This is a Wikipediauser talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gunkarta.
I don't think so, it was just tidying articles from unnecessary and unconstructive additions (should have done that much earlier). — Gunkartatalk14:51, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
i say that because of when people adding more information about early philippines or something positive infos on it this odd thing will intervine and it come from indonesian users like the user lyndonbaines. Hes an indonesian who had been blocked because of violation but he still deleting and not even more he vandalized philippine-related articles via ip along with other indonesian trolls (ip's are detected same manner-same motive) (WP:Disruptive editing) perviously contacted him to his indonesian wiki account and ask why he doing it he said that the reason is "stop adding info philippines is everything " well whats he means of it? neither way of what he means thats a invalid reason, its means he dont respect WP: POV based on valid sources plus its making indonesians as hostile to Philippine articles please you understand it and judge based in NPOV
Once more You saying the golden Belt of Butuan is Irrelevant but the IP troll promoting indonesian stuffs as he remove it on the first place and you revert again because of ..."inferior quality" what kind of reasoning on that ? i m not accusing indonesian admin/users but this odds are far more strange any explanation? should we tolerate the trolls who vandalizing using IP's i hope you judge based on WP:NPOV as the situations observe does indonesians are turning to be a Hostile?
silence means yes Indonesian hostilities are in Philippines info
First, you have to familiarize yourself to wikipedia rules and do not jump to conclusion and accusation. For me it is nothing personal, no hostility against Philippines whatsoever. However, if some unknown users started to polluted, cluttered and disrupted the article by pushing images or sentences which is not contributed to the quality of the article, I will try to fix and tidying up the article by removing them. Plus, most of the said images (multiple images which in this case related to the Philippines pushed by you) uploaded to wikimedia commons has questionably legal status and highly possible copyvio. I think you have POV issues to deal with, since you insist to include questionable and irrelevant images to some wikipedia article which is not a positive contribution at all. This issue came to my attention when an ip adress user (just like you) reacted by removing the irrelevant images and sentences, and I think I share his/her concern. It is about irrelevant additions that bordering image and POV pushing to include Philippines in many things that actually is not a constructive addition.Gunkartatalk06:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It might be but removing an image based in topic and replace them with Indonesia stuff and the same time trolling Philippine articles aren't helpful either its just clear that trolls are come from Indonesia and since the troll are Indonesia's most of Indonesian members where just silent don't retort , listen I don't talk here as a blame to any one but as complain to inform specially Indonesian admins /users became all of the IPs and registered users that troll are verified which come from Indonesia please stop this IP troll infestation (WP:Disruptive editing) User:lyndonbaines is one of perfect example of it on which doing it on Philippine related articles that's all i hope you got my message thanks for your time.
Please, don't forget to sign up, then try to create an account instead of went incognito using IP address identity. However, I suspected you are the sockpuppet of User:JournalmanManilaUser:Theseeker2016, User:Jasper0070 and possibly User:Cleaner880. WP:SOCK (Wikipedia:Sock puppetry) is a serious offence here in wikipedia community. I see you have a bone to pick with User:Lyndonbaines, and thankfully you both were blocked permanently. In JornalManila case due to copyright infringements and for Jasper0070 due sockpuppet issue. Examining your past edits, I can see the problem was started when you pushed your POV and pushing images or sentences that is overwhelmingly not constructive to the article. Pushing low quality images to articles that more often irrelevant, like unconstructive edits in crown (headgear), woman, diadem and Greater India. Like pushing this image upon those articles. The image do not add value to the article and plainly irrelevant. Who was the artist/painter? was he famous painter or amateur? what is its legal status? possibly Copyvio? what is this image all about? was this image based on scintific study on culture and archaeology, or just based on imagination, fantasy or fiction. It serve nothing but WP:PEACOCK, the acts of peacockery to promote, the urge to include in everyting or to show off, over-represent everything about Philippines beyond proportion. So I think it is a right thing to do to clean up those article from such peacockery and irrelevant addition/pollution. — Gunkartatalk14:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Crown (headgear) because you have been removed a sourced materials and statements . If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox, Thanks. (Cleaner880 (talk) 07:15, 5 August 2017 (UTC))[reply]
Please do not change China flags to Hong Kong flags as you did at List of cities with most skyscrapers. Hong Kong, although a recognised entity it is not a country as defined by reliable sources and more specifically the UN. Changing China flags to Hong Kong ones is POV. If you disagree any such change must first be discussed on the relevant talk page and consensus reached. Robynthehode (talk) 08:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to open an SPI investigation. Go to WP:SPI and follow the steps explained at "How to open an investigation" (type "JournalmanManila" for sockmaster). — Gunkartatalk23:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, can I include the names you told me about? Like that there's less possibility he'll return with more sockpuppets. (N0n3up (talk) 23:13, 20 August 2017 (UTC))[reply]
To N0n3upː Correction Checkuser or WP:CHECK is a tool used to obtain technical evidence related to a sock-puppetry allegation. If your request is agreed by a clerk or administrator, then they will tag the request for CheckUser attention. — Gunkartatalk00:08, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whats this ? You guys trying to make-up story ? Please don't bite a or buly a new comer this is a misunderstanding between an accused newcomer and rude old users here i know nothing on your absurd claims against me its clear that you like to destroy my reputation.(Parashurama007 (talk) 02:37, 22 August 2017 (UTC))[reply]
We are not trying to make-up any story. Please try to be patient and let the administrator or clerk that has WP:CHECK authority be the impartial judge of this investigation. I'm sorry, I can not help it, since me and N0n3up felt an awful suspicious similarities of actions and behavioral pattern on editing, between you and JurnalmanManila/Cleaner880. — Gunkartatalk09:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now I think he/she's back again as user Searcher0 considering its a recently made account made just a few hours ago, with just seven edits so far and made the same edits in the same articles in Garuda and Kinnara. He/she's also made this edit summary for his/her user page, which is almost similar to this edit summary made by Parashurama007 and notice the pattern regarding "deleting unwanted information" in both edit summaries. This time, I'll take care of it. (N0n3up (talk) 04:58, 27 August 2017 (UTC))[reply]
The sources are valid based on books I guess you just either not famillar to the Rulles of WP:Deletion policy and WP:Source, or you just promoting a slow-burn conflict (WP:conflict of Interest) of interest based on what you view or what your friends think, So its a right thing that will revert this and if we take this further im ready because it is the right thing .(Searcher0 (talk) 05:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gunkarta. I just received this post from an IP saying that JournalmanManila is evading his/her block again, this time by the names of User:Dashcam and User:Xpose09. I'm not sure how legitimate this claim is or how possible it is that JournalmanManila had come back. Do you think they're the same, and if so, what should be the next move? (N0n3up (talk) 03:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC))[reply]
I have strong suspicion that user:Pricedelink is user:JournalManManila again. Possibly also user:keroscene777,but I'm less sure there. Both have a predilection for unexplained edits and a glossy presentation of Filipino culture and/or history. - Alternativity (talk) 15:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Um, good evening ,what are you trying to prove ? and why philippines should be "excluded" on any indian articles although it's sourced? any explanation ?(Enervonsyrup (talk) 14:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC))[reply]
and as i following the tracks of this endless discourse, when there was an anonymous IP, who remove every thing even published sourced sections, there was powerful Gunkarta and his friends making their business, only i just watching and i never get involved on this issue but it seems weird you know, what will be the outcome of this and why philippine-related articles in that part of topic are "irrelevant" wheather it is sourced form textbooks sorry to say this but.. i think you and your friends are trying to impose your brand of Idea / theory which is different from the actual written on books about the Indianization of Philippines a, and i see you as a strong exclutionist but i will never get involve to this issue and on your arguments between Filipino members i just try to tell what i had been observed on the manner of never-ending arguments no big deal just a friendly comment thank you! (Enervonsyrup (talk) 14:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC))[reply]
You're funny Mr.Gunkarta I think you are just become stressed to that JM puppet I'm not please don't
Be like that I guess you are not welcoming open questions based on what you said "welcome back journal man manila" silly if i just asking or expressed my doubts it doesn't mean I'm on them I just being neutral okay just keep calm I just looking of both sides cheers (Enervonsyrup (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC))[reply]
Hi Gunkarta! I hope you've been enjoying your vacation. I just wanted to consult you about next steps for repairing damage that has been done by the various WP:Fringe-pushing sockpuppets who have been embellishing or overstating the trade/diplomatic relations of Tondo (historical polity) (which, you might be glad to note, has been renamed to more accurately reflect its indigenous political structure.) I know we've been working on a more accurate portrayal of Tondo and Maynila's linkages to Greater India, but the same sockpuppets seem to be falsifying/embellishing linkages to 13th Century Brunei (via the Nagarakretagama), and Siam and the Vietnamese Sa Huyun Culture by equating pottery findings as embellished "evidence" of diplomatic (not just trade) relations.
