Talk:Vampire lifestyle/Archive June 5 2005

Article listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion June 22 to July 7 2004, kept as consensus was not reached. Discussion may be found at Talk:Vampire lifestyle/Delete.

Technical Notes

Argh... I hope nobody redirects this page yet again or there will be redirection chains miles long and broken links everywhere! Twice in one day the page was moved... this must be some sort of record. Grr. Please post to talk before doing darastic things unless you just created the article in the wrong place by accident! Falcon 03:32, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)

---

This page might be able to use a bit of wikification. Falcon 02:55, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

NPoV and Weasel Terms

This page desperately needs some sanity. Is the article supposed to be fact or fiction? I'd be interested to know about the human illnesses in which origins of the vampire myth lie. If it's supposed to be fictional, this needs to be made clear and the various substrands of the mythos need to be separated. Lupin 14:40, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The page is about a religious sect and details their beliefs. It is important in the capacity that the sect has created a new mythology on top of an old one, and is also potentially dangerous. I dispensed with fiction-clauses after the first few paragraphs for the most part, because the entire article is about a belief system. Therefore this is not, per se, truth, however it is what a relatively large community believes. However, it does not deserve seperate articles because it is really one unified topic (although a large anf foreign one). It is highly inappropriate to have more than one article about a religion or faith as that supposes that the faith is fact - wikipedia in itself is an aethiest. Falcon 17:14, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

Very well. I still believe that it needs to be made far clearer that everything after the introduction is the beliefs of these sect members and not "fact". For example, the articles talks about the features of a subspecies as if it existed:

There are primarily two types of vampires; psionic (psi) and sanguarian (sang).

This is misleading to say the least. This may seem like an exercise in pedantry on my part but it seems absurd to leave the chance that someone may start reading this stuff in the middle (like I did) and actually take what it is saying as fact. Lupin 23:28, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This is definately a valid point. I shall make changes to reflect this, but by now it is a huge job. By the way, Lupin, I am adding to this article all the time and already it is gaining information about psychology and illness (though perfectly NPOV, of course). An interesting thing I have found about this kind of article is that wikipedia itself cannot possibly avoit taking a POV; because its POV is strictly factual and neutral, it is impossible not do write an article about cults and sects like this without dismissing them as complete bunk. Falcon 03:23, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

---

Okay... so there are people who actually believe they are vampires. I'll buy that. And they believe there are different types etc... but this article is very confusing after the first couple of paragraphs because it reads as such a fervant statement of fact. (btw, out of curiosity, have all the other infinite variations on the 'otherkin' theme got their own detailed articles like this one?) KJ 04:28, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

They do not; most are extremely fringe however as far as they go, this one seems to be quite common. And when, and for what reason, did wikipedia limit detail on any article? I suggest reading the article over again; I spent a half-hour NPOV/aethiesing it so it did not sound that way. The reason it sounded that way in the first place is I viewed the constant reminders of what the article was to be redundant, repetitive and unnecessary. Obviously, this is not the case. And just in case you were wondering about my affiliation with this cult, it is the fact that an ex-girlfriend of mine became to it as a fly is to flypaper. Falcon 06:13, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

---

I am adding the NPOV tag in regards to the insults towrds believers peppered throughout the article. If this is actually a religion, then it should be treated as one. I wouldn't edit Judaism or Hinduism and say "These people are likened to fools or people exhibiting symptoms of mental disease". Please remove the degrading statements. DryGrain

There is a notable difference between saying "these people are often called" and "these people are". The first, as it said in the article more or less, is simply a statement that many people denegrate the believers. The second, as is not used, is a blatant insult. Oh, and please sign your comments. Falcon 03:39, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

• However, Judaism and Hinduism are "valid" religions that have not been proven to be false. For example, while I do not believe any deity whatsoever, no one can actually disprove any major religion. There is not a single person in the world yet that has the authority to say that there is no deity, along with supporting evidence. Likewise, no one can claim that there is a deity, along with supporting evidence. That's why they call it faith, I suppose. Vampirism is an entirely different cookie; vampires have been biologically and physically proven not to exist. The idea of vampires can be traced back to Bram Stoker's literary works, which are in turn based on Vlad Tepes. There is nothing mythological about this whatsoever. What's the difference between someone thinking himself to be The Hulk and between someone thinking himself to be a vampire? Both reject their own personality and project a false image of themselves which is based on modern fictive literature. Yet the person calling himself the Hulk would be classified as insane while a person calling himself a vampire would be considered alternatively religious? Simply because a lot of people think they are vampires doesn't mean it's not a psychological disorder. :: DarkLordSeth 18:51, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

sorry seth, you have no basis on that, and vampirism goes back far beyond good old bram stoker. you need to research more thoroughly.

