User talk:Vranak: Difference between revisions

Hi. Please think carefully before you post. If you are not 100% sure of your position, it will likely be refuted rather speedily. Vranak (talk)

I have reverted your edit to Edmund Hillary because he titled his autobiography "Nothing Venture, Nothing Win". If you have info which shows the motto was "Nothing Ventured, Nothing Gained" please revert me but include reliable sources. Cheers. Moriori (talk) 23:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok. I thought it was an all-too-literal translation from Latin. Seems grammatically incorrect -- but if that's the title, that's the title! Vranak (talk) 00:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you cannot provide science references, please do not post responses on the science desk. These edits only serve to make the signal-to-noise ratio on the desk worse. Nimur (talk) 01:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to tell you. I assume you recognize the limitations of the answer you gave, so I'll just leave it at that. Vranak (talk) 01:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At Everquest:

"It's so cynical to have it up front. EQ was a labour of love, more than a scheme to make money." - Since this isn't in the article, it isn't a problem, but... wp:OR, and I assure you the investors were in it to make money.

"whoever plopped this turd of a boilerplate down, please, get a life already" - please give a read to wp:no personal attacks

"Remove distracting boilerplate. It's just sitting there, looking ugly. No one has done anything to find sources and no one ever will." - Actually... you are incorrect. "ditto for this piece of crap. So ugly -- why put it there?" - While I sympathize, and agree with the removal (it was no longer true, there is now a source, your wording is far from ideal. The purpose for putting in "no source" tags is to encourage interested editors to source the content. And someone did. They just didn't remove the tag.- Sinneed 16:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just abhor the whole mentality of "there's no source, I need to put down a boilerplate" mentality. It's so facile and unhelpful. And I've seen so much of it, I have to let my frustration be known. I know all the facts are correct, and if someone doesn't, then they probably never played EQ, and should leave the article in the very capable hands of those who did (or do). Know what I mean?

As for the MO of the creators of EQ, it was a labour of love. The investors -- who cares about them? The first thing I see when I want to read about EQ is not how investors made their money back. So dry and boring and lifeless. The game is the topic of discussion, not the payment scheme. Christ almighty! Vranak (talk) 16:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"It's so facile and unhelpful." - It is neither. It cautions readers, and encourages interested editors.- Sinneed 16:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No no, a thousand time no. A boilerplate is a total cop-out. If someone has a problem, they need to either fix it, or let it stand. A boilerplate just needlessly confuses the issue. Vranak (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry you find the tags confusing. The consensus in the community, though, is that they are useful.- Sinneed 16:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are ugly and serve no actual purpose. You imagine that they warn and encourage, but really, they are just ugly and ruin the integrity of the article. They are, to be frank, a coward's tool. Shit or get off the pot. And leaving a boilerplate is just sitting on the pot. Vranak (talk) 16:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I don't think any further comment from me will be useful, so I have asked the community to comment at wp:WQA. 16:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

