User talk:Vespine

420

Were you thinking of 420, and not 210? (Though, 420 is an ironic number if you really have been smoking something. O_o) - Rainwarrior 04:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Good pick up, wonder how many other people saw it! I thought I was pretty quick;) Vespine 21:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Cube of flesh

hey. The cube is to be sent into space to save the earth from being liquified and sucked out. Since it starts with a genocide i guess it is that kill 3 people to save 5 dilemna. - Keria 18:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Thank you, reposted at bottom of section. Vespine 00:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Present for Dad

I suspect your question may be removed because it's "not encyclopedic", so I thought I'd better respond here, instead. Does he like sports ? Get him tickets to a game. Does he like movies ? Take him to see one. Does he like to eat out ? Take him to a restaurant. StuRat 01:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for removal of RD comment

Hi, can you please see Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Lines_I_suggest_be_removed. If you would remove the lines in question, I would be appreciative. -- SCZenz 06:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I restored your comment after Admin:SCZenz deleted it, then User:Hipocrite deleted it again. StuRat 19:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Happy Holidays from AndonicO!

Thank you, if you don't mind I have toned down your post here.
As I don't even know who you I think this is fair. Vespine 04:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I wonder...

...did you get your username from where I think you did? 68.39.174.238 08:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. People have asked me before if it is something to do with Bjork or Starwars, but it wasn't. I was interested in the latin names of animal classes or whatever it is called, you know, canine and feline and all those, so I made collected a big list of as many as I could find and vespine was my favourite so I've been using it as a user name.. What did you think it was from?

Simulator sickness

Thanks for the pointer. I was wondering what that was called.  :) --Brad Beattie (talk) 03:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Muslim extremists

I saw your comment on the reference desk, the one that turned into a major war. It sounds like you want to sympathise with Muslim people, but you are worried that dangerous extremists seem to be in power in many Muslim countries. I found that my understanding of the situation in Iraq has greatly deepened by reading Iraqi blogs, like the well-known Riverbend, Konfused Kid, a college student and heavy metal guitarist, and Sunshine, a 14-year-old girl. It's reassuring to know that despite the despicable extremists you hear about on the news, many Muslims are people like you and me who hate terrorism and want peace. --Grace 20:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for those links, I'll definitely have a look through them. I'm not sure I've had an issue sympathysing with 'the plight of the people', I know there are millions of innocents in the middle east all living lives doing the right thing, looking after their families and just trying to get by, I haven't had a problem with that. I guess my issue is the opression in my motherland was caused by the communists, it's a little more cut and dry. Yes there are noble and ideological communists that think communism is really the best system of government, but we've pretty much proven now that it is not and in a nutshell that commies are bad, leads to opression, inequality, secret police, etc... But in this case, several prominent Muslim leaders are evil manipulative vengful inhumane monsters but there are still millions who also call themselves muslims. Of course, there are people of every faith who are (for the sake of this conversation) 'evil', but they aren't openly so and in power. Anyway, the way I'm going is just making it more and more obvious that it isn't clear in my head anymore about my attitude towards the region. I've got more thinking to do before I can really keep discussing this. Vespine 21:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Alesis SR-16 Immersion Corporation K-line (artificial intelligence) Numark (DJ equipment) Andromeda V Potential well Paaliaq (moon) Andromeda III Buzz! The Big Quiz Erriapo (moon) Fairfield Warde High School Andromeda IX Andromeda II Albiorix (moon) Tatsu Midget Andromeda VIII Dandenong South, Victoria Kiviuq (moon)

Cleanup Starship VAIO Sonic the Hedgehog (TV series) Merge Denver tool Carnot heat engine Module (programming) Add Sources Kazuo Hirai Free web hosting service Moran family Wikify Swedish Institute of Space Physics Astronomical object Botball Expand Planets in astrology Truth maintenance system Forbes Global 2000

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 00:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Python "Most Common Word" Programme

Hi there I read that you've written a word counter as your first programme on reference desk. I am trying to learn python is well but can't really think of a purpose for one and I would like to see the source code of your programme as I am quite interested in it. --antilived^{T | C | G} 10:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I use IDLE from http://python.org/idle/. The program is below heavily commented:

