User talk:Vranak/archive one

Welcome!

Santa
Hi. Just so you know, that whole "Katie the kid" thing was part of a WP:POINT troll. See and the history in that area. --Justanother 00:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * *laughs* -- Yeah it seemed a bit fishy to me. Still, I'd hate to turn a kid off of Wikipedia at age six, so I replied in good faith. Thanks for the heads up though! Vranak 00:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Just for fun, here is the same troll with the same question. I like the "quantum mechanics" answer I found for "little Katie(age6)". See, we already did the AGF thing with this troll; you are just the next victim. No harm though. --Justanother 18:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Mmm -- I have to say that I am not overly fond of the term 'troll' -- I think its effect is generally to de-humanize a poster. Vranak 20:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, we can call "Katie" - "a grown-up human making repeated and disruptive posts for the purpose of enjoying tricking and upsetting others". Does that work better for you? (smile). --Justanother 21:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Getting 'tricked' isn't so bad (trick-or-treat) -- though being disrupted or upset most certainly is. As I am not too easily upset or disrupted by clever (or not-so-clever) internet subterfuges, I don't mind playing along with or for the 'trolls' so much as others may. :)  Cheers! Vranak 19:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Please cite
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Laura Prepon, but we regretfully cannot accept original research. Please find and add a reliable citation to your recent edit so we can verify your work. Uncited information may be removed at any time. Thanks for your efforts, and happy editing! --Yamla 18:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * See ; also added to Laura Prepon page. Cheers! -- Vranak


 * imdb is not a reliable source, sorry. --Yamla 18:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure, I understand! -- I will see if I can find a more reliable source. Thanks! -- Vranak 18:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well -- no luck. It's all over the internet, but there's no 'reliable source' per se. Still, I ask you: if this is not true, how did such a lie become so widespread? Vranak 18:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Back again?
This is CJ, yet again, right? Your editing pattern is remarkably similar... -- Scientizzle 22:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This is AK -- who is CJ? And who are you? Vranak

Please don't give medical advice
Please don't attempt to diagnose a medical problem or prescribe a course of action on Wikipedia, as you did here. While I happen to agree with your best guess, we should never be answering questions about an emergent medical condition; we also need to be particularly cautious when a minor is asking us questions.

Even if you qualify it with phrases like 'I am guessing', frankly, people don't read disclaimers. You honestly can't win at this game&mdash;even if you give a perfectly sound answer, confirmation bias will rear its ugly head and people will just read whatever they want to see into what you write. And next week, we'll have Jimbo Wales on the news, having to answer questions about "The little boy who's spending Christmas in a coma because he took medical advice from the armchair doctors at your encyclopedia".

I know you're just trying to help, but please be extremely cautious about these questions in the future. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand.


 * I made my diagnosis on the understanding that it was not an emergent medical condition, but rather a receding one. That said, I will not make this sort of mistake again. Thank you for your concern -- on my behalf, on the boy's, and on Wikipedia's in general. Cheers -- Vranak 23:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

To clarify
Just for clarity, I agree completely with your response to Vespine. I was suggesting removing it because it's a response to a comment I thought should removed, and the context would've been lost, not because I objected to it in anyway. -- SCZenz 16:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I understand completely. Thanks for swinging by just to clear that up though! :) Vranak

Just curious
Is there any evidence that a shiny blade looks scarier to animals than a shiny rifle barrel? (I ask here, in order to reduce chattiness at the ref desk). Friday (talk) 19:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've been menanced by ravens, and they only left me alone when I held up a pocketknife.


 * Also, look at it from their perspective: there's nothing about a gun that suggests what it's capable of. A thin, gleaming, shiny blade though, an animal understands. Sharp is dangerous.


