Talk:Vampire lifestyle/Archive 2

message: An IP number added comments (with "Comment:" and in the first person): see this diff. I've removed the lot. -- Hoary 07:39, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
:Good job for catching that.  I somehow get the idea that we will have to keep watching for people wanting to fill this article up with nonsense and personal beliefs.  Falcon 19:29, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition and removal of comments 

message: It's really getting tedious having to undo what Falcon keeps doing here unmder the miunderstanding that just because he originaly created the article that he owns it and can remove things that embarass him. Consensus has been reached thorugh multiple editors that the cleanup tag is completely necessary (see the list of people who put it back in page history) so by now he/she should know enough not to push his luck. Oh? And FYI, Falcom and Gabriel.... any comments the two of you have about this article will stay on this discussion page, I don;t need you both putting the exact same nonsense on my talk page. I'll see it here so clogging up my page with petty, incoherent attacks is unnecessary. I'll remove any posts that attempt to bring the argument to my talk page. DreamGuy 20:51, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
:I do not feel that I own the article (once again).  However, it is important to note that you do not either.  Therefore, whatever happens to it must be done according to standards.  I am re-archiving the comments, because this page takes far too long to load (yes, it does) and edit with them remaining here, not to mention that nobody needs them because they are inactive discussions on resolved disputes (I challenge you to prove otherwise) and, should somebody want to view them or refer to them, they are plainly visible on the archive.  If I had wanted to hide them, I would actually have hidden them somewhere or removed them altogether (which I would never do because that is vandalism).  I would request that you cease and desist from continuing to revert any changes made according to established policy.  The only recommendation that is made toward the subject of archiving pages is that they be archived after going beyond a certain length, which also causes a warning to appear in the edit box, which it did.  Therefore, the comments were archived according to policy and the reversal of any change made according to policy is vandalism.  In fact, reversion is only appropriate in cases where the edit caused content to be deleted in contravention of established policy or where the change under reversion is an incorrect edit to an article, or a contravention of the manual of style, et cetera.  Under no circumstances did you have justification, at any time, to remove the talk page archive from archival.  Further, you do not have a right to demand that we refrain from contacting you on your talkpage, and in fact doing so is a recommended component of the dispute resolution process.  Further, we are not making petty or incoherent attacks, however we are attempting to call to your attention that certain behaviours which you have exhibited during the period in which you have edited this article are not appropriate or justified.  Therefore, you should refrain from continuing to flame me.  Additionally, this discussion in addition to that under the heading "cleanup" have both moved beyond the realm of the discussion of this article.  I therefore insist that all additional discourse of this manner either be stopped altogether, redirected into some discussion about the article, or carried on within my user talk page.  Falcon 22:29, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Restored cleanup tag and disussion page again

message: Sceptisism doesnt belong in an article based  entirely on fact, as the  user falcon has said, this is treated as fact, so the changes of removing the sceptisism will return shirtly, thanks.
Gabrielsimon 10:30, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So long as we continue to cite our sources when we add a PoV, I am in agreement.  Likewise, when I add additional information regarding various practices that are generally held (I fully intend to do additional research), that data will be backed up by multiple cites.  Also, is there any way we could consider superscripting our cites?  They are starting to get cluttery.  Falcon 16:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I would like to add one thing to my previous comment.  When we are saying that "some people say that," I feel that a reliable source for a cite is constituted by someone saying it.  Therefore, in those cases, links to forums and other, fairly unreliable (in the factual and dry truth sense) websites constitute reliable sources.  The reason for this, naturally, is that because they are saying something, that something is being said (if that makes any sense at all).  Falcon 22:28, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  removals