User talk:Drono

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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:

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)

Contents

[edit] Moves and redirects

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)

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)

[edit] Recent edits

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

[edit] Democracy see-sawing

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)

[edit] Definition of democracy

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)

Again, for example the Communist states defined democracy differently, like the German Democratic Republic.Ultramarine 21:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Please respond on the talk page of the Democracy article, I have created a new section there.Ultramarine 21:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Success!

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)

[edit] On Democracy

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)

[edit] polyarchy

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)

[edit] 3RR

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

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)
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)

[edit] Apology requested

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)

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

[edit] Block

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)
Hi, I can't locate your block, are you pasting the exact message you are receiving? -- lucasbfr talk 11:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I can't find your block on the IP or name either. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

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


[edit] Dick Cheney article

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)