 * Also, I saw a video of a lion charging a hunter, who shot at it. The lion was oblivious to the rifle, and it promptly died from it wounds as a result. And, when a gun is pointing right at you, there's not much to see of it. A blade held aloft really catches the eye, even at night. Vranak 19:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

User Friday
There is currently a motion to call User:Friday to re election as ad min. The petition is on his/her talk page. Your input is appreciated if you have the time 8-)--Light current 00:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for the heads up, but I must refrain from any political involvement at the present time. I don't want to make any enemies. Cheers and Merry ho-ho!  —Vranak→

Movie movie movie
That was a super funny edit summary, and just in time, too. All those movie questions were giving me a flare-up of my Chester A. Arthuritis. Excuse me, my microwave Johnny cakes are ready. Anchoress 22:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Haha!
 * Merry Christmas Anchoress. ———Vranak→
 * Thanks, cheers, ditto. Anchoress 22:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way... you have arthritis? Vranak
 * Um...no. Anchoress 06:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 'You have arthritis?' was of course Donald's response to Lisa's 'Chester A. Arthuritis' quip. :) Vranak
 * Yeah, I know. And 'Um... no,' was Lisa's response to him. Anchoress 21:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * How very embarrassing. Vranak

User talk:Vranak/archive one

Hello Vranak,

are you sure that your IQ is 71? That is not much, you know...

Mr.K. 18:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Use of phrase "OP"
Just to let you know, we try not to use terms like OP on the Ref Desk (although we're a bit more casual on the talk page), because many OP's don't know what an OP is: Reference_desk/Language. I've used those terms myself, but am trying to break the habit. StuRat 18:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have expanded OP properly to 'Original poster'. Thanks for the reminder. Vranak 21:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks ! StuRat 23:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not StonedBushby. :)


 * Sorry about that, a trouble maker used the same dynamic IP as you, I have set it not to autoblock, and only block StonedBushby and disable account creation. This should avoid problems in the future. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Feeding trolls
I'd ask you to revert this. Kjvenus is a frequent reference desk troll - his goal apparently to get people to fight about Arab superiority. Would you please consider removing your post, which will feed his desire to rile people up? Thank you. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 20:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Although I would not classify Kjvenus as a troll, I have removed my response regardless. I had overlooked the last part of the user's inquiry; the rather stark non-sequiteur regarding Iraq is indeed indicative of an insincere question. Cheers. Vranak


 * Thank you very much for removing the post. For my reasoning on his trollishness, I'd ask you reveiew, with special attention to , , and  among scores of others. Kjvenus' goal is to get into fights about race with other editors. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 21:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Kjvenus is certainly mischevious, I'll grant you that. I don't detect an air of malice or contempt in his trolls, however, which may explain why he or she has not yet been banned. Vranak

Speculation at the ref desk
Given your rather, err, outlandish views, I'd like to ask you to be extremely conservative in offering speculation at the ref desk. Friday (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm just trying to offer some backing reasons for my speculation. Not every mystery in the world needs to be solved with a microscope and a lab coat. Vranak


 * I have no desire to debate the merits of these opinions. I do have a desire to improve the ref desk though, and keeping speculation off of it is generally an improvement.  Please answer with references, not your own opinions.  Friday (talk) 19:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Would you call my assertion that people get colds more often in the wintertime an 'opinion'? Vranak


 * I have a chart you may be interested in. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * LOL — thanks. I'll assume this was meant in a convivial way. :) Vranak

Latest RD comment
You're right, you did deserve more courtesy from Hipocrite than you got. Perhaps I should've taken a stronger stand on that sooner. -- SCZenz 06:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have mixed feelings on this. Courtesy is expected, sure.  Some people look at the removal of someone's comment and say "That's discourteous."  However, some people would look at an attempt to use the science ref desk to promote junk science as discourteous.  If we go too far in promoting "tolerance", this can effectively turn into promoting inaccurate content.  The specific comment that was removed wasn't too far over the line, but some of Vranak's follow-up statements expressed some fringe views which would have no place on the science ref desk.  Friday (talk) 16:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Friday, could you do me the courtesy of not referring to my views as 'junk science'? 'Fringe' will do, since I introduced that term myself. Thank you. :) Vranak


 * Sure, I can do that. My concern is making sure we don't give undue weight to such fringe views.  I'd say that including them at all, on the science ref desk, is giving them undue weight.  Friday (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. :) And thanks for your support SCZenz. Vranak

On infections
(This isn't really relevant to the ref desk talk page, so I'm posting this here). You may want to read about Koch's postulates, some long-established standards relevant to the issue of how to know whether a virus or bacteria causes a disease. See also Chickenpox, a disease caused by Varicella zoster virus. I don't see it in the articles at a quick glance, but I think the mechanism by which this works is understood. Friday (talk) 00:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Vranak

