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. 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!
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!

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. --antilivedT 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)

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 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 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.

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)

Unconstructive edit alert
Vespine, [|Torchwoodwho] this admin has reverted a post I made under an older topic on the Robbie talk page. Better watch out when you edit there from now on...unless you did it, and I'm NOT accusing you, I think Anupam is behind it. He's trying to own that whole thing, talk page and all.

Also: sorry, but I am starting new topics whenever I have a new topic to discuss. Sorry, I'm not going to risk getting my posts deleted because of whatever dumb reason under old postsed topics. From now on I think we ought to agree to pursue a topic only a certain ways, then start a new heading. That is what I'm doing. And now, a vacation for me. Good luck.76.195.82.134 (talk) 14:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * What a to-do. I can't even glance at this thing without a fight starting. Anupam is not quite the villain I said he was...it was a busybody admin chasing down the Big Red Flag they have on my IP range. In the bargain it seems Anupam is all hurt that I have insulted his (?) honor. Yet he still sees fit to lecture me about what and how to post. Hope he doesn't do that to you. Official vacation time starts NOW.75.21.152.167 (talk) 20:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Vespine, where the heck are you?? I've been fighting the good fight at Robbie Mannheim all alone, and Anupam has possessed that article! If you're through, would you at least notify everyone at the talk page? Hope not! We need you.75.21.119.97 (talk) 17:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey sorry! I am still here, i've been keeping an eye on the proceedings but I just haven't had time to get my hands dirty again. I'll try to set aside some time in the next few days.. Vespine (talk) 00:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank heavens. Glad to know you're monitoring. Well, I'm doing cleanup over there and I think it's looking good--but I made some errors like you have done in the past. I did not mean to leave "cited" text without the citation or ref. You notice Anupam is letting me make a fool of myself at the talk page by refusing to reply...but he digs in and reverts my changes. Does this dump still have the "3R" law? Anupam is basically vandalizing that page now, because you and I have reached agreement on the article but he refuses discussion or to allow changes. We'll see about that. If he keeps it up, I am going to bring in an admin to fix this properly and finally.75.21.154.247 (talk) 19:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes i was considering putting a RFC or something on the page but thought it was probably not a good idea when i don't have a lot of time to put in at the moment. I might be able to get an evening in this week to put some time into it. Cheers. Vespine (talk) 22:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

You may or may not answer this as you see fit, Vespine: I'd like to know how the NPOVD banner got atop the article. Was it you or Anupam? If you, I'd like you to read it over and tell me what you think as soon as you can, because I think I've got it in as good a shape as we'll ever see it. If Anupam did this, you and I have reached a consensus enough to get that thing removed. I believe it is simply stonewalling the project where it is. But...I see you are busy and I don't blame you distancing yourself from this project. I too plan on moving from it for good. In future people will come and wreck it all over again. Alastair...I wish he'd be able to help, but I saw he got permanently banned here. Typical. By the bye, I'm not Alastair!75.21.154.247 (talk) 03:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Vespine, the RfC is done. Posted on the talk page and I planted a prominent request on the Christianity project page thing where I was instructed to put it. No one is going to help though. Anupam will just continue to change it until he's banned.75.21.154.247 (talk) 04:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't remember who put NPOV there, it wasn’t anupam, it might have been me or someone before me. I strongly disagree that the NPOV banner should be removed yet, specifically relating to the issues concerning Verifiability . I still strongly oppose the use of the sources I've brought into question multiple times already there. I would not remove the banner (or replace it with a reference specific one) until those sources are totally expunged from the article. It seems to me that the main argument opposing this position seems to be "but it makes a good story" and "there won't be much left" which IMHO is not an relevant argument at all. If there are not enough REAL sources on the subject, then there's not enough REAL sources on the subject, doesn't mean you can start using story books to "pad it out". These sources are credulously presenting their own opinions and fantasies as facts, I do not believe it is appropriate that they be reinterpreted to "pad out" an article. Vespine (talk) 05:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Vespine, I responded 100% in favor at the talk page. You are right, as I said all along, and I'm so glad you're taking this decision and the initiative to get those padded sources out of there. What a nightmare you have to face! I'd be glad to help with structure, grammar and presentation if you will allow. Just let me know.


 * You feel passionately about this as I do, I can see that. If you want to leave the banner up there, I'll support that--but I don't think it needs to be there when two active editors agree about what to remove from the article, etc. What I don't understand is why no one is coming to assist, and why the RfC I placed at the talk page--per instructions--got removed only minutes after I put it there. I know they take it away when they get to it, but someone took it away sooner. Was it you? I don't think it was you.


 * As I say, you have my support to keep the banner up there about contentious sources, but I do not think we need it. It would be to Anupam's detriment if he messed with our hard work, as you know I have been chiseling away at that thing to whip it into shape for the last month or so.75.21.105.150 (talk) 22:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Vespine, what do you think of proposing the article for deletion? See the talk page, ok? Think it through before you answer.75.21.105.150 (talk) 06:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Knock someone out with a blow to the head
Hi Vespine, you made a very sound edit on the Science Reference Desk, beginning ''That last answer is a bit creepy dude! I think both of those answers are not very appropriate..''

I agree with you and I have deleted the offending answer.

Seeing your posting now refers to an invisible answer you might want to adjust your answer by removing mention of the last answer. Cheers! Dolphin ( t ) 00:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually do not agree with deleting anything, even bad answers. If it were up to me I would at most strike them out. Not only because it avoids people having to go back and edit their replies like me, but to me it seems like censorship. It punishes people for being wrong which I don't think is the right thing to do, it doesn't give them feedback. You should let those people into the discussion and openly explain why their view is inappropriate.. Vespine (talk) 01:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your prompt response. I agree that incorrect answers should not be tampered with, and I generally agree that bad answers should not be tampered with.  I am not in favour of censorship.  In my view Jon Ascton's answer constituted advice about how to commit a crime.  He probably intended it as a joke, but any intended humour was not evident to the reader.