The caveat is the input text file needs to be very clean, one word per line and no punctuation. I found that NOT too hard to do using a combination of notepad and MS Word. Also, this means it isn't 100% accurate, especially with words that have ' like isn't and hasn't.The input is a file named text.txt in the same folder as the program, the output is a file called orderedlist.txt in the same folder. This was all really obvious to me but obviously may not be to you, feel free to ask if anything needs explaining. You'll need to paste this into a text file and rename it to a *.py file. Lines that start with a # are comments and are not necessary for the code to work. If you can't figure out how to do it, let me know what the text is you are trying to analyse and I'll run it for you. Vespine 00:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

# This program takes a file (text.txt) and counts how many times each word appears.
# The text file has to be formatted so each word appeard on a new line,
# with no formatting, capitilsation, punctuation, etc.
# This isn't too hard to do with word/notepad using the 'replace' tool.

# It writes the results, in order of frequency to a file (orederedlist.txt).

# I used it on Mary Shelly's Frankenstein,
# total words = 75352
# total unique words = 7278
# most used 3 words = 4191-the 2974-and 2850-i

# And the results are VERY quick, about one second to complete, so I'm very happy.

# Manualy creating the word list from the complete text took way more time:)

# Programmer comments are indented like this.
# Testing/debugging code is commented out without indent, like the below.
# This was my very 1st python program so it took some debugging to get working properly.

#print "text file word counter"

# It is not recommended to uncomment debug code for large word list (>50) files.

#---------------#
#-----START-----#

# create lists

list = []
numlist = []

# append every line in text file into a list called 'list'.

in_file = open("text.txt","r")
for line in in_file.read().split('\n'):
list.append(line)
in_file.close()

# print total number of words in list/file to screen.
print "total words = ",len(list)

# create variable total_words
total_words = len(list)

list.sort()

# first debug code is below, uncommenting these using large lists is not recommended.
#print list

checking_word = 0
previous_word = checking_word - 1

while checking_word <= total_words - 1:
#print "checking word", '"',list[checking_word],'"', checking_word ,"of" ,total_words

# reset count for each word.
count = 0
next_word = checking_word + 1

# counting routine loop
# This section only counts words that are actually repeated.
if list[checking_word] == list[next_word]:
# I realise now the above 'if' may be redundant, but it works so...
while list[checking_word] == list[next_word]:
count = count + 1
checking_word = checking_word +1

#print "counting -",count

# The below appends a final entry to the list after all items are counted.
# just so the counting routine doesn't crash.
if checking_word + count == total_words:
#print "total reached"
list.append("end")

# This line was debug code.
if list[checking_word] != list[next_word]:

# had to add something for the next line so that the program
# would not expect another indented line.
comment = 1
#print "check end"
#print

# Uncomment the below to see resulsts print live to screen.
# Again, not recommended for large lists.
#print "result" ,list[checking_word - 1], count

entry = count ,list[checking_word - 1]
#print "entry",entry

# This adds the 'result' into the second list "numlist".
numlist.append(entry)

# More debug code
#print "list update" ,numlist
if list[checking_word] != list[next_word]:
comment = 1
#print "LOOP FINISH"
#print

# This section adds words to the list even if they are not repeated.
elif list[checking_word] != list[next_word] and list[checking_word] != list[previous_word]:


#print list[checking_word] ,1
entry = 1 ,list[checking_word]
#print "result" ,list[checking_word], 1
#print "single entry",entry
numlist.append(entry)
checking_word = checking_word +1
#print "list update",numlist
#print

else:
#print checking_word
checking_word = checking_word +1

# Message that counting and listing has completed.
print "numlist created"

print
numlist.sort()
print "total unique words =" ,len(numlist)
print
#print numlist

# Finally the output phase.
out_file = open("orederedlist.txt","w")

for line in numlist:
t = line
#print t
# the below turns the numlist output (tuple) into a string
# so that it can be written into the file.
line_str = ' '.join([str(e) for e in t])
#print "string" ,line_str
out_file.write(line_str)
out_file.write("\n")

out_file.close()

print "complete"


Your pretty cool

I did a quick check on some of your stuff and well you seem pretty cool =) well hope to see ya out on the wiki pagesMaverick423 16:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Mum? Is that you?? I told you to stay off my user page! ;) Thanks, that's nice of you to not only say, but be bothered to write:) See you around. Vespine 01:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted

Threading can be highly complex at times, hence my bewilderment rather than screaming and yelling at you :). Actually there are very few human conditions that make the person abnormal, it's a highly pejorative word. even a 1% sample of the population having a particular state is normality, it is just not majority. This normal spectrum includes ailments like Sickle Cell Anaemia which give immunity to Malaria, but cause other unpleasant effects.