It's not a pot-shot
I don't agree with your objection here. From my understanding of your own words, I also concluded that you don't believe in the germ theory of disease - but as you said, this isn't the place for that debate. However, this is the place to discuss people giving ref desk answers that are at odds with accepted explanations. If I start giving answers to physics questions in which I contradict all known physics, this is a problem. We're after reliable, accurate answers. It's not a pot-shot to point out actual problematic edits. You weren't even mentioned by name, and few people would know it was referring to you if not for you objection. Friday (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Next time someone refers to you as having 'the furthest extreme of medical ignorance', let me know how you feel. I am a sensitive soul and I make no apologies for that. Best regards, Vranak


 * I understand and I'm sorry you felt insulted. But you gotta look at this in terms of what's good for the project, not what makes any individual editor feel good or bad.  It's necessary for us to comment on edits- this isn't the same as commenting on the contributor.  Ten wasn't talking about you as a person- it was the nonacceptance of the germ theory of disease that he referred to as "the furthest extreme of medical ignorance."  Ask anyone familiar with medicine or microbiology and they may describe this view in similar terms.  We must be able to criticize someone's edits without it becoming needlessly personal.  So please don't take it personally. Friday (talk) 17:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Whatever, man. This is old stuff. I'll go back and remove the 'pot-shot' phrase. Vranak

You can't possibly be serious?
(This is off-topic for the ref desk, replying here.) You can't possibly be serious with this remark? Vandals don't act in ways contrary to the purpose of the project? Plenty of people you might call "wiki-fundamentalists" like to make things fun, too- there's nobody who's against people having fun here. Friday (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I know. The 'trolls and vandals' don't care what the cost of their 'fun' is. Vranak


 * Their own personal entertainment is not "the best interests of Wikipedia". We've had enough trouble with trolling, we don't need to encourage them.  Friday (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Look it at from a vandals' persective. They come to Wikipedia, make a little 'unproductive' edit. They get introduced to the 'law' and 'regulations'. They start to view the 'establishment' as a bit mean and stuffy. They don't like this: they think Wikipedia should be fun as well as informative. The cycle continues. Blocks, bans... maybe they come back, maybe they start using the term 'Wickedpedia'. Their behaviour is certainly not in 'the best interests of Wikipedia', but from their perspective they are just doing what comes naturally: challenging authority and skirting the rules. Their priorities may be different from yours and mine, but I question the idea that anyone really wants Wikipedia to devolve into crap and nonsense. That's what Uncyclopedia and Encyclopedia Dramatica are for. Vranak


 * BTW, you perhaps don't realize what you've stumbled into here, but you should absolutely refrain from describing this as some sort of class struggle. This is totally inaccurate, as well as a very harmful way for people to think.  There's been all manner of trouble lately involving people thinking that way.  Friday (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * We're both working towards the same goals, Friday. The standard mindset doesn't seemed to have worked very well -- there's as many problem editors as ever. Just trying to stimulate some new thinking. Vranak

HIV
We shouldn't necessarily be giving our amateur opinions on biology, but for what it's worth: my understanding of HIV immunity involves the CCR5 receptor. Basically, some people have a mutation that prevents the virus from attaching to the cell it might otherwise infect. HIV talks about this a bit as well. Also, from a strictly logical point of view, your position here doesn't make sense either. The fact that some group of people could be immune doesn't logically imply that the disease can't be caused by a virus. Friday (talk) 00:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Bleh, I'm tired of arguing... and please remember, all I'm trying to say is that understanding the environmental and lifestyle contribution to a disease is much more important than knowing which receptor interacts with which virus. I'm sure we can agree on this. Vranak


 * Tired of arguing? I was perfectly willing to let it drop, but then you continued giving your incorrect "opinions" where they don't belong.  If you don't want to be corrected, stop giving bad information.  I think it's best for the ref desk if you stop giving your own opinions and speculation on topics you clearly don't understand.  Friday (talk) 14:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I've assumed good faith as long as I can Friday. But I find your persistence to be bordering on outright hostility. This is notice that I will be ignoring any remarks I consider aggravating, including the above. If you can avoid couching your comments in hostile and confrontational tones I will be happy to work with you in the future. That said, I will use more discretion in what I say. Best regards, Vranak


