Talk:Vampire/Archive 2

message: The main picture is kind of relevant, but is more like political satire on landowners than vampires as they are thought of. Could we get a more representative picture up front? Mark Richards 22:00, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: The article said: 
:"Some Slavic peoples believed in vampires as early as the 4th century."
---Since the 4th century is 301AD--400AD, a time from which no Slavic writings exist, and a time from which, as far as I know, we have no Roman or Greek descriptions of Slavic customs, etc., that statement is not very verifiable. I'm erasing the statement. There may be some archaeological evidence of which I am unaware of, but I doubt it. Till someone surprises us with a solid reference, don't restore the deletion. Sure, I expect that Slavs in the 4th century AD most likely had a version of the vampire belief, but in Wikipedia we need to cite verifiable info. Decius 19:21, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  4th century 

message: I'm not a big-fan of criticism nor am I a critic, but this article is close to awful and I honestly can't believe that it is a featured article. Decius 14:31, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article? 

message: Not going to remove any huge chunks of the article without majority consent, but we should consider removing some of these aspects discussed into separate articles. For example, a new article Vampirism can be started which deals with mortal human beings who drink blood; which deals with blood-drinking in human cultures, etc. This article deals with a lot of stuff as it is right now. It should focus more exclusively on vampires in mythology/folkore on the one hand, and on vampires in fiction/art on the other. Decius 15:05, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate articles 

message: I see no sense behind these two sections, which deal with the same topic if you read them: "Vampires in history and culture" and "Vampire species". It will be better for it to be organized into one section. Decius 16:27, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundant sections 

message: Reference for the recent edit I made to the "Vampire species" section, where I erased the prior statement and went into more details about who was believed likely to become a vampire, etc. It was based on general reading and personal knowledge, but the immediate source was World Mythology, Roy Willis General Editor, Director of the Joseph Campbell Foundation, 1996, Henry Holt & Company Inc., . On page 213, you'll find the source, which I'll quote later, because I still have more to incorporate from this source. Decius 20:50, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  References for some of my recent edits 

message: The lifestyle section seems horribly long for something that has an article of its own.  We should trim it significantly, merging any information that is not already in the other article.  Keep in mind, though, that things in there are generally cited, and do not bring the picture over now because we are debating over that.  Falcon 16:04, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging 

message: did anyone else notice that anything thats said to kill a vampire specifically ( cept sunlight) will kill a normal person just as easily?  that has lead to many unfair murders over the years  from people who got scared.  in any case, according to reading ive done, its not wood or bone, not the material you need to pierce the heart, its he fact that the heart's energy has been obsructed, the "undead" life force is blocked, thus the vampire uin question ceases function until the obstruction is removed (which is why vamps got staked and left to face the morning sun,  because the stake itself didnt actually kill the vampire.
Gabrielsimon 20:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  killing 

message: I made a slight rewording of Evmore's clarification... I de-linked "incineration" because incineration is defined in its own article as getting rid of waste, and turns out having nothing to do with (or useful for) the issue of destroying vampires. I left it as "incinerating the body", without a link. Cremation I especifically deleted because 1) cremating and incinerating are basically the same (burning whole), and 2) the cremation article refers to disposal of corpses, especially in the context of a religious ceremony (not usually as a means of destruction). --Pablo D. Flores 16:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Destroying by fire 

message: Someone added this under the Abilities section:
:"Some tales such as the Cirque du Freak series by Darren Shan says that holy symbols and running water and garlic have no effect on vampires. Also silver does not effect them and they can enter a house without permission. A vampire does burn up though if he stays in the sun too long."
It is becoming all too clear that for every single ability or limitation cataloged, someone can add a "not all vampire tales grant this power" disclaimer.  So I removed the sections an added the disclaimer at the very beginning of the topic.  It is easy to see and hopefully it will prevent a litany of vampire tales that "don't have this ability" listed behind the actual ability.--Evmore 20:10, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Variation in vampire tales 

