Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:04, 4 August 2005

This template must be substituted. Replace {{FAR ...}} with {{subst:FAR ...}}.

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)

SlimVirgin, the section is a fork file for another article... all that was moved to the Vampire fiction article because it is 99% about fiction, as agreed to above. (Although looking over there shows it's gone missing again... gee, I wonder when that happened?)

And I must object to your claim that I gave you abuse, considering that you were extremely rude to me and were not willing to respond to my complaints about your actions resulting from a conflict on another article several days before... You are clearly not acting a an outside neutral party, and these "complaints" you got about me were clearly from people who saw your earlier conflict and picked you to help them because of your preexisting bias. Please remove yourself from this situation as your actions are only further escalating the situation, because all the sockpuppets and others will just come back to edit war over it. DreamGuy 02:11, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

its a fork YOU created by moving the section without consensus and youc conveiantly waited till i was blocvked before you asked around for a discussion, cheater boy. Gabrielsimon 02:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I noticed the cosplayer girl image that used to be on this article just some time ago was removed with no justification. Why is that? Besides a little weird, I found it pretty fitting, considering what it represented in the article.--Kaonashi 02:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Vampire lifestyle has its own article, and text was moved over from here to there. I think the photo was left to be only there because it was kind of large for the new smaller section here. I wasn't involved in that change, but it makes some sense if the photo was larger than the remaining text itself. DreamGuy 03:07, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

DreamGuy, you have to stop attacking everyone who criticizes you as biased, or a sockpuppet, or acting in bad faith. I have no biases here and became involved only because I received queries about your interpretation of policy and reverting, which is why I'm asking about this section; as for rudeness, the history of your talk page shows which of us the rudeness came from, though people will have to fish for it because you keep deleting it. SlimVirgin 02:35, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

I am not accusing everyone who criticizes me as biased, sockpuppet or acting in bad faith, just those people who actions have totally gone beyond all pretense to the contrary. Mind you I was correct about the sockpuppets as proven by the software engineers above you who traced them and blocked them, and Gabrielsimon has clearly demonstrated a willingness to blind revert anything and everything I do (see the RfC and the RfA he is undergoing at the moment for those actions and many others 20+ editors have endorsed). You have a conflict with me, tried to block me until other admins stepped in and undid it, and refuse to take yourself out of situations where you have a strong conflict of interest and instead deliberately insert yourself into them. That is clearly bad faith. If you wanted to do good faith you could have gotten another admin to step in a long time ago, as ha been suggested to you, yet you refused to do that. DreamGuy 03:07, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Hang on. First, other admins did not step in to unblock you. I unblocked you because I noticed one of the reverts was against Enviroknot. Second, it was not the developers who spotted it was Enviroknot/Existentializer. I and other admins recognized the IP address range, and I blocked one of them myself (Ni-ju-Ichi), as I've dealt with Enviroknot sockpuppets many times before. I ask you again: please get your facts straight and, above all, assume good faith. SlimVirgin 03:36, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Other admins said they were going to step in to unblock me, if you did it yourself before they had to then that's a credit to you. And I did not say the developers spotted Enviroknot and Existentialier, I said it was them who proved the sockpuppets while admins were bickering over whether they should block someone without proof. I actually reported his more recent sockpuppet after Existentializer and it worked its way up all the way to the developers. Please get your own facts straight. DreamGuy 03:51, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

No other admin said they were going to step in to unblock you. Name one.

As for the second, no admins were bickering, as you put it, there either. Whether developers ended up confirming the IP addresses, I don't know, but the IPs were already known. You're aware of five per cent of the story here, and this is not the place to discuss it. SlimVirgin 04:02, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Back to the subject: all vampire material is fiction, so what's wrong with having this particular section about fiction in the article? How many people agree that this section should not be here? SlimVirgin 02:35, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

No, SlimVirgin, the statement that "all vampire material is fiction" is completely wrong. Vampires were present in mythology and folklore for thousands of years. That is not the same as fiction. These beliefs were thought be real and evolved with the times to reflect the beliefs of those cultures. Fiction is intentionally created for entertainment purposes. It has completely different motives, origins and end results. Some fiction obviously must be discussed here in this article because of its fame, but there is a completely separate article here for Vampire fiction, which is where the fiction-only aspects go... as agreed to above by everyone except the blocked people. DreamGuy 03:07, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

I see the reverting has started up again here and elsewhere, so I've protected the page. Please try to work out a consensus between all the editors here (not including me); in that way you can all stick together if the anons or sockpuppets return. Let me know when you'd like it to be unlocked. Gabriel, in future, please don't put protection tags on pages. Cheers, SlimVirgin 02:48, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