 * I'm sorry to chime in here, but I just looked at the edit referenced above and I am utterly astonished; it doesn't appear to make any sense at all regardless of what you're "trying to say." Do you have a reference for a single word in the edit, Vranak?  -- SCZenz 14:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I came across a webforum that these individuals use. Searching for the term 'poz' might help; they used that phrase a lot. And yes it is quite an unbelievable phenomenon, so I understand your skepticism! Vranak

Sorry man. Please understand, if I seem like I'm "against" anything, it's incorrect information, not you personally, that I find objectionable. Friday (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it's cool. If I touch this whole 'disease' issue again with a ten-foot-poll, I'll try to provide much more compelling and closely-reasoned arguments; if I can't, I'll just keep quiet. Thanks. :) Vranak

An analogy
Saying that a particular virus, bacteria, or germ causes disease is like saying water is caused by hydrogen and oxygen. Water is hydrogen and oxygen. Disease is a virus, bacteria, or germ. I am more interested in where the water came from; why the virus started multiplying. Vranak


 * I think the problem is the use of imprecise layman's language. A chemist wouldn't say "Water is hydrogen and oxygen" and think this tells the whole story.  He could go into a bit more detail describing the water molecule - indeed, you cannot understand the chemist's view of water without knowing what molecules are.  In the disease example, the word a person in the field would use is pathogen- the pathogen is the virus or bacterium.  The disease is the medical condition itself.  People use the terms disease and pathogen because they have detailed meanings and are not the same thing.  So, phrases like "water is hydrogen and oxygen" and "disease is a virus" are sorta-right, as far as they go, but they're just way too vague to really be meaningful.  People who actually understand these things would describe them more accurately, using more precise language.  Friday (talk) 15:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Wrong and Right information
To conclude that information is wrong, one must know what is in fact right. And if one is in possession of the right information, why not share that, instead of simply rebuking wrong information?

Conclusion: do not declare information wrong, unless you can provide right information. Vranak


 * If one is making things up, one should have a reason to believe it is correct. This is the essence of verifiability and requires reliable sources.  There exist false statements for which there is no specific source that states the opposite; that's why people should be able to verify claims they make that appear dubious to others.  Furthermore, sharing the right information also, as though reliable facts and false statements are equally valid views, is detrimental to readers (on the reference desk or in articles) because it leads to arguments and confuses the issue.  It is also possible for me to know (or have reason to believe) that a statement is wrong even if I don't have the details to give the right answer&mdash;for me to take no action toward correcting the situation would be irresponsible, even though I can't provide the ideal solution.  -- SCZenz 10:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't agree with this Vranak. If I see a statement about biology (my area of expertise) that I have not heard about before (and this is quite common) the first thing I do is to search for the source. With databases such as PubMed it is very easy and usually fascinating. If I can't confirm the information, I agree if there is one easy source that disputes the claim then it is fine to expect such a source to be given. But such sources are not always available. If i cannot find a source, then what? Often it is not so simple to find a source that proves a comment is wrong. There may be a body of evidence that suggests it is wrong, but that involves writing a mini essay to state a case for why is probably not valid. For these reasons the onus should be on those making a best guess to research their comment before hand or not post their best guess. To expect others to clean up the mess with mini essays seem unreasonable to me. David D. (Talk) 16:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