 * I think advice about how to commit a crime should be erased from Wikipedia. It should not simply be struck out.  I wrote to Jon explaining why I erased his answer.  See HERE.  Cheers!   Dolphin  ( t ) 02:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: astrophotography
Thanks, I think I might check it out. BTW, that was a mistake I wrote on my talk page. I was actually only gone three days. Cheers, --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Mannheim steamroller
Just wanted you to know I am working my buns off, cleaning up and getting that into shape Robbie_Mannheim. Even though I still argue that we either merge it or delete it. It is looking better, and I've mastered the art of reading through that muck. No more red-flag notices, and the trimming is going good. Now, may I kindly ask that you come over and do some work? Also, would you add the RfC tag to the top of the talk page? Maybe they won't highjack the thing if you place it there. I even referred this over to the Chrisitanity Portal thing. ;)75.21.105.150 (talk) 21:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Vespine. The proposal sounds excellent and I think you have just invented a precedent. WHY don't the admins come lookin'? I wish they could see the way you worked through this and basically saved the article. Me, just along for the ride. :)75.21.105.150 (talk) 01:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Vespine, see the Mannheim talk page...Anupam is reverting again and simply informing us he's done it on the page. He has NO RIGHT to do that and I can tell he's pissed at me. Because of my IP, I'm tagged. Vespine, can you report him for vandalsim? It's high time, and I cannot do it. The admins consider anything from my IP range to automatically be vandalism. Anupam already knows I stand no chance against him. If you do it you'll be doing a big favor to this project. Please help and try not to disappear for so many days at a time.75.21.105.150 (talk) 00:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Vespine, sorry, I have one procedural favor more to ask: can you see what changes I had made Robbie_Mannheim before Anupam reverted them? He had a BIG problem with my changing of section headings, and I did do it without running it by you. If you agree with his viewpoint, I'll leave it alone, but he's vandalizing that page and I know he's been in trouble for this behavior a lot, on other articles.75.21.105.150 (talk) 00:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Vespine!....Quoth Anupam: "I reverted your edits because they do not follow the Manual of Style. The word "alleged" is mentioned multiple times in the articles. It does not need to be mentioned in the headings. Also, please do not remove sources without discussing it first. Before removing the source, at least consult User:Vespine to see if it is necessary. You are whimsically removing different parts of the article without discussion. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 00:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)" When are YOU going to step in and actually say something and do something? We have a chance to get rid of Anupam if he does not start behaving like an editor...also I find he is abusing the position he was given as a reviewer. I guess I ought to be thankful that he's not messing with the major changes, but as I warned you long ago, he's just going to swoop in later and revert it all again anyway. This is your fight Vespine. I'll observe and do nothing, for a change.76.195.83.144 (talk) 05:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You know what? This project is YOURS. It is too much for me, juggling you and Anupam. You people are more concerned about posting in a civil manner--oh Vespine, I see you are not always as civil as you pretend, so why can't we stop pretending? Anyway, I apologize for giving wrong impressions to you. Also, I did not ever mean to offend you regarding Anupam.