GLBT folk are stuck with their orientation and other issues in the same way that heterosexual people are stuck with their orientation and other issues. I suppose one could say "Except in the US Bible Belt", though. Fiddle Faddle 17:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Fiddle:) Umm, I'm not sure if we're still understanding eachother here, did you read my other posts to that thread?? I was on your side from the start, I was arguing with the OP who used normal as the antonym for gay, yeah? That was me that started the argument;) Anyway, it's all good, and I didn't know SCA gave immunity to Malaria, that's interesting:) Have a great one, and thanks for clearing that up without going nuts at me.:) Vespine 21:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I must admit I got wholly lost in that thread, and I suspect a good many other people did too. Whoever started that thread had a slight odour of troll about them I thought. I never go nuts. Life is too short :) Fiddle Faddle 01:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Reference desk comments:

Although I suspect it is good natured, your excessive crude & profane language at the reference desk would be unacceptable on another's talk page & could be generally be considered rude to other users, especially newbies who come to the reference desk for help. It would be appreciated if you could "tone it down" a little, as your replies are a great asset to the wikipedia community & it would be a shame if they were tainted by crude language. In my experience, swearing is only used if the person cannot find another suitable word to express their feelings & swearing can almost always be avoided to express a point of view. I hope you will take my advice & continue contributing to the reference desk... :) Spawn Man 04:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I know you are right, but I only used the word dick which was already used by the OP, I was using it in a way to tease the OP about his use of profanity... Oh yeah, and there was a "fck" in one of my posts too, I suppose that's not necessary.. Ok, no, fair enough, you are right, I don't think I've had enough coffee today, I don't usually dwell that low... Thanks for the polite way you approached this... Vespine 04:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I found the msg a little poor-taste, but that was more than offset by the fact that you refrained from making any of the more obvious "pussy" jokes. DMacks 05:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking it so well Vespine... If only I was an admin my powers may be used for good & not eviiill!!! ;) Spawn Man 05:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Melbourne Street artists.

Hey Vespine, thanks for then interest. I actually live in Canberra, but do a lot of work on Melbourne street art articles. I'm sorry I can't help you, you can ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Melbourne though. Good work so far, cheers, Dfrg.msc 05:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked from editing

You have been blocked from editing. 202.2.57.110 (an account, IP address or range of addresses) was blocked by Can't sleep, clown will eat me for the following reason (see our blocking policy):

Poo! autoblocked because of an IP range... That's balls. Vespine 22:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yay:) thanks! Vespine 01:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Contribution removed from the Reference Desk

Content you recently added to the the Reference Desk has been removed. Please remember the Wikipedia content must be written from a neutral point of view, the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, original research should be avoided and that the Reference Desk is not a soapbox, a social networking site, or a discussion forum. If you would like to discuss the removal of this content, please comment at the Reference Desk talk page.

Stupid templates. I pulled the question because it was asking for a prognosis. Your reply got caught in the net, too. Just a heads-up that it happened. No big deal. --Milkbreath 13:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Random fun fact

In regard to your comment on the Science Reference desk, a cool fact is that corn can actually get up to 97% of its mass from the air! ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 01:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Reference desk

I have no idea what the above means or why it is commented out.. or who wrote it since four ~'s don't seem to be changed into a signiature if they are commented out. I have put what it says in the box below. Vespine (talk) 23:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but then we'd have to tell him that magnification makes the image dimmer x^2, 
and the inverse square law gets even worse at high z's, but not for the detailed, 
near galaxies. First we're multiplying and then we're dividing, we should at least 
try to keep the number of zeros on the page approximately correct :-) 