Unfortunately, my familiarity with the Tondo and Maynila polities currently emphasizes English and translated Spanish sources. Just in case your grasp of regional history is better than mine, is there any chance you could point me in the direction of reliable academic sources regarding these linkages to Siam, the Sa Huyun Culture, and the Nagarakretagama? I'm not sure which literature sources the key references are.
On another note, thank you very much/ Terima kasih banyak for watching out for your work on the Nagarakretagama and supposed "Indianization." We're finally beginning to make headway towards a more academically reliable historiography of early Philippine polities. I know it can be a bit thankless and draining. But hey, at least the scholarship on the wiki entries is finally beginning to catch up with present scholarly consensus. (I'll also thank and tag Stricnina, Juliaantengco, and Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw here since they're interested in the work and I'm sure they'd love a discussion of SoutheastAsian sources as well.) Cheers! - Alternativity (talk) 10:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Alternativity, well yes, I really enjoyed my vacation in Bali. To repair the damages done by our common acquaintance — the notorious JournalmanManila's sockpuppet, I'm afraid we still have to work traditional way by examine the article per subsections one by one, yet we must be bold to remove any doubtful sections. Most of linkages from Tondo and Maynila to Sa Hyunh, Medang, Majapahit through Nagarakretagama, Siam, and Sa Hyunh is unclear, scarce and doubtful. I think we should rewrite and maybe erase some part of that sections, and just stick to the fact without trying to interprate, reimagine or even invent history like JournalmanManila has done. Thank you for your works on early Philippines polity and other Philippines-related articles. I'm glad wikipedia have a credible, fair, native Philippines contributor like you, that willing to take such extra miles on repairing Philippines history articles, from the damage of fringe theories. Cheers. — Gunkartatalk12:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance you know of any useful links to online indonesian/southeastasian references? :D I think the problem arises from the fact that Philippine History Journals rarely reference them, so I can't really figure out how to assess what's true and what's not, because I can't check the literature. If we could spot some titles or key scholars, it'd go a long long way towards being able to counter-check the assertions of less-reliable or un-reliable sources. - Alternativity (talk) 12:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The book "Early Kingdoms of The Indonesian Archipelago and the Malay Peninsula" by Paul Michel Munoz is a good start for those whom interested in Hindu-Buddhist kingdoms of ancient Indonesia and Malaysia. I have that book in my home, and I do not have it right now in my office. I remember vaguely, despite popular suggestion to connect the term mdaŋ in Laguna Copperplate with Medang Kingdom of Java, Munoz argued that the term might not be referring to same polity. Maybe mdan mentioned in LCI might be a polity located in Philippines archipelago, not Medang of Java, thus cast the doubt about the direct relation between Tundun with Java, arguing the distance between Java and Luzon is too far. However in page 236 he do agreed that LCI is an example of the extent of Javanese influence of that period in the region. — Gunkartatalk13:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Very intriguing. Because none of the major Philippine LCI sources are fixedly definite on mdaŋ. They mostly use words like "probably." Munoz' citations sound like they're worth a careful read to see if we need to provide context. Will look into it and weigh the assertions carefully. Thanks! - Alternativity (talk) 15:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I think the five image format fit the common laptop screen perfectly, and provides an additional example. Then again I don't mind cutting back to four image format.Gunkartatalk07:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
nah - please dont worry about that - jangan kwatir - its less what it has - more that there is no more than there is - lebih 'cukup' daripada 'hati hati'....
I think we have (Indonesian project) a task of making sure the images that are included are sufficiently justified - that is explained, than simply 'pictures' as examples... JarrahTree07:28, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I welcome members of Indonesian project to examine and reconsider the recent image inclusion in Architecture of Indonesia article. I do think the current five image format is the top limit. Any addition more than five will look ugly in laptop screen layout. I don't mind trimming back to four image format. If you think some images are not justified to be there, please go ahead trim them up, thank you.Gunkartatalk08:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you aware that restoring Unsourced content is in fact unacceptable by WP:V, which supports the removal of anything Unsourced, regardless of whether it may be important? Restoring this is certainly not within a policy's means and it would be recommended you revert your latest restoration. I can't possibly imagine WP:V would ever have an exception of allowing Unsourced content, given it's a WP:5P. Looking back in,
it's important you also see WP: Indiscriminate as the food content you restored is clearly within the policy's violations and once again, regardless if it seems important. SwisterTwistertalk16:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Asian 10,000 Challenge Improve/create any article on anywhere in Asia whenever you feel like it and list it!...
0.23%
Hello. You have been invited to join WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge, a WikiProject dedicated to improving Asia-related articles on Wikipedia. You received this invitation due to your interest in, or edits relating to or within the scope of the project. If you would like to join or just help out a bit, please visit the project page, and add your name to the participants.
Hi there again, I saw that you had changed the lay-out of the above-mentioned article citing WP:MOS. I know that it is advised to avoid sandwiching text between two images but when I made that lay-out, I checked it with different screen resolutions, in different browsers, and also for smartphones. The sandwiching did, in my opinion anyway, not lead to any weird lay-out problems unless one uses an extremely low resolution screen (800px wide and such) which is quite unlikely. To me, the previous "sandwiched" lay-out looks better than your present lay-out. Have a look too and please tell me what you think -> "Sandwiched lay-out" & "Lay-out per WP:MOS. Cheers, - Takeaway (talk) 19:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Takeaway, I still think we better follow the WP:MOS by avoiding text sandwiched between two images, as faithful as possible. In my rather narrow laptop screen, sandwiching is both visually unpleasant (felt too stuffy), and also uneasy to read. It is better to distribute the images between paragraphs in each sub-sections, and sometimes altered to align left or right. Cheers.Gunkartatalk20:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What a pity. On most standard resolutions the old lay-out looked much clearer and less cluttered than the present but as they say "tidak apa...". :) - Takeaway (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Gunkarta. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
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.
