User talk:Daeron

May 2015
It seems somebody just tried to hijack my account. Hopefully they will not succeed in using this account as a sock-puppet. Daeron (talk) 03:17, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

October 2012
You have been pushing your ideas about Indonesia and Western New Guinea for over 7 years, and in that time it seems as if you have always focused upon those who choose to challenge your edits, rather than the content itself. (your contributions, your user page and talk page histories can be blanked but they are still there and are adequate evidence of this)

You might just happen to be wrong? No need to go to Jimbo and complain, it just shows you have no idea how wikikpedia works if you ever try that one again. Just listen to those who have to waste their time reverting your edits.

This time, if you keep it up as you have in the past, I would suggest to other editors who have to cope with your style - a process of getting you to (a) desist (b) stop focusing on others and accusing them of things  (c) try to learn that after 8 years you are not going to change the content of wikipedia through your behaviour.

WP:AGF, and all the rest of the templates that can be invoked, can be misused as much by you for your purpose as others who are trying to get you to understand other points of view.

SatuSuro 02:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Melanesia
Template:Melanesia has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Bgwhite (talk) 23:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

History of Indonesia
Hi. I reverted your edit to this page. I don't understand what you types, and the URL you gave is dead - it leas to a UN page with the text, "There is no document matching your request Pas de reponse a votre demande". Please don't add content unless it is clear and cited. Regards Davidelit (Talk) 15:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi again. I'm afraid I still don't understand what your edit means. Would it be possible to add an explanation? Regards Davidelit (Talk) 07:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It might look like vandalism if I have to write an explanation addressed to you in the article. Perhaps you could explain what you are having trouble understanding? I hope you may agree that the article is meant to be about the "History of Indonesia" and not "Theories of Indonesian History", and therefore where possible should contain facts in preference to theories. Facts are things like the Dutch in 1946 told the United Nations (see Assembly resolution 66) that the Netherlands was legally required to perform the functions of UN Charter article 73e in relationship to the Netherlands East Indies, which article 73e says is a "sacred trust" with purpose until the territory has a "full measure of self-government".

"self-government" = independence or whatever else your people decide they want to do which is what the word "self" is referring to. Its a concept people in other parts of the world have heard of from the UN Charter article 1 that its purpose is also to "develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples". That's what the Netherlands in 1946 has declared and legally locked itself into for Indonesia; the Church and other business owners might be pissed off and try to get get public support to demand the Hague undoes this commitment, but that is not an option allowed by 73e. And there's Sukarno who might not want the Javanese to be allowed to design their own government or vote for their own choice of leaders. Currently the article includes theories alleging the Netherlands had a unspoken policy never to allow independence, which have been popular theories for a long time and still are popular (especially in Indonesia); but including that theory should not be reason to exclude the fact that the Netherlands made a legal commitment about Indonesia at the United Nations in/from 1946.Daeron (talk) 10:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thanks for responding. I don't understand the following:


 * "transmit data" - what data? Transmitted by what and to whom?
 * "fulfill “sacred trust” and decolonisation requirements of the ‘’Charter of the United Nations article 73‘’" - what does "sacred trust" mean in this context, and what are the "decolonisation requirements"? How is this relevant to the history of Indonesia?
 * I'm afraid this isn't clear to anybody without knowledge of the relevant articles of the UN charter, and appears not to follow WP:RKN. Regards Davidelit (Talk) 04:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * By end of World War Two most people thought slavery and owning people was not a good thing, that nations should not loot colonies or commit genocide for fun and profit ; so the governments agreed to adopt a new law called the "Charter of the United Nations" in which a colony or "non-self-governing territory" is NOT property that the foreign colonial power owns, it is a "trust" that the colonial power is "administrating" for benefit of the local colonial people until they are able to administrate their own affairs. What you call "Indonesia" from 1945 was the beneficiary of the "sacred trust" that the Netherlands admitted in 1946 it had, a trust to ensure that the local Javanese people would be able to rule their own affairs.Daeron (talk) 05:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

My revert of your manual of style ediit
You should not have templated me. I reverted you with an edit summary reading "Not an improvement IMHO, please take this to the talk page" and instead of doing that you template me. You also ignored the message on the page saying " Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page." That was a substantive edit with both content and grammar issues. Additionally, I have no idea why you used the word "garrulous" which means "talkative, loquacious, voluble, verbose, long-winded, chatty, chattery, chattering, gossipy, gossiping, babbling, blathering, prattling, prating, jabbering, etc". Doug Weller talk 18:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Question
I asked a question here about the March 2020 ANI discussion. I know it's irritating but it is ancient history as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Given your level of activity it might not be worth pursuing the matter but I will see what responses occur. Johnuniq (talk) 05:12, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. To be honest after the edit war business (you have no idea how many times they moved & renamed & did other weird stuff to the Papua related pages), the hussle with this editor who allegedly joined in 2006 was more than I could stomach. But irrespective whether I return to more regular editing, "daeron" is not an anonymous or random name but has been my Net handle since the 1990s and is a significant part of my public identity.Daeron (talk) 06:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, I see what you mean. Johnuniq (talk) 07:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * After looking at this a bit more, I see that a discussion is required. Examples of previous similar discussions are at this search link. I nominated the category for deletion here. If you post there, please be brief and calm without flowery language. Johnuniq (talk) 04:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Deletion pages are to discuss the merits of a proposal to delete a page. Talking about other editors and their edits suggests that you are the problem. Johnuniq (talk) 10:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks but I was only providing an alternate theory about the purpose of his category. As the category creator begins his reponse by commenting on my post to ANI and then "Daeron's contribs" and "his position on the articles", I get the impression he is still implying POV and likely other undesirable conduct on my part. If I am wrong that the creator's response is an on-going allegation, I do not understand why he then proclaims he has a "screen shot of the IP's" and invites others to undertake an investigation.


 * In short, he is still being unnecessarily disparaging about myself and my edits, I still refute his allegations. I suggest his category is due to a 'personality conflict' and despite his claim of ignorance that he knows whether his category is not supported by "Wikipedia policy".Daeron (talk) 05:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)