 * I've seconded your proposal. Good luck. Anupam is possessed by this article and he'll see to it that you get chased off, as I feel I have been...by both of you. Well, you've seen the back of me. Hope you are happy.76.195.86.155 (talk) 23:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Vespine, I'm sorry. Out of line and unchivalric of me to post the above, I regret it.76.195.86.155 (talk) 05:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it, I didn't take it presonally. Believe me I know it can be frustrating, and you are right that I've not remained entirely 100% civil through the whole process either, but I try not to take it personally, you can still be passionate and not take it personally, I think that's important if you want to stay sane around here. P.s. I'm not "lecturing". ;) Vespine (talk) 05:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Let us not argue any more about writing abilities or lack thereof. Dude, you really have to stop taking things personally, i'm getting tired of explaining my self. I never accused ANYONE of lacking writing ability, i said NONE OF US ARE BRILLIANT WRITERS! If we were THIS ARTICLE WOULD ALREADY BE BRILLIANT! It is NOT brilliant, hence we're NOT brillant writers, ok? This is more of a comment about Wikipedia in general, it is certainly NOT aimed specifically at YOU! Even more so if you are a published author! being a "good author" and being a "brilliant writer" on wikipedia are two very different things, Get over it. Same thing with your "done properly" comment, maybe you didn't read or understand my reply regarding that. I said: I thought that's what we've been trying to do. Your comment "done properly" is as good as me saying what should I do when my car is over heating and you tell me "fix it". It doesn't really help the discussion. I definitely agree we need to stop arguing about this peripheral stuff and concentrate on the article, it's getting us nowhere. Vespine (talk) 06:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, so please, let us stop. It does not seem you and I are going on to a good forward-moving future this way. By the way, if I may reply in kind, you should learn to take compliments and accept alliance when they are offered. You do not have to defend yourself every time I post something. You want me to get over...what, exactly? Get over you? Get over the fact that no one does anything constructive except argue about definitions on the talk page? Get over myself? Really, you remind me of my wife. If this is how you feel, it's clear I'd better put the brakes on totally. And stop calling me dude. Even my 30-year-old nieces are not allowed to call me that.76.195.86.155 (talk) 12:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Re "get over it" I can't spell it out any clearer then my previous post, if you still don't get it, don't worry about it, let's just move on. As for calling you dude, that's fine, i'll stop, but you should probably know that your assumption about me being female is incorrect, I'm not sure where you got that from. Vespine (talk) 23:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh Vespine, I am sorry about the assumption; it's just that it always struck me that you were female. It isn't personal or even of consequence. I'm a gay man, so that doesn't matter one little bit. Hopefully now that we both got something off our chests, there will be no hard feelings?--Sorry, I had to dive in again and add, I'm happy with people either way, and not sexist. But what I don't understand is how did you get an impression about me thinking you were female? I never said anything to you that would indicate it, did I? As a counter-example, I never posted anything "gay" sounding either, other than being a drama queen, did I? It's a puzzle.76.195.86.155 (talk) 06:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No hard feelings at all, I didn't mention it before because I din't consider it important. There was a couple of times you referred to me as "she" on the talk page, like I said, no big deal at all, just clearing it up.. Vespine (talk) 13:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes of course--that is true, there were some references to you as "she" or "her"...I am sorry. I do not want you to get a wrong impression from that either. As I said, that thought somehow lodged in my brain, that you were a female. And also to be clear, that it was certainly not in any other context when I referred to you as a female. That will teach me to be more careful than I'm used to being! What use is it to live if not to learn? But I must thank you. This error I made is something that could have exploded in an ugly way if you had been like the admins here, or other editors I've encountered.76.195.86.155 (talk) 04:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Say, I just jumped back in because I wanted to tell you: I saw & recalled back in June at Mannheim talk page, you posted about when you were "a young boy in school", about the spitting! Jeez, what a stupid head I am. Vespine just sounds like female to me, I guess. From My Royal Weirdness, take that as a compliment!76.195.86.155 (talk) 06:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'm making a disgusting hash of your talk page. Will you please have a look at my latest suggestion in the Ouija section of the talk page? It's that pesky little thing but it shows Anupam's frame of mind here. I think that is important if we are going to try to slash and burn again...I don't want to pressure you. It's also easy to totally lose interest in this crappy article as it stands now.75.21.106.189 (talk) 02:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Archiving pages
"The talk page guidelines suggest archiving when the talk page exceeds 50 KB or has more than 10 main topics. However, when to archive, and what may be the optimal length for a talk page, are subjective decisions that should be adapted to each case. For example, ongoing discussions and nearby sections they reference should generally be kept intact [emphasis mine]." Retrieved this date from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Archiving_a_talk_page Hope this helps us...I'm trying to decide whether we should just blindly follow this as of now. The talk page is not as bad as some, and the examples I've seen are not at all archived.75.21.106.189 (talk) 13:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry Kiddo, neither you nor I have the luxury of time for this crap. I liked studying the cut-and-paste archiving method but I do not think either of us would be trusted by the walls-that-have-ears if we did it. Go to the link I've given you and see if YOu can fully figure that out!! See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Archiving_a_talk_page#Cut_and_paste_procedure75.21.106.189 (talk) 13:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Anupam time
V., I went to plead with your admin pal for help with Anupam. I'm sorry if you disagree, but that jerk is getting me very angry. Have you seen how he spit in both our eyes, and just reverted the article back the way he wants it?? Have you seen that? That is vandalism and he knows it. He's gone way past the RRR rule and conflict of interest. Now he's just baiting us, and then pretending to be all cutie-pie on the talk page. He's a slimy one and I'm sick of HIM. It was never the article, it was always him.75.21.106.189 (talk) 18:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

This is disgustingly time-wasting and I've had it with you accusing me of yelling at YOU, and I am also tired of your defense of Anupam. So to hell with this. And do not even bother to reply to me because I certainly won't be reading it. Have fun defending/being knocked down by Anupam.75.21.106.189 (talk) 12:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you're even talking about.. where did I accuse you of anything? I have NO idea how to communicate to you. I really do try to be sensitive and objective, but every time i try to give you a opinion, you just crack the shits.. I tried to give you an objective opinion of what Anupam is doing, you seem to think he has a vandetta or something, if that's the case, just SHOW ME where are these edits where he "does what he wishes to the article"? All the edits are logged so it's easy, just show me what you think Anupam is doing that's so horrible? I tried to present to you the evidence that he hasn't been reverting more then once which is not against the rules, and I also presented you with the SOLUTION which is to undo his edits and then SEE if he'll revert it more then 3 times, in which case then you really have evidence against him. I don't know how to be more reasonable. But for some reason, you single out something I wrote, which I still don't know what it was, and you think I'm "accusing" you of something and take it personally and throw a hissy fit. Vespine (talk) 13:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

- You know, I hate to leave "cold" like this without some expression of gratitude and appreciation to you. So here it is.

It's important that you understand, I really don't have time for all this to-and-fro with this article. Wikipedia has mucked up the editing process just as I was starting (barely) to become proficient with the old way.

Still, in spite of mostly being unheard and watching A. get his way over there, I don't want to spirit out of the picture without expressing my innate fondness for you. I thought a lot of it was fun while it lasted.

I saw your latest post. Bully for you, I say--let him have it, in as civil a manner as he dishes it out: and don't forget to forgive me my hissy fits and seeming gracelessness (I'm like a Scot that way).75.21.111.206 (talk) 04:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks 75, I was wondering if you'd just vanish into the void:) I've definitely enjoyed our discussions and stuff too and think the article is definitely better for it. I'll definitely try to keep our momentum going, but you have to put your health and sanity ahead of some random insignificant wiki article:) I understand how frustrating it can be sometimes and I certainly don't hold anything against you, if Anupam starts pushing my buttons the way he seems to push yours I'll definitely leave it too, it's not worth it. Hope to see you around and take care of yourself. Vespine (talk) 06:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Been having fun at the Robbie_Mannheim article, have we? Dropped by to say bravo once again--you got the headings cleaned up and the thing sure looks a damned sight better than it had done. Good for you Vallenby OOPS I mean Vespine. ;)76.195.80.62 (talk) 16:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * who are you and what are you talking about? Vespine (talk) 23:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

