Talk:Vampire/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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; Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia rules on Wikipedia: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 ^(talk) 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)

Wrong... It was not a fork when it was moved. And there was and is consensus. DreamGuy 05:55, August 4, 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 Dreamguy 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 Wikipedia 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

I don't know about you, but I do not find excessively long articles to be aesthetically pleasing. Decius 05:08, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Maybe true but I do not think this one is excessively long? Devilbat

Merge Vampire fiction back here?

me, i would suigest merging the vamprie fiction article here, so that there would be trwi sections, and this article would be as comprehensive as possible. also , i dont beleive that giving up and leaving articles is a godo diea, becasue then the abnusive edoitor wins, and conrtinues being abusive. what do you think of the mrge idea? Gabrielsimon 05:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I am confused as to when and why the fiction article was split off? Like I said perhaps splitting off a "mythology" page might be best, so that mythology and fiction can have their own pages and this one can then be cleaned up into a properly general page? Devilbat

im not sure why it was created either, but if you want to know, go to this linkVampire fiction and click history. if you push 500, youll provl see allthe versions from way back. Gabrielsimon 05:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

User:WehrWolf moved most of the fiction out because the main article was too big. Between him and me and several comments above there's clear consensus that it should stay a separate article. DreamGuy 05:55, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

two people and your own personal often misaligned perception and intepretation of commetns does not consensus makle. Gabrielsimon 05:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Suggested compromise

I do not think it would be that difficult to agree on what is folklore/myth and what is fiction--- IF any of the participats were willing to discuss the topic itself. The majority of this talk page is attacks and counterattcks, with almost no discussion of the actual content, or suggestions of possible solutions. Consensus is reached through debate and compromise.

I would like to suggest a simple solution: if the written source can be identified (i.e. Dracula, Anne Rice, a specific novel or movie) than the information is FICTION. If the source is an academic text, a survey or history, or general oral tradition, than it is FOLKLORE. Can we agree on that as a criteria for seperating one thing from the other?

This may require people to discuss items on a point by point basis, rather than trying to win control of an entire section. That may take more time and effort, but surely it is preferable to ongoing attacks and edit wars.

I believe that fiction should be in a seperate article with a prominent link. My understanding of the entire concept behind Wiki (and hypertext in general) is that there isn't a great deal of virtue in keeping all information on a single page, and it is in fact easier to locate the info one is looking for if it is seperated and linked. I would rather be able to click on "vampire fiction" than search through the article trying to find the fiction sections.

I hope that all editors will set the past aside and begin working to restore this article to its respected status. BarkingDoc

That isn't really much different from what I recommended the whole time. The only major difference was that the editor who created the Strength & Weakness section was being extremely protective of it and I figured he had less reason to complain if it was left mostly intact but moved to a more apporpriate place (not that that helped either). Ideally I wanted to go through and fix it, but it was clear from the hostility of that editor and others that that was never going to fly, as every little change I made was reverted.

Actually having to go through and cite sources and putting them in the appropriate location is a good way to prove the point of what goes where and has the added benefit of adding actual references (doubly important because a lot of the original info was original research and didn't belong here at all, and if we want this article to remain a featured article it needs to have actual sources. Also, another article (on history of vampires) that had no citations was also recently merged here, which makes the current article have even more Wikipedia:Verfifiability problems. Considering that the bulk of the Weaknesses & Strength section is obviously fiction (mostly supported with extensive overkill direct quotes from the novel Dracula) I think it will be pretty easy to remove most of it.

