User talk:Indrwncnslt

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to 2019 Indonesian general election. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Please stop making these changes. Davidelit (Talk) 12:09, 20 April 2019 (UTC).

Thank you very much for your concern, Davedelit. I have been enjoying Wikipedia for many years and use it as (sometimes) the main reference for my study. I really want to support the neutral point of view of the Wiki, as you described. Therefore, I tried to improve its content by adding several descriptions on the article. I used all authentic references to support the addition (not from my personal point of view). However, if you see the additions are likely to be a comment rather than a critical explanatory addition, feel free to revert it. Among my previous addition, as you may have seen, I tried to add two additional descriptions that I consider the most critical parts that can improve the article at its current form (specifically to that section). Without that, the article seems to be a slide from a fairly professional writing product informing the actual situation of the topic. Thank you. Indrwncnslt (talk) 22:39, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. Juxlos (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Juxlos, thank you for your kind words although it is unlikely to be considered as a welcoming greeting for a new user of Wikipedia like me. I am not sure whether you are able to read my previous message that raises the issue of neutral point of view – the point which was actually presented by Davedelit. Among my other previous edits that you have accepted without any issue at all, there are two edits that you cannot tolerate at all: 1)	The edit regarding the incomplete description that you described in the text: “During debates on agrarian land reform, Jokowi pointed out Prabowo's ownership of 340,000 hectares (840,000 acres) of land, (and lately you added) - which Prabowo stated he was willing to return to the state.

What is the point you want to make for this description? Since the description including the reference used for supporting this sentence can be misleading especially for those who did not get the chance to see this debate. The edit that I tried to propose aimed to complete the sentence and provide more accurate information by adding “Responding this, Prabowo admitted it and stated that the land status is under public use right that can be returned to the government anytime when needed” using a more descriptive reference (not a provocative one). Therefore, adding the land status of public use right (HGU) for this sentence is important for the public to differ it with the personal land (i.e. private property).

2)	The edit presenting to describe that “Most quick count results places Jokowi ahead of Prabowo by around 10 percentage points; [121] however, both sides have claimed victory.

Although you have accepted my first edit for the second part of this sentence, the first part of the sentence is totally misleading since it does not explain how much the total sampling for the quick count. Therefore, a description to complete this sentence must be added. Otherwise, public will not get an accurate information, leading to a misconception that the winner of the quick count based calculation will be likely the president. The fact is that there are more than 810,329 polling stations (you accepted again my edit regarding this in the previous section) while quick count typically uses around 2,000 sample with the reference given.

Finally, if you want to proceed your warning by blocking my access for Wiki, please feel free to do so, if you think you have the right to do it. However, as far as I understand, Wikipedia is an open source basis where the accuracy and quality of information inside are taken care of by its community, thus, making Wikipedia can stand over time till now. If you want to present something related to your personal way of thinking, or even do a supporting campaign for a candidate, I think using Wikipedia is not appropriate. Instead, you can use other forms of media such as newspaper. Thank you.Indrwncnslt (talk) 04:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is based on sources, not opinions. Almost no sources (except Prabowo's campaign team) state that quick counts are unreliable, and you have demonstrably attempted to force that viewpoint on the article. If you wanted to make the edits, discuss them with other editors - provided you're even willing to considering you said reverting is fine and then doing the exact same edits 7 times. Juxlos (talk) 06:35, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to 2019 Indonesian general election. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Your edits are pushing a particular point of view. Please stop adding them to what is already an over-long article. Davidelit (Talk) 06:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)