God, it's "75". Can't help that, my provider scrams my IP every so often. Jeez, did you think I'd really just totally disappear? You honestly don't recognize the writing style?--it's OK, I mean, if the cold shoulder is in order I'm OK with that. I only wished to congratulate you on the clean-up of the headings at Robbie_Mannheim. Vespine, who did you think it was?!76.195.80.62 (talk) 10:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah i was thinking "who else would write about this", but what really threw me off the most was when you wrote Good for you Vallenby OOPS I mean Vespine. I didn't understand that bit at all. I thought if it was you, you'd refer to something that we'd already talked about before, I thought maybe you were someone who mixed me up for someone, or thought I was a sock puppet or something... Vespine (talk) 22:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh for heaven's sake. Professor Slughorn calls Ron Weasley "Wallenby" when he's not calling him "Wemby"; at one stage he says "Good for you, Wallenby"...I thought you'd catch that. Didn't mean to scare you, old boy. Did you examine my revisions to the article? Either they'll be accepted--and damn me, they're good--or Anupam will have one of his infamous VERY 'British-seeming' hissy fits.75.21.155.143 (talk) 00:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * lol, ok, no idea who slughorn or weasley was, i've googled it now so I get it, but i've never seen or read any harry potter so that's why I didn't get it. All good. The article is definitely shaping up. I think eventually "later life" and "literature and film" don't need separate headings.. For the former, a heading with one sentence in it doesn't make sense and for the latter it's just repeating what's in the opening paragraph already, arguably this is the main and only reason why Robbie is even notable, the inconspicuous repetitive section at the end of the article belittles this fact. I'd also probably rename the "psychological considerations" section, but I haven't thought of a better way to phrase it so I'm leaving it for now. Vespine (talk) 00:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

OH! Poor thing! Not read any Harry Potter?? You are deprived.

I do love those suggestions. "Later Life" is pretty stupid as-is, and does not need to be there at all. "Psychological CONSIDERATIONS', now that's easy: there are "Psychological Opinions" about this case. We may title a section by that title or by something with the word "Scientific" in it. ("Scientific Observations"?--no, that stinks.) Anyway, look at the talk page for my feedback...Anupam is the only wise-ass who knows how to remove the mile-long quotations, and we both know he'll never do it. He knows neither of us has had any luck trying, and he can just revert once he spots the unintentional damage. So I think I'm screwed. WHAT AM I GOING TO DO WITHOUT YOU, YOU FABULOUS 'AUSSIE', YOU?? [DISCLAIMER: The preceding comment does not in any way shape or form constitute cyber-harassment.] ;)75.21.155.143 (talk) 17:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Bon Voyage!
Man, am I going to miss you!! Hope it all goes smashingly, that you have fun and what-not. Overseas? Whatever for? If I may take this liberty, I say again Bon Voyage and I will miss the hell out of you. Please!...receive my humble, far-off blessing?75.21.155.143 (talk) 17:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll just be gone a month, I'm visiting my brother in the UK. I might even get to jump on while I'm over there. Thanks for your kind words. Vespine (talk) 23:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It is from all my heart...and if there's a chance for you, pop in and have a look at the minor changes I've made...if they've not been meddled with. You gave some great ideas and I'm going to try introducing them tentatively. They are very good ideas, I wish I'd had as many of them. I did state a personal opinion about the reference notes at the bottom of the thing...I think they should be left intact unless we concede to the total removal of a reference. They are informative and give a background to the catalogue of mythology surrounding this.75.21.110.251 (talk) 15:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Mannheim Steamroller 2 Robbie_Mannheim
Vespine, I added the pathetic little first paragraph to Origin of Claims because I was trying to find a way to justify its existence. It is OK to have an origin of claims history, but that is not a good one. The information in there belongs elsewhere...and it is NOT an intro to the origin of these claims!

Think about it. You could have an "origin of claims" subsection for every damned section of the article. This section as-is begins stupidly and sort of randomly, saying the boy doesn't recall anything. WOW! What an eye-catching opener for the origin of claims! See what I mean? The rest of it is simply tossed in there.

Well, you are probably gone now. I am going to work on it. Anupam only reverts so much, so hopefully there will be something good there for you to see when you next look.75.21.151.236 (talk) 20:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Pardon, just hopping in because I wish to know: what's the deal at the talk page? You don't even want to change the format of the origins section, let alone get rid of it (just because you added the section). And now you are wanting to throw out Fr. Halloran? What is it with you? Really, what do you have against making this better? I'm not claiming I am the best and will make it better alone...but what have you got against right improvements?75.21.151.236 (talk) 15:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Vespine, I am crowding your talk page again to clarify myself on one sticky point above all others: how can you possibly accuse Fr. Halloran of making ad vericundiam arguments ref: Robbie_Mannheim?

The argument from authority is ILLICIT, shameless and out-of-bounds for the arguer's part. It is an almost unsolicited, unauthoritative argument. That is the hallmark of many Wikipedia entries.

Fr. Halloran never made any such arguments. He was asked one day what his personal opinion was, and he said he "never believed the boy to be possessed or evil." That is an OPINION, and a good professional opinion at that.

Vespine, just because you have some Wiki-twisted ideal about sources does not mean you are right. You cannot go round accusing an expert of making ad vericundiam arguments because you don't like what they say! And claiming that they are arguing from memory is baseless, it is totally beneath the Wikipedia article-writer to say such things.

I hope I have been straightforward and clear. I did not mean to offend you personally ref: origin of claims to this case. You should settle in and really read that article again--you'll see what I mean about that section if you read it again carefully. The article is still a mess.75.21.151.236 (talk) 16:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you please stop posting on the mannheim talk page and also separately on my talk page? It's just getting too confusing and you're repeating a lot of stuff in both places. If you're going to talk about the mannheim article, there should be nothing you have to write here that you can't write there instead. Vespine (talk) 01:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Um, OK, I will do as you have asked, but I want to say a bit first. You really are something: you have tried spanking me quite viciously over there, and you stay still like a sphynx. I must answer to you but YOU do not answer me when I ask. Be fair! That is all I ask, fair and thorough! I made errors, I can be really stupid. My remarks are points of view on the talk page, but I try not to be offensive to anyone. WHY do you think I'm "picking on you"?--it isn't YOu or about you, it's about the article!