Any claims to being folklore must have actual folklore/scholarly sources before it is allowed here. (Although obviously we should still ave a small section with highlights of influence of fiction, as we currently already do.) Spot on with the suggestion.DreamGuy 22:58, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Beginning new

I am so eager for the discussion to begin anew that I am being bold and moving the entire page into archive and only leaving the most recent section. Please, let us start fresh. BarkingDoc

In order to faciliatate that, I further archived part of a section, as your suggestion really was a new thought entirely and could easily be lost within the section you had it in. DreamGuy 22:58, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

The only compromise I can see is when you type in "Vampire" under search it goes straight to "Vampire (disambiguation)" where in turn there is a link to "Vampire (Fiction)" and "Vampire (Folklore)." But as it stands now, the Vampire section has to be a confluence of both. It isn't going to default to folklore simply because you can distinguish between the two or because it came first. Right now it is an entire article, page after page, on the evolution of the mythos and a paragraph on modern fiction. That is ridiciulous! Especially, since everything about vampires, every myth, every legend, everything most people understand today as having to do with vampires was basically developed in the last 250 years through fiction, which of course was based on folklore. Most any other encyclopedia will at least reference characteristics of modern vampires, like the canines or the sucking of blood, the mirror reflection, stuff like that. I don't see why this encyclopedia article would be any different. I think most people agree that vampires have special capabilities beyond humans. When people search that that is what they are curious about. The vampire article should be equal parts folklore and fiction, if not more fiction since that is what defined todays definition of a vampire. --Evmore 10:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Evmore's claim that "everything about vampires, every myth, every legend, everything most people understand today as having to do with vampires was basically developed in the last 250 years through fiction" is absolutely incorrect, at least as far as the myth and legend part goes. Things coming from fiction by definition are not myth and legend. I would agree that everything most people undersand comes from fiction, but then most everything people kno about outerspace comes from sci-fi movies, and that's certainly not an argument for including that information heavily on articles about space. DreamGuy 22:07, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Can someone PLEASE explain to me why the default page when someone types in "vampire" shouldn't include both fiction and folklore on them? Especialy when the larger body of "knowledge" is fiction? I don't see why DreamGuy should have started a war over something like this. I agree with Evmore that it should either be a links page or should be rebalanced. Either way I guess the edit I was going to make isn't possible right now. Pukachu 12:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

This is a bit of a straw man argument here... I am not saying that all of the fiction should be moved out, I am saying that only the most important parts of fiction, ones that will be remembered 100 years from now and aren't just part of some trivial book or video game, should get mentioned in the main article. It's a question of notability and long term impact... you know, what encyclopedia's cover. That's not to say those other less important things can't be mentioned in their own article, but they should not take over the main article, as they defintiely did when Evmore insisted that his extremely long fiction section go to the front of the article, ahead of any sort of history or background knowledge. And I would disagree that the "larger body of 'knowledge' is fiction" -- perhaps that's the body of "knowledge" you and Evmore are familiar with, but there is two thousand plus years of knowledge on vampires that came before that. Don't confuse your knowledge or popular knowledge with all knowledge.

And, for the record, I most certainly did not start an edit war over this. My first changes related to this whole thing were only to remove an illustration that clearly violated copyright and was only based upon minor traditions within modern fiction and not the overall figure, and then I moved an extremely long section that was 95% about fiction to the part of the article that dealt with fiction. Evmore blind reverted both actions, erasing several style and grammar fixes that were made by myself and others, and he straight out said that he was going to revert any changes anyone made to it. That's your edit war for you. In the meantime another history of vampires article got merged with this one (by someone else, not me) that expanded the length for tthat, and the list of movies and etc. that had no overall info on the vampire but were just lists got moved to a special article specifically for that. That ended up unabalancing things. For one thing, most of the history article that got merged here really should get trimmed down substantially, as it has no sources, some of it is wrong, and some of it is just trivial. I think when we go through and are able to apply the verifiability policies and then edit out what doesn't make the cut, this article will be a lot more balanced. But people need to give the process a chance and not lock sockpuppets of a banned user take over and pretend to be multiple people to give a false sense of consensus. Let the Wikipedia process work instead of complaining about something before you get a full chance to see what's going on. DreamGuy 22:07, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest that all discussion about what has happened in the past be left in the past. We have a good chance to make forward movement on this article, and we can hope our sockpuppet friend will get bored or successfully banned. BarkingDoc

On principle that is a very good thing. As a practical matter in keeping things moving forward, whenever a brand new user mysteriously shows up making false claims about what happened here in the past and contradicting the direction other editors want to take, I feel a natural desire to remind people of the history of sockpuppets on this article, just so that their comments can be weighed in context. DreamGuy 01:15, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