HIV
I'm restoring this section of archived conversation, because I wish to reply to your comment:
 * I'm sorry to chime in here, but I just looked at the edit referenced above and I am utterly astonished; it doesn't appear to make any sense at all regardless of what you're "trying to say." Do you have a reference for a single word in the edit, Vranak?  -- SCZenz 14:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I came across a webforum that these individuals use. Searching for the term 'poz' might help; they used that phrase a lot. And yes it is quite an unbelievable phenomenon, so I understand your skepticism! Vranak
 * I searched for poz. It's a general term for people who already have HIV, and the most common use of the word is in regard to support and services for HIV positive people.  Since I still see no information regarding men who are trying to get AIDS, if you had made that comment on the reference desk proper I would now remove it pending some kind of verification.  If you are going to make claims that look "unbelievable" in the future, please provide references; otherwise you do the reference desk a disservice. -- SCZenz 11:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * . Search for "bug parties" or "bug chasers". -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 14:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've heard of these bug chasers- I don't think it's common, but people do talk about it. That part of the post didn't worry me.  I was more concerned over the implication that because some people are immune, the disease must not be caused by the virus.  There's no logical way to reach this conclusion.  AIDS is a serious illness, and we absolutely should not be giving out bad information about how it works.  People have enough wrong ideas without us contributing to them. Friday (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Friday, SCZenz, CC, David
Perhaps we could find common ground with Traditional Chinese medicine. Have a read if you haven't already, and tell me what you think. :) Vranak
 * Common ground in respect to the article or the art of traditional chinese medicine? I have contributed to the homepathy article which i think is too long but a good read. On the other hand i don't agree that homeopathic remedies offer any more than placebo. With respect to chinese medicine I have not seen many studies, but but their herbal remedies do have active ingredients, so they may well work. Accupunture i am less sure about, does that count as a Chinese medicine? i suspect accupunture works in a similar way to yoga. More about the relaxation than the acutal stimulation.  --> Sorry if i come with the big skeptic tag :) <--  I do try and be open minded with resepct to cause and effect. David D. (Talk) 18:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Common ground with respect to traditional Chinese medicine, yes. Vranak
 * If it works it works. So I suspect we have common ground. David D. (Talk) 20:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I myself have a background in psychology, so the TCM precept
 * Optimum health results from living harmoniously
 * is the sort of thing I find appealing, and perhaps a bit lacking in Western medicine. You know, taking a holistic view of a person's condition... asking about their social, environmental conditions and so on, not just doing blood tests and taking their pulse (though these are obviously very helpful too). Also the lack of invasive surgery in TCM is probably a good sign, though severe conditions obviously aren't going to be helped by ginseng tea. :) Vranak
 * That's all well and good, but aren't Eastern and Western medicine merely two sides of the same coin? You don't need to ignore one side in order to use the other.  Friday (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, exactly. Vranak


 * o_O -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 0_0 -- Vranak


 * I'm not quite sure I understand what this has to do with my concerns. Perhaps you believe I care particularly about medicine; I don't.  What I care about is giving accurate and useful information on Wikipedia&mdash;and I am most worried about grossly inaccurate information and dangerous advice.  Unverifiable statements about HIV rates (ok, so people try to get it&mdash;now find me a reliable source that verifies that they've been trying and can't, and that this debunks the other research on HIV) worry me exactly as much as giving bad advice on how to handle fireworks.   I'm more interested in finding ground on verifiability and reliable sources. -- SCZenz 09:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Please don't archive ongoing discussions
It is inconvenient to have to go through your history to find your replies to comments I made less than 24 hours ago. Can you please leave them up longer? Thanks, SCZenz 09:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure thing. Vranak
 * He has a link to all the removed material at the top so you don't need to go through Vranak's history. However, i agree that it might be good to let the conversations come to a conclusion before archiving. Assuming they are polite, of course. David D. (Talk) 17:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

When to be frank
Even if you think someone is behaving idiotically, it's good practice never to imply such, let alone say it. Vranak


 * Usually, this is true; but when the behavior persists, sometimes pointing out the problem frankly is the only way forward. I trust Theresa to know when this is the case better than I trust almost anyone here&mdash;she has barnstars for dealing patiently with problem users dating back to 2004. -- SCZenz 02:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I don't think incivility is ever justified. Vranak
 * Frankness is not always incivility. -- SCZenz 18:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if you're going to insist that "[...] why should anyone care about your opinion on this?" is frank and not incivil, there's nothing left for me to say. Vranak
 * In context, and given Theresa's clarification, yes. It was frank and not incivil. -- SCZenz 23:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, given the clarification. However we must be mindful of how our comments are likely to be interpreted. Vranak
 * That's true. -- SCZenz 23:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Just venturing a guess here - at first Theresa's post startled me too. Upon re-reading I believe she didn't mean "of all people's opinions, why would we care about yours, StuRat", but "why would the readers of the reference desk care what anyone's personal opinion on the matter is, when there are notable sources providing the requested information". No comment on the statement itself, just wanted to offer you this interpretation. ---Sluzzelin 03:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be the generous reading, yes. Vranak
 * Remember to assume good faith. If you really want to know what Theresa meant by her comment, why don't you ask her on her talk page? -- SCZenz 11:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I always assume good faith. Vranak
 * The comment came off way harsher than I intended. I will clarify on the ref desk talk page. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 12:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Look
Obscure philosophical points are generally irrelevant here- we need to be practical.