Thanks

Thank you for working with the Robbie Mannheim article. It looks like arbitration is going smoothly and the other editor is listening. Cheers. -Craig Pemberton 07:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Death

I noticed your input on Science reference desk#Death, and you said that science has proved religion wrong many times in the past. That, in fact, is one mark of a false religion. It is contradicted by science. True religion and science complement each other, not contradict. If they contradict, it can be proven that the science has to be revised. Just like when religion said that the earth was flat. The Bible actually says that it was round. People proved it using science later. Science always complements true religion. I would like to see some of those contradictions and see if I can explain them. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 00:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't signed in before.. I don't really understand what you are getting at. Who decides what is "true religion" ? How do you access or interpret this "true religion"? You quote the Bible, is that the source of "true religion"? The problem I have with religion is that it really never states anything useful. All it does is offer people a platform to push their agendas through a selective interpretation of whatever texts they treat as holy, in general the vast majority of people are credulous enough not to challenge their interpretation. However if a view held by the religious "consensus" (if it can be called that) is challenged beyond doubt, (and it's beyond the point where you can just burn the opponents at the stake, or behead them) they just sidestep the issue and offer a different interpretation, oh our "religion" wasn't wrong, we just didn't interpret it properly. All the while holding all the other "still unchallenged" dogmas as perfect interpretations of "absolute truth", until their turn comes.. Sure it's easy now to sidestep "oh but the bible actually says the world is round", how do you sidestep "God created Adam and Eve and they had a conversation with a snake in the garden of Eden near the beginning of creation?". Let me guess: "it's allegory"? Well if the world really WAS flat and the Bible says it's round, we'd be getting told right now that this too is allegory. So I don't doubt for a second that you could justify away any discrepancy between your "true" religion and science, but I bet you'll be jumping though hoops to do it. Unless you are a deist or pantheist or something.. Vespine (talk) 01:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

But what makes a snake unable to talk? Even evolution contends that things were different long ago. Is that considered a miracle that things changed spontaneously?

One hallmark is that true religion never contradicts science. If they do not agree, it is because man's understanding of the natural world has not progressed to the level where he understands it. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 11:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

From your user page: "I believe in the literal seven-day creation of the universe by God" are you for real or is that a joke? Sorry, nothing personal, but if you're serious I really can't be bothered having this discussion, it's a waste of both our time. Have a nice day. Vespine (talk) 11:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I came across this while scanning through Chemicalinterest's edit history. See discussion on the RefDesk talk page. Nimur (talk) 15:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Robbie Needs You

Would you mind hopping over to the Robbie Mannheim page and reviewing the talk posts there?75.21.101.124 (talk) 16:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

That Robbie Mannheim page is a mess, and I agree with what you say about this article 100%. Without discarding some of the good citations, slash-and-burn really is the way. We can of course put in sources that address only what needs addressing. Main thing is putting quotes in-text and not in the notes or bibliography. No one will thank you for that, and I've developed migraines just trying to clean up the atrocious grammar and lousy writing. The structure is not even there yet.75.21.151.34 (talk) 12:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The Proposal for Robbie Mannheim

Vespine, I think it might help if I presented to you the bare bones of this boy's story. It would help the outlining of this thing.

First, you will forgive me for not throwing in citations. All of this, unless I indicate it, comes from Father Walt Halloran. I will only paraphrase what he said because he is so terse it's close enough. remember, this is for your reference only.

1. We have "Robbie" and what is commonly alleged about him and his background, all strictly from early newspaper reports in Maryland and from Thomas Allen's research. I do not believe Blatty is reliable as he stands now. The rest is URBAN LEGEND and falsehoods.

2. Fr. Halloran said Father William Bowdern asked him for a ride. This occurred in St. Louis, and I have no clear picture of the boy's family moving or any other such detail. I'm not sure where Halloran and Bowdern went, but it seems they went to a home, so I'd guess Halloran is implying the family had moved to St. Louis.

3. Halloran had no idea what they were doing, and thought he was just dropping off Bowdern. Arriving at the house, Bowdern told Halloran, "You're coming with me...I need you." They went in and saw the boy with the parents. They chatted and had coffee.

