Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:49, 4 August 2005

Template:Featured article is only for Misplaced Pages:Featured articles.

For older discussions see:

• Talk:Vampirism
• Talk:Vampire/Archive1
• Talk:Vampire/Archive2

See Misplaced Pages:How to archive a talk page for instructions on archiving old content when this page becomes too large.

Rearranging

DreamGuy you do not own this article. Do not go making major changes as though you do just because you think that is how it should be. If you want to make a major change have the courtesy to let people know first. Open it up to discussion.

• Vampires as people know them now are drastically different than the animated corpses of folklore. I think the article is fine the way it is. It starts by giving a general defintion then it talks about vampires that everyone is familiar with. The evolution of the mythos is great but it shouldn't define the article. After the modern vampire is outlined then the article can delve into folklore and how it has evovled over the decades/centuries.
• Do not remove any of my picture again simply because you think that they are silly or break the rules. Leave the policing to the administrators. If you think a picture is silly that is fine, but replace it with something else.

If anyone whould like to discuss this I would really like to hear from you. I hate being that guy. So if I am in the wrong let me know. (unsigned, but by User:Evmore)

If you haven't noticed, you are on Misplaced Pages and not your own personal website. I don't own this article, but you sure sound like you are trying to own it yourself. Other people can make edits without your permission. I can remove an image if I find it inappropriate. I can move things around without asking you first. That's how things work here. You should probably take a step back and calm down here, because if you are going to be so emotionally attached to having things the way you want, you are going to run into major problems on a site that is built on the idea that anyone at anytime can come in and completely change it.

Regarding my changes, the "Strength and Weaknesses" section completely interrupts the flow of this article. We are talking about folkloric vampires, then suddenly a huge, huge section of fictional abilities comes next, and then much later we go back to the folklore. That's not very efficient organization at all.

On top of that, you have tons of quotes to books and movies in "your" section but do not cite where they came from. You should really say where they come from or else the quotes are pretty pointless. Also, the strengths and weaknesses section is so detailed and so focused on modern fiction that I actually think it needs to be edited down considerably, as the section is the largest one there and the article length is way past the preferred length. If it's not edited down then it should maybe have its own article. And, actually, I think it'd be better if the majority of the fiction parts were moved so there could be an article that does nothing but solely focus on modern fictional representations -- both movies and this "abilities" of yours. There does seem to be a great divide between the history and folklore section and the books/games/TV/cartoons section.

At any rate, I see that you have made a huge number of edits here recently. I'm not sure where you got the idea that you were allowed to make that many changes and that I was not allowed to make the two I made. I think you need to reassess your notion of how things work here and cool off. DreamGuy 00:13, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

You are right DreamGuy, we are not on our personal website, but as it stands, the version that everyone has been looking at for atleast the last week has been okay by everyone except you. If other people agree with you then fine but till then it isn't going to happen.

• As for emotionally attached, we all know you are the one with the problem. I've seen you "work." Take a step back and adhere to your own advice. Believe me, I am not trying "to advance an agenda of some sort."
• As for the qoutes, did you even read the article? All I added where the quotes from Stoker which is identified in the befinning and the one from Stephen King's Salem's Lot which someone else added the section but didn't add a reference so I added it.
• Preferred length?!? And how long is preferred pray tell? The article has gotten longer because people have added traits. I think it's great the direction everyone has taken it.
• As for as a new section, if anything the History of Vampires would be more appropriate.
• Again you are the one with the track record DreamGuy. The section is going back the way it was.

--Evmore 00:41, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I was wrong on the quotes (although it is very clumsy to list them over and over and over again with only an attribution at the top... and, honestly, quoting fiction nonstop only goes to prove my point that it should be in the fiction section of the article and not the section with the background ans history), but the rest you are just not listening to. Preferred link is listed directly on top of the edit page when the article is being edited. This article exceeds it. Your extreme hostility when I pointed out that your images do not have proper tags and are copyright violations, not to mention your insistence that a section you wrote be first in the article, shoors very poor judgment. DreamGuy 21:59, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Etymology et al

I just had to revert the last edits by two anonymous users, 24.22.48.163 and 213.240.2.16, to last version by Evmore. The former mentioned that vampires are often depicted as having unnatural beauty; while this may be a trend, I'm not sure it's so important, but anyway it was in the "Abilities" section and beauty is not an ability.

