| Revision as of 08:11, 19 August 2005 editGavin the Chosen (talk | contribs)664 edits trying to fix a link← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:48, 19 August 2005 edit undoVashti (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,334 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| ::::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.] 13:26, 16 August 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.] 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. ] 11:48, August 19, 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 11:48, 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)