Gabrielsimon 00:37, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_terms. This article is biased against believers of this sect and this bias is veiled poorly behind phrases like "Some people say..." "It is widely believed that...". This article needs to have a neutral point of view towards the believers and give only factual information from an encyclopedic perspective. DryGrain 05:14, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

In this case, the article is factually correct. It is not necessarily true that, say, demons reside in animal blood, however it is true that some members believe that they do. I don't see any bias at all; if you absolutely must have it changed, feel free. But isn't it getting a bit late, for you and for me? Falcon 05:21, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

They also have very poor interpersonal skills and are likened to pricks, or people afflicted with ADHD or a similar disorder, or attention-seeking fools.

Weasel terms. Likened by whom?

-- hey! whats wrong with having ADHD?  if you have something against it you dont know what its like to live with it.

Gabrielsimon 00:40, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This type of member will experience very dramatic symptoms, or at least pretend to.

Pretend...?

Notwithstanding, there appears to be a great concern about vampire slayers, who are viewed as insane, psychotic cultists (among other terms which will not be published here).

This is a natural reaction of being turned off from the cult.

When a vampire cultist becomes a parent,...

The term 'cult' is degrading to believers.

Many also claim that they often become ill when eating, however it is not medically possible for a human to survive solely on blood.

While this may be factually correct, it is still a POV statement.

It is not recommended that a person be used more than three times by the same vampire, or the prey will become inextricably bound and attracted to the vampire. No case of this has ever been noted.

It is not nessecary to say that it has never been noted.

The person will feel (or pretend to feel) unnaturally drained afterward, a symptom believed to be psychosomatic.

Pretend...?

Although it can be removed from a doctor using needles, it is mostly taken from cuts (probably because nobody wants to go to a doctor about vampirism as they would probably end up at a psychiatrist).

Let's not infer that belief in this faith is a mental illness, hmm?

Many believe they were put on Earth to set it right (nobody is specific as to exactly what they are to right).

Yet another example of small comments made to detract from the credibility of the claims of this faith.

On the other hand, cultists of this manner generally go about their lives nocturnally and in isolation anyway, and are made to feel profoundy different (partially due to psychosomatic symptoms).

This article needs a massive reworking, as these comments are merely some of the ones which immediately jumped out at me. This needs to be written from an encyclopedic perspective. And what do you mean, getting late, Falcon? DryGrain 05:43, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It is more or less fact. When general terms are used (the ones you are calling weasel terms), it is a general reference. Trust me, it is a true one. But again, if you want to NPOV however you see fit, do so. And by getting late, I mean that it is 2349h here, and if you are in California it should be something like that. But, as it is nearly midnight and I actually have school tomorrow, I'd better go to bed. Falcon 05:48, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

'Weasel terms' is not my invention. It doesn't matter if that's your perception of them, because that is a POV. If you can reference someone semi-famous or a non-religious organization making these statements, it can be referenced in the article. Actually, I'm in PST, and its only 10:55pm, and if you had read my user page a bit closer than just looking for my contributions to butcher, you'd know I was an unemployed high school graduate. DryGrain 05:57, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Then why don't you clean it up; most of the comments are general and have been said by a lot of people rather than by one single authority. Therefore the terms are not weasel. Falcon 03:13, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)

I will clean it up when I have time; the havoc you're wreaking on some other pages has me currently tied up at the moment. They were weasel terms and will continue to remain so because they are not direct quotes from anyone, and express a POV. DryGrain 05:08, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Removed NPOV tag, I fixed the glaring POV, although it still needs work. DryGrain 13:06, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Why is the factual accuracy of this article disputed? Falcon 17:10, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)

Look at the page history. DryGrain 07:46, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There is no justification anywhere in the page history. Besides, it should have been mentioned on the talkpage. History is no place for arguments.