In practical terms, people giving inaccurate info at the ref desk may find themselves unwelcome if they persist. Friday (talk) 06:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sure you're right. But just because StuRat is considered a nuisance by more than a few RD regulars, that doesn't grant anyone license to be rude to him. Vranak


 * It's true. Even when dealing with problem editors, we should be polite.  Sometimes, being blunt is necessary too, but that doesn't mean being needlessly rude.  Friday (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Glad we've come to an agreement for once, but unfortunately I have just taken exception to something I saw you post on StuRat's talk page. I'm going to keep it to myself though, unless you ask for my opinion. It has something to do with StuRat's purported motivation throughout this whole mercury issue. Cheers. Vranak


 * Either way, please do respond though. Vranak

It's not just the mercury issue. This is a pattern of disruptive behavior. This is not the first time he has edit warred to put back unhelpful content that other editors had removed. If you have comments on this issue, Requests for comment/StuRat 2 might be a good place for them. If you want to tell me you think I screwed up, here or my talk page is fine. I would urge caution, though- I believe a contributing factor in his disruptiveness is the IMO very unwise encouragement he sometimes gets from a few other editors. It's fine to disagree, but I hope you take care to not encourage further disruption on his part. Friday (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I will simply say that it is never a good idea to tell someone what their motivation was (StuRat, you absolutely need to stop putting your own desire to be right ahead of the good of the ref desk). To speak as though you have some insight into his mind is presumptuous, and to declare his motives to be base is inflammatory. That said, it's in the past now, I've told you how I feel, so let's just forget about it and move on. I know you mean well... but there's certain ways of getting your point across that ensure that your point will be overlooked. Vranak


 * You're right- instead of presuming things I can't really know, I should keep my statements to that which can be demonstrated. Thanks for the feedback.  Friday (talk) 02:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your courtesy! :) Vranak

Asking for deletion review related input
I'm working on a draft of a guide to deletion review. As you've recently opened a case, I'd like your opinions, either now or when your review wraps up. It is located at User:GRBerry/DRVGuide. GRBerry 17:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Overall: informative and useable with minimal fluff.
 * Overall: I recommend more whitespace.
 * Overall: Could it be tightened up? It's a lengthy read as-is.
 * I will critique the introduction to begin:
 * First paragraph: could
 * Wikipedia:Deletion review is intended to function as the final place to appeal problems and disputes about page deletions and deletion debate (XfD) closes.
 * be shortened to
 * Wikipedia:Deletion review is the final place to appeal page deletions.


 * Second paragraph:
 * This page lists some of the typical outcomes that occur at deletion review
 * Doesn't it do more than this?


 * Second paragraph: I'd remove the word 'perfectly'.
 * Third paragraph:
 * Remember, that while process is important, you shouldn't request a review just to have a process discussion about a page that you think should end up in the state it is already in
 * I'm sure this can be tightened up.


 * Third paragraph: no mention of pages that have been protected to prevent re-creation.
 * Fourth paragraph: I suggest changing numbers of opiners to having a majority vote.
 * Fourth paragraph: I'm not sure this makes sense -- at the appropriate deletion debate process. Perhaps page should replace process.

Vranak 19:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I snagged a copy of this for essay's talk page. I haven't done anything about the whitespace yet, but the rest of it has been done in some form or another. GRBerry 19:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your 04/15/2007 comments on Science Reference Desk.
You still amaze me. You don't see the inherent mathematics involved in the concepts of value and worth? Value implies at least a partial ordering of set of items you are evaluating. Anything requiring orderings is mathematical. No numbers need be involved. Sure, the concept of value came before the abacus. But the abacus isn't math. If anything, value IS math. (note, I use "is" here in a metaphorical, not literal, sense)

Key note. Mathematics does not not have to be about numbers. Many "higher" maths, esp. abstract algebra and topology rarely use numbers.

Somehow, I think you did badly on a math test and you're taking the pain of not succeeding out on Wikipedia. If that's the case, so what, you did badly. There's no need to take tests personally. Root4(one) 13:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You know, I understand what you're saying, but math is just a human creation, and a relatively effete one at that. Everything can be described in mathematical terms, yes, but that doesn't mean that math is inherent in the world. Relationships are inherent in the world. 'The world' precedes mathematical descriptions of the world, that's what I'm saying. We could all live quite well without calculation, as the animals do, that's what I'm saying.


 * And as a matter of fact I did rather well at math at university.