4. Halloran says Bowdern stood up suddenly. Bowdern said something like, "Its time", or, "Let's get to it." Halloran was still in the dark. The boy and two clerics went to the boy's room. The boy changed into his pajamas and got in the bed. It was then Bowdern told Halloran it was an exorcism. Halloran was still confused at this point.

5. Halloran never believed the boy was possessed, and never saw or heard anything supernatural. Halloran says somehow the bed moved a little, and he attested to the boy's spitting in their faces, which angered him. He did not like that boy. Halloran said a bottle of holy water flew right past his head and broke against the wall. But he also admits "someone could have thrown it, but I didn't see it."

6. The kid thrashed around, yelled and parroted the priests' Latin prayers. That is IT. Fr. Bowdern proceeded with the Rite of Exorcism.

7. Halloran attests that Bowdern went to the cardinal--maybe Spellman, maybe one other I cannot recall and Halloran doesn't say--Bowdern said the boy was possessed and the cardinal gave permission for a Rite of Exorcism. When Bowdern inquired further the cardinal said Bowdern would be the exorcist.

When he asked the cardinal why, the cardinal said, "Well, you brought it up! You do it!"

The rest of the details, such as the family's movements and other activates, is something like this: they moved from Maryland to St. Louis apparently because Bowdern told them to do it. This was after he was appointed officially as Exorcist. There Halloran met them for the 1st time.

The priests spent much time with Robbie, but mainly due to the fact that Bowdern was attempting to convert first the boy then the parents. Halloran says he succeeded and converted all three to Catholicism. They were Lutherans, very lax and not church people before the ordeal.

That is it. I'm sorry I put this so long, but that is all--aside from further details from Fr. Walt that I don't have in front of me. This is how certain insiders were told the story and Fr. Walt confirms all of it. Anything else is as you said pure ghost stories.

I hope this helps. Of course this is also on the ROBBIE MANNHEIM talk page, because I do not want to be the editor to slash-and-burn that work.75.21.158.216 (talk) 13:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

the webcam and astrophotography

hello, thank you for answering my question. i opened the website which you has gave me its url, but i couldn`t find the "log" button! i found just a "log in", i searched for some minutes but i couldn`t find a way to log in the forums! can you tell me please how i can log? thanks --Abbad Dira (talk) 11:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC).

Hi. Sorry I'm not sure what you mean, if you found "log in" that means log in the forums. Did you see this page = http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/index.php ? You can read all the forums without logging in, if you want to log in you have to register first on this page http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/register.php . Hope that helps. Vespine (talk) 12:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

MMS talk page entry

Your MMS article talk page entries--Explanations to your questions may be found by doing some searches on Google involving depopulation and inserting the names of one or more philanthropists such as Gates or Rockefeller (or others). Another search is theAntiTerrorist YouTube. Specifically on that look for: Corporate Revenue Collection. Another search: Rockefeller Rothschild Farben. Oldspammer (talk) 23:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you must have me confused for someone else, I have no questions regarding MMS, nothing about MMS or Jim Humble is unclear to me. Quote all the conspiracy theories you like, even if you could prove that they are all true and there is a big pharma depopulation conspiracy, that actually has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Jim Humble is a total fraud and the claims he makes about the "miracle" properties of MMS are completely made up lies. Those two things are by no means mutually exclusive. Jim claims that MMS has cured 100,000 people of malaria in Africa, he also claims that MMS cures AIDS, do you honestly believe either of these claims? It's blatant fraud. Vespine (talk) 05:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I clicked on your signature-talk on that talk page and landed here. Where does it say that "Jim Humble must have lied?" There may be conspiracies, but maybe it's just business, and in that alone explains why no gov agencies anywhere want to hurt their friend's income streams by demonstrating any useful applications not already attributed to MMS / the chemicals involved. Oldspammer (talk) 23:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Robbie Mannheim problems again

Vespine, I have a major problem with the Robbie Mannheim entry as you know. Can you not step in and assist here? Read my post in full:

The following is what I posted at the talk page:

Quote: "Spiritualists, however, did not heed the biblical admonitions against consorting with spirits. She therefore, introduced Robbie to the Ouija board when he expressed interest in it.[15]Nonetheless, Robbie was your average boy - he played, read comic books, and listened to the radio.[16]"