The other user mentioned an etymology supposedly from Old Slavonic van pira, "out of the fire", with an explanation. This had to go because it flatly contradicted the text immediately before, and it was unsourced, and of course it read too much like folk etymology. If someone can confirm that this phrase makes sense in OS, and that it has been proposed as etymology for "vampire", we can mention it after the other one.

--Pablo D. Flores 10:43, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I think that the trait of unnatural beauty could be added as an ability if it is well placed, clearly not part of another ability such as shapeshifting or hypnotic ability, and well referenced. For instance, the vampires in Interview with the Vampire do not have the ability to shape-shift; however, when they "turn" they automatically become impressively beautiful. They have the hypnotic ability to persuade people but they aren't really using it to make people think they are beautiful. So 24.22.48.163 does have a point, especially since it is an unnatural beauty. I just wish he would leave a reference. I haven't read the Anne Rice books so that movie is the single reference I can think of so I'm not sure it would be considered notable. In other tales, their beauty is usually a direct result of their shape-shifting abilities coupled with their hypnotic persuasion. --Evmore 21:29, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Rearranging 2

DreamGuy, you have already been warned by me and other contributors to this article. You do not own this article. Do not make drastic changes without opening it up for discussion. What you are doing is vandalism.

• Now about your comments: Every ability and limitation except for one (weakness to silver) is found in 19th century literature. It is the core of what the vampire mythos is today. Just because you don’t think that it should qualify to be included is just too bad. Most other contributors do. In fact, other encyclopedia entries will usually reference them as well. And just so you know, both folklore and mythology ARE fiction. And the fact that you condesend everyone else by saying, "but the rest of you are just not listening" should say something about you.
• And if the article is too long then what should be removed are sections that do not have anything to do with the main entry which is Vampires. Examples include: Pathology and vampirism, vampire bats, The "Vampire subculture," vampirism in zoology, even contemporary beliefs in vampires. This article is about vampires, not about mental illnesses or as to why people want to be or dress like vampires. Likewise, it is fine to list vampire-like creatures. But in the end they aren’t vampires. A chupacabra is no more a vampire then a vampire is a zombie.
• And I'm not getting hostile, if I get irritated it is because you call my images copyright violations, try and post it as such, even after I tell you up front who made them and how you can talk to him and verify for yourself that there is not copyright violations. Just read the tags. And stop referring to it as my section. I only wrote the bare bones of it. There have been many contributors to the section.
• Look, I'll listen to reason but right now you won't even discuss it with anyone else. You are just trying to bully your way across. It's not going to happen.

People, this is getting ridiculous!

I suggest leaving the article alone for a week or so. No editing, no rearranging, nothing. Let's everybody cool off and think. The article looks quite fine now. Step back and see for yourselves. Sure, I have my own feelings about some minor bits (including the arrangement of the sections) but I'll keep them to myself. For a week.

And if anybody has a personal problem with anybody else (the conditional is rhetorical), please take it to your user talk pages. --Pablo D. Flores 10:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

See you in a week.  :-)

--Evmore 11:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup from recent split and merge

The history of vampires article was merged this one so a fair amount of cleanup is necessary at this point. I had mentioned on that article that many of the sections were unsourced and dubious. Now that it's included here we have to take care of it. I already fixed the garbled section about an Egyptian god that was actually a goddess and not quite like how the article stated, I also removed some trivial non-vampire details from the gypsies section. There is also a lot of duplicate information with the rest of the article, just plain wordiness, and so forth. A whole huge section of this article ("Strengths and weakensses") was not only basically duplicated by the new information that came in but was a fork file for information already on Vampire fiction. Fork files are not allowed on Misplaced Pages, per policy.