Hi user:N0n3up, I do think user:Skyrim9 and user:Reign05, also those anonymous editors are sockpuppets of JournalmanManila. While user:Pricedelink and user:Keroscene777 are possibly also another sockpuppets although I'm not quite sure. Back in 1 November I've contacted user:Berean Hunter about this problem here. He suggest me to file SPI report (which I did not done because my reluctancy to went through that process all over again). All I can do now is wait for this sockpuppet to make bold undue POV pushing pseudohistory agenda in Hindu-Buddhist/Philippines-related articles, that was the traits of journalmanManila's edits. So far s/he seems to be quite careful, and in edits in Ramayana I was forced/inclined to deal with it fairly by examining sentences per cited refs. I'm afraid to deal with it we should do that SPI report all over again.Gunkartatalk07:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC) ~[reply]
I was going to bring the matter of Skyrim9 up, but I see N0n3up has already started the conversation. As you've seen on Ramayana, I've done what I can to factcheck and sourcheck edits, but considering how busy I am nowadays, that's not much. Like you said, Skyrim9 seems to be more source-careful than similar accounts in the past (which I'm still convinced are all JournalManManila), but he still cherrypicks his sources to push a point of view which he considers (apparently absolute) "truth." A lot of the time the grammar is so bad that the meanings are changed to the point of distorting facts. (I feel this is the case with the present Ramayana paragraph/edits). I'm not sure how to reduce the repair workload he produces. :S - Alternativity (talk) 01:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently my SPI has been deemed by an admin as stale and wants more evidence/support for my argument saying that diffs are not enough. Can you help me out with this if possible? I think tbh we need to find a permanent solution to this, constantly making an SPI is becoming time-consuming with this troll. (N0n3up (talk) 05:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC))[reply]
Hi Gunkarta. I am copy editing this article. It is a fine and interesting article. Thanks for all of the work you have put into it; I have certainly found it educational. If you are unhappy with any of my edits, or feel that I have lost the meaning of what the article was trying to say, feel free to let me know here. Or just revert me. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog the Mild. I think you have done a wonderful job on copy editing the Aru Kingdom article, the story flows pleasantly well now. I'm not a native english speaker, so I have not developed a certain vocabulary and grammar sensibility as a native speaker possess. Thank you very much for your kind contribution, greatly appreciated.Gunkartatalk15:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is a very fine article. I like the detailed sourcing. Your use of English is good and the sense of what you are conveying is clear. As you write, it is difficult to develop a grammar sensitivity appropriate to writing encyclopedia articles if you are not a native speaker. Actually, it is also difficult for many native speakers. This is why Wikipedia has copy editors.
I hope that this will not prevent you from writing more fine articles. Wikipedia relies on people like you to do the hard work, the heavy lifting, of researching and writing informative articles. If you would like me to look at any - written by you or just ones which you consider need improving - put a copy edit tag on it ("Copy edit" in between {{ }}) and ping me or flag it up on my talk page. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thank you for your encouragement, and gladly accept your kind offer for copy editing in the future. I think Duarte Barbosa wrote about Aru around 1515-1516, he served for Portuguese India between 1500 and 1516 and had written Livro de Duarte Barbosa circa 1516. His observation on Sumatran polities was made possible after the Portuguese captured the port of Malacca from Muslim Malay Malacca Sultanate in 1511. So his observation probably took place between 1511 and 1516, and written down in his report in 1516.Gunkartatalk17:26, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That has allowed me to make one last edit and to remove the tag. If you disagree with anything I have changed, feel free to alter it, revert it or to ping me and ask what the heck I thought I was doing. Regards. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gunkarta. Thank you very much for the award of the Barnstar of National Merit of Indonesia. Copy editing is very much a background activity to the people like yourself who do the hard work of writing and sourcing the articles. But it my opinion it is a necessary one and it is very pleasing to be recognised as good at it. I hope that we will work together again soon. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi VibeScepter, please look closely on edit history of Nasi kuning. I was meant to revert not to just stop by your edit, but actually my target is the edit right before you made by an IP address 2001:e68:5410:9fb6:7462:a24b:abfc:b469 that turn out to be from Malaysia. You see, cuisine and culture articles involving Indonesia, often plagued by endemic "claim battle" between neighboring Indonesia and Malaysia; some editors from each country often change or remove the rivaling country. In this case an annon editor (IP addr from Malaysia) made this false edit here. Your edit was actually helping linked the wrong/vandalized information. It led me to made some repairs by adding some refs. Sure, many Indonesian dishes and culture can also be found in neighboring Malaysia mostly through immigration of Indonesians into Malaysia for ages. Some portions of current Malaysian population often can trace their ancestry to Indonesia (Indonesians in Malaysia). Hope you understand.Gunkartatalk02:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
If you can't understand what is a WP:RS, you need to give up this article all together. You aren't even checking your faulty edits but restoring your preferred version. Capitals00 (talk) 12:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gunkarta! Hope you are doing well. Maybe you remember me from our great co-operation in History of Southeast Asia. I have been working in Culture of Asia lately and noticed that you also contributed a lot there. I would be grateful for your corrections, comments, ideas and additions. Thanks for your attention and have a great time. All the best Wikirictor00:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
sorry - should have looked from refs from my materials from the old days when I was living in Yk, but... too much too many things all happening at the same time JarrahTree10:49, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In wider regional and geographical sense (not a specific province of Central Java), Yogyakarta and Surakarta, together with older Kalingga, Medang Mataram, Demak, Pajang and Kalinyamat are polities fell under Central Java history.Gunkartatalk05:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
More complex than that imho. But would need to develop an idea later.
That is the point, numbers of history books and thesis more often refer to the region simply as "Central Java" regardless its perceived connection to the modern province of Central Java. Which also includes the historic region of Hindu Buddhist kingdom of Medang i Bhumi Mataram (Regencies of Sleman in Yogyakarta Special Region, Muntilan in Magelang, and Klaten), also Mataram region (Yogyakarta Special Region) and Pajang (Surakarta), both are Vorstenlanden van Mataram, also Kedoe (Magelang, Temanggung, parts of Wonosobo Regency). The distinction of Central Java often made on cultural Pasisiran (coastal settlements; from Brebes, Pekalongan, Semarang, Demak to Jepara, Lasem and Rembang), Mataraman (inland states of Yogyakarta and Solo, which sometimes include Madiun), and Banyumasan (Banyumas, Purwokerto, Cilacap, Purbalingga, Kebumen). I know it is complex, but it is actualy in regard of geographical context.Gunkartatalk05:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A page you started (King Siliwangi) has been reviewed!