OK. Vranak (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you also removed the article tag. I have restored it, and opened a section on the talk page to reach wp:consensus to remove the tag.- Sinneed 16:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus conschmensus. What's right is right, and what's misguided is wrong. Vranak (talk) 16:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that what's misguided is wrong. Probably most everyone does. WP uses wp:consensus to determine what is misguided. - Sinneed 16:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like consensus gentium? It's not a valid argument, is the long and short of it. Vranak (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. I mean the document Wikipedia:Consensus. - Sinneed 21:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may be enshrined within a Holy Wikipedia Document, but it's still a fallacy. Just because the horde wants to believe something, that does not make it true. Vranak (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think you don't understand wp:consensus after all. Reading the document (boring boring boring, sorry) may help. wp:five pillars might help as well. "Wikipedia is not a democracy." If 100 people show up to a deletion discussion shouting "KILLIT KILLET KEELLET", and 1 person shows up and says "The content is supported by book A; newspaper articles B, C, D, E, and F. The content should be kept because is it wp:notable, wp:verfiable, and relevant." then the content will stay. Eventually.- Sinneed 21:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. But why are we talking about consensus anyway. If you insist on putting boilerplates up, I am not going to remove them immediately. Maybe in a month or two. I am tolerant. I just think that the information you want to be cited is uncitable. I think if we do things your way, there will be these ugly obtrusive boilerplates up forever and ever. So that's where I'm coming from. Vranak (talk) 21:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They may well be up forever. Or the content may be pared down to what can be sourced. Or they may be sourced to a history book, 20 years from now. Please join the discussion at talk:EverQuest, if you would like to argue for the deletion of the tag. Simply removing it under wp:IDONTLIKEIT would be vandalistic. Please don't. If you review my early editing history, you will find that I had a very similar conversation about the EQ article. Now I know a bit more about WP. There are many many fan/critic/MMOG sites with ENORMOUS amounts of fact, wp:OR, and opinion about EQ. Some are linked at the article. And that is where such un-sourced information belongs... rather than WP, which rests on the wp:five pillars.- Sinneed 21:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I feel that the desire for corroboration has gone too far here. I know all about EverQuest and can fill in all sorts of accurate information, but it's not written down somewhere, it's in the game itself. The point is -- unless somebody actually finds the information wrong, then why are we acting like it is wrong or might be wrong? And if there is an error, then it can be corrected. In short, the usual rules of establishing facts don't work well for this topic, because EverQuest exists, as a real entity, inside Sony's computers. And we cannot cite those, ever. This is an article that requires a measure of good faith and respect. And if that isn't warranted, then we'll fix it as we go. But we do NOT need the boilerplates, they do nothing but clutter and confuse. Vranak (talk) 21:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see your vision for Wikipedia, but it conflicts with the vision outlined in wp:five pillars.- Sinneed 21:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I have no interest in these Five Pillars. I have an interest in Wikipedia being as good as possible. Where there is conflict, the Five Pillars must accede. Vranak (talk) 21:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a community of people who choose to edit articles based on the vision outlined in wp:five pillars. I don't anticipate great success for you gaining support for changing the pillars to match your vision.- Sinneed 21:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in such affairs. I am simply saying that if the Pillars have their limitations, well we need to aware of them, and get past them, which you seem to have no interest in, or ability to do. It's either that or have a very threadbare, insufficient article on EverQuest -- or at least one filled with boilerplates. Yes? Vranak (talk) 21:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And besides, Wikipedia is NOT just people who support the Pillars. I for one think they are a useful tool, but that they, as I said, have their limitations. Reason must prevail. Saying "look at this article, it proves that I am right and you are wrong", is never sufficient. Vranak (talk) 21:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, it's not a personal attack, since no one knows who put it down. One would have to go to some lengths to look that up, and who really cares anyway. And anyway, if it was you, I do implore you to reconsider. See above for why. Vranak (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find your argument that since you don't know who you were insulting, it wasn't really an insult, to be facile. It seems clear you understand wp:NPA and wp:consensus. All the best. - Sinneed 16:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Vranak (talk) 19:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree Sinneed here. Unless you fix the problem in the template or there is no real problem (for example the person who added the template doesn't explain the problem and no one else agrees there is one or consensus is there isn't a problem), DO NOT REMOVE TEMPLATES. I don't care if you think they are ugly. Wikipedia is an encylopaedia, not an art project. If you think the information is inherently uncitable, then feel free to remove it and then remove the templates. The need for templates would of course be greatly reduced if people would actually cite information when they write it, would think carefully and put aside their biases etc, but no one is perfect or has unlimited time so articles end up with problems that someone has to fix. But if you do want to blame someone for ugly articles, you should direct that more at the people who create the problems resulting in templates, not the people who are trying to resolve someone else's mess. Ultimately we all want wikipedia to be the best encyclopaedia possible and sometimes that means templates when an article has problems. You don't need the five pillars to tell you that, simply common sense. Nil Einne (talk) 07:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think your position is tenable. It derives from an insistence on citatations. Mine is interested in the quality and thoroughness of the article. Which do you think is of higher importance? Because citation-focus is nothing but an OCD disorder, near as I can tell. Do you not trust the contributions of the authors? If not, fix it yourself! It's an amazingly simple concept that skips right past the whole 'lets have everything be redundant of some other webpage' approach. Do you not see this? Vranak (talk) 09:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not allow wp:original research (personal knowledge of editors).

The information in Wikipedia is *entirely* based on the content at the sources. The internet is filled with other sites, blogs, fan sites, etc., where personal knowledge is posted.

