| Revision as of 13:02, 19 August 2005 editDreamGuy (talk | contribs)33,601 edits →Clinical lycanthropy redux← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:15, 19 August 2005 edit undoDreamGuy (talk | contribs)33,601 edits →Clinical lycanthropy reduxNext edit → | ||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
| :Considering that you never did come up with a real reason for its removal from the article, a see also link is absolutely positively necessary, unless you just want to give up any pretense of pretending to folow policy and just admit that you are removing information out of spite. ] 13:02, August 19, 2005 (UTC) | :Considering that you never did come up with a real reason for its removal from the article, a see also link is absolutely positively necessary, unless you just want to give up any pretense of pretending to folow policy and just admit that you are removing information out of spite. ] 13:02, August 19, 2005 (UTC) | ||
| See also sections are for related topics. This article is about people thinking they are beasts and animals and stuff, that one is for people thinking they are animals... regardless of whether you think that this article itself should mention it, it clearly without a doubt fits see also criteria. It's not "original research" to list related topics. Any supposed consensus you tihnk you have for the article content has nothing to do with related topic links. ] 13:15, August 19, 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 13:15, 19 August 2005
Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3. Archive 4
pov or not pov, but pov nontheless
ok, so we all know tha someones whining about people being POV, but isnt claiming they ARENT real a POV in itself? articles on religion dont say " o and by the wy, these freaks are nuts" but a single other editor keeps trying to make this and other articles say exactly that bout the articles subjects. why cant we say that THEY do trace it, weather its sceintificlaly verificable or not shouldnt matter, because this article has nothing to do with science.Gavin the Chosen 12:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, but it can't say the beliefs are true either. By the way, you're on the edge of violating 3RR. ~~ N (t/c) 12:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
- i wont actually do so. i honestly thoght that narrow mindedness had no place in an encycplopediaa, and stating that its what they beleive in the most friebd;ly way possible seems the way to go. if you look at Draginfly's explaination, it seem reasonable.Gavin the Chosen 12:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
- I have to disagree with Dragonfly on this. "by tracing their ancestry to..." is not neutral phrasing, although the "they claim" version is also not as NPOV as it could be and has a sceptical tone. Vashti 13:23, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
- can you figre a better way to say it then the way it vcurrently is? anything i would try would be instantly reverted without being read by DreamGuy.Gavin the Chosen 13:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Clinical lycanthropy redux
DreamGuy, I believe it's been firmly established that it is against consensus to have references to clinical lycanthropy on this page, as you have refused repeated requests to demonstrate the link to otherkin from the papers you've cited. I've removed it, again. Vashti 11:48, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Hello, it's already been explained thoroughly... the freaking article explains the link. It was bad enough that someone with a huge amount of bias removed the references from the article itself and justified it with a throughly screwed up twisting of what the No original research policy says, but it is beyond disgusting that even a See also link has been excised. And I think your "consensus" consists of you and the guy who has been blocked upteen million times for POV warring.
- Considering that you never did come up with a real reason for its removal from the article, a see also link is absolutely positively necessary, unless you just want to give up any pretense of pretending to folow policy and just admit that you are removing information out of spite. DreamGuy 13:02, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
See also sections are for related topics. This article is about people thinking they are beasts and animals and stuff, that one is for people thinking they are animals... regardless of whether you think that this article itself should mention it, it clearly without a doubt fits see also criteria. It's not "original research" to list related topics. Any supposed consensus you tihnk you have for the article content has nothing to do with related topic links. DreamGuy 13:15, August 19, 2005 (UTC)