Hello, Gunkarta. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
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.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Cirebon shipwreck requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://marineheritagegallery.wordpress.com/cirebon-wrecks/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. CASSIOPEIA(talk)10:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
there is a user I have just welcomed who has user name Gunarta - very problematic to have similar named accounts - some users actually create doppelganger accounts with very similar spelling to prevent possible misunderstandings - take care.. if it wasnt enough to keep up with your other nameJarrahTree13:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy. My IP address is 125.208.135.28 It is the IP address of my office via internet provider.Gunkartatalk17:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
Procedural decline only; that IP address is not blocked. If you have been using a proxy or a VPN, please wait 24 hours. If not, please use WhatIsMyIP to determine your IP address. Yamla (talk) 17:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
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.
Hello, I just wanted to give some opinions regarding the territory of Majapahit who might perhaps inspire you to update the map according to sources not found in the references you cited on the map.
I am aware that no year was shown in the GIF, but here I put it so that you may visualize more precisely when the event happened.
Malay Peninsula
First, let's start at Malay Peninsula. During the time of Wikramawardhana, Malay Peninsula was no longer a Majapahit territory, but instead a Siamese (Ayutthaya) tributary. This is noted in the History of Ming Dynasty and other sources that is compiled into one book (Notes on the Malay Archipelago and Malacca Compiled from Chinese Sources), where before there was Malacca, there was no king and the area pays tribute to the Siamese. So after the death of Hayam Wuruk in 1389, the area in Malay peninsula should dissapear immediately instead of slowly dissapearing starting from Malacca.
The map shown in the Ming dynasty page also showed that Malay peninsula are fully under Siamese control.
Sumatra
The area to the west coast (Pagarruyung/Minangkabau land) should also start dissapearing during Hayam Wuruk's reign, in which Adityawarman finally sent out to pay tribute and is recognized by the Ming as their tributary in 1375. This was not the case with Palembang in 1370s, where Hayam Wuruk even goes as far to kill the Chinese envoy sent by the Ming to recognize Palembang as a tributary of Ming, and Ming recognized Javanese supremacy in the region.
On the GIF, it was shown that Sumatra as a whole was conquered first before Majapahit focused on the east, most notably Bali. This was incorrect, as the invasion of Bali was finished around 1343, while Majapahit's attack on Samudera Pasai only started at the very least on 1349.
Also during Wikramawardhana, at least on 1416 (after the founding of Malacca Sultanate), new independent kingdoms have risen up on the northern coast of Sumatra, such as Aceh, Aru, and Samudra, which was no longer noted "under the supremacy of Java" in the chronicles during Ming period, and as such the red marks should also start dissapearing during the formation of Malacca Sultanate, leaving Indragiri, Jambi and Palembang as the only Majapahit territory at this point.
The remaining few territories in Sumatra, which is Indragiri, Jambi and Palembang dissapeared much, much later into the period. Indragiri was the first to disappear, since it was given to Malacca in sometimes around 1459 - 1477.
Jambi and Palembang was still under Majapahit rule until finally taken by Demak in between 1478-1498. Accordingly, The northern coasts of Java where Demak is located should disappear earlier than Jambi and Palembang in Sumatra. This was noted by Tome Pires in Suma Oriental, where he said that Jambi and Palembang used to have its own king and is loyal to the "kafir" lord of Java, and is taken by Demak when they declared war for a long time.
Java and Bali
I really didn't know why are you showing that West Java / Sunda-Galuh was briefly, even for a millisecond, was taken by Majapahit. The Bubat incident never really was a form of confirmation of Majapahit's rule over West Java. The royal family was massacred, yes, but the area of the kingdom was never under Majapahit's rule. I hope this can be fixed so that it doesn't cause misunderstanding.
Besides, the Bubat Incident happened at 1357, which is still during the very early period of Hayam Wuruk's reign, and the maximum extent of Majapahit, as we know, was noted in 1365 in Negarakertagama. Majapahit's expansion is still not yet as thorough during 1357 compared to 1365, in which where you put the Sunda occupation happened after most of the areas mentioned by Negarakertagama are conquered.
Now unto Demak, as noted on the above, Northern coast of Java, particularly in Demak and some of its surrounding (excluding Tuban and Hujung Galuh/Surabaya) should cede first before Jambi and Palembang.
During the final moments of Majapahit, you marked Blambangan and Bali as the last stronghold of Majapahit. This was incorrect. Majapahit's new capital after being repelled by Raden Patah's army was in Daha(Kediri), and not on the eastern-most side of Java. Blambangan and Bali was already independent during the last years of Majapahit, and as such, the declining of Majapahit should really ended with the red marks at Daha(Kediri), instead of slowly disappearing into Blambangan and finally Bali
Bali was never the legal successor of Majapahit. That title goes to Demak. Bali was only a spiritual successor of Majapahit civilization, but never the last area listed as Majapahit's territory before it finally declined.
Eastern Part of Nusantara
And at last, in the GIF you showed that all of Sumatran territory of Majapahit disappeared first before the eastern part of Indonesia, most notably the Maluku Islands. This was incorrect, coming to what I wrote above already where Jambi and Palembang is still Majapahit's territory up until taken by Demak. Tome Pires on his book Suma Oriental also said that "the Javanese said they used to rule Maluku a long time ago". The book was written sometimes around 1512 - 1515.
This means that the information of Demak takeover of Jambi and Palembang is a lot more recent than the loss of Maluku from Majapahit's suzerainty. And as such, the Maluku islands should disappear from the GIF earlier than Jambi and Palembang, probably around Wikramawardhana reign too.
Mohon maaf kalo kepanjangan mas Gun, I really, really like the gif that you made and I think it's beautiful, but I also would like to have it more historically accurate. Sumber lain yang mungkin bisa membantu contohnya video nya Lazardi Wong Jogja tentang daerah Majapahit yang banyak banget nulis referensi. Matur suksma Anarma (talk) 03:55, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your valuable input. I'll try to edit and correct it as soon as I have time to spare. Thank you Bli Anarma, Matur nuwun, Hatur nuhun, Matur suksma.... Gunkartatalk10:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for replying ! Your past edits on Majapahit's page few years back really helped to maintain my interest on Majapahit up until now. Mewali (trims kembali) bli Gun !Anarma (talk) 15:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bli Anarma, saya sudah coba memperbaiki peta animasi gif Majapahit sesuai saran bli... Semoga kali ini lebih tepat dan tidak keliru lagi. Matur suksma... Gunkartatalk18:21, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Expansion and decline of Majapahit Empire (corrections)
Wah bagus banget bli Gun ! Kita tidak pernah tahu kenyataan yang sebenarnya mengenai ekspansi dan runtuh nya Majapahit, sehingga meski saya menganggap ada kekeliruan di peta sebelumnya, informasi dari saya juga tidak bisa dikatakan 100% tepat juga. Tetapi alangkah baik nya kita memberi informasi yang paling mendekati akurasi penuh, yang setidaknya ada catatan sejarahnya. Once again, thank your for your beautiful work, bli Gun ! Matur suksma.Anarma (talk) 14:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Itulah keindahan, keunggulan, dan kebajikan dalam berkolaborasi pembebasan pengetahuan ala wikipedia dan wikimedia; apapun itu pasti terbuka untuk perbaikan, koreksi, dan penyempurnaan sesuai dengan masukan dan kolaborasi antarpengguna. Setidaknya ini itikad baik dari kita untuk memperbaiki informasi sambil berkontribusi untuk pembebasan pengetahuan. Niatan saya, dan saya rasa Bli Anarma juga sama, murni agar Bangsa Indonesia tidak melupakan sejarahnya, terutama minat saya pada periode peradaban dharma (Hindu-Buddha) di Nusantara yang menurut saya anggun, indah, memikat, unggul, agung, dan adiluhung. Sekali lagi hatur nuhun atas perhatian, minat, serta segala kontribusi dan masukan dari Bli Anarma, matur suksma...Gunkartatalk13:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mr. Gunkarta. I am Arnab2305 from India.