Wow. I wasn't aware that vampirism was quite so popular in Antarctica. Are there any actual sources for the more outrageous claims made in this article? -Sean 08:39, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Of course it is not altogether that prevalent there; the word "nonexistant" is certainly not filler. The statement is meant to say the belief is unheard of anywhere outside of N. America and Europe, more or less, w/o POV. There are indeed sources; Google will be able to find a myrad of them. Falcon 23:13, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

Facts?

None of the references cited support any of the bizzare specific claims made in the article (i.e. "sang"/"psi" or the "astral" and "elemental" vampires); they just support the fact that such a thing as the subculture exists, which is already covered in the vampire article. Searching for these things turns up only a tiny number of hits on Google, all on message boards and personal webpages. If you can't find references for these claims, I don't think they should be included at all. -Sean Curtin 03:41, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

== comments from Cleanup ==:It was a very contentious VfD debate. I think the consensus, such as it was, among the "keep"ers was that some stripping and huge clarifying that this is a fantasy/belief/cult/make believe thing is ok. Not sure, but it was just barely a keep by my count. I think people wanted outside references added, too. Good luck to all you brave souls who undertake it. Geogre

It would be a waste of anybody's time doing anything to this, only one place for it, and it's not on Wikipedia Giano

I'm pretty saure that several of the people who voted "Keep" never looked at the section of vampire that makes this article redundant. If this page is still on cleanup by September it should be placed back on VfD. -Sean Curtin

While I don't participate or personally know anyone that participates in such, I'm aware that it is a real phenomenon, sophisticated enough to be called a subculture. I think it does deserve an article, and more than the little snippet on vampire. Let me clean it up, and then see what you think. PMC

It would appear to me personally (by way of general observation) that, though a subculture is in fact clearly present, it is not particularily unified by any stretch. That statement should probably be worked into the article somehow. Anyway, why should we not replace the small, undetailed section in vampire with a link to this detailed article on the same subject? It doesn't appear that this article is patent nonsense, or advertising, or consistantly biased one way or another, or a particular waste of space (not that any would be saved by deletion). Therefore, I see no reason whatsoever to list it again on VfD, where the debate would be a repeat of the last one and just as inconclusive. I would also like to protest the use of the amount of time an article spends in cleanup as an indicator for deletion. Falcon 03:11, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

How the hell did this get past VFD?

I mean, seriously. MERGE this unholy piece of group-vanity to vampire or vampirism or, if people this this has any socio and psychological impact, move a brief summary of it to mental illness, describing symptoms, causes and other psychological information. In itself, this article serves no good whatsoever apart from sub-cultural vanity from people who think they are important. Quite a few people claim they are God. They are not a "sub-culture", they are known as a bunch of fcking idiots. Same thing for people who claim they are vampires. I'm ASHAMED that worthless crap such as this is allowed to remain in a respectable encyclopedia. :: DarkLordSeth 01:44, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Seth, are you kidding me? This is real. This is massive. This *happens*. You may think they're crazy (And I am inclined to agree with you) but there are tons of people who think they're vampires, and this is how they live. This is more important and certainly more prevalent than (for example) Megatokyo will ever be. The 'Pedia documents real-life phenomena, and this is certainly one. "Vampiric lifestyle" gets upwards of 10K hits on Google. "Vampire lifestyle" gets nearly 400K. That's 410K hits on Google. "Megatokyo" only gets 290K.

The article may well suck. It looks like it could use a little cleanup, yeah. But it is valid encyclopedic material and it belongs in this encyclopedia. [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 07:30, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• There are also tons and tons of people who claim they are God. Are these people important or relevant? No, just like those losers who claim they are vampires, they are irrelevant and unimportant from most perspectives. Just because a large group of people is stupid doesn't mean it's actually important or relevant information. At best this can been seen as a sociological article about influence of Bram Stoker's literature on the modern day society, but that'd still leave it unworthy of it's own article, especially considering most details here are already available in the vampirism article.