The trust in WP is that if a fact does not explicitly list a source, that the adding editor has one... and simply did not add it.- Sinneed 17:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sinneed. Stop. Take a deep breath. Now listen. There is no Wikipedia. There is you, and there is me, and there are millions of other editors. Please, stop referring to Wikipedia as a entity with real goals and objectives. Because it has no motives or biases. We need to work this issue out, you and I. And referring to imaginary entities is not helping at all. Do you understand? Vranak (talk) 18:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

irony - Asking a question... receiving a response... and saying "Stop"... then asking another question. All the best, and happy editing.- Sinneed 21:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in what you think is ironic, I want the EQ article to be nice and clean, and you're getting in the way of that. Vranak (talk) 21:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In no way whatever. Good day.- Sinneed 01:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a discussion about you on the reference desk talk page. You'll be more well received if you provide more sources to back up your assertions, and avoid making extraneous comments on the Reference Desks. Buddy431 (talk) 03:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I'm not even going to look. I know the routine. I know the issues inside and out and will not be discouraged by a few sticks-in-the-mud. Vranak (talk) 03:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The correct link is Here APL (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I refuse to even look at what is being said about me. I've been through this before, and all it will be is a mess of confused ideas about who I am and what my MO is. Anyway, I realize I may have been a little too free-wheeling the past couple days I think I have reigned it in a bit. Tell me if I'm wrong. Vranak (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only warning you will receive regarding your disruptive comments.
The next time you make a personal attack as you did at [[talk:EverQuest]], you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. "I don't see why you guys are being so obtuse on this issue" - since a personal message was not effective, apply an only-warning template. It is quite acceptable to disagree. It is not acceptable to insult. We are not obtuse, we are, possibly, wrong. - Sinneed 17:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack? It's an attack on your priorities and way of going about things, not on you. Anyway I suggest you clear your head up, so that 'personal attacks' do not cause you to make 'personal threats' against a user with nothing but good intentions. And besides, I stand behind my comment. Do you know the definition of 'obtuse'? [1] Vranak (talk) 17:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

" I suggest you clear your head up" - this is again, a borderline personal attack. Stop.- Sinneed 17:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. I will leave you to mind the EverQuest article in peace, though I strongly disagree with your approach, thought processes, and general adamancy that things stay worse than they need be. Vranak (talk) 17:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"general adamancy that things stay worse than they need be" - That would be your argument, not mine. I understand that you and I have different opinions about how to accomplish the goal of improvement, and indeed what constitutes improvement.- Sinneed 18:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So in the end, you are ok with boilerplates being all over this article, even though you have no reason to suspect that any information is amiss? Is this correct? Vranak (talk) 18:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No part of your combined statements/questions is correct, and cannot be answered.- Sinneed 18:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So tell me, do you think that there's any incorrect information in the article? Do you think it has the facts wrong? Vranak (talk) 18:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article talk on article talk pages. And that is not a useful approach.- Sinneed 18:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Such a dishonest approach." - This is, again, a direct, and unacceptable personal attack.- Sinneed 18:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well do you see my concern though? You bring in all these anonymous, faceless people who you say are 100% behind you, but where are they? Where are they, Sinneed? Please, just speak for yourself. Vranak (talk) 18:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, these are your statements and questions, and are unanswerable, as they are not correct. There are no faceless masses, and there is never 100% agreement.- Sinneed 18:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then, now we're getting somewhere. Like I said on the talk page, if you simply demand the tags be up, that's ok. But all this business about consensus and received wisdom does nothing for me. I want personal viewpoints, not sanctioned articles of the Wikipedia constitution. That does nothing for me. I know what the constitution-writing mindset is based off, and it's not a concern with correctness and truth, it's about power and control. And I don't like autocratic behaviour, one bit. Vranak (talk) 18:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Ok then, now we're getting somewhere." - based on your statements here, and on the article talk page, I don't see any progress. No one is saying the things you are talking about, but you.- Sinneed 18:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well at this rate I have seen all you have to say, and so I will leave you to what I see as a mistaken approach. Vranak (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On my talk page, you wrote, weirdly:

You know Sinneed, as I was taking a bath I was thinking about our little exchange yesterday. Perhaps I shouldn't have said you were being obtuse, but to jump right up to Defcon-5 and put a block warning template up on my page was a bit uncalled for as well. May I suggest that the next time someone gets your back up, you try to deal with it normally at first, before escalating to 'I'm going to block you if you don't stop'. Quite frankly, this is borderline abuse of your admin powers, and I have given thought to taking it up with those who can take you down a peg. Are we understood? Vranak (talk) 22:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