Recently I read a book named "Java Essay: The History and Culture of a Southern Country" by Masatoshi Inguchi.
But when I was reading the article on the Sunda Kingdom in Wikipedia, I found some confusion in understanding the relationships. In the 'History' section of the article, I found a text:
"Tarusbawa was a good friend of Bratasena or Sena (709 - 716), the third king of Galuh; he was also known as Sanna, cited in the Canggal inscription (732 AD), and Sanjaya's uncle."
But in Masatoshi's book, I found that Bratasena was Sanjaya's father, not uncle. Yes, I know that Bratasena married his own sister, Princess Sannaha, but still he should be considered Sanjaya's father. I found the same type of text in another paragraph:
"Sanjaya, the son of Sena's sister Sannaha, determined to take revenge on Purbasora's family."
Let's take a look at another text:
"After defeating Purbasora, Sanjaya asked his uncle, Sempakwaja, in Galunggung to order Demunawan, the younger brother of Purbasora, to reign in Galuh."
In the book, I found something different. Sempakwaja was the son of Wretikandayun. So, he was the uncle of Bratasena. That means Sempakwaja was the granduncle of Sanjaya, not his uncle.
I wanted to join the WikiProject Indonesia, but I couldn't as I live in India. So, I approached you for help. I hope that you would do the necessary editing. Thank you. Arnab2305 (talk) 05:21, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi... actually you could edit the article by yourself. Nevertheless, regarding the life of King Sanjaya; an important figure in both Medang-Mataram kingdom of Central Java and Sunda-Galuh kingdom of West Java, and his connection with previous usurped king Sanna, and his relations with Sannaha was indeed reported differently. The primal most credible source is the actual stone slab Canggal inscription (dated 732), that states Sanjaya as Sannaha's son, Sannaha was King Sanna's sister, thus making Sanjaya as Sanna's nephew, not son. The details you quoted above, is taken from Carita Parahyangan and Wangsakerta manuscript. These manuscripts are dated much later; Carita Parahyangan composed around late 16th century,and Wangsakerta even more recent, around late 17th century. Both Carita Parahyangan and Wangsakerta dated much later, almost 1.000 years after the actual lifetime of Sanjaya. As the result, it has rendered in a detail, full of intrigue and conflicts, romanticized, epic just like a tales, possibly mixed with fictions. Thus historians put these manuscript (esp. Wangsakerta) in a lower grade of trustworthiness, compared to the primal historical source Canggal inscription. About discrepencies, probably it was occurred during translations from Indonesian to english back then, error, or even the actual different representations within the manuscript. I will check the Sunda kingdom article up, thank you.Gunkartatalk05:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right. The book which I read, "Java Essay: The History and Culture of a Southern Country", actually gave more importance on Carita Parahyangan than Canggal inscription. And so, the later version of their relationship was emphasized. Thank you for your valuable information.
Arnab2305 (talk) 13:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Gunkarta, thank you for editing the article of Sunda Kingdom. I have conceived very strong interest in my mind about knowing the rich history and culture of South East Asia, when I came to know that the South East Asian islands had a good maritime relation with India. From the age of 12, I have been continuing research on the history of this part of the Earth. In my childhood, I mostly used the Wikipedia for carrying out research. However, I have now turned to the books of different writers.
I later realised that there is also a big team working for improving the Wikipedian articles. So, I have decided to join people like you to improve these articles.
Saya harap kami melanjutkan korespondensi ini di masa depan.
Thank you for joining in and showing your interest in Indonesian and Southeast Asian history, especially our shared dharmic civilization. I hope we can keep in touch and having you stay around to keep editing and contributing here in wikipedia. Cheers.Gunkartatalk11:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution (2nd request)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Rice production in Indonesia into Rice. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 13:01, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for identifying the source of the material in your edit.
This type of edit does get picked up by Copy Patrol and a good edit summary helps to make sure we don't accidentally revert it. However, for future use, would you note the best practices wording as outlined at Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia? In particular, adding the phrase "see that page's history for attribution" helps ensure that proper attribution is preserved.S Philbrick(Talk)13:47, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the incomplete wording on copying from other wikipedia articles. As a matter of fact, it was me that add that sentences and ref in original Indonesian cuisine article, and think that it will be a good addition in the newly created Indonesian noodles article. Thank you for your information.Gunkartatalk15:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.
very difficult to try to work out where over-scripted lead sentences and info boxes are really justified, very difficult - as if it has relevance to english speakers who would have no idea about scripts other than roman in english.... JarrahTree12:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could not agree more. There are often small foreign scripts and names in various languages in lead. People sometimes forgot that this is wikipedia english that foreign script and dictionary in lead is completely unnecessary.Gunkartatalk12:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop your disruptive editing. Your recent edits seems to led to edit war, especially regarding food and cuisine article between Indonesia and Malaysia topics. Sure you can add well referenced source to back your claim and argument. However, often you just delete other competing references that do not suit your intention, agenda or argument, and just push your oppinion or argument. That is not how we conduct our works here in wikipedia, we strive for consensus and mutual understanding. Reverting articles multiple times just like you did is considered as a violation, especially 3RR. Please try to address the issue in talk pages of each articles. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Gunkartatalk10:55, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
None of the dishes claimed by you are from Indonesia. None of those ref mentioned Indonesia as the clear origin. I have provided a reference and you might want to read it first and stop vandalizing. For example, acar originated in India and not Indonesia but you said it originated in Indonesia even though it is consumed all over southeast asia. SO please be consistent. Based on the source that I have cited, these cuisine also originated in southeast Asia without mentioned any specific country. So please STOP VANDALISING Thank you.
I've moved your response from my talkpage into this page. Let's stick to the original place shall we. And do not forget to sign up using four tildes. Please examine the refs carefully, some of them did mentioned Indonesia, instead of you indiscriminately deleting them and pushing your own refs. Ofcourse you can add competing refs, but your poor conducts of disruptive editings by reverting edits and pushing pov has disrupted stable version.Gunkartatalk12:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by reliable resources. Your argument is based on a recipe? So are you saying the whole southeast Asia uses the recipe from Indonesia? It is very clear that acar originated in India and is being consumed in all southeast asian country. If it is from Indonesia, where is it actually? Please provide a reliable source and stop the nationalisc view.
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
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.
Halo @Gunkarta, saya memperhatikan bahwa anda merupakan editor pengkontribusi yang cukup lama berkecimpung di Wikipedia, dan anda merupakan seorang yang cukup netral dan adil dalam menanggapi suatu perselisihan, dan saya ucapkan selamat atas penghargaannya sebagai Editor Master di Wikipedia. Sebelumnya saya sampaikan mohon maaf apabila menggunakan Bahasa Indonesia karena saya memperhatikan anda memahami Bahasa Indonesia yang baik dan benar.