Tell you what: we'll keep working through this. I'll lay off if you will. What you must know about me is I will n ot lay off if the other party shows me the same treatment. And by the way, I GAVE you the definition of the authority argument you enjoyed throwing in my face...have the respect to acknowledge it. If you didn't believe me, why not check in a proper place instead of Wikifuckingpedia?75.21.151.236 (talk) 17:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

JW beliefs on the biblical creation account.
since blackcab removed the text in the OEC talk section, here is the reference i provided. it is a bit lengthy, but it is the best explanation of how the biblical creation account correlates with scientific understanding. this reference is from the creation book (life how did it get here - by evolution or creation?) chapter 3. it's a more suitable reference than the one i previously listed, since it makes a direct correlation between science and the bible, as the other simply described the bible account thoroughly, leaving it up to your own understanding of how the earth was formed. i apologize for the length in advance, but it's the best way i've ever seen it described, and is best understood unedited.

What Does Genesis Say?

AS WITH other things that are misrepresented or misunderstood, the first chapter of the Bible deserves at least a fair hearing. The need is to investigate and determine whether it harmonizes with known facts, not to mold it to fit some theoretical framework. Also to be remembered, the Genesis account was not written to show the “how” of creation. Rather, it covers major events in a progressive way, describing what things were formed, the order in which they were formed and the time interval, or “day,” in which each first appeared.

2 When examining the Genesis account, it is helpful to keep in mind that it approaches matters from the standpoint of people on earth. So it describes events as they would have been seen by human observers had they been present. This can be noted from its treatment of events on the fourth Genesis “day.” There the sun and moon are described as great luminaries in comparison to the stars. Yet many stars are far greater than our sun, and the moon is insignificant in comparison to them. But not to an earthly observer. So, as seen from the earth, the sun appears to be a ‘greater light that rules the day’ and the moon a ‘lesser light that dominates the night.’—Genesis 1:14-18.

3 The first part of Genesis indicates that the earth could have existed for billions of years before the first Genesis “day,” though it does not say for how long. However, it does describe what earth’s condition was just before that first “day” began: “Now the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep; and God’s active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters.”—Genesis 1:2.

How Long Is a Genesis “Day”?

4 Many consider the word “day” used in Genesis chapter 1 to mean 24 hours. However, in Genesis 1:5 God himself is said to divide day into a smaller period of time, calling just the light portion “day.” In Genesis 2:4 all the creative periods are called one “day”: “This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created, in the day [all six creative periods] that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.”

5 The Hebrew word yohm, translated “day,” can mean different lengths of time. Among the meanings possible, William Wilson’s Old Testament Word Studies includes the following: “A day; it is frequently put for time in general, or for a long time; a whole period under consideration. . . Day is also put for a particular season or time when any extraordinary event happens.”1 This last sentence appears to fit the creative “days,” for certainly they were periods when extraordinary events were described as happening. It also allows for periods much longer than 24 hours.

6 Genesis chapter 1 uses the expressions “evening” and “morning” relative to the creative periods. Does this not indicate that they were 24 hours long? Not necessarily. In some places people often refer to a man’s lifetime as his “day.” They speak of “my father’s day” or “in Shakespeare’s day.” They may divide up that lifetime “day,” saying “in the morning [or dawn] of his life” or “in the evening [or twilight] of his life.” So ‘evening and morning’ in Genesis chapter 1 does not limit the meaning to a literal 24 hours.

7 “Day” as used in the Bible can include summer and winter, the passing of seasons. (Zechariah 14:8) “The day of harvest” involves many days. (Compare Proverbs 25:13 and Genesis 30:14.) A thousand years are likened to a day. (Psalm 90:4; 2 Peter 3:8, 10) “Judgment Day” covers many years. (Matthew 10:15; 11:22-24) It would seem reasonable that the “days” of Genesis could likewise have embraced long periods of time—millenniums. What, then, took place during those creative eras? Is the Bible’s account of them scientific? Following is a review of these “days” as expressed in Genesis.

First “Day”

8 “‘Let light come to be.’ Then there came to be light. And God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night. And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a first day.”—Genesis 1:3, 5.

9 Of course the sun and moon were in outer space long before this first “day,” but their light did not reach the surface of the earth for an earthly observer to see. Now, light evidently came to be visible on earth on this first “day,” and the rotating earth began to have alternating days and nights.

10 Apparently, the light came in a gradual process, extending over a long period of time, not instantaneously as when you turn on an electric light bulb. The Genesis rendering by translator J. W. Watts reflects this when it says: “And gradually light came into existence.” (A Distinctive Translation of Genesis) This light was from the sun, but the sun itself could not be seen through the overcast. Hence, the light that reached earth was “light diffused,” as indicated by a comment about verse 3 in Rotherham’s Emphasised Bible.—See footnote b for verse 14.

Second “Day”

11 “‘Let an expanse come to be in between the waters and let a dividing occur between the waters and the waters.’ Then God proceeded to make the expanse and to make a division between the waters that should be beneath the expanse and the waters that should be above the expanse. And it came to be so. And God began to call the expanse Heaven.”—Genesis 1:6-8.

12 Some translations use the word “firmament” instead of “expanse.” From this the argument is made that the Genesis account borrowed from creation myths that represent this “firmament” as a metal dome. But even the King James Version Bible, which uses “firmament,” says in the margin, “expansion.” This is because the Hebrew word ra‧qi′a‛, translated “expanse,” means to stretch out or spread out or expand.

13 The Genesis account says that God did it, but it does not say how. In whatever way the described separation occurred, it would look as though the ‘waters above’ had been pushed up from the earth. And birds could later be said to fly in “the expanse of the heavens,” as stated at Genesis 1:20.