Also, google hits are not the sole answer to the question wether an article should be allowed to live. It's part of the answer, yes. In this case, it's a part of the answer that says yes. But is this subject not written already, elsewhere? Isn't it a kind of sociological disorder? Isn't there plenty of info on vampires and vampirism already? Or enough details about sub-cultures in general? Besides, is this really relevant? Vampirism has been disproved; it's physically and biologically impossible to be a vampire which we know thanks to modern day science and biology. This article is a summary of existing work bound together by lies, ignorance and escapism from modern society. Salvage what can be salvaged, then pound a big wooden stake of Deletion through this. :: DarkLordSeth 04:08, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Seth, just because it scares yoiu or offends you in some way doenst mean you should try to make it go away, casue it wont go away.

Gabrielsimon 21:27, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There's no major subculture of people who think they are God. While I'm inclined to agree that there's something wrong in these people's heads, 410,000 Google hits is notable. The large amount of material in this article would cause a lot of trouble if merged to another article. And finally, it sounds like you have a problem with an article about people who believe things that are false - sorry, that's not how Wikipedia works. Nickptar 21:48, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

besides, who's to say if its false or not. thier beleifs arent yours to judge. Gabrielsimon 21:52, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

from VfD

On 5 Mar 2005, this article was again nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Vampire lifestyle for a record of the discussion.

Because this article has been nominated twice for deletion, and both times kept, I would like to request that the wishes of the community be respected. Please think twice before attempting to get this page deleted yet again even though the verdict was to keep it.

civilitry

rude statemtns to not beong in articles, therafore i deleted one. Gabrielsimon 02:49, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What you are removing is NOT a rude statement, it is an objective description of a possible explanation for certain people being in the lifestyle. You can't remove something that is NPOV just because you personally do not consider it flattering to yourself. Wikipedia is not a place for you to demonstrate your personal bias. DreamGuy 02:54, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

if thatst the case then why do you demonstrate your opinon in everything you post? othert the thqt, it IS about civillity, im sure people would post deletion edits if someone were to post something no matter how worded simmilar to " all crhistians are idiot-bastards" or something, and not just the christians, this is my reasoning for this deletion. (also that was mention, not use, of said anti christain sentiment, as an example only) Gabrielsimon 02:57, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is absurd. I wrote that statement into this article only after having found it (albiet in different words) in many other internet sources, and someone I happen to know who is very well associated with this sect has confirmed it. I am reverting this page to its previous version, and removing the NPOV flag because it has absoultely no rational justification whatsoever. I would greatly appreciate it, Gabrielsimon, if you would refrain from attempting to make the contents of articles more suitable to you personally or whatever it is that you are doing, even to the point of adding false information (re. your edits to Otherkin. Falcon 14:23, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

nothing i have ever posted here has been false or fictiuiscious. Gabrielsimon 11:39, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There was no NPOV tag, so that's not what you removed. You removed a cleanup tag. Cleanup is all about writing style and so forth. The article is in serious need of improvement in that respect, so I put the tag back. DreamGuy 22:47, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Settle the debate

To end this aggravating edit war about who ascribes poor interpersonal skills, why doesn't DreamGuy show us where he gets his facts. (I'm not saying I doubt him; I'm not taking any position whatsoever in this war.) Nickptar 23:10, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not the one who originally put it in there... See above, User:Falcon Kirtaran put it in there. I'm just putting it back because the editor removing it is doing so for highly biased reasons that blow NPOV totally out of the water. DreamGuy 02:03, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, so GabrielSimon, what's your evidence? Nickptar 02:18, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

im saying that its not right to judge someone elses socual skills or pass around genrealizations such as the poor socail skills statemnt as if they were fact, its unecoming of an encyclopdeia.

i dont mind it being thee with the " some say" bit, but sa if it was true it doesnt belong. specially since withouthte " some say" bit its POV Gabrielsimon 03:42, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The "some say" bit is included in the text that precedes AND follows the characteristics being listed. Specifically:

"This "species" is variously ascribed a number of identifying characteristics, [...] Note that not all "vampires" are said to have all of these characteristics, or even believe that some of them actually exist. It should also be noted that most of these characteristics are ascribed to the "species" by members of it themselves."