Tujuan saya adalah, saya mohon dengan sangat untuk kooperasinya dalam menangani disruptif edit yang dilakukan oleh MrCattttt di artikel Kebaya, dia telah mengubah artikel secara keseluruhan dengan disruptif dan juga kemungkinan vandalisme yang masif. Sebagai contohnya, dia berusaha mengubah konten yang berkaitan dengan sejarah pada artikel tersebut, yang mana seharusnya the Origin of Kebaya yang mulanya "The earliest form of kebaya believed to have been originated from the court of Javanese Majapahit kingdom (1293–1527) in the 15th century,[1] as a means to blend the existing female kemben, torso wrap of the aristocratic women, to be more modest and acceptable." berubah menjadi informasi-informasi yang tidak sesuai dengan urutan chronicles, hal ini merupakan tindakan yang tidak dapat ditolerir dan dapat merusak data faktual sejarah, saya beberapa kali sempat melakukan revert sebelumnya namun saya selalu dituduh melakukan pelanggaran dan vandalisme oleh akun Austronesier (yang saya asumsikan juga merupakan orang Malaysia), padahal sejatinya yang melakukan vandalisme adalah akun MrCatttt. Ketika seorang user mencantumkan hal-hal yang berkaitan dengan pengagungan atas Malaysia (melalui tindakan editing yang disruptif dan vandalisme), akun Austronesier tidak pernah melakukan pelaporan kepada administratif, sedangkan saya yang sejatinya melakukan kontribusi edit untuk menjaga keaslian faktual sejarah selalu dilaporkan dan sudah terhitung 3 kali saya diblokir oleh para admin Wikipedia.
Terlebih lagi, ketika saya membaca sumber-sumber sitasi yang dicantumkan di bagian "Origin" pada infobox, saya tidak melihat sama sekali adanya kata-kata yang benar-benar merujuk pada "Melaka" sebagai sumber the origin place dari Kebaya, alasan pokok akun MrCattttt atas "Malaysia" sebagai tempat asal-mula Kebaya hanyalah terbatas pada bagian kata-kata "Malay" (Melayu) yang mana hal tersebut sangatlah tidak masuk akal, karena justru dalam Malay Annals (Sejarah Melayu) sendiri menyebutkan bahwa orang-orang Melayu di Semenanjung Malaysia maupun yang mendirikan Kesultanan Melaka itu merupakan orang-orang yang datangnya dari Indonesia pada masa lampau.
Pada dasarnya, saya tidak memiliki kebencian terhadap Malaysia maupun entitas negara lain, namun dengan melihat aksi-aksi penyelewengan sejarah secara digital melalui Wikipedia seperti ini saya rasa merupakan hal yang sangat diluar batas. Saya merupakan penggemar sejarah dan hal itulah yang membawa saya ke Wikipedia pada mulanya, karena saya melihat banyak sekali fakta-fakta sejarah yang sengaja diubah secara asal-asalan oleh akun-akun yang notabene semuanya berpotensi besar berasal dari Malaysia. Namun terkadang bagaimanapun saya tidak punya cukup kendali untuk melakukan penjagaan terhadap beberapa artikel karena saya secara terus-menerus dilaporkan dan unfortunately diaminkan oleh admin-admin yang tidak mengikuti betul dan tidak paham akan intensi murni saya. Akun Austronesier yang tidak pernah netral membawa keputusan saya untuk meminta bantuan anda. Saya bukanlah seorang nasionalis yang bias dalam menilai sesuatu, namun sebagai penggiat sejarah saya merasa tercederai melihat fakta-fakta sejarah diubah semena-mena. Maka dari itu saya mohon dengan sangat bantuan anda untuk tetap menjaga faktualisasi artikel Kebaya agar tetap sesuai dengan aslinya. Eiskrahablo (talk) 16:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gunkarta, Thank you for your edits to Articulated bus and thank you for reinstating your edits back, I don't know why I never reinstated your edits back after reverting the other user or even why I didn't use an edit summary both of which I apologise for, Thanks again for your improvements to that article! :), Take care and stay safe, Warm Regards, –Davey2010Talk20:01, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gunkarta, I recently came across an article called Malaysian art, which was made in its entirety by a user named Hati Kama, who upon clicking on their user page made me realize that it was a sockpuppet of another user named Awanama. Hati Kama had also created another article called Folklore of Malaysia. I remember reading somewhere that there are procedures in place on Wikipedia to deal with articles created by sockpuppets, and a google search revealed "G5. Creations by banned or blocked users" (WP:G5). I honestly thought Hati Kama fitted the criteria its in entirety, it's a blocked user violating their block, and both articles had no substantial edits by others. I placed the template on these two articles. However, I was reverted by an admin named Liz, who stated that "Sockpuppeteer wasn't blocked when this article was written". I was also subsequently reprimanded not to leave tags like that as a I was merely a "3 day old account with 14 edits", before being subsequently accused of being a sockpuppet myself without evidence. Perhaps as you being an older established user, you could advice me as to what I did wrong, and I also came to you as you seemed to have had previous interactions with Awanama and their sockpuppets. Thank you for your time. IpohLang (talk) 21:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, it seems unnecessary to separate Indonesia from Brunei, Malaysia and Singapore on pisang goreng because both are essentially talking about the same type of banana fritters. Even info on the cultural setting of pisang goreng in Indonesia as depicted in the article (e.g. sold in food vendor, variety of banana, modification/innovation of recipe, etc.) is not exclusive to Indonesia but also exist in the other neighbouring countries. It'd be appreciated if you could merge back both Indonesia and Brunei-Malaysia-Singapore under the same subsection. Thanks. Zulfadli51 (talk) 14:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I think no... The separation is necessary. It should be separated since the content and references are overwhelmingly talked about Indonesian version of pisang goreng, not about Malaysian, Singapore or Brunei. It actually to honor the fact of how prevalent, pervasive, and rich diversity of Indonesian version compared to neighboring countries. Some of the variant (e.g. pisang molen, pisang goreng pasir, pisang manado etc.) are unique to Indonesia. You're welcome to expand the Brunei/Malaysia/Singapore section though.Gunkartatalk16:52, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Indonesian varieties of pisang goreng are not sufficient to warrant a separate subsection from Brunei-Malaysia-Singapore. Even the so-called varieties you mention are not exclusive to Indonesia but also available in the neighbouring countries. The cooking style is also mainly not unique to Indonesia. It is redundant to separate Indoneia from Brunei-Malaysia-Singapore when the cultural traits are overwhelmingly similar. Zulfadli51 (talk) 04:46, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Zulfadli51: Although this is better discussed in Talk:Banana fritter, I will give my input here: I think the merger and the subsequent separation into regional/national subsections is a good idea. The merger into a larger topic has relieved us from endless debates about the origin of what is actually just a term, and individual subsections can give room to the diverse variant dishes of fried bananas. Just because the name is the same in both standard languages doesn't mean we have to cover everything called pisang goreng under one header. Indonesia is a big and diverse country, and this is matched by an enormous diversity in the realization even of basic things like fried bananas, grilled fish etc. Btw, I'd be happy if we could do the same thing with generic terms like Ikan bakar, Ikan goreng, Ayam bakar, Ayam goreng (but of course not with iconic and internationally reknowned things like Nasi goreng) for the above-mentioned reasons, although at the moment I can't see good merge targets. –Austronesier (talk) 09:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Austronesier: Hi, I appreciate your input. I do acknowledge the diversity of pisang goreng in Indonesia but I think it's still only restricted to the recipe innovation, and not other cultural characteristics. Examples: pisang goreng as a breakfast or afternoon snack, pisang goreng sold in street stalls or local coffee shops, cooked in palm oil, etc etc, these are cultural characteristics not exclusive to Indonesia but also ubiquitous in the neighbouring countries. Even a few of the varieties that is purportedly claimed to be Indonesian seems to be dubious, such as pisang goreng madu, pisang goreng pasir, because these are also very common in the neighbouring countries. Exception for varieties that would be inherently Indonesian are like pisang goreng Manado, pisang goreng Pontianak, pisang goreng kremes, pisang goreng molen, etc.
