User talk:Placeholderer

Welcome!

Hi Placeholderer! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 20:20, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

g'day from oz

I am a page watcher of Merbabu's talk page.

Some issues to offer you (on wiki - I would be very much more open off wiki)

first things first

queries in small text (says who, needs clarifying etc) need cleaning up

red links need to be cleaned up - either removed or redirect or actually create the articles

careful read of the larger paragraphs with limited refs - why? need more?

updating (some parts show legacy of being written ten to twenty years ago)

second things second

your personal capacity to deal with indonesian and dutch materials

if none - who to do you turn ask ?

very problematic but, your capacity to know of the problem of the same article in the indonesian wikipedia - where are the differences, why and how? (the javanese wikipedia even...)

selection of sources - are they accessible for reviewers or locked behind paywalls or simply not on line ?

seeking out editors with competencies that can give advice but do not have the capacity in terms of time to assist - some have long holidays between edits

third things third

in most cases GA reviewers know nothing about the subject before coming to the article

nuances of 'perspective' can be quite confronting - dutch, indonesian, ethnic groups in indonesia, in some areas of 'knowledge' are quite combatitive in their stances, and have historically remained so despite who has been at the helm in the ship....

overviews of recent scholarship are rarely up to date in the broader picture of south east asian history, anthropology, or other disciplines - in wikipedia articles.

the sense of 'catch up' in relation to scholarship is also quite interesting in the 'fashions' of western academic trends, and how they are able to fit contemporary indonesia for instance. In some cases articles have sources that are up to ten or twenty years old, and anything since is either avoided intentionally or unintentionally...

fourth things fourth

personally I am not showing my hand on anything here, and I have quite an intense personal dislike of the Ga process, nothing against those who do it from either side, and in many cases they end up doing a very good job - the reviewers and the editors - for me it is like watching the request for admin process - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship - no one needs to go through that sort of process, totally unreasonably time wasting to have deal with the issues

please dont let me discourage you, there are many very good things about the article, and what it does to explain the nederlands oost indies(https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Nederlandsch-Indi%C3%AB_Oud_en_Nieuw - was a monthly item that has important material, I discovered that it did not exist in commons or wikipedia as an article, so there are always black holes in the wikipedia material) - the material is there, and there is a vast untapped resource available at the least expected turn in strange places, it is the task of the enthusiastic editor to be able to tie it all in a way that ends up the possible GA that is aspired for.

I would recommend that you also ask other editors such as User:Dan Carkner and another resident of the country to your north - User:Crisco_1492 - both are serious and competent editors who might (or might complain to me for referring to them) have a minute or two to offer their input as to the veracity of the project

fit the fifth

The level of very careful thought about the aspiration is the general appreciation of the dutch institutions capacity to offer vast hoards of images and texts online, and current Indonesian tendency to do the same, it is as if potential reviewers think they cannot find the material online it might be valid. Basic problem, many books and many archival materials remain offline. The specific task of the editor who is working on the article - reviewer or contributor - is that there are indeed holes, and in many cases the books in national libraries are the last stop, which can be both frustrating and enthralling if you are fortunate to be in london, cornell, canberra, or jakarta.

sixth fit

It is just an encyclopedia article, not a lifes work or a phd for that matter, but... Well worth looking at how britannica explains from its perspective... But well worth not quoting from their article. I have probably explained too much, there is a lot more where that comes from! good luck! JarrahTree 08:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CTOPs notice: RUSUKR

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Russo-Ukrainian War. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

_signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AGF

A read wp:agf two, you should not add comments to the RFC question. Slatersteven (talk) 14:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that if you are forbidden from commenting in an RFC, you would have been forbidden from posting that comment. Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hello Placeholderer! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Being hushed, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 04:18, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hello Placeholderer! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Edits disjointed in heavily-edited article, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An off-topic aside regarding the Heritage Foundation

Looking at your comment I realized you may not understand the point I was rather obliquely making with the Sartre comment. The book I linked to: Anti-Semite and Jew is heavily focused on the question of the reliability of far-right agents in popular discourse. There's a rather famous quote in it that is widely used in discussion of the question of why far-right organizations are more likely to lie than nearly any other political agents. Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past. Now while this is the bon mot, Sartre spends most of an entire book picking apart how the far-right uses discourse to construct the identity of the subaltern. These ideas were subsequently expanded upon by Frantz Fanon in Black Skin, White Masks although Fanon was less interested in discursive play and was interested more in the element of the construction of subaltern identity by the oppressor. So, yeah, there's quite a lot of classic socio-political theory from some of the most significant and influential people in the contemporary canon that supports that the far-right lie. Constantly. Because they want to threaten and intimidate rather than persuade.

