Talk:Vampire lifestyle/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Wiki formatting

Whosoever felt the need to reformat the entire page using brackets et cetera and generally incorrect wiki formatting and syntax (explicitly attempting to declare the TOC, using links such as [[1]] for citation notes (and then including the link in brackets, after a wiki-link to the article 1) should not have done so. Whoever you are (I can't find you in the edit summaries, nor do I care to), please stop translating the page into some kind of markup which does not belong to this server. Every time it is done, some poor soul has to go through and put it back right. Therefore, one should read about wiki markup, or maybe study some page source, before deciding that correct markup must be reformatted into garbage. Falcon 02:43, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, that's simple. Consider this diff. It's a considerable alteration to the page by Gabrielsimon. As usual, Gabrielsimon provides no edit summary. He zaps all the Wiki formatting. (Could it be that he used his browser to save the article as text, and worked on that? Duh.) This removal of all formatting makes it next to impossible to see what other changes he's made. In the following edit (no summary), he attempts to restore the markup, but it's clear that he doesn't understand Wiki markup. (A brief glimmer of hope: can he have fixed the spelling of "percieve" [sic]? Nope, he's just removed it, and "beleive" [sic] shortly afterwards survives his eagle eye.) Oh, he's also removed the medical warning. In the next edit (again no edit summary), he's fixing some more. (Could it be that Gabrielsimon is unacquainted with the Show preview button?)

So what does Gabrielsimon leave us with, after his series of edits (none of which has any explanation beyond the single word "formatting")? With this version, which has such gems as "Contents showhide" and "the stylings of old Victirian [sic] England" (in contradistinction to those of new "Victirian" England, I suppose). Oh, and no mention of HIV at all.

Falcon, I think you and I agree that we disagree quite a bit. I don't know what you think of my edits; but while I may often disagree with yours, I respect them. Thus I don't want to undo your good work, and I'm sorry for the time and effort you've put into salvaging the earlier mess. But I suggest that you revert the page to the state I left it in — thereby undoing your good work (sigh) — and, with your last version open in another window, edit that version of mine to your satisfaction. I may then change it back a bit (heh heh), but I'm fairly confident that in the short term you, The Anome and I can together come up with a good article. -- Hoary 04:14, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)

Most sincere apologies - I had no intention whatsoever of reverting your edits, which I generally find to be of good intention and quality (unlike those of some here and some past present). I was very confused by the edit summaries, however I figured that going through them regardless would be a significantly superior choice (versus leaving the page in the pillaged state it was in before). If you haven't already done so, I will proceed to put your work back straightaway, at least as best I know what it is. And oh, how I wish the "Show preview" button was mandatory before "Save page" and included a spellchecker. Ah well. Falcon 06:46, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Falcon, you didn't revert my edits; rather, somebody else screwed up a lot of good work: work to which I happened to have contributed most recently. I think it's rather a pity that you didn't just revert to that state, but anyway you didn't, and you put a lot of work into ameliorating the mess. Lupin and you have subsequently done a lot more work on it. You have nothing to apologize for. I'll let you get on with your work, and revisit the page several hours from now. -- Hoary 07:47, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. I would have reverted the page to the previous state and then attempted to redo all of the work, but that would have been a bigger mess, because I would have made a reversion in addition to simply re-adding the work of myself and others to the page. The reasoning by which a reversion was not done by whomsoever was next to edit the page is completely unfathomable to me, however. Thank you in any case for replacing all of your work that I somehow passed over, and I hope that this person who likes to destroy correct formatting does not proceed to do so again. Falcon 04:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

HIV has nothing to do with vampirism, eith vampires, no matter what sort, and yes its true that you can get aids from drinking someone elses blood, if they have it, but no ones going to be stupid enough to do that without medical history knowledge of the p[erson thats being used as a source, unless they have air between thier ears,, hence it is un nessessary to put it. as for the wiki markup, i tried to fix it, so sue me. as for the sp[elling mitakes, well excuuuuuse me for missing a few things, im not perfect. lay off.