Thus your complaint is totally without logical basis. DreamGuy 05:34, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

rude comments about any thing or species do not belong in an encyclopedia. as ive said before, if soeone made a page here and said " all christains constantly try to indoctrinate everyone they meet" you would have issue with that,. hence, im have issue with the rude commment about the social skills which i do not beleive belongs in an encyclopedia.

Gabrielsimon 08:35, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

i do not find this persoinally insulting, for i am ot affilliated with the lifestyle, to thereafore, how can it be my point of view? its simply rude to say things like that about anyone. Gabrielsimon 17:59, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But it's not POV to say "Some say X" if that is true, and rudeness/offensiveness is not a concern for an encyclopedia (provided that statements are true and NPOV). As to whether it's mainly said by members of the lifestyle or people outside... if either of you wants to assert either way, you should show some evidence. Nickptar 18:53, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

mu point is also that without evidance it is conjecture and hearsay. hence deletion bait. Gabrielsimon 18:55, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This ENTIRE ARTICLE is nothing but unsourced speculation from vampire lifestylers. If you want to complain about that, then the article should be deleted and redirect to the main Vampire article. The list that the comment User:Gabrielsimon wants to censor is on ALL came from the same source. You can't remove one as lacking in evidence without removing the entire thing. But of course it's not a question of source, really, because the editor only wants the one part that has any mention of the fact (which is the most commonly-held belief and thus should really be the majority of the article instead of a token phrase here and there that even that this guy wants to remove) these people aren't really dealing with reality all that well. This is like doing on article on schizophrenics and claiming that the voices in their heads are really real and then getting upset and removing one sentence that says some people consider them mentally ill. This whole article is a mess (see votes for deletion and other comments above) and would need major rewrites to get to NPOV and Wikipedia standards. The one thing we are arguing about is the only even somewhat NPOV statement in the entire article. DreamGuy 23:59, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

saying that vampires or vampire lifestlye followers have poor social skills is pov, weather you admit to it or not, therafore it has been and ahall be removed from this page no matter how many times you re add it, becasue it is opinion, and oopinion has no place in an encyclopedia/ the rest of the article is based on facts presented in varoious places. therafore it is keepable. in fact if social skills are to be mentioned it is a fact that mythical vampires have extra orgianaily good social skills, and so it standx to reason that vampire life style ists would try to emulate that, if anything. stop reverteing this article based on your opinion, mr "dream guy"

Gabrielsimon 00:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

One, trying to emulate good social skills doesn't mean you have them. (I wish it did though. :-P) Two, for the N+1th time, stating someone else's opinion, AND SAYING THAT IT IS THEIR OPINION, is NOT POV. Sorry to yell, but that's how Wikipedia works. This edit war is starting to seem really silly, and you've both broken the 3RR in the last 24 hours. Please, if you want this settled, BOTH of you provide some source for what you claim are facts. Nickptar 02:13, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

he keeps trying to piut it in like its fact , undisputable, whiich is wrong. Gabrielsimon 07:18, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Again, the info comes from User:Falcon Kirtaran, see above where he explains it. And it's not being presented as fact because the text surrounding it makes it 100% clear that it's being presented as the opinion of some members in the lifestyle. Read the thing in context. I'm getting really frustrated with one editor who is barely literate and pushing his opinions everywhere trying to chastise other people (and, worse, who vandalizes pages but insists upon labeling the restoration of text by another previous editor as "vandalism" even though it does not fit the meaning of that word by any stretch of the imagination) and another editor asking for proof when it has just as much proof as EVERYTHING ON THE PAGE. The only person objecting to it is someone who has yet to make an editor anywhere on this encyclopedia that wasn't immediately removed by editors following Wikipedia policy as far as I have seen. Other editors here put it in. This stupidity needs to end know, because if Gabrielsimon is having such a fit over such a minor thing he's going to positively explode as soon as anyone actually goes through and cleans the article up some so it's not so insane and crazy. Again, see above where people voted to remove it completely. For Nickptar to pretend that this is something only I am doing is sheer nonsense. DreamGuy 09:12, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

the more you speka like that, the more you proove your lack of knowledge, just leave it be. Gabrielsimon 09:16, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here you are (rather incoherently) trying to claim I lack knowledge, and yet you were the one earlier saying that nobody should be rude? It sounds like what you really mean is you feel free to be rude to people when you want to be, but if someone dares diagree with you they are rude for it. Rather hypocritical if you ask me.