Third “Day”

14 “‘Let the waters under the heavens be brought together into one place and let the dry land appear.’ And it came to be so. And God began calling the dry land Earth, but the bringing together of the waters he called Seas.” (Genesis 1:9, 10) As usual, the account does not describe how this was done. No doubt, tremendous earth movements would have been involved in the formation of land areas. Geologists would explain such major upheavals as catastrophism. But Genesis indicates direction and control by a Creator.

15 In the Biblical account where God is described as questioning Job about his knowledge of the earth, a variety of developments concerning earth’s history are described: its measurements, its cloud masses, its seas and how their waves were limited by dry land—many things in general about the creation, spanning long periods of time. Among these things, comparing earth to a building, the Bible says that God asked Job: “Into what have its socket pedestals been sunk down, or who laid its cornerstone?”—Job 38:6.

16 Interestingly, like “socket pedestals,” earth’s crust is much thicker under continents and even more so under mountain ranges, pushing deep into the underlying mantle, like tree roots into soil. “The idea that mountains and continents had roots has been tested over and over again, and shown to be valid,” says Putnam’s Geology.2 Oceanic crust is only about 5 miles thick, but continental roots go down about 20 miles and mountain roots penetrate about twice that far. And all earth’s layers press inward upon earth’s core from all directions, making it like a great “cornerstone” of support.

17 Whatever means were used to accomplish the raising up of dry land, the important point is: Both the Bible and science recognize it as one of the stages in the forming of the earth. Land Plants on Third “Day”

18 The Bible account adds: “‘Let the earth cause grass to shoot forth, vegetation bearing seed, fruit trees yielding fruit according to their kinds, the seed of which is in it, upon the earth.’ And it came to be so.”—Genesis 1:11.

19 Thus by the close of this third creative period, three broad categories of land plants had been created. The diffused light would have become quite strong by then, ample for the process of photosynthesis so vital to green plants. Incidentally, the account here does not mention every “kind” of plant that came on the scene. Microscopic organisms, water plants and others are not specifically named, but likely were created on this “day.”

Fourth “Day”

20 “‘Let luminaries come to be in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night; and they must serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years. And they must serve as luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth.’ And it came to be so. And God proceeded to make the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and also the stars.”—Genesis 1:14-16; Psalm 136:7-9.

21 Previously, on the first “day,” the expression “Let light come to be” was used. The Hebrew word there used for “light” is ’ohr, meaning light in a general sense. But on the fourth “day,” the Hebrew word changes to ma‧’ohr′, which means the source of the light. Rotherham, in a footnote on “Luminaries” in the Emphasised Bible, says: “In ver. 3, ’ôr [’ohr], light diffused.” Then he goes on to show that the Hebrew word ma‧’ohr′ in verse

14 means something “affording light.” On the first “day” diffused light evidently penetrated the swaddling bands, but the sources of that light could not have been seen by an earthly observer because of the cloud layers still enveloping the earth. Now, on this fourth “day,” things apparently changed.

22 An atmosphere initially rich in carbon dioxide may have caused an earth-wide hot climate. But the lush growth of vegetation during the third and fourth creative periods would absorb some of this heat-retaining blanket of carbon dioxide. The vegetation, in turn, would release oxygen—a requirement for animal life.

23 Now, had there been an earthly observer, he would be able to discern the sun, moon and stars, which would “serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years.” (Genesis 1:14) The moon would indicate the passing of lunar months, and the sun the passing of solar years. The seasons that now “came to be” on this fourth “day” would no doubt have been much milder than they became later on.—Genesis 1:15; 8:20-22.

Fifth “Day”

24 “‘Let the waters swarm forth a swarm of living souls and let flying creatures fly over the earth upon the face of the expanse of the heavens.’ And God proceeded to create the great sea monsters and every living soul that moves about, which the waters swarmed forth according to their kinds, and every winged flying creature according to its kind.”—Genesis 1:20, 21.

25 It is of interest to note that the nonhuman creatures with which the waters were to swarm are called “living souls.” This term would also apply to the “flying creatures [that] fly over the earth upon the face of the expanse.” And it would also embrace the forms of sea and air life, such as the sea monsters, whose fossil remains scientists have found in recent times.

Sixth “Day”

26 “‘Let the earth put forth living souls according to their kinds, domestic animal and moving animal and wild beast of the earth according to its kind.’ And it came to be so.”—Genesis 1:24.

27 Thus on the sixth “day,” land animals characterized as wild and domestic appeared. But this final “day” was not over. One last remarkable “kind” was to come:

28 “And God went on to say: ‘Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness, and let them have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and the domestic animals and all the earth and every moving animal that is moving upon the earth.’ And God proceeded to create the man in his image, in God’s image he created him; male and female he created them.”—Genesis 1:26, 27.

29 Chapter 2 of Genesis apparently adds some details. However, it is not, as some have concluded, another account of creation in conflict with that of chapter 1. It just takes up at a point in the third “day,” after dry land appeared but before land plants were created, adding details that were pertinent to the arrival of humans—Adam the living soul, his garden home, Eden, and the woman Eve, his wife.—Genesis 2:5-9, 15-18, 21, 22.

30 The foregoing is presented to help us understand what Genesis says. And this quite realistic account indicates that the creative process continued throughout a period of, not just 144 hours (6 × 24), but over many millenniums of time.

How Did Genesis Know?

31 Many find it hard to accept this creation account. They contend that it is drawn from the creation myths of ancient peoples, primarily those from ancient Babylon. However, as one recent Bible dictionary noted: “No myth has yet been found which explicitly refers to the creation of the universe” and the myths “are marked by polytheism and the struggles of deities for supremacy in marked contrast to the Heb[rew] monotheism of [Genesis] 1-2.”3 Regarding Babylonian creation legends, the trustees of the British Museum stated: “The fundamental conceptions of the Babylonian and Hebrew accounts are essentially different.”4

32 From what we have considered, the Genesis creation account emerges as a scientifically sound document. It reveals the larger categories of plants and animals, with their many varieties, reproducing only “according to their kinds.” The fossil record provides confirmation of this. In fact, it indicates that each “kind” appeared suddenly, with no true transitional forms linking it with any previous “kind,” as required by the evolution theory.

