User talk:Drono

Welcome!

Hello, Drono, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  — Kimchi.sg | Talk 09:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, Drono! Glad you've gotten accustomed to Wikipedia.

I noticed you helping to clean up Talk:Democracy which is great! Only problem... you changed the page to a redirect and mis-wrote the move. Don't worry, I got it straightened out for you (mostly)...

Anyway, if you find you need to do a page move, don't put the http://etc/etc in the name please, just "Talk:Democracy" or whatever. If there's an archive header (like there was) make sure you preserve it on the new talk page and add a link (not a redirect) to the newly created archive page in the format of the original. Take a peek at what I did to the talk page, it might be a bit more clear than my explaining it! :D

Don't feel bad, we all make mistakes from time to time!

~Kylu (u|t) 02:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya! I got your message on my talk page. It's not the fact that you did a move that was the problem, it's how you did the move. When you do a move, it asks you for the name of the page you want to move it to. Understandably, you put it in as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/Talk:Democracy/Archive_8 ... well, you can't archive to a different website, right? :D

Basically, what you want to do is put in the wikipedia name of the target page. Like, your user page is User:Drono and your talk page is User talk:Drono. To move User:Drono to User:Drono/old you'd type in User:Drono/old in the "Move to" box. Okay? In the case of the Talk page, you'd wanted to have put "Talk:Democracy/Archive 8" in the "Move to" box. :)

~Kylu (u|t) 02:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please respect Wikpedia. Large scale blanking and deletion of sources can be considered vandalism.Ultramarine 05:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you and User:Ultramarine have been reverting back and forth recently on the Democracy article. Could you please use the Talk page to discuss this in more detail and hopefully either reach some agreement, or briefly set out your reasoning so others can help develop a consensus? Having the article continually flip-flop between two editors' wording is undesirable. David Oberst 16:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you insist that your definition is the correct one? It is mentioned in Concpetions in the article, but again, there is no consensus that it is true. The Communist states defined democracy differently, for example. Ultramarine 21:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, for example the Communist states defined democracy differently, like the German Democratic Republic.Ultramarine 21:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond on the talk page of the Democracy article, I have created a new section there.Ultramarine 21:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Democracy was never based on equality and is not to the current day. Voter eligability rules apply and equal power of eligabible voters need not be equal and historically have not been. Today a clear example is shareholder votes but in times past it was based on property or taxes, or ability to read, nationalit, race, and gender. Stratvic 06:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is nonsense. Shareholder votes is a completely anti-democratic practice. Voter eligiblity rules serve to reduce the group among which democracy is exercised. Democracy is basically the rule of equality of political power - all other meanings are derived from this idea. --Drono 05:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your idea of democracy is based on the ideology of equality. This is a totally seperate idea to democracy. Democracy is based on majoritism and the basis of that majority can be anything determined in the rules that are accepted. That could be one man one vote, one household one vote, one acre one vote, or one share one vote. The eligability rules and the basis of the vote are determinable by those who agree to be subject to the result of a democratic proce (the process of determining a majority. It is the process of determining the result that is democracy.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Stratvic (talk • contribs)

That is not true. Democracy refers to voting citizens, not voting dollars. A person with €10⁶ has more ability to buy shares than someone with €1000, which means that it contradicts the principal of "one person, one vote." 72.139.119.165 12:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i finally managed to get some respectable wikipedians to pay more attention to the article and they've really fixed it up i also made a few changes which i think you would agree with... ultramarine had backed off for some reason and letting the changes stand. please read the discussion for a bit of a laugh and feel free to edit Boldly specially if you have access to any reference textbooks or other academic sources chao.  :) Esmehwk 00:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drono. More have been added on the this particular view of what democracy is in the article. But please note that Wikipedia:NPOV states: "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant published points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions."

So please do not assert in the intro that your preferred view is the correct one. If you want to discuss this further, please do so in the talk page of the democracy article.Ultramarine 10:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well done for writing some solid material for Polyarchy.

Most of the stuff you didn't know what to do with doesn't seem to be backed up by authoritative sources so I've deleted it. Also added a little interesting stuff that came up during the source check, and tidied up. The stuff about the Netherlands was in fact relevant, though presented in a confusing way because of that other stuff. I've outlined some areas where work is still needed. Ireneshusband 12:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read Wikipedia:3RR. If your revert again, I will report you.Ultramarine 17:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond on to my comment on the talk page of the democracy article. I would prefer to resolve this without having to report you.Ultramarine 17:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

, 24 hours Rlevse 23:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I assume I am the target of the sockpuppet remarks here, I believe you owe me an apology. - David Oberst 21:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd. Why would you assume this? --Drono 03:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock of 76.199.101.205apparantly resolved. No admin action taken please repeat the template if you get blocked later Request handled by: Spartaz Humbug! 17:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I can't locate your block, are you pasting the exact message you are receiving? -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find your block on the IP or name either. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was blocked yesterday, but I am fine today. Thanks. --Drono 17:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drono. I saw your comments about this anastrophe bunch and I am equally incensed against them as you are for their stalinesque approach to Wikipedia. Any way we can get a campaign going to highlight this? Perhaps we can start something on the DC discussion page to highlight this matter to the general Wikipedian community? Ivankinsman (talk) 18:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Jyb.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Dunning–Kruger effect, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions.

This has come up before: the paragraph you edited is a list of comparisons drawn by Dunning and Kruger themselves, or by academics writing about their paper. Wikipedia editors shouldn't chip in with their own additional observations - this would be original research. McGeddon (talk) 16:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Hello, Drono. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Drono. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Drono. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Alfred Vagts, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page or move it yourself. SSSB (talk) 12:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

no sources?

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Alfred Vagts and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Alfred Vagts, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 12:22, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Drono! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Theroadislong (talk) 12:22, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Vagts, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can 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.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

K.e.coffman (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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. If you wish to participate in the 2020 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) 01:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Human Rights Watch, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blast. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]