Is this quote intelligent, or does it even contribute to the article? NO to each. Spiritualism does not need to be beaten to death here...anyone can look up what a Spiritualist believes...it is a legitimate religion that believes in communication with the dead. As far ignoring Biblical admonitions, how many times do I have to strike this passage before someone agrees with me? It's childish, stupid and adds nothing to the notability of this boy.75.21.146.222 (talk) 14:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you think that stupid passage deserves to stay in the article? I fixed up the grammar and someone reverted or rewrote a lot of it. I'm sick of being trampled like that when no one addresses me directly at the talk page. This editor Anuparm or whatever he calls himself is causing a lot of trouble with his junior high mentality.75.21.146.222 (talk) 14:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I posted the following at the talk page of admin Courcelles, regarding Anupam:

You granted user Anupam reviewer's rights. His disruptions/lack of cooperation at talk:Robbie Mannheim as well as to the article itself ought to be enough to remove these rights, and I see his probationary period is done as of two days ago. User Anupam has already been abusing his editor's rights as it is.

May I remind you: "The process of reviewing is intended as a quick check to make reasonably sure edits don't contain vandalism, violations of the policy on living people, or other obviously inappropriate content. Reviewers are users sufficiently experienced who are granted the ability to accept other users' edits. They are expected to have a reasonable editing history, know what is and what is not vandalism, and be familiar with basic content policies. Reviewer rights are granted by administrators. The permission is removed at the request of the user, the community, or the arbitration committee." From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pending_changes#Reviewing retrieved on 17 August 2010.

I am copying this to the main editor working on Mannheim, user Vespine.75.21.146.222 (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Courcelles" Well, I hope this gets Anupam to lighten up, and stop reverting or basically vandalizing others' contributions. I'm not accusing him outright of pure vandalism, but if he keeps messing with this article's improvements, vandalism is what it will amount to being.75.21.146.222 (talk) 15:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Robbie Solution

Vespine--just a note to tell you what I think must be done with that article. Firstly, I don't think you should be so hasty about the use of "Evil: Satan, Sin, and Psychology" as a source. It is reliable and verifiable, and the author addresses the case of this boy. You have to stop with the animosity against Ph.D.s. Most sources and reference are produced by them! Because you see, if you don't want experts used as citations and you don't like the storybooks (no one does except Anupam)...well, then what is left to use as citations??

Now: what needs to be done is good old pencil-and-paper layout work. The article needs to be fleshed out, what will be in and what won't be in, how far do we want to go with citations, and how long the bibliography should be. All done on paper for reference and structure.

Next I still say we make Anupam do this. Anupam has put long hours of work into this thing, I agree, and knows the citation structure better than anyone. I could do it, but I don't have access to the newer citations that bear on the subject. He should do it. And he needs a grammar babysitter, because he can't write to save his life.

Somehow (I can't do this to save my life) the draft should be presented in the "sandbox" so all can view it including any admin who wants to butt into the thing. Then it can be published. This article does not need to be presented as a scientific paper, yet Wikipedia rules have become so absurd that it does, indeed, have to resemble a paper in order to pass muster.

Any admin coming along and seeing one little thing out of place, and KABOOM!!--the article's gone.75.21.153.99 (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC) Hi look thanks, I know this isn't easy, but unfortunately I think I disagree with a few of your suggestions… Like I said, I'm willing to discuss the use of the "Evil" book once we work out specific citations, but I think you should understand the reason why I oppose it, it is certainly NOT just because people who wrote it have Ph.D. The only reason I reiterated that I don't care about Ph.D.s is because it was the only argument Anupam used in its defence.

and the author addresses the case of this boy the fact is, the author addresses some of the CLAIMS surrounding this boy. THAT is my main problem with the source. What are the sources that the authors used? From the few quotes in the book it seems likely that the authors used some equally terrible sources about the claims regarding this case. If they used rubbish sources, then runnish in rubbish out right? Regardless, only the one section really uses this source so I find it less important then the 1st three.