33 All the knowledge of the wise men of Egypt could not have furnished Moses, the writer of Genesis, any clue to the process of creation. The creation myths of ancient peoples bore no resemblance to what Moses wrote in Genesis. Where, then, did Moses learn all these things? Apparently from someone who was there.

34 The science of mathematical probability offers striking proof that the Genesis creation account must have come from a source with knowledge of the events. The account lists 10 major stages in this order: (1) a beginning; (2) a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water; (3) light; (4) an expanse or atmosphere; (5) large areas of dry land; (6) land plants; (7) sun, moon and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning; (8) sea monsters and flying creatures; (9) wild and tame beasts, mammals; (10) man. Science agrees that these stages occurred in this general order. What are the chances that the writer of Genesis just guessed this order? The same as if you picked at random the numbers 1 to 10 from a box, and drew them in consecutive order. The chances of doing this on your first try are 1 in 3,628,800! So, to say the writer just happened to list the foregoing events in the right order without getting the facts from somewhere is not realistic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Damoser (talk • contribs) 07:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

talkback
Basket of Puppies 06:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

MMS talk page
I've deleted all of the forum style discussion there, hope you understand. Dougweller (talk) 08:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Roland Doe
Vespine, I wish to ask a question: who protected the TALK PAGE from my posting there? You must have some idea. It is no longer possible for me to post - it's "protected". Now, who did it? I will continue to come post here unless you want to protect this page also, until I get an answer. And if you do not know the answer, you ought to know it.75.21.119.216 (talk) 09:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey there. Sorry, but I really have no idea what you are talking about. For one, i didn't even know individual pages could be blocked from certain people, for two, i didn't even know TALK pages could be blocked unless you were banned all together, i can't see any "protection" or anything on that page so i have no idea. I'm not an admin or anything, and the last time I made any contribution to the Robbie page was last September, except for the one recent comment about renaming the page. So i have no idea why you think i "should" know. Now if you want to come back and ask nicely i can ask some questions to try figure out what happened or whatever, but if you are just going to start throwing around accusations and threats, you can stick it. ;) Vespine (talk) 00:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * V., it was not exactly my intention to seem so hawkish about this, toward you. I was reckless with that post - I was feeling a bit hot-headed becuase, well, yes, admins can and do "protect" certain pages from certain IP addresses.


 * Knowing that you do not do things of that nature, and knowing you aren't an admin, I do apologize for the accusatory tone I used earlier. To be honest, I simply thought you had asked an admin to come over and do it.


 * Again, so sorry. I've been having bad experiences at Amazon which were all too redolent of the crap I had to endure here over at Anna Anderson. It was no reason to bring it to your doorstep. And I appreciate that we're in agreement as we usually are about the title of that acrticle. I have to suspect someone else is meddling with that article ... again.75.21.153.58 (talk) 08:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

This slipped my mind: I wanted very much for a long time to apologize for our arguments about ad vericundiam issues. It slipped out of control and I never did say I am sorry that happened.

You and I tend to approach this article with the same ideas, the same vision. I don't know why I end up taking everything out on you, but it will not happen again. Editors like you are too rare here. I am accustomed to fighting with slimy admins who yank out all the guns while I just get to sit here and watch them do it.

But enough of my excuses. I apologize to you for that in the past also.75.21.153.58 (talk) 09:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries at all, I understand what it can be like sometimes, but i always try not to take it too seriously. Thanks for saying those things. Take care. Vespine (talk) 10:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Not at all, it needed saying. Oh, Vespine! Go to the talk page! They may be re-titling the article with your title! "The Exorcism of Roland Doe" I think the admin suggested, which is basically your title! Very cool. Roland Doe discussion page75.21.153.58 (talk) 15:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

V., I do not want you to think that I am this DataBishop character. He looks demented. By the way, do you know how I can now start the process of nominating Roland Doe? It's all thanks to you.76.195.85.160 (talk) 03:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

V.: I separated DataBishop's comment from mine. Sneaky beggar, trying to look like me.76.195.85.160 (talk) 03:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * No it's fine, I know perfectly well who databishop is, he doesn't know how to start a new section that's all. I've separated his comment entirely. Cheers. Vespine (talk) 04:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Data Bishop
Vespine, I thank you for your time. As always, Jim Humble DataBishop (talk) 21:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Vespine, I greatly admire the intestinal fortitude you show in standing up to this character. Ornithikos (talk) 06:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for saying so. I've been researching MMS for over a year now and generally trying to be as much of a pain to these fraudsters as possible. It's a thankless task and the few times anyone actually writes that they notice makes it worth it.. Cheers. Vespine (talk) 01:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Exorcism of Roland Doe
Hi V., you've been eerily silent and I wondered if you'd come back and hang out at the talk page now and then sometime. A really helpful admin has been working over there and helping a great deal. It's good to have someone else watching over the integrity of the work here.

