User talk:Vranak

Hi, Vranak. Regarding a couple of your posts at the closed discussion here (which I sort of lost track of), I can't speak for Falcadore but as for me, I'm well aware we weren't voting. My oppose was per Zzyzx11, as I stated. When another editor has already explained something perfectly well, it is a Wikipedia convention to support or oppose per their explanation. Doing so saves time and allows the editor closing the discussion a quick way to assess where one's support or opposition stems from without forcing them to read a rewording of the same thing. As for my further comment, I'm sorry you found it less than helpful, but I didn't say a word about liking the company. Rivertorch (talk) 17:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that – it was my first participation in that kind of discussion and I think I may have been a bit hasty. Vranak (talk) 18:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. It ended up being an excellent discussion with good points from both sides and no angry words—a happy event around here! Rivertorch (talk) 21:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, What happened here ? Just an FYI Mlpearc (powwow) 03:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief, that was not intended. I'll fix it right away, if you haven't already. Thanks for the heads up. Vranak (talk) 03:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem I figured it wasn't your intention that's why I didn't revert it Cheers. Mlpearc (powwow) 03:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vranak, you left a message for me a month ago regarding "most searched for red links". There is a Wikipedia:Most missed articles, which lists the most searched-for terms (in 2008), which are not article titles. There is also a Wikipedia:Most wanted articles, which lists redlinks by number of occurences. Hope this helps. --Oldak Quill 14:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Vranak (talk) 15:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I reverted your edits and opened a community discussion. Please join here. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 22:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect How is babby formed?. Since you had some involvement with the How is babby formed? redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). BDD (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Rageahol. Since you had some involvement with the Rageahol redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Beeblebrox (talk) 18:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I couldn't find sources, I found a listing for PPAN39304 on eBay. Odd eh? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 04:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought it was a really peculiar 'track title' and sort of out-of-place on a standard, common English Wikipage. Vranak (talk) 05:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're not alone. I found it odd too. But unless there is a source, I don't think it needs to be there. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait... are you saying that you didn't add that part yourself? Vranak (talk) 05:20, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't added it back. Stiki popped your removal, I passed it as innocent. Till I find a reliable source, I doubt think I am going to add it anytime. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article, specifically User:Vranak, may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. See WP:NFCC#9. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an article, Stefan, it's a user page. And don't copy-and-paste policy, talk to me like a human being. Vranak (talk) 16:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking to you as a human being, then: if you break Wikipedia's copyright policy again, you will be blocked. If you believe the policy is wrong, you're more than welcome to propose a change to it, but until and unless it is changed you must follow them. If you cannot or will not follow policy, then Wikipedia cannot allow you to continue to edit, it's that simple. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are are so enslaved to 'the rules'. It's rather disconcerting. I wonder the psychological basis for it is. We'll get to the bottom of it, sooner or later.

And another thing: it's unseemly and rather inhuman to be dropping threats like you just did there. Civilized society welcomes you anytime you're ready to join. Vranak (talk) 01:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, that's not a 'threat'. It's a statement that if you break a Wikipedia policy with legal considerations, you will be blocked. If you don't, you won't. Secondly, you might want to reconsider your making personal attacks against other editors. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. I'm really not happy about this all (you and everyone else's slavish adherence to policy), but I suppose I'd be well-advised to simmer down for a while instead of firing off any more incensed replies. Vranak (talk) 10:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's one thing to try an change policy that is driven by community discussion, but policies that come down from the Foundation which have legal ramifications for the Foundation are a one way street. We follow them or we're out. It's that simple. Blackmane (talk) 09:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. I come at it from a different angle though, instead of asking "What if they sue?" I'm asking "Why would they sue?". It seems really unlikely considering the nature of what it is I was doing with the album artwork. It's more like free advertising, from my perspective. But I do appreciate that everyone prefers to stay absolutely positively on the right side of the law, at all times, no matter what, so I am backing down on this issue for now. Vranak (talk) 12:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Vranak adding non-free content to his user page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found some legit academic analysis of She-Ra I was wondering if you could expand on it please? Dwanyewest (talk) 13:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! What have you got? Vranak (talk) 14:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This below

• She-Ra#Academic_Analysis

If you can refine it I would be most grateful. Dwanyewest (talk) 18:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting on any input regarding She-Ra#Reception Dwanyewest (talk) 01:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find the notion that She-Ra was somehow a worse role-model than He-Man to be patently offensive and misogynist, not to mention ludicrous. As I remember it (and the last time I watched these shows I was about five years old), He-Man was a bit of a dunce, while She-Ra had more finesse and intelligence. And as for LGBT relevance, that's not my forte. Vranak (talk) 02:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless I think Andrade, Jessica. (2003) “The Gender Politics of Female Action Heroes in Television and Films.” Bachelor's thesis, University of Washington which can be found online for your own personal reading will interest you regarding She-Ra. Dwanyewest (talk) 20:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna be frank with you. I'm not as interested in this topic as I was when I posted to the She-Ra talk page, which may have been around six years ago now. I'm not interested in doing any work on the topic. Sorry if this is a disppointment. Vranak (talk) 03:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Acceptable sources. Since you had some involvement with the Acceptable sources redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Abdullah II of Jordan. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 15:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually a direct quote from the cited article, sir. Vranak (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your recent contribution. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit because I believe the article was better before you made that change. The citation is from the BBC, and doesn't include this language, merely stating that he is an avid fan. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! Onel5969 (talk) 17:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed the fact that there was another citation in that section. The part about him being a 'massive' Star Trek fan was taken from the other source, here[1]. I wash my hands of the issue, do with it what you will. Vranak (talk) 18:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Landsknecht, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Maximilian I. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:02, 18 March 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) 16:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a french speaker, I am sure that the sense of ce pauvre peuple intimates a people as a whole, as a nation, treated in the singular case and thus Orange meant THIS poor people/country. Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 21:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but this is the English version of Wikipedia and the sentence as you have it does not make grammatical sense, it simply does not work. I will defer to your judgement on the French version as I am a rank amateur in that language and would not presume to tell you anything. Please consult with any other native English speaking colleagues you may have to verify my claim. Vranak (talk) 22:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would “this poor nation” work? That’s the sense of people here as I see it. I did ask as you suggested; people can be used as a singular noun – the people ARE going to rise…this people IS going to rise. Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 23:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Greed is good. Since you had some involvement with the Greed is good redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Friendliness. Since you had some involvement with the friendliness redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Prisencolin (talk) 03:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vranak, I've shifted your section [2] here. starship.paint (talk) 13:58, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 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) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect J.r.r.. Since you had some involvement with the J.r.r. redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 21:00, 10 February 2020 (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) 01:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Soul Blazer battle.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:51, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Military intervention and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 20#Military intervention until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Gaetr (talk) 21:57, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Falling through the cracks and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 23#Falling through the cracks until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:36, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]