As one of the users you falsely accused of being a sockpuppet, I wish you would start behaving yourself DreamGuy. I've been doing a little research and it seems to be common practice for problem editors to use sockpuppet allegations as methods of controlling an article. Devilbat

And it's common practice for sockpuppets to pretend not to be sockpuppets to try to control an article. Your edits are timed exactly around the banning of the previous sock, and a series of anonymous open IP addresses vandalized a number of user pages recently, including mine. Those edits also tellingly added a comment signed with your user name to another page... Your comments to this talk page have also duplicated the exact same things with the same phrases as said by the banned accounts. Trying to pretend you are not a sockpuppet under those circumstances is like ignoring that your pants have fallen down around your ankles and trying to walk around like nothing's wrong. And, incidentally, so far I have been proven correct with each sockpuppet accusation I've made when the edits were traced. So what false accusations are you referring to? DreamGuy 14:40, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

The article includes a good deal of information about historical reference, the evolution of the myth, vampire belief divided by culture, and similar natural phenomenon, all of which is academic information which I would not classify as "fiction." The information that is there is mostly good and mostly accurate, and there is a lot of it. I don't think there needs to be a question of quantity, only a question of how information is organized for greatest usefulness.

I don't see any problem with the "strengths and weaknesses" section on principle. The article should contain a specific description of vampire characteristics, and the section is well referenced, if a bit arbitrary. (it could use cleaning and streamlining, but I think it is right in its concept.)

In thinking about this article, I am trying to imagine how any other mythological subject would be treated. Well, I don't have to imagine: look at Greek Mythology, Elves, Werewolf, Demon. These articles contain whatever historical and cultural information is available, followed by an overview of the subject in modern fiction, with further links to specific fictional sources or more in-depth discussions. Is there any reason the vampire article should be treated differently? BarkingDoc

BarkingDoc there's no reason this article should be treated differently, and I also agree that the strengths/weaknesses section belongs here rather than in the "fiction" section although needing some cleanup. I also think that the section is a good way to consolidate certain information. Devilbat

Protection

I'm glad to see constructive discussion here about the issues. Let me know when you're ready to have the page unlocked; either leave a note on my talk page, or if I'm not around, on WP:RFPP. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:12, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

• DreamGuy, myth and legend by definition are fiction. Your analogy on outspace is wrong in that 1) most people don't know about outer space from sci-fi movies, what they know they learn from school or news. 2) Outer space is real, it can be definied unquestionably; vampires, whether folklore or fiction, are both fake. Vampire fiction is nothing more than modern folklore, vampire folklore is nothing more than historic fiction. A better analogy would be to have a dictionary entry on a word and have the archaic definition listed, one that is no longer used, but refusing to put the modern defintion of the word.
• You said yourself that "only the most important parts of fiction, 100 years from now and aren't just part of some trivial book or video game, should get mentioned in the main article." I agree completely. The majority of the strengths and weaknesses are outlined in Bram Stoker's Dracula back in 1897, it is currently 2005, if it has been here for over 100 years it will likely be here for another 100 years. I agree some fat needs to be trimmed. But the section should definitely stay.
• And for the record, I wish you wouldn't attack me and call me ignorant or anyone else, or say that I am lying or doing illegal stuff when it isn't true. Focus on the discussion. It seems to me that anyone that says anything against what you think you call a sockpuppet and then try and smear their name, which turns out to be almost everyone who has added to the discussion. That's the last I deviate from the discussion. ----Evmore 15:05, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

"DreamGuy, myth and legend by definition are fiction." This is absolutely, positively, unequivocably entirely false. Have you gone to a library recently? hat section are they in, fiction or nonfiction? That's right, nonfiction. Mythology and legends by there nature are believed to be true, fiction is not (because people know they made it up). There's no way to sepll this out to you any better, but you could not be more wrong that, because what you are saying is the exact opposite of the truth, completely and totally diametrically opposed to the real world. DreamGuy 15:18, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