Gabrielsimon 08:35, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary. If participating in the culture carries a risk of contracting HIV, and the risk has been documented by a third party, it is vital that we include that data here under the sanguarian feeding section (or, if large enough, a risks subsection of that). And yes, I should sue you if you somehow think that the wiki markup was fixed therefore. You should read extensively on correct style. Further, I happen to know some foolish and lucky soul who was not smart enough to have tests done. We should not be so very presumptuous when dealing with such a subculture: many involved are easily excited about it, yet not quite so easily cautioned about the risks. Falcon 06:41, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Blood and HIV aside, GS, I'm puzzled by your comment "as for the wiki markup, i tried to fix it". Well, yes. But you only tried to fix it after you'd first completely removed it all and then partially reinserted it, wrongly. Please don't remove all markup. Please try not to screw up the markup that you add. Please use the Show preview button, and act on what you see. If you do do something really stupid and accidentally hit "Save page" (as I have certainly done on occasion), then revert your own edit (as I have reverted my own edits on occasion). Note also that Wikipedia:Edit summary says:

Always fill the summary field is one of Wikipedia's guidelines.

-- Hoary 07:47, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

thoae points ill accept, but you guys do know that for every idiot that makes the headlines there are more, carefull peopel who practise the subcultue, and if your going to leave the HIV thing in, i feel you ught to mention that they arent all carriers or risks, i know people who test themselves once every six months, and keep thier "feeding circle" small, well tesed ,and close knit. Gabrielsimon 07:31, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's hard to know what it is that you accept, GS, because you don't seem to have yet got the hang of the WP convention of indenting responses. -- Hoary 07:47, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

For those not well acquainted with wiki markup, each colon in front of your paragraph indents it one tab over. Therefore, when replying, add one more colon than the paragraph you are replying to. Example:

Thank you for your edit. --Akira

:You're welcome. --Baka

::Come back soon. Falcon 04:36, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

i was referring to what falcon said, and im sorry, i dont really know how to revert anything. when i changed what i tohught needed to be changed, my computer was having, lets say, less then co operative attitude problems..... im sorry if it offends you, user horay ( spelling?) if im new at this... any hoo, the main point i wished to get across here was that the quotes around the terms such as psionic vampire should not be ther, for in the context of the article, they are un nessessary. i was also trying to re do the HIV warning thing to include a mention that not all who do this are carriers, or fool enough to go about this sort of sanguinarian thing without being carefull ( i know more then my share of carefull poeple in this subject matter) Gabrielsimon 07:53, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• user horay ( spelling?): I think you're referring to me. My username was written three lines or so above the point where you were stumped by its spelling. What's up?
• Nobody has suggested that all the nutballs who play around with others' blood are HIV positive. Likewise you may well find health warnings in other articles without the extra clarification that not everybody participating is diseased.
• Reversion is pretty easy.
• I can't imagine how "less then co operative attitude problems" of your computer could reduce your ability to understand what you are doing; but if they do, please do not edit at these times.
• Please use the WP convention of indenting comments. Thank you. -- Hoary 02:10, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

Vampires, or "vampires"?

This article starts by describing these people in terms of vampires. The article on vampires tells us that: A vampire is a mythical or folkloric creature said to subsist on human and/or animal blood often having magical powers and the ability to transform. Paul Barber, in his fascinating if necessarily macabre work Vampires, burial and death: Folklore and reality (Yale U.P.) describes the folklore and the relevant illusions created by all-too-real human postmortem decomposition.

Are these people who enjoy the "vampire lifestyle" mythical or folkloric creatures? I've been persuaded that on the contrary some actually exist. Do they subsist on blood? Surely only the very battiest claims had blood taking the place of conventional sources of protein, carbohydrates, vitamins, etc. Do they have magical powers or the ability to transform? (Does the tooth fairy?)

All in all, while they may drink blook or think that they are vampires, they aren't vampires.

Because they (i) aren't vampires but (ii) are to some non-negligible extent called vampires (notably by themselves), the use of "vampire", with quotation marks, seems appropriate.

I for one have been putting in quotation marks; at least one other user here has been removing them. A series of battles over this is a huge waste of time, and this is why I am not going to reinsert them until the matter is decided right here. So: Do you agree that the quotation marks are appropriate?

(Lucid arguments with appropriate indentation would be much appreciated.) -- Hoary 08:22, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

   the quotation marks are not nessessary within the article.  as for the    
   blood, it is merely a sy,mbolic vessle for the carried life energy, which 
   all vampiric beings subsist on, hence the psi vamps are a more 
   "Advanced"form of vampire.  For  every group  of vampire lifestyle people 
   you canfind a bunch of posers and a few who are the genuine article, (note 
   though that nothings quite like ledgends, because legends exaggarage) just 
   like with the otherkin and theriomorphic communities, Both ofwhich i am 
   rather well aquainted with.  im sorry for any splling mistakes i am as yet 
   unaware of.  
   Gabrielsimon 08:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's one kind of indentation, I suppose.