The article could use a lot more smoothing out and also verification on a lot of the new parts that wre added. DreamGuy 17:46, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Drastic changes

It was a bit drastic of DreamGuy, especially after the above, to remove a whole section, and it was also drastic of Existentializer to revert the removal. Please guys, calm down. DreamGuy, Exi is right to point out that you can't do such a thing without discussing it in the talk page; and Exi, know that calling someone a vandal is very serious and needs substantiation (and if you're going to revert, go by your own book and discuss before reverting). I promised to leave the article alone for one week and I'll stand by that. I suggest you do the same. --Pablo D. Flores 18:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but leaving it alone Evmore;s way, especially when it contains a huge fork file against Misplaced Pages policy, makes no sense. It would be different if you were leaving it alone my way, because then you could actually say you thought about it for a week. Exi's edit was completely inexcusible, and I do not think being chastised by people who aren;t fololowing policies makes any sense. I am here to improve Misplaced Pages, not just let someone who is being a bully with the article get his way because he has an emotional attachment to a large part of it. And when these editors revert it they never look at all the changes unrelated to what they are complaining about, they just undo everything. This shows they are operating from bad faith. DreamGuy 18:51, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

PS The section titles were right before; Misplaced Pages:Capitalization says "Capitalize only the first letter of a heading's first word and of any proper nouns, but leave the other words lower case".

DreamGuy, you have a history of making large edits on this page without justifying them. I notice that you have NOT included any linking to the Vampires in Fiction section so I shall make sure it is properly linked now. I will be looking over the rest of your dubious edits later. Additionally, the Strengths and Weaknesses section belongs HERE and not in Vampire fiction as it is related not only to the modern fictional writings but also to the old folk tales referenced in this article. I am moving it back and deleting the forked content from Vampire fiction instead. Existentializer 18:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

No, I have justified them, you've just ignored them. Anmd don;t you dare move that section back as it duplicates infor already in this article and does not feature folklore traits except in tiny miniscule amounts. I will just have to undo your bad faith changes yet again (And, incidentally, I was not the one who made the Vampires in fiction article, if the link was missing it is either because that person did not put it here or one of you editors makig blind reverts screwed it up.) DreamGuy 19:03, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Grow up and get a clue. Your vandalism is unwanted. The mythical powers of vampires, of ANY sort, are historically not just part of "fiction" but of hereditary folklore. Removing them to the "fiction" page is inappropriate. They are properties of Vampire mythos and not confined only to "fiction", but to historical accusations of vampirism and historical folklore concerning the mythical creatures. Existentializer 19:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

This is not vandalism, and your abusive actions are unwarranted. Further the section you are talking about contains powers that ARE NOT part of the original myths, which is why they are inappropriate here and belong on the fiction page. This has already been explained. Please take the time to read the comments above, the articles in question and Misplaced Pages policies so you do not make such blatant errors in the future. DreamGuy 19:12, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

The powers are generalized, and change whenever a new author puts pen to paper or crafts an oral tale. This has gone on for generations upon generations, ever since humans began to fear death and sought to bury their dead for fear that old relatives would come back to life and kill them. Including modern myths with old myths is not a problem: the article's title is Vampire not Vampire except for anything written in the last 200 years. Get over yourself, you have the capacity to make good edits but you are steadfastly refusing to do so even as I am trying to clean this section up. Existentializer 19:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it's clear that you don't know what you are talking about. Modern fiction is not "modern myths". Fiction is not myth at all, it's formed a completely differnt way. Myths are stories that are believed to be true, and thus they are formed in completely different ways and have different meanings and importance. Some kids making vampires super cool fast in some game somewhere is NOT a feature of the folklore, it is just stupid and pointless to include here on the article. All that junk belongs in the fiction article. Also, pretty much everything you have added recently is completely wrong. You claim that all cultures have vampires with super strength. Completely wrong. You bring up a Kappa bowing to pour water out of its head... That's so completely irrelevant and misplaced that it's not even coherent enough to be wrong. You don;t know what you are talking about, and you are violating Misplaced Pages rules on Misplaced Pages:Verifiability by insisting on putting in these fictional details (and also ones you appranetly cooked up all by yourself) as if they were real. Your so-called attempt to clean up this article is making it pure nonsense. The idea behind encyclopedias is that they are sources of informed knowledge, not whatever some kid pulls out of nowhere because it's uber kewl or whatever. Further this article, thanks to a recent merge, ALREADY HAS a section on vampire traits. You don;t need to put the fiction one back in because it's duplicate info (and just plain WRONG for this article). Any changes you make here with unsourced information are a waste of time, as I will just remove them and ask you to provide scholarly sources. IF you want to play around adding fiction to the fiction article, by all means, but you will not destroy this article with your nonsense. DreamGuy 19:46, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Blow it out your uninformed pie-hole. The mythos of Vampires is not predicated on "believed to be true" but the general assumptions involved in writing fiction about them, WHATEVER the source. Modern folklore exists even as modern society scoffs on "superstitious" beliefs: we have our bogeymen and modern mystical monsters as well as celebrating and continuing to write about old favorites. As mythical creatures, Vampires have had their traits and powers altered and changed by every culture and generation that has written or fantasized about them, and to give an accounting of this is entirely encyclopedic. I'm tired of seeing you try to destroy this article and it's evident from earlier Talk disputes that plenty of others are or have left in disgust of your childish rantings. Existentializer 19:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Please stop tossing out insults. Modern folklore does exist (in Eastern Europe for example a year or so ago some villagers dug up a grave they suspected of having a vampire in it, so that's modern folklore) but it's completely unrelated to created fiction. You have not provided sources for your recent additions and your knowledge (both of mythology/folklore and vampires in general) is substandard. You need to stop making abusive and destructive edits. The fact that people who make incredibly bad edits and emotionally change them back without rational debate when they are modified is not an indication that I am doing anything wrong, rather it is evidence that I am doing what I am supposed to be doing -- improving this encyclopedia -- and that it is actually people like youreslf who are making outbursts and blind reverting to bad versions who are childish. Your comments ("Blow it out your uninformed pie-hole" etc.) are proof of that. DreamGuy 20:15, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