But, anyway, for everone else following along this controversy, here's what an outside view had to say when Gabrielsimon tried complaining about me on another page:

Gabrielsimon is insistent that this attribute of so-called followers of the vampire lifestyle should either be deleted or preceded by "Detractors and critics believe that they may have". But this longer phrase is ridiculous here: that detractors, critics, and/or anybody believe(s) that something is a characteristic is not a characteristic. Moreover, syntax/semantics aside, it's pleonastic: we've already read that this species is variously (not universally) ascribed various characteristics. Perhaps Gabrielsimon hasn't tried hard enough to read and understand what's written.

That was by User:Hoary on Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress#user_DreamGuy (yes, Gabrielsimon apparently so completely does not understand what vandalism means that he tried to report me for it). Hoary solidly agrees that Gabrielsimon is wrong, so much so that he came to the article to make the exact same edits I was making earlier.

So, as I was saying, and as the admins there agree, my side is already proven (and is really self-evident from the way the section is worded), and Gabrielsimon's side is completely bogus. Does that settle it for you too, Nickptar, or are you going to still be asking for evidence? Do you follow Hoary's logic above? DreamGuy 12:22, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

All right, I think I see it now. Sorry, DreamGuy, for not assuming good faith on your part. It's true that if Gabrielsimon can't provide some good reason (besides some NPOV phantom) for keeping what he wants to add, there's no need to have it there, because it's semi-redundant. I've edited the section to make it more clear that these characteristics are ascribed by various people (the word "variously" isn't in my vocabulary, sorry). Still, I've got to say it would strengthen the case to not add that phrase if someone could actually show a case where a self-described vampire makes the claim about social skills. The primary burden of proof is still on Gabrielsimon, though, and the default position is not to have his phrase. Nickptar 14:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

why should the burden of proof be on me, i say its not true, and until he prooves it to be,m that is how it is, he should try to proove that it is true. also, i have not seen any adamins agreeing with him. Gabrielsimon 00:11, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you haven't seen an admin agree with me then you simply are not paying attention. See above where I quote one. See the page history where one makes the changes I made earlier and told you you were wrong. See your talk page where they tell you you are wrong. See the page with the false vandalism report you tried to file on me and their responses. Someone would have to be pretty blind to miss all of those. DreamGuy 01:39, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

err admins have no special powers or rights when it comes to content.Geni 02:49, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say they did, I was just pointing out that what Gabrielsimon said was wrong. Admins and other editors on all sorts of articles agree tht Gabrielsimon is out of line with his constant efforts to say that werewolves and vampires really exist and that nothing he considers less than flattering should ever be said about them. It's a matter of consensus and policy (largely NPOV but also things like Wikipedia:No original research. DreamGuy 03:01, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry it's just there have been missunderstandings over this in the past.Geni 03:44, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

i know hey have no speciual powers for content, but its sill rude to say that any one group has socical skills of a good or bad variuety has no place in an encyclopedia.

Gabrielsimon 03:14, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

please don't delete other users comments.03:44, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't know whether you don't get my repeated comments on the subject or if you're just not listening, but while saying that a group has bad social skills is POV, saying that other people say that a group has bad social skills is not; it's documenting an objective, verifiable fact. Wikipedia works this way.

By the way, compliments to Geni on the new, clearer introduction to the 'characteristics' section.

Nickptar 12:24, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I cannot imagine the purpose for which there are so many reversions against peoples' edits on this page. It should, however, be noted that this activity must stop. Stating that most people within the sect believe that their members have particular charactersitics is CERTAINLY not POV; they themselves identify it and Wikipedia is not expressing an opinion. The sect members are. User:Gabrielsimon's edits on the Otherkin page should be sufficient to definitively ascribe a particular characteristic to him, however, that being the inability to make factual edits to such pages as these. Naturally, a claim that these are also species must be rejected without evidence, and no further attempt should be made to bias this page any way, whether in favour of or against the sect that is its topic. If this absurd edit war continues, I will apply to an administrator to have this page protected and/or someone cited for vandalism. Enough, already!