It's important to highlight the variation of pisang goreng in Indonesia but I don't think it's substantial enough to separate it from Brunei-Malaysia-Singapore; the difference is not substantial enough to be akin of, say, against Thailand or India. However, because there seem to be substantial info on Indonesian variation what I would suggest is to create a sub-subsection under the "Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore". Zulfadli51 (talk) 10:05, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Zulfadli51: In that case, you cannot even have pisang goreng madu under "Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore", since fried bananas plus honey is also served in other Asian countries. We certainly do in the Philippines. Putting "Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore" under one header is just language-based, that's fallacious and quite arbitrary. Eastern Indonesian cuisine is very distinct and only peripherally "Malay-world"-ish. Sorting things by country is intuitive and self-explanatory, anything else needs consensus. @Gunkarta: Curtesy question: since you're tuan rumah of this user-space: can we copy this discussion to Talk:Banana fritter for wider input? –Austronesier (talk) 10:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Zulfadli51: The problem is actually stemmed from kinship of Malay and Bahasa Indonesia. Just because the name is similar in Malay-Indonesian language "pisang goreng" does not meant the subsection can not respect the regional/local country-based variants. Actually the name also slightly different between Malaysian (goreng pisang) and Brunei (cucur pisang). If the main article is still named "pisang goreng" like in the past, probably the merge is somewhat could be considered, but now it has globally merged as "banana fritter", thus national-based separation is actually warranted. The section is originally written about Indonesian pisang goreng and its diversity (prior of Malaysia/Brunei inclusion). That explain the great elaboration of fried banana culture and variation in the country. The references is also overwhelmingly refer to Indonesian version. There is no need of merger only based upon the similar name. If your argument was based on similarity of its ingredients and process etc., thus does it means all of Southeast Asia (Thai, Philippines, Viet) should be merged into one as well? I say we should honour national-based separation. You are welcome to expand the Malaysia-Singapore-Brunei section by the way, so you can demonstrate how popular and diverse this fried banana dish is in your country. Oh yeah, I'm gonna move this discussion to Banana fritter talkpage, to invite others' opinion as well.Gunkartatalk10:59, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
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.
Hi Gunkarta, I want to open a discussion with you about discussing the names of Mataram and Medang.
First, i want to correct that the mention of "Rakai Mataram Sang Ratu Sanjaya" is found in the Mantyasih inscription, not the Canggal inscription.
The name Mataram in the inscription does not refer to an administrative area (capital city). In the inscription the name Mataram is referred to as "bhumi". The following is the arrangement of sentences on the inscription and the name of the royal capital, namely: Mamratipura, Poh Pitu, Tamwlang, Watugaluh
kaḍatwan i mḍaŋ i bhūmi mātaram i mamratipura (Shivagrha / 856 AD)
dewatā prasiddha maṅrakṣa kaḍatwan śrī mahārāja i bhūmi i mātaram kita (Wuatantija / 880 AD)
rahyaṅta rumuhun ri mḍaŋ ri poh pitu rakai mataram saŋ ratu sañjaya (Mantyasih / 907 AD)
kaḍatwan sri maharaja bhūmi mātaram kita pinakahurip niŋ rat kabaih (Turyan / 929 AD)
śrī mahārāja makaḍatwan i tāmwlaŋ (Turyan / 929 AD)
śrī mahārāja makaḍatwan i bhūmi mātaram i watugaluḥ (Paradah / 943 AD)
Of the many inscriptions found, the name Mataram is always mentioned as "bhumi" (royal territory) while the name Medang is referred to as "kadatwan" (kraton/palace). If Mataram is defined as a region (capital city) it is wrong. Because the name Mataram is always mentioned on the inscription.
Look at the same case regarding the names of the Janggala Kingdom and the Kadiri Kingdom:
The names of Kadiri and Janggala are referred to as the bhumi region, in the epigraphy bhumi means the king's territory. Syzyszune (talk) 04.43, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi @Syzyszune:, thank you for discussing. I think your argument is quite reasonable and interesting. Maybe you should also brought this Mataram/Medang naming issue to the article in Wikipedia Bahasa Indonesia. However, it is commonly known that the name Mataram has been associated with the region of the present day Yogyakarta (areas of Sleman regency, Muntilan subdistric, Yogyakarta city, and Bantul regency), thus linked with that region as the original area toponymy, as initially the location of the kadatwan/palace/center of administration can be warranted. I think both opinions of naming the kingdom as Mataram or Medang should be kept in the text, while adding your additional infos to back the argument that Mataram is actually bhumi that cover all king's realms as far as East Java. I'll move this talk to the article talkpage to invite wider response, cheers.Gunkartatalk08:58, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I adapted your Greater Jakarta LRT lines map from Greater_Jakarta_LRT_Lines.svg to Jalur_LRT_Jabodebek.svg. I noticed that your map is outdated so I updated it, I removed the proposed line and the phase 2, 3, and 4 line. The adapted map is created for id:LRT_Jabodebek. Before I insert it to the page, I would like to inform you before hand and ask if you could check the file, I'm worried that I haven't given you the appropriate credit.
Mika.flowisch (talk) 03:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Odds on this being yet another sock? Likely of Awanama? Nationalist editing on regional Southeast Asian dishes to bring primary focus on Malaysia while putting down other countries, clashing with many other users/socks, etc. I note that some of their edit summaries are being deliberately misleading as well. 59.28.238.139 (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, we are seeking help with the Sarah Azhari article, created in 2013 & recently the subject of a deletion proposal. At issue was whether or not the Indonesian language sources establish notability. I am inviting you to the discussion at Talk:Sarah Azhari#Help with Indonesian language sources because you are in the Category:User id-N & have a minimum of 1,000 edits across all Wikimedia projects.
I realize that some of you are very busy while others may no longer be editing. Nevertheless, I thought it wise to consult with you.
I asked you to discuss it because I see that you're quite active in Commons and also have a concern about the factuality of the information presented on the page Chola Navy. Surijeal (talk) 03:15, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Gunkarta, can you explain why you added the route of the Javanese attack to Vietnam on the Sriwijaya map?