 * Cheers mate. :) Vranak

Medical advice?
Any way to convince you to stop saying things like this on the ref desk? Friday (talk) 18:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Any way for you to suppress your knee-jerk reaction to things like that? Come on, you really think he's going to have someone punch him if he didn't feel it would do him any good? Of course not. It's a suggestion, and it may be helpful, or it may not. The questioners here are not mindless drones who'll follow any and all suggestions, it has to make sense to them. Still, I'll remove it if it bothers you. My loyalty is first and foremost to the regulars, or everything falls apart at the desk. Best, Vranak


 * Loyalty? We don't need it.  We need people to make good faith efforts to provide useful information.  I guess your comment was only a joke?  Friday (talk) 22:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It was a good faith attempt to provide helpful information. Last September I worked a 12 hour shift at a restaurant, standing up, and at the end of it the base of my spine was killing me. I really wanted someone to stand on my tail bone, as I felt like that was the only thing that would have helped. My dad didn't oblige though. When someone is choking, a good sudden impact to the sterum can help. It's not as crazy as it seems. Vranak


 * Wow. Given your very outlandish notion of what is "helpful information" I'd like you to answer only with references to reliable information in the future.  Particularly with medical advice- hasn't this been discussed before?  Friday (talk) 22:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't be a dick. And in case you hadn't guessed by now, I have no respect for your purported sagacity. It is only the requirement for courtesy at Wikipedia that keeps me from going off on you. Vranak

I'm open to suggestions on more polite ways to say "please don't give ridiculously stupid answers". There's only so much this can be sugar-coated though, eh? You can be blunt with me if you wish, I'm not easily offended. Friday (talk) 22:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ha! Ridiculously stupid? Nice try. You want me to say something incivil, then it's off to WP:AN/I. I'm not falling for that tired old ploy. :)


 * I've seen your entry at Encyclopedia Dramatica. People don't get there without a history of being deceitful. Since this is a game to you, nice try. Vranak


 * You must have me confused with someone else. Anyway, using "When someone is choking, a good sudden impact to the sterum can help" as justification for recommending a sternum-punch to someone with "seized up muscles" is pretty darn ridiculous.  But, I'm not actually here to argue the merits of your medical advice.  I'm here to ask you once again to please stop dispensing medical advice on the ref desk.  It's outside our scope, and frankly, in cases like this one, it reflects poorly on the project.  Friday (talk) 22:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Whatever. Chastise me next time I do it. And yeah, I was thinking of Hipocrite. You have similar approaches to Wikipedia. Vranak

Possible WP:BITE
This comment seemed unnecessarily harsh of the OP to me :

"This is just a variant of the perpetual motion machine.  Perfect machines only exist in vainglorious minds."

Would you consider softening it or removing it ? If you disagree I won't remove it.

Thanks, StuRat 06:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure I'll soften it. Vranak

Be careful on sensitive issues
Whether you mean them to or not, comments like this one come off sounding like trolling. We don't want to the talk page to erupt into an argument that doesn't improve the article, so please be careful what you say. Friday (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand. You may consider me a devil's advocate on this position. I do not seriously condone the shootings. Massacre's a harsh term and I feel it could be improved, and I'm willing to say some unusual things in order for that improvement to occur. I know that emotions are still running high, so I'll be careful.Vranak

Conjugal visits
The discussion of whether or not this question can be answered without opinion has been moved to the Ref Desk talk page. I fully support your position on this particular question, although not that all answers to all questions are inherently opinion. I feel the answer to "what does 1 + 1 equal" can be given without any opinion being required, for example. StuRat 20:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah it's no big deal... people don't necessarily come to Wikipedia to read or write about the truth, plenty of them have suspicious political motives as well. As for keeping people in jail: "Suspect he in whom the desire to punish is strong." - Nietzsche. Vranak

Hi from A.Z.
Hi Vranak! I just wanna say I have nothing against you. You never responded to Lewis's and my responses to you on the RefDesk talk page, when we accused you of dismissing a logical argument as a rant without even reading it only because the writer was not calm. I wonder if you still have the same opinion you had before on this subject. A.Z. 05:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end" - Spock, Star Trek VI. Vranak


 * Could you further elaborate? A.Z. 05:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well arguing logically usually doesn't convince anyone of anything. Just ask John Kerry. Vranak