And a book about modern fiction would also be found in the nonfiction section, what's your point? The actual legend or myth itself is fiction, just as the the actual horror novel is fiction. I find it shocking that you think "Mythology and legends by there nature are believed to be true." Neither the Greek gods nor vampires are believed to be true. Sorry to break it to you pal. --Evmore 16:15, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, myths and legends were believed to be true, by the culture that professed the beliefs. The Greek gods were thought to be actual deities. Vampires were thought to exist. Nobody thinks Dracula or Count Chocula are real. Go read about these concepts before you try and argue about them. Fiction is completely different from myths, legends and folklore. You should really go educate yourself about these topics before you try to write an article about them. You are defeating the entire purpose of having an encyclopedia: information from people who know what they are talking about. DreamGuy 16:35, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

I understand the concepts perfectly fine, you are just not capable of expressing your thoughts properly. And today, we know those myths and legends are not real.--Evmore 17:17, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

To me it seems like everyone agrees the "strengths and weaknesses" section should be included but trim off some non-noteable references, DreamGuy mentioned trivial books and video games. Does everyone agree? --Evmore 15:05, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, no, not at all, not everyone agrees to that. You talk like it's a minor edit... it would have to be majorly trimmed down, because the vast majority of going into great detail on fiction, when there's a separate article for that. Your are ignoring what several people said above to try to salvage the esection that you almost completely wrote all by yourself, and you are misrepesenting what others said and conveniently accepting the opinions of people whose accounts were just created in the last few days when you know sockpuppes have been acive here and that their actions are suspicious. Under normal policy for dealing with these situations, anyone under 100 edits must be ignored as not able to contribute to consensus, especially when there are people purposefully trying to twist what other people said. DreamGuy 15:18, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Ignore anyone with under a 100 edits?!? Man, that includes me too. I guess I don't have a say so. My bad...--Evmore 15:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, your history of edit warring puts you above 100, and, heck, you probably pumped yourself up a whole lot of edits just in you trying to remove the copyright violation information from images you uploaded. But, yes, when it comes to situations where consensus is trying to be reached and there has been sockpuppets active it is policy to ignore new editors with fewer than 100 edits. See the Wikipedia:Sockpuppets policy. DreamGuy 15:36, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

I don't have an "edit war history," you're the one who was banned before, not me. And I told you, there is no copyright violation when the owner says I can use them. Stop slandering me everywhere you go.--Evmore 15:43, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not banned, I was blocked by mistake (as admitted by the admin) before. And you VERY CLEARLY have a history of edit warrig on this article, despite your attempt to mislead people here. You yourself said you were going to revert any changes I made to the section you created, and did so without listening to anyone else, not carring that you wiped grammar and spelling corrections. And, regarding those images, you need to realize that even if he did they still violate the rules as stated directly on the upload page, as I've pointed out to you OVER AND OVER AND OVER again. You just delete those messages and pretend you never saw them. And, also, by the way, besides needing to learn what myths and legends are, you should also learn what slander is before you try to talk about them. You are completely off on the definition of that word as well. By definition, nothing on this site can be slander. Now, please, go read some books or something so you get the prerequisite knowledge you should have before you try to talk about these things you have no clue on. DreamGuy 16:35, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Sure friend, whatever you say. "Mistakenly" blocked in April and this months too, okay...DreamGuy (talk · contribs · block log). --Evmore 17:24, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I was mistakenly blocked this month too... and the admin who did it admits it and immediately undid it. Of course if you had something that could refute my arguments you wouldn't have to devolve simply to implying I was blocked on purpose for a real offense. DreamGuy 05:44, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I do not understand at all why the hostility continues here. We are about two inches away from an agreement, which we could easily have if the discussion was about the article instead of 90% personal attacks. It seems clear to me that everyone here right now is acting in good faith and hoping to create the best article. I understand there has been some abuse here in the past, and that such abuse can be hurtful and incredibly frustrating, but there is no reason we cannot all let it go and move forward as happy, friendly, cooperative adults.