The Champa inscription explicitly mentions "Java" not "Srivijaya". The opinion that Srivijaya was the polity that attacked Vietnam in my opinion is conjectural, because the supporters did not know that the Javanese kingdom (Medang/Mataram) at that time was also a kingdom with sea power, even being able to blockade Srivijaya for several years. They thought that Srivijaya was the only kingdom in the archipelago that had sea power, so they assumed that the attack on Vietnam recorded by the Champa inscriptions was carried out by Srivijaya.
It is an appealing, but simplistic narrative that in the first millennium, "Yavadvipa" (and related forms appearing ancient chronicles) exclusively referred to the island now known as Java. There is however a long-standing scholarly discussion about the location of Yavadvipa which shows that things are not that simple [4][5]. –Austronesier (talk) 10:47, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware that the word is used for a wider place in the past, but the information presented does not refute my previous argument, and it lends credence that the Srivijaya–Vietnam expedition was only conjectural.
There is no evidence that can prove, positively, that the one mentioned in Champa texts was a polity that was located in Sumatra, be it Srivijaya or Malayu kingdom. Even if the dotted line is considered as joint Java-Sumatran expedition, it would be strange that it does not appear on the Javanese kingdom (in this case Medang/Mataram) map, as for now it only appear in the map of Srivijaya. Verosaurus (talk) 21:43, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear that the supporters of Sriwijaya started from the theory of George Codes in 1920 who first called Sriwijaya a kingdom and we know that in modern times this theory is misguided.
If you read any inscriptions or external records about assaults, robberies or relations exclusively refer to the mataram (Yawadvipa, Chvea, Shepo, Chopo or Chao-wa, Jawi, Jawah or Zabag).
Meanwhile, if you read inscriptions or external notes that only contain learning about Buddhism or ask to become a vassal to China in order to get protection exclusively refer to Srivijaya (Thiripyisaya, Sanfoqi, Srey Vichey, Siwichai, Sri Vijayam, Suvarnabhumi, Suvarnadvipa).
Let me put it straight, yes the map was drew and uploaded by me but it was redrew from the book written by Munoz "Early Kingdoms of the Indonesian Archipelago and the Malay Peninsula" page 128. So it was based on that book. Munoz argued that at that time Sailendra was the head of Srivijaya and during Dharanindra (King Indra) Sailendra of Java also the Maharaja of Srivijaya, thus Mataram of Java and Srivijaya in Sumatra were belongs in one political entity.Gunkartatalk12:59, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gunkarta: Currently, I have no access to Munoz's book, so I couldn't verify what's written there and what reference he's using. And I can't check what primary source (inscription etc) that supports the claim, or whether the claim is conjectured or clearly stated in the primary source. I suggest you join the discussion about the Srivijaya kingdom on the talk page. It's possible that he used an older reference or using a reference that was published before the discovery of the Wanua Tengah III inscription in 1983. The Nalanda inscription explained that Balaputra (Maharaja of Suwarnadwipa) was the grandson of the king of Java (read: not the king of Srivijaya who ruled in Java) Verosaurus (talk) 22:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have access to Munoz's "Early Kingdoms of the Indonesian Archipelago and the Malay Peninsula". On page 128, there is a map of the supposed raids/expedition, but the one that pointed points to Vietnam was marked with "Raids?" indicating the author's uncertainty about the event and the perpetrator. The territory of Srivijaya presented in your map is incorrect: I can see that you're using the map on page 141: That map is more appropriate for showing Sailendra dynasty influence. The context of that map is for showing the Jayavarman expedition from Java to Cambodia. A more appropriate map for Srivijaya territory would be on page 118 (see), with the main area centered in Sumatra + some part of West Java (darker hue). And the area on this map doesn't fully block out the whole of Sumatra and the Malay peninsula like on your map, only several hundred kilometers from a certain city. The suzerainty of the 2 northmost territories is dubious: Lavo seems to be conjectured from its submission to Tambralinga, while Indrapura on Cambodia follows the narrative of Zabag kingdom story that was told by Arabs. This Zabag may or may not be referring to Srivijaya. From the description of other Arabs people, Zabag may refer to Java in terms of geography. @Gunkarta:. Verosaurus (talk) 14:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
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.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Setiabudi 13 case until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Hi Gunkarta, I see that this file that you made showed Brunei as being part of Srivijaya. What is the source of this? Both Malay and foreign (Javanese, Indian, etc) sources did not mention Brunei as being a part of Srivijaya. It is too included the Natuna island as being part of Srivijaya—while the island itself was not recorded or known during Srivijaya era. Also, you included some territories on the Mekong river and Bangkok as part of Srivijaya, can you provide the source for that? AFAIK the territories near the Mekong would be Mataram territory, it is attested in the textual and archaeological sources that the Cambodian Khmer empire was once a part of Mataram, and Java also attacked Vietnam several times. Furthermore, it extends the history to the 13th century, while the last epigraphical record of Srivijaya came from Tanjore inscription of 1030/31, which mentioned Chola invasion of 1025 (11th century). Singhasari and Majapahit sources did not record Srivijaya, the expedition to Sumatra was called Pamalayu, that is, the expedition to Malayu kingdom in Sumatra.
The gif could be reworked. In the Majapahit expansion gif that you made, you added some annotation/description about territorial changes and the year. Since the file name is "Srivijaya expansion", it should have ended in 1025 CE. Malayu could get its own .gif file. Surijeal (talk) 14:59, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. LizRead!Talk!02:53, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Hello! The article Rawon, to which you contributed, has been proposed for the meta:Translation of the week project. If it's chosen, it will be translated into several more languages than the ones it is available in right now. If you'd like to vote so this happens, you can do it here. Otherwise, you're free to completely ignore this message. Thank you for your time and work! --Brunnaiz (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nice article! Although Ref 7's link does not seem to be functional, would appreciate an updated link. Good job and happy editing!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Justiyaya}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Thank you for writing the article on Wikipedia! I genuinely appreciate your efforts in creating the article on Wikipedia and expanding the sum of human knowledge in Wikipedia. Wishing you and your family a great day!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
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.
User:SandyGeorgia has nominated Borobudur for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Anonymous related tip: some user named Northheavensky has been constantly edit warring on Nusantara food and cultural articles like Megat reverting previous edits without any reason even though they were improvements on information like editor names or fixing problematic grammar. 2001:E68:5409:92F8:2975:8594:A377:59E1 (talk) 03:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gunkarta,
I am impressed with your graphics, specifically your maps of Indonesia. I'd like to discuss commissioning you to produce a series of maps for a new book. Could you please provide an email address for contact.
Regards, MR Mr22020 (talk) 11:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=link}
-- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 19:26, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Rice production in Indonesia into Rice. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., 
Please stop your disruptive editing. Your recent edits seems to led to edit war, especially regarding food and cuisine article between Indonesia and Malaysia topics. Sure you can add well referenced source to back your claim and argument. However, often you just delete other competing references that do not suit your intention, agenda or argument, and just push your oppinion or argument. That is not how we conduct our works here in wikipedia, we strive for consensus and mutual understanding. Reverting articles multiple times just like you did is considered as a violation, especially 3RR. Please try to address the issue in talk pages of each articles. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Gunkarta talk 10:55, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did at List of oldest continuously inhabited cities, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. One of your sources fails WP:RS, the other doesn't back your claim which is also not made in Jakarta. Doug Weller talk 13:47, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