We already had consensus, and we still do... And I already did let you know last time to unlock it, which you did because the only people complaining were the sockpuppets and the banned people, and you unlocked it. The situation has not changed, so there's no reason for you to reprotect it yet again except to let those people continue to screw the article over even while they were already blocked. DreamGuy 03:07, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

the situation HAS changed, o arrogant one, im not blocked, and i do not think ypour choicec of edits in this matters is wise or justifiable. thus i will work tro prevent your furthur destructive edits to this article. Gabrielsimon 03:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I see your point, DreamGuy, which is very persuasive, but I can also see objections. It's difficult to make such a rigid distinction between myth/folklore on the one hand, and fiction on the other, particularly by focusing on authorial intention. For example, most of us have heard of the ancient Greek myth of Medea via Euripides' play of that name. He wrote the play for education and entertainment purposes, and as such it's a work of fiction, but it's also a part of the myth, in that it's the vehicle that keeps the myth alive (all the more so because he changed parts of it, and it's his altered version that most people are now familar with). Bram Stoker's Dracula is in a similar position.

I also think it's difficult to maintain the distinction between folklore as something people believe might be true, and fiction as something they know is not true. It seems to me that the concepts are more fluid than that. SlimVirgin 03:28, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not saying there isn't some fluidity, but we do already mention fiction fairly well in this article and link directly to a comprohensive article on the topic. Moving the section to the fiction article was agreed upon, especially considering that the true folkloric traits listed in there are already listed elsewhere in this article because of a recent merge with vampire history articles and how keeping that section here makes the total article length go way above the recommended length. It's redundancy upon a redundancy with factual errors thrown in for good measure (most of which were cleaned up already after the move and were correct on that page, but the reverted version here restores the old bad version). Everyone except the original author (who is the one who complained to you with the false accusations and keeps removing the tags off his copyright violating images he uploaded), proven sockpuppets, and the editor who was blocked 9 times for violating 3RR while he is supposed to be folowing a 1RR as part of his attempt to respond to problems pointed out to him in his RfC (amd who looks like he just did 4 or 5 reverts on an article earlier today besides) has agreed with the move, as far as I can tell. A number of editors say they like the change. I don't see how there's any controversy here other than from the proven bad seeds, and it's doubtful from their actions whether they are putting it back because they actually think it should be here or just because they like undoing what I change. If anyone else is opposed to it they are welcome to say so, but they haven't. DreamGuy 03:51, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

And see above. Your comments about why you were unblocked and who recognized the Enviroknot IP addresses and sockpuppets are off the mark. SlimVirgin 03:36, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Not really, and you don't need to duplicate your comments in the same section. DreamGuy 03:51, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

actually i agree with slim, yiur inptperetationms seem to require significant effort on your partt to find harrassment and rudeness direected at you from her. Gabrielsimon 03:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Big surprise there. But, please can both of you find a more appropriate place to make those complaints? We should be talking about the article itself here. DreamGuy 03:57, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

you began that part of the conversation, now when it goes sour for you, you ,ove to close it, suprise supruise. Gabrielsimon 03:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Now that the article Vampire fiction exists, I see no reason why we should not remove as much of the fictional material as possible. Authentic Vampire lore is a big topic in itself, and fictional material is not only taking up needed space, but is also clouding the topic of the article, which is: the vampire figure (and vampiric figures) in myth and older folkore (not the vampire in modern popular belief which is mixed with ideas from fiction, etc., etc.). Decius 04:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

This is odd. One side is DreamGuy who repeatedly gets things like "Dreamguy you do not own this article" above. The other is people who Dreamguy likes to make abusive accusations against? It sounds like neither side is operating in good faith. And both Evmore and Pablo D. Flores seem to have left in disgust after DremGuy's antics.

IF there is a big thing about "The Vampire figure in Fiction" versus "The Vampire figure in myth and older folklore" then why not split the myth and folklore section off and leave this page to be a barebones, general-as-possible description and then direct people toward whatever it is they're looking for via links? Although I have to say that arbitrarily just moving content around without forming a consensus, as reamguy seems to have blatantly done from the comments at the top of the page, wasn't a good idea even if he's now claiming "consensus" based on his managing to get someone banned.

Also I think we should remind Decius that Misplaced Pages is not a paper encyclopedia taking up shelf space, the "size" of an article doesn't matter so much here. I see no problem with this page looking over both mythical/folklore and fictional attributes of vampires. I wish you all would do some constructive editing rather than engage in lame wars that are about ego and your control over where something goes. I was going to make an edit tonight myself but then I came here and found that you've gotten it locked and from the history it's not the first time. Shame on you. Devilbat