message: DreamGuy you do not own this article.  Do not go making major changes as though you do just because you think that is how it should be.  If you want to make a major change have the courtesy to let people know first.  Open it up to discussion.  
*Vampires as people know them now are drastically different than the animated corpses of folklore.  I think the article is fine the way it is.  It starts by giving a general defintion then it talks about vampires that everyone is familiar with.  The evolution of the mythos is great but it shouldn't define the article.  After the modern vampire is outlined then the article can delve into folklore and how it has evovled over the decades/centuries.
*Do not remove any of my picture again simply because you think that they are silly or break the rules.  Leave the policing to the administrators.  If you think a picture is silly that is fine, but replace it with something else.
If anyone whould like to discuss this I would really like to hear from you.  I hate being that guy.  So if I am in the wrong let me know. (unsigned, but by User:Evmore)
:If you haven't noticed, you are on Wikipedia and not your own personal website. I don't own this article, but you sure sound like you are trying to own it yourself. Other people can make edits without your permission. I can remove an image if I find it inappropriate. I can move things around without asking you first. That's how things work here. You should probably take a step back and calm down here, because if you are going to be so emotionally attached to having things the way you want, you are going to run into major problems on a site that is built on the idea that anyone at anytime can come in and completely change it.
:Regarding my changes, the "Strength and Weaknesses" section completely interrupts the flow of this article. We are talking about folkloric vampires, then suddenly a huge, huge section of fictional abilities comes next, and then much later we go back to the folklore. That's not very efficient organization at all. 
:On top of that, you have tons of quotes to books and movies in "your" section but do not cite where they came from. You should really say where they come from or else the quotes are pretty pointless. Also, the strengths and weaknesses section is so detailed and so focused on modern fiction that I actually think it needs to be edited down considerably, as the section is the largest one there and the article length is way past the preferred length. If it's not edited down then it should maybe have its own article. And, actually, I think it'd be better if the majority of the fiction parts were moved so there could be an article that does nothing but solely focus on modern fictional representations -- both movies and this "abilities" of yours. There does seem to be a great divide between the history and folklore section and the books/games/TV/cartoons section.
:At any rate, I see that you have made a huge number of edits here recently. I'm not sure where you got the idea that you were allowed to make that many changes and that I was not allowed to make the two I made. I think you need to reassess your notion of how things work here and cool off. DreamGuy 00:13, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
You are right DreamGuy, we are not on our personal website, but as it stands, the version that everyone has been looking at for atleast the last week has been okay by everyone except you.  If other people agree with you then fine but till then it isn't going to happen.
*As for emotionally attached, we all know you are the one with the problem.  I've seen you "work."  Take a step back and adhere to your own advice.  Believe me, I am not trying "to advance an agenda of some sort." 
*As for the qoutes, did you even read the article?  All I added where the quotes from Stoker which is identified in the befinning and the one from Stephen King's Salem's Lot which someone else added the section but didn't add a reference so I added it.
*Preferred length?!?  And how long is preferred pray tell?  The article has gotten longer because people have added traits.  I think it's great the direction everyone has taken it.
*As for as a new section, if anything the History of Vampires would be more appropriate. 
*Again you are the one with the track record DreamGuy.  The section is going back the way it was.
--Evmore 00:41, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rearranging 

message: I just had to revert the last edits by two anonymous users, 24.22.48.163 and 213.240.2.16, to last version by Evmore. The former mentioned that vampires are often depicted as having unnatural beauty; while this may be a trend, I'm not sure it's so important, but anyway it was in the "Abilities" section and beauty is not an ability.
The other user mentioned an etymology supposedly from Old Slavonic van pira, "out of the fire", with an explanation. This had to go because it flatly contradicted the text immediately before, and it was unsourced, and of course it read too much like folk etymology. If someone can confirm that this phrase makes sense in OS, and that it has been proposed as etymology for "vampire", we can mention it after the other one.
--Pablo D. Flores 10:43, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology et al 

message: DreamGuy, you have already been warned by me and other contributors to this article.  You do not own this article.  Do not make drastic changes without opening it up for discussion.  What you are doing is vandalism.
*Now about your comments:  Every ability and limitation except for one (weakness to silver) is found in 19th century literature.  It is the core of what the vampire mythos is today.  Just because you don’t think that it should qualify to be included is just too bad.  Most other contributors do.  In fact, other encyclopedia entries will usually reference them as well.  And just so you know, both folklore and mythology ARE fiction.  And the fact that you condesend everyone else by saying, "but the rest of you are just not listening" should say something about you.
*And if the article is too long then what should be removed are sections that do not have anything to do with the main entry which is Vampires.  Examples include:  Pathology and vampirism, vampire bats, The "Vampire subculture," vampirism in zoology, even contemporary beliefs in vampires.  This article is about vampires, not about mental illnesses or as to why people want to be or dress like vampires.  Likewise, it is fine to list vampire-like creatures.  But in the end they aren’t vampires.  A chupacabra is no more a vampire then a vampire is a zombie.
*And I'm not getting hostile, if I get irritated it is because you call my images copyright violations, try and post it as such, even after I tell you up front who made them and how you can talk to him and verify for yourself that there is not copyright violations.  Just read the tags.  And stop referring to it as my section.  I only wrote the bare bones of it.  There have been many contributors to the section.
*Look, I'll listen to reason but right now you won't even discuss it with anyone else.  You are just trying to bully your way across.  It's not going to happen.
:People, this is getting ridiculous!
:I suggest leaving the article alone for a week or so. No editing, no rearranging, nothing. Let's everybody cool off and think. The article looks quite fine now. Step back and see for yourselves. Sure, I have my own feelings about some minor bits (including the arrangement of the sections) but I'll keep them to myself. For a week.
:And if anybody has a personal problem with anybody else (the conditional is rhetorical), please take it to your user talk pages. --Pablo D. Flores 10:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: --Evmore 11:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rearranging 2