You know, like threatening to dox editors on an encyclopedia project for holding views they don't like. Simonm223 (talk) 17:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just think that a discussion about Heritage Foundation should talk about Heritage Foundation. I don't think a book written before it was founded is a good authority on its reliability Placeholderer (talk) 01:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. The same libidinal intensities that drive the Heritage Foundation were incredibly significant and contemporary in Europe during the first half of the 1940s. Simonm223 (talk) 19:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that we should deprecate sources based on other sources' libidos Placeholderer (talk) 22:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have misunderstood me... Simonm223 (talk) 16:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I could understand "If A is bad, and B is like A, then B is bad", but this source is just "A is bad" Placeholderer (talk) 01:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Executive Order 14169 has been accepted

Executive Order 14169, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Rusalkii (talk) 07:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for your work on Executive Order 14169

	Current Events Barnstar
	For well-written, well-contextualized, and neutral work on a contentious and rapidly-evolving topic. Thank you for writing Executive Order 14169! Rusalkii (talk) 07:53, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion

From your comments in the Russia-Ukraine war move discussion I guess you support the move. Is there a reason why you haven't !voted? FOARP (talk) 09:56, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to write a response saying stuff like "I'm not sure what I can say that hasn't already been said" and complaining that I just find the source-counting to be boring, but then I figured that I probably should give some !vote Placeholderer (talk) 13:00, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Placeholderer. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 14:45, 7 May 2025 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

— rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Indo Pak attack

I seen that you are persistently removing some content added by me. If the cnn source doesn't say no evidence as per you edit summary then what are the primary evidence which confirms that rafale jet is shot down ? Also there is no clarity on which high official told cnn about this? TheSlumPanda (talk) 19:33, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The source for the downing is already given. That source did not say there was no evidence for the downing. If other sources dispute the downing or say there was no evidence, by all means add some Placeholderer (talk) 19:40, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It means that if some source say something then it becomes automatically verified without any primary evidences or verified until any other source intervenes in that ? TheSlumPanda (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VERIFIABILITY does not require primary sources. Use of primary sources is limited on Wikipedia Placeholderer (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you got me wrong. I didn’t mean primary source i mean primary evidence, which would include verifiable physical wreckage (e.g., Rafale-specific parts with serial numbers), official crash reports from India or neutral parties, or corroborated footage of the incident. The anonymous French intelligence official’s claim to CNN is a potential primary source but lacks transparency, official backing, or corroboration. TheSlumPanda (talk) 19:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll clarify that my issue is with the qualification of the clear and verified sentence in the article body ("A high ranking French intelligence official told CNN that an Indian Rafale fighter jet was downed by Pakistan, the first combat loss of a Rafale") with (imo undue) text around who hasn't given statements or with unreferenced text that there is no evidence for the claim Placeholderer (talk) 20:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But No conclusive primary evidence—such as Rafale-specific wreckage with identifiable serial numbers, official crash reports from India or neutral parties, or authenticated footage—substantiates Pakistan’s claim of downing an Indian Rafale. The CNN report, citing an anonymous high-ranking French intelligence official, asserts one Rafale was shot down but lacks corroboration and transparency due to the source’s anonymity. Debris evidence, including a MICA missile and French-marked parts is inconclusive, as these are also used by India’s Mirage 2000 jets. India’s Ministry of Defence and PIB Fact Check deny any Rafale losses, asserting all pilots were safe, while fact-checks (e.g., India Today) identify viral wreckage imagery as misattributed to older crashes (e.g., 2021 MiG-21, 2024 MiG-29). The French official’s identity remains undisclosed, a common practice for sensitive sources, which limits the claim’s verifiability. Per Wikipedia’s WP:VERIFIABILITY, the CNN claim can be included but must be balanced with India’s denials and the absence of verified evidence, per WP:NPOV, to address your concern about undue qualifications. TheSlumPanda (talk) 20:27, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reiterate from other comments that the CNN report is absolutely separate from all claims of debris evidence, that France is a third party, and that CNN is a credible, independent source.

Per my edit summary, If this is disputed, disputing sources could be included. By all means, do add referenced details of India disputing the downing. Though I'll add that the Times of India article is the only one of the ones shared with me that describe the PIB fact check as rejecting more than just specific footage Placeholderer (talk) 20:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i am also saying this that we should also add this that india debunked these claims at that place TheSlumPanda (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "debunked claims" are the footage claims, though, not the French claim. Except in the Times of India article Placeholderer (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are right. But we can see the credibility of Pakistan high level government officials such as when their Defence Minister Khwaja in an CNN interview asked about giving evidence for their claim that they downed Indian fighter jets then he cited social media as his source and cnn also didn’t expected that reply as we can see in that interview (and we know that at this point of time there is huge misinformation on social media from both side citizens).TheSlumPanda (talk) 07:09, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's why it's relevant that France is a third party. Pakistani claims in a CNN interview would not be appropriate to put in the infobox except under "Pakistan claims" at this stage Placeholderer (talk) 15:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSlumPanda courtesy ping Placeholderer (talk) 15:06, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]