You say you are not an admin? Well why are you acting like you are then? Again, this is not proper conduct. Vranak (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

And for Pete's sake, just reply to this thread, not on my page, please. Vranak (talk) 23:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Above weirdness is noted. Irony again. All best, and happy editing.- Sinneed 01:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not weird in the slightest. It's a good thing I have a thick skin or I might consider that to be a personal attack. Anyway, how old are you anyway? I think a little more maturity and wisdom would be in order before you take it upon yourself to be a self-appointed custodian of anything, even a small thing like the EQ article. Vranak (talk) 01:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And seriously, you say you are not an admin, and yet you threatened to block me. Explain yourself. Vranak (talk) 01:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And why are you going on about irony? I don't care what you deem ironic. Your behaviour is unacceptable, and you need to understand why. Do you understand me? I will hold you to account for your loose moral standards. Vranak (talk) 01:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

warner:"WARNING YOU ARE ABOUT TO STEP ON A LANDMINE! DO NOT MOVE FORWARD! YOU MUST STEP BACK RIGHT AWAY! DANGER DANGER!!!!"

wernee:"HOW DARE YOU THREATEN BLOW ME UP!?! You are evile!"

warner:"..."

All the best, and happy editing.- Sinneed 01:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sinneed, how old are you? Answer me. This is not kid zone, this is the preeminent encyclopedia on the internet. You need to quit messing people around. Vranak (talk) 01:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One day, a man was on his way home from work. His wife called him on the cell phone, and said in a fearful voice "Honey, be careful, it's on the news there is a man driving the wrong way down the Interstate in the rush hour traffic!" He responds "ONE!?!?!? THERE'S THOUSANDS OF THEM!"

There are a number of us trying to provide you with honest input, right or wrong.- Sinneed 01:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's no use talking to you. I'm done. It's just not worth the trouble. Vranak (talk) 03:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't do this sort of thing again. While tinnitus may be the result of exposure to the OP's guitar, it may also be a symptom of a number of serious underlying conditions. Moreover, by explicitly discouraging the OP from seeing a doctor, he is much less likely to receive any sort of medical attention or guidance related to ameliorating further hearing damage or loss. It appears that your response also completely misapprehends the purpose, intent, and applicability of of the medical advice guidelines — and it does so after two other editors already correctly identified the post as seeking medical advice.

I have removed your post from the Desk in accordance with the medical advice guidelines, and I would discourage you from responding to questions on medical topics until you are more familiar with how we respond to requests for medical advice on the Reference Desk. In cases where you are unsure – or where your judgement seems to be in conflict with that of other editors' responses – I recommend strongly that you ask a trusted editor (or seek clarification on the Ref Desk talk page) before posting to the Desk. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ten, I think you are being absolutely ridiculous. What do you think the worst that could happen is? Seriously, think about that one. "Some guy on Wikipedia said I should play quieter but OW it still hurts to play OW I guess I will keep playing OW my eardrum just burst, but that's ok because someone on Wiki said it was ok as long as I played softer but OW I guess this isn't soft enough. OW OW OW. Oh well, my wife can sue Wikipedia when I die of an acute ear infection." I mean come on, you have to think in terms of plausibility. I despise petty prudence, and I don't mind telling you. It's so cowardly, weak-willed, and paranoid. It will not do. Your comprehension needs an overhaul. I will not sit here and listen to your preposterously overreacting logic, because it's so shallow and wrong-headed. I am very serious about this.

So in conclusion -- please, don't you do this sort of thing again. Are we clear, Ten? Vranak (talk) 15:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore the very notion of a 'trusted editor' is obscene to me. I trust each of you as far as I can throw you. I have seen some very sketchy logic and conduct in my five years as an RD regular. It's most unseemly and unacceptable. It's a pity I didn't have the gumption to stand up to you lot before, but now, I will take it no more. The insanity has to stop. You may consider me a moral crusader, and if you are not a moral person, you will have to answer for your wrong-headedness with me around. I cannot take any more of this fetid horseshit. Are we quite clear, Ten? And any of you other fine folk reading this. To quote Tom Petty - "I won't back down". Vranak (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]