By the way, it's me! The Alternating IP.75.21.98.141 (talk) 04:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Jim Humble (DataBishop)
I made a note on the talk page of the Miracle Mineral Supplement article about a possible conflict of interest with Jim Humble. His recent edits just added his opinion to the article, of course it was reverted, but then I look at his talk page and note at the top is a practical advertisement of MMS and promotion of himself. It looks like he wrote his own version of the article on his talk page. Are Wikipedia editors allowed to do that? Seems a bit hinky to me. Bialy Goethe (talk) 04:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up, I've put my comment in WP:COIN. Vespine (talk) 00:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

What is a toolbar?
I should have realized I heard the term many times for other things. Nevertheless, the word "toolbar" on its own has always meant this. I didn't find it anywhere else on Wikipedia, so I've made my little contribution here.Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 20:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, it's just that your question made very little sense even if that's what you meant. You don't even mention what application you're talking about, that should be the 1st thing to specify. Vespine (talk) 22:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Curious Sulphur crested cockatoo.JPG
Thanks for uploading File:Curious Sulphur crested cockatoo.JPG. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 00:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Yes. I've been living in Poland for the last en years. Came for a one-year sabbatical and fell in love with it and stayed. Spent four years in Skierniewice, and six now in sunny Wrocław, the greatest city in Poland. I came here because all four of my grandparents came from Poland to America just before the first world war. Lucky, because Stalin killed any of my family that remained because they were too rich, and Hitler polished off the rest. I hope your having fun with the koalas and kangaroos down under. I'm sure the one thing you don't miss is Polish winters. Thanks for the hello, and wzyskiego najlepszego! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Check your comment placement
here it looks from the content of your post that you're responding to Medeis, but the way you placed it it looks like you are responding to me. As you can easily see, I'm kinda on your side on this one. You may want to move that so it is clearer who you are responding to. -- Jayron  32  04:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Python and coin tosses
Here is the Python code for calculating the average maximum length of runs of heads or tails:

It is in three parts:
 * fib_gen calculates the nth term in a generalised Fibonacci sequence
 * run_prob uses fib_gen to calculate the probability of observing a maximum run of m heads or tails in a sequence of n tosses
 * run_avg uses run_prob to calcualtes the average maximum run length in a sequence of n tosses

This works okay up to 1000 tosses, but once you go much over that the float(2**n) operation in run_prob throws an overflow exception on my machine. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Followup question about mathematics as a tool
Re: it wouldn't be anywhere near the 1st time something that "didn't make mathematical sense" turned out to be true

Could you elucidate perhaps with an example because my study of chemistry kinetics is almost making me come to that exact conclusion... Adwctam (talk) 06:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Adwctam, Well I guess the example I was thinking of was imaginary numbers, they didn't make mathematical sense until someone "imagined" them. Vespine (talk) 21:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alex Hammond (author), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ABC. 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) 09:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Australia and New Zealand Banking Group
Hi there, you should not try to discredit people based on the newness of the account. It is un-inclusive, un-democratic and amounts to argument by authority and by position, rather than reasons. Furthermore, prior to deletion of the contributions you yourself failed to give any real reasons. Can I suggest we move the items into a specific section for controversies?; I agree that perhaps history is not the best place to have this information... Yes this information is not great, but maybe we should add a section for this because it is relevant information; unless you are against negative information about ANZ being put forward... As you mentioned lets discuss this and reach a compromise — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mainbanker872 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Mainbanker872 I made the reasons for my revert clear in the talk page, the edits you have made are not NPOV and are not appropriate for the article's lede section. If you want to revert my edits, please give your reasons there. I'm not interested in having a discussion here. I also did not mention how new your account was, I said it appears to be created for the sole purpose of adding disparaging information, i stand by this statement. "undemocratic"? Pleas, thou doth protest too much, methinks.  Vespine (talk) 04:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Well I reserve the right to refute those allegations here. Methinks silencing negative information and promoting positive is not NPOV. You have not given clear reasons at all. Since this is the way that wikipedia works then maybe I will resign here not engage with it anymore. You win Vespine, negative information is not allowed and I will not post anything negative anymore. Just because someone posts negative information (that is reported in the media... just like your reversions...) does not make their account for the purpose indicated by you. This is an abuse by incumbent users but meh. You are simply being unfair and wanting to exert power over less powerful people. Bye Vespine and by Wikipedia, I hope you do not engage in this sort of behavior towards every user that posts negative information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mainbanker872 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Mainbanker872 I don't know who you think you're fooling but your attitude and your edits stink of bias. This is very clearly not your first wikipedia account, no brand new editor comes to wikipedia fluent in how to make edits with inline references etc... You very clearly created this account just to stick disparaging information into a company article. This is NOT the way to become a productive Wikipedia editor, if that's what you think you are doing. It's not just about being POV or NPOV, edits have to be notable too, I HAVE every time provided reasons for removing your additions, they are on the talk page, the fact a company has been taken to court over unfair dismissal is NOT notable, it happens all the time to most companies on the planet, there is no point to that information being on the wikipedia article. There were over 8000 unfair dismissal cases in Australia in 2015. That IS a reason for removing the information, if you disagree then discuss with me on the article talk page, don't come to my personal talk page and then start adding disparaging comments about ME, that's a clear sign you are just a crank with an agenda and not someone just trying to make an article better. Vespine (talk) 22:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Ref desks and article improvement
Hi, I was surprised to hear you say that it is discouraged to use the ref desks for article improvement. Is this just a feeling you've noticed, or can you point me to any discussion/guideline on the topic? Honestly, I've heard more of the opposite sentiment, something like "You aren't helping to improve the encyclopedia with this question/answer so go away". My own opinion is that article talk pages seldom have the quantity and quality of eyeballs and reference-finders that we do at the ref desks, and that questions related to article improvement are completely fine. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * @SemanticMantis I think I'm thinking more of people who just come to the ref desk looking for someone to fix an article, rather than "asking a question" so that they can make the article better them selves. Like: "here's a crappy article, someone should fix it": They aren't asking a question, they aren't asking for a reference, they're just looking for a resource to spend some time fixing an article. I think that is discouraged. When I first read the post by WTN I got the impression that's what he was doing, but reading it again I see I probably misinterpreted, I think I might have slightly misinterpreted your first reply too. Of course someone asking a question on the ref desk to clarify something in an article because they are editing it and want to make it better is perfectly fine. Vespine (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey, that makes perfect sense - thanks for clarifying. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 19:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey
Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.

About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF). About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 08:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)