Indonesia, and the portal link. WP:Layout recommends that layout, and beyond that, it's more compact, you can simply click on one of the links and be exposed to a lot more articles than the template has; navigational templates are always found at the bottom of articles, and the portal link is a lot more relevant in the see also section than the external links section.

2. Notes sections are usually above reference ones in most articles, and it's also helpful to make them both their own sections just in case an editor wants to choose one in the table of contents, I'm not sure why this change is a big deal, but if you want to keep the current layout then that's not a big deal either

3. I alphabetized the categories, again not sure why this would bother you but it's not like that is a big deal either

Basically I'd like the see also section changed as I explained above. What are your reasons for not wanting this change? LonelyMarble (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. The existing box of links in the See Also section provides the most useful and convenient list links related to Indonesia. There is no need to hide it at the bottom of the page, or to include links to indirect and poorly maintained lists of articles like List of Indonesia-related topics or Outline of Indonesia instead. This is the most useful presentation for the See Also section, providing one-click access to the most salient list of articles.

2. We organized the article this way to minimize the table of contents size. The size of the references section without the notes section doesn't justify its own top level header.

3. No objections.

(Caniago (talk) 16:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

1. I guess a big reason I object to the box of links is because I like consistency and usually that is at the bottom, so it looks a little clunky to me. But that's not a good reason to change it. The Outline article is a fairly new project so hopefully that article will be better organized and more helpful in the future, I added a link to that in the Indonesia template. I think most people know those boxes are at the bottom of the article so it's not exactly hiding, but okay, it's fine the way it is now.

2. I never really cared about how this was set up that much, I simply changed it to the way the majority of articles are set up. I think the reason Notes are usually above References is because if you click a citation in the article and get down to the Note about it, people are probably more likely to scroll further down to find the reference than further up, but this is a pretty non-issue. Also, since these sections are already subsections you aren't really saving any table of contents size, but the current layout is fine with me.

3. Mainly I just like a consistent organization and layout for everything, I wasn't trying to change any big style concerns. I'll just alphabetize the categories and that's it. LonelyMarble (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

indirect and poorly maintained lists of articles like List of Indonesia-related topics or Outline of Indonesia instead. hmmm :( could we at least take this discussion to the project noticeboard ???? SatuSuro 23:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please take this to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indonesia and note that I have identified the current project monitoring locations - if you can improve on the latest set of links - please do SatuSuro 03:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Padang City Logo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no problem- I'll add the discussion on population size into one of the first paragraphs- and correct my edit to reflect the official 2000 census figuresStarstylers (talk) 15:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC) (I added my signature- for some reason it logged my ip[reply]

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

Caniago (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

220.255.7.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

---

Block message:

{{blocked proxy}} <!-- 219.75.7.84:8888 -->

• Blocking administrator: ProcseeBot (talk • blocks)

---

Decline reason: I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking. This will allow you to edit through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page Wikipedia:IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions.

Note in particular that you are not permitted to use this newly-granted right to edit Wikipedia via anonymous proxies, or disruptively. If you do, or there is a serious concern of abuse, then the right may be removed by any administrator.

Appropriate usage and compliance with the policy may be checked periodically, due to the nature of block exemption, and block exemption will be removed when no longer needed (for example, when the block it is related to expires).