Er, when you say that blood "is merely a [symbolic vessel] for the carried life energy", do you mean that this is factual, or that it's what these people say? Likewise, what do you mean in this context by "the genuine article" -- that they are vampires as explained in the vampire article? Finally, by saying that "legends exaggarage" (sic), do you mean that legends merely exaggerate and that legends about vampires are based on actual vampires?

And how's this related to quotation marks? -- Hoary 04:41, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

I feel that, in the context of this article, quotes would be reasonable but in severe violation of any kind of stylistic writing whatsoever. In other words, because these people are (after a fashion, I suppose) not Vampires, per se, however they are extremely ugly and would render the article in need of copyediting. Therefore, I do not feel that they should be included. Further, I feel that as a countermeasure we should capitalize all references to vampires that follow the traditional myth (eg. "...as opposed to traditional Vampires, who...") and leave the modern ones as an informal noun (eg. "Self-styled vampires believe that...") in order to differentiate between them in a logical, comprehensible and stylistically valid way. Falcon 04:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Whoa there! First, "vampires that follow the traditional myth"? Which one? Stoker's Dracula (to cite the best known fictional vampire) is very different from the vampires of folklore. Secondly, I can't see any reason to give a capital "V" to "vampire", just as there's no need to give a capital "u" to "unicorn" or indeed a capital "h" to "horse". These (unlike "Dracula") aren't proper names. Thirdly, self-styled vampires is a bit more precise than "vampires" -- the latter leaves open the question of who it is that's calling them vampires -- but it's similar and a lot longer. -- Hoary 04:47, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

Well, it seems to me that we cannot hope to do anything to draw the distinction without committing stylistic atrocities. We might replace the term "vampire" with one of:

• "self-styled vampire"
• "modern vampire"
• "believer"
• "member of this sect"

et cetera. I feel that this is better than capitalisation tricks or quotation marks, and will probably be fairly agreeable to others not in this debate as well. Falcon 22:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

as i have said, the mythic vampires arent really anything like the ral ones, though this is from personal experiance woith many things, you could say vampire lifestyleists or possibly people on the poser level, but keep in mind that for every group of posers your likly to find a real one. please bear with me as the idea of a real one is not very much like a mythic vampire of stoker or , say, bavarian ( that area anyway) myth. Gabrielsimon 05:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is particularly obscure. What do you mean by a "real vampire"? Do you mean a real person that somehow resembles the beings of fables, novels, movies, etc. (as described in vampire) in his or her dependence on blood for preternatural feats -- or something else? And are you discussing "real vampires", or just "the idea" (whose idea?) of "real vampires"? -- Hoary 14:17, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

        Of course its  obscure.  and i mean the beigs that the vampoie myths sprang from,  who arent undead, who arent blood sucking odd balls, but are still none the less beings who requie infusions of lfe energy with some form of symbolic thorofare in order to remain alive.

Gabrielsimon 22:04, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

GS, have you really not yet noticed the function of a prefatory colon?

Of course its obscure, you say -- perhaps if you tried harder you could write with less obscurity.

The beings that the vampire myths sprang from were decomposing corpses of regular human beings. Please read Paul Barber's fascinating book Vampires, burial, and death: Folklore and reality (Yale University Press).

This "life energy" you talk about -- what does this mean (if anything)? -- Hoary 02:50, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

the vampire myth did spring from corpses, but it also sprang from beings that need life force, some times referred to as ki, in the east, prannic energy, , or Essance in other places... aham... beings that require this energy in order to keep living, if thats not spefcific enough, please sayso, ill try to elaborate. as for obscurity, of course obscrity is , with this subject, becasue the origional stories are so old, and so rarely written down. Gabrielsimon 04:10, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please supply references for your claim that vampire myths sprang from something other than corpses. Incidentally, if you're talking about qi (a Chinese term of which the Japanese reading is ki), Sino-Japanese lore says that all living beings need it. -- Hoary 05:00, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

Reversion war re. influences (in heading)

Quoth Gabrielsimon: "m ... books." (edit summary re. reversion of version at 01:25, 20 Jun 2005 to one older)

Gabrielsimon: Any books in particular? Or a website? Or perhaps, at very least, a comprehensible explanation? I am reverting your changes because they are clearly neither factual or within the reasonable domain of logic. Of course there were some Victorian influences, however there were presumably many others as well, and the links are certainly dubious (especially in the case of teenagers who are extremely unlikely to be scholars of the Victorian era). If you wish to revert it further, please explain your changes here first. Falcon 04:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Archival

I understand that the comments which I am going to archive are not terribly old. However, the discussions are inactive and no longer relevant as this article looks