As for well, then what is left to use as citations?? I'm struggling to understand. If there are not enough realiable sources, then the article simply has less information in it. You don't start using story books to "pad it out" which is exaclty what Anupam has been doing. If the article needs to be half as long to be more accurate and NPOV then that's what the article needs.

Next I still say we make Anupam do this. I disagree with this too.. I know he has put in a lot of work, even since this article was tagged as a problem article, half of Anupam's edits are still in the wrong direction. I really don't mean any offence but I don't think Anupam really understands what a reliable source or NPOV really mean.

the draft should be presented in the "sandbox".. I have tried to do this actually more then once, but the article is such a mess I ended up giving up each time. Those MASSIVE ref links make it really hard to keep track of where you are in the article and most times I'll end up accidentally moving something or deleting something and it breaks the reference link, at that stage I usually just cancel the edit in frustration, but you can see at least 2 broken ref links (14 and 15) in the article right now.. Vespine (talk) 22:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

++++++++++amen++++++++++ Hi Vespine--first I hope you've looked at the latest work I've done right to the article. I think it's a good start but I did not get to all of what I had wished to do.

Your point is well taken on the book...we can leave it aside for now as you say. Now, I agree, you and I are thinking just alike because I do not believe in padding it out either. It is stupid to put citations that just tell stories and are not direct. What I meant to convey to you is that we have basically only Thomas Allen as a source, because the Church will never divulge a thing and Father Walt does not like to talk this subject these days.

The reason I say we stick to a little bit of the "claims" about it is because that is all there is. I don't say be dishonest: I say use the popular claims as long as they are simple and we identify them as mere unverified anecdotal reports.

You are right about Anupam, please see my reply posted at the talk page...and I will defer to your good suggestion that I stop with the new threads. I am hard to read ;)

I quote you: "Those MASSIVE ref links make it really hard to keep track of where you are in the article and most times I'll end up accidentally moving something or deleting something and it breaks the reference link, at that stage I usually just cancel the edit in frustration, but you can see at least 2 broken ref links (14 and 15) in the article right now..."

Yes, me too, and I may be the idiot who broke some links yesterday--that thing is a garbage pile, but did you see my post on the talk page? You and I are 100% agreed that format has to go before we can redo this thing. If we start working on it from whatever angle, I don't think anyone will care.

And lastly, what is this Christian Portal nonsense?? Don't you think they've made this task unnerving by putting that on the article? What does exorcism have to do with Christianity in the way they want it to? Every culture has exorcism! Jesus!!75.21.153.99 (talk) 13:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Without changin anything else, I have introduced a new section 1: Popular Unverified Anecdotal Reports. This is a sort of disclaimer which says the whole rest of the article is ultimately urban legend. It is clear and academic, and I hope the one citation will be enough. Take a look. At least this way we can state what little is on the 'official record', as confirmed by Fr. Halloran. The rest is grain-of-salt but it is well-known and popular. We just come out and say that. Oh, I hope I just saved us from a total overhaul of the thing. Maybe later we can explain why we left all that in there if it is unverified. Because it is popularly known, and people should know it's inaccurate?76.195.82.134 (talk) 13:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

TROUBLE: Vespine, look at what that clown Anupam posted at the talk for Robbie:

"The "scriptural admonitions" statement is important, especially when considering the Christian perspective because according to that point of view, the failure to heed Scriptural admonitions resulted in diabolic possession. I hope you will see why I feel that line is important. However, I am open to discussing it further. With regards, AnupamTalk 17:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)"

A bit further down:

"The addition of that new section is not needed because it is explained in the Origin of Claims section. I also reversed the removal of the "scriptural admonitions" statement and explained why here. I have also restored the removal of the "See also" section and have restored the references for the "Literature and film" section. Vespine, it seems that you have issues with the "Psychiatric considerations" section. I will not touch that section for now. If you would like to rewrite it, I would be more than happy to see your proposed version of the section. I hope this helps. Thanks, AnupamTalk 17:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)"

Do you see what he's doing? Taking it over for himself, insisting he see any revisions before they get passed. You've got to step in Vespine, and break this me-only concensus Anupam is trying to create here. I've seen it happen too often elsewhere. I'm not going to do a damned thing further there if he keeps up this friggin' reversion of his POV!!76.195.82.134 (talk) 12:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)