I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. Mangojuice^talk 17:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you consider the revert of my edit that you did to be superior? Other countries, such as Australia, New Zealand and the United States all have all the templates grouped together at the bottom. It is unusual to find the template you placed in the See also section in that location. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think?? --Merbabu (talk) 08:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oops - I didn't even know i did that. Must have hit the rollback button by mistake. sorry. --Merbabu (talk) 12:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem Merbabu. (Caniago (talk) 15:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Apparently the MOS has been changed to discourage non-forced (ie, default 180px) pixel size. My reading is that it's now a free-for-all between 100px-400px. I will ask around as a I can't find any MOS discussion - I'm sure it's archived somewhere though.--Merbabu (talk) 12:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seemed to remove the categories I'd added (they were previously absent due to a misunderstanding of the categorization rules, on the grounds that they were on Category:Indonesia - I was correcting this error, see WP:EPON). I don't know if you consider any of these categories unsuitable - if so, please remove only the unsuitable ones (I'm restoring all of them for now).--Kotniski (talk) 16:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand - I tried to talk to you on your talk page, yet you reply with another revert and a confusing edit summary. Why do these categories "waste space" or fail to "add value" any more than the other categories do? Why should this country's article be excluded from these categories?--Kotniski (talk) 17:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, you could have just asked me to switch back to the old template rather than blindly reverting it. Your edits have resulted in dozens of garbled pages like this one here. I am going through and cleaning up the massive mess right now. Thanks. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for the change in Regency area you made in this edit? Before your edit, it was 1,224.33 km². After your edit it was 122,433 km², which is a pretty big change. According to http://www.eastjava.com/plan/eng/ekab-nganjuk.html it's 1,224.33 km². Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you take a look at Languages of Indonesia which I updated as carefully as I could based on www.ethnologue.com

However, there are gray areas in regard to definitions of dialect, especially items like "Jambi Malay" rather than "Jambi language". Thanks. Martindo (talk) 04:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned on the talk page, I expanded the stated article scope to include both the Malay Race and the ethnic group as it's clear that the groups being mentioned are based on a broader definition. I'm not saying this is the preferred definition, and I have no reliable references. I simply wanted to remove the fundamental contradictions from the article - as a first step. Your input would be appreciated, but as long as consistency remains in the article then relevance and referencing to reliable sources can be handled later and are not the most pressing issue on WP right now. --Merbabu (talk) 02:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks for your edit on the Museums in Jakarta. I agree with the result, although I was trying to do it a bit more gently - but, you saved me work! It would be good if you can keep an eye on the article too. Some unusual ideas about how to develop it are floating around. --Merbabu (talk) 04:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Caniago! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 6 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Chiara Civello - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Caniago, I noticed that you have been one of the top contributors to the article Chinese Indonesian. I've taken up the task of rewriting the article from scratch and would appreciate any input you have on structure, content, images, sources, etc. Keep in mind that the current draft is still in its early stages, and much work is needed to reconstruct the text while eliminating original research and speculative information. I am doing my best to keep as much information as possible and using the sources already listed while seeking others. Feel free to put it on your watchlist if you are interested in monitoring its progress. Thanks again your previous contributions. Arsonal (talk) 02:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

why do you not check this [[6]], nonetheless I think we must neutral before your delete my citation and We can discuss it in discussion page, Salam VoteITP (talk) 19:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Timeline of the War on Terrorism. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the War on Terrorism. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Caniago, Why do you remove my statements about PDRI and Minang's etymology ? However, I attached of sources and the etymology used by Minangkabau society. Salam --Afandri Adya (talk) 13:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The English writing is terrible. The factual accuracy of the etymology is questionable or wrong. Undue weight is given to the PDRI. I don't have time to fix any of these problems so the article is better without these changes. (Caniago (talk) 00:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Statement : "The first female minister was a Minang scholar" is wrong. Maybe you should spend time, to consider the others opinion. Salam ----Afandri Adya (talk) 22:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! At the file page it says "Permission provided by Marc-Antoine Dunais via email for distribution under the following license:..." Do you by any chance still have that mail so you could forward it to OTRS? --MGA73 (talk) 11:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Same thing with this one File:Singkok.jpg. --MGA73 (talk) 11:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of the images you uploades has been deleted (Commons:File:Minangprocession.jpg) but if you have the permission it could easily be restored. --MGA73 (talk) 11:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason why you keep removing it? I normally trust your judgement, but it might help to at least state why it should go. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 06:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Pariangan. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Shadowjams (talk) 21:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that User:VoteITP's coordinates are correct. Shadowjams (talk) 21:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. User:Calmer Waters (talk) 16:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC) Calmer Waters 19:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Agam Symbol.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Payakumbuh Symbol.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Caniago. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Fort de Kock in 1826.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Pariaman Symbol.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 1 § Category:WikiProject X members on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Qwerfjkltalk 09:32, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Ranau (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This disambiguation page contains the primary topic and one other topic for the ambiguous title and no other topics can be found within a reasonable time.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]