I repeat for the record: You have been offered the opportunity to behave in good faith. Wholesale deletion of content or moving it inappropriately is vandalism. The section as it sits may include too much Western mythos, but a collection of abilities and powers makes sense. And for the record, modern fiction is the evolution of much historical folklore, and the two are intertwined. You cannot speak about Vampires without speaking of their modern interpretations. Now, you have been invited to help improve the section. If you see a reference which is incorrect, feel free to correct it. If you see something that you happen to have a source for, please feel free to add it. If a section of text could be tightened up, feel free to do so. But stop acting like a vandal and wiping things out from the article. Existentializer 20:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

DreamGuy, stop vandalizing this article

That is all.Existentializer 16:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

It should be noted that User:Existentializer has been blocked for a year as a sockpuppet of an editor previously banned for highly abusive edits, including false claims of vandalism. It should also be noted that the person who showed up later to make the same reverts with the same comments after he was banned, User:Ni-ju-Ichi, has also been banned for the same year after the people running the software verified that he was a sockpuppet of the banned User:Existentializer. And User:Gabrielsimon got blocked today as well for his 9th or 10th violation of the 3RR, though he'll probably be back before a year.

Can those of us who are actually here, not sockpuppets and not blocked just agree that the fiction stuff belongs in the fiction article so we can get the articles unprotected? DreamGuy 07:22, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

I will certainly agree that all information on vampire fiction, except for the most general overview, should be in the Vampire Fiction article. Since the line between fiction and "myth and lore" is a little bit fuzzy, I think it will take some care. But as much as possible information on vampire fiction should be a seperate topic. BarkingDoc

Thanks... well, there may be some fuzziness to the line between fiction and folklore, but the people who wanted the info here were trying to claim that all modern fiction became folklore by virtue of people reading it, or something odd like that (see above and Talk:Vampire fiction), so they weren't trying to have a line at all. But then they are all blocked now so maybe we won't have problems anymore. The pages ended up already being unprotected right away once the admins realized that the people involved in continually reverting it were now blocked. DreamGuy 23:41, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Strengths and weaknesses

Can someone explain what the problem with this section is? DreamGuy has reverted it 15 times over nine days, leading to page protection and complaints from other editors. I see he's just done it again. Any enquiries I've made have met with abuse. Is there a consensus against having this section? It looks fine to me, though I don't know the background and may be missing something. SlimVirgin 01:47, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

i think hes just unwilling to accept his own fallabillity, i dislike people who cant admit that theyt are wrong. dont you?

Gabrielsimon 01:49, 4 August 2005 (UTC)