We all agree the section should be in the article, and we all agree it needs to be edited, so the discussion now needs only be about specifically what should be edited out and what should be kept. BarkingDoc

Actually, no, we don;t agree that "the section" should be in the article... when we agreed that the section could be there but all the ficion parts stripped out, EvMore tried to use that by claiming we wanted the whole section, fiction included. So maybe we need to specificy that we want "a section" kind of like that, but not with the fiction in it, because that goes on the article specifically about Vampire fiction. DreamGuy 05:44, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry but I think the biggest problem right now is DreamGuy. He won't admit that mythology is still fiction today, even if it was believed to be true by cultures that didn't know any better in the past. He continually makes contrary assertions merely to be contrary. On this page's removal-from-feature discussion he called for "fresh eyes" and here he's asking that anyone with under 100 edits be blocked from contributing? DreamGuy needs to take a wikibreak and stop being so hostile, and maybe if he came back and started working with others we could get something done. Devilbat

I won't admit that "mythology is still fiction today" because that's simply not true. The words mean different things. You need to know that in order to talk intelligently about the topic, like, say, on an encyclopedia. I would like fresh eyes but from experienced editors, not people who are CLEARLY just sockpuppets of someone who was already blocked from this encyclopedia for a full year for multiple sockpuppet accounts. I am not being hostile, I am simply defending myself from your unthinking hostility to any substantial changes on your section and trying to blame me for edit wars you and a bunch of 'proven sockpuppets committed.DreamGuy 05:44, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Wow. It's hard to imagine that winning a minor argument over a minor article in a volunteer encyclopedia would really be worth lying and cheating over. That makes me very sad. BarkingDoc

Sad but true, unfortunately. There are too many on Wikipedia who insist on being "right" rather than focus on writing an encyclopedia. Devilbat

Which explains the rampant sockpuppeting here, like yourself. DreamGuy 05:44, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised? Why is it always DreamGuy who is the cause of protection on articles? Well, maybe not always, but very often. Seriously, I haven't followed up on this article and why it has been protected, but I can bet a lot of money, that DreamGuy is wrong here. He has a huge ego, he thinks he knows everything better than anyone, and he's just wasting our time with articles being protected because he can't agree on anything. I say, ban him and spare us out of this kind of boring stuff in the future. I came here to give this article some nice edits, but it's locked, and that pisses me off. Who's to blame? DreamGuy of course.

EliasAlucard|Talk 18:44, 08 Aug, 2005 (UTC)

You admit you don't know what's going on here, but jump in to attack me and assume I'm wrong, mainly because I edited some of your additions to other articles in the past and you have a raging personal conflict? Congrats, you've proven yourself motivated out of revenge and to have no idea what's going on. In case it needs to be said, you are a problem editor, like many others, stubbornly insisting that your edits not be changed by anyone and running around trying to cause problems. DreamGuy 21:15, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

This isn't about revenge. This is about dealing with a persistent problem: you. Why are you so often involved in revert wars? Clearly, there must be some problem connected in many of these revert wars you're involved with: you. I'm not involved in nearly as many revert wars as you are. So if anyone is a problem user, then it's you. I've read up on some of the edits here on this talk page since I posted that message, and on this article that you've reverted. My conclusion? You're the problem here with your annoying removal of fiction. Why do you think editors in every article is adding fiction in them (if there exists some related to the article), and you are the only one removing it?

EliasAlucard|Talk 23:28, 08 Aug, 2005 (UTC)

Considering that you were blocked for violating the 3RR rule on three articles yesterday because you refused to allow anyone to make changes (blind reverting the whole page including format fixes and so forht) and refused to discuss them, it's clear that you are a problem editor here. But most importantly, note that there already is a Vampire fiction page.... that's where most of the fiction goes. How can it be any more clear than that? And I am not "the only one removing it" because most of it was put there by a different editor completely and several editors here said they want the fiction in the fiction article. I'm afraid that your insistence upon doing otherwise shows you just want to fight and are not willing to put items onto the correct article. DreamGuy 00:20, August 10, 2005 (UTC)