I would also like to make note that the facts presented in this article, regardless of nature, are referenced from multiple sources, both online, from personal experience and from the knowledge of others. Any contest against them, whether for correction or deletion, should be supported by similar evidence'. Wikipedia is NOT a place for personal beliefs, essays or research, and the sooner this is learnt the better. Please stop sabotaging this article!

Falcon 19:39, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

i am not the one sabotaging the article, im just trying to make it clear that most of the vampire lifestyler types do not have bad or ppoor or lacking social skills, therafore, it should not say they do, it is also my contention that it is a rude thought to ascribe such things, weather they be fact or not in an encyclopdeia do not belong.

Gabrielsimon 23:10, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It does not in fact amke a comment about all of them; only that some believe that they are afflicted thus. Therefore, it is not POV. Falcon 04:14, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We are interested in facts. We are not going to remove information just because people find it rude. I mean we include stuff that violates some people's regious principles so I fail to see why we should not include stuff that some people find rude.Geni 23:23, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• im just trying to make it clear that most of the vampire lifestyler types do not have bad or ppoor or lacking social skills -- Are you making this clear (saying it in a persuasive way), or are you simply reiterating it?
• therafore, it should not say they do -- The article does not say that they do. The article says that it is widely said that they do. If [X] is a proposition and if you are unable to distinguish between (a) "[X}" and (b) "It is widely claimed that [X]", you should not be editing Wikipedia (or anyway its English-language version).
• it is a rude thought to ascribe such things, weather they be fact or not in an encyclopdeia do not belong -- I am unable to parse this sentence. Do you mean "Even if these assertions are factually correct, they do not belong in an encyclopedia"? If so, you're wrong. It's a matter of fact that the autistic have poor social skills, and entirely proper for this (or something like it) to appear in an encyclopedia. But this is beside the point here, as nobody has claimed here that "followers of the vampire lifestyle" have this or that characteristic.

If you're interested, my own belief is that: (i) this article is about a small number of attention-cravers, perhaps mixed with a smaller number of nutballs; (ii) the subject isn't WP-worthy, and (iii) the whole thing should have been killed off by VfD. It's intermittently amusing that some people here take it seriously, but all in all it's rather sad. -- Hoary 00:55, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

There is no question that this sect in fact exists. They are also well-documented. Whoever said that wikipedia couldn't have articles on cults and alternative faiths/beliefs/whatever? VfD is for articles about gibberish, vanity pages or articles about topics so trivial they affect no more than a dozen people. This is not one of those, and therefore it should stay. Falcon 04:14, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A dozen? The last time I heard, it was a hundred. If they're well-documented, where is this? The external links from the article hardly lead me to take it seriously. Any coverage in (non-tabloid) newspapers, (non-sensational) books, etc.? But OK, it has passed VfD, so it stays. Now let's approach it (like anything else) sceptically. -- Hoary 05:05, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

standards of civillity Gabrielsimon 23:56, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What coherent point (if any) are you attempting to make about standards of civility? (My own standards of civility include rereading ny comments via "Show preview" and trying hard to ensure that they make sense before hitting the "Save page" button.) -- Hoary 00:55, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

it is not proper to claim that any one group or people therin have good or bad social skills, such data has no place in an encyclopdia since its almost always a point of view. im sure you would have a problem with it if they said something simmilar to a less contraversial group. im also sure you should bite your tongue with the tone your taking, but thats just me on that last part. Im so very sorry if it offends you that i have nerve damage and can not type very well, therafore i have installed dictation software, so that it works better, but its on the fritz at times. You should ask about someone before judging how they type and judging how they think is most likly out of the question. Gabrielsimon 07:44, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

'Here's what the article says: A number of sources have described this "species"; however, these descriptions are far from identical. Some of the attributes that have been ascribed to this "species" are: . . . Poor interpersonal skills when dealing with mainstream individuals or broader society. What's the problem with stating that some sources describe these people as having poor skills? Incidentally, I have no problem at all with something similar being said directly (and not ascribed to unspecified sources) about a group that's controversial in a different way, autists. And much worse is said straightforwardly and informatively (and not pejoratively) about the less controversial effects of, say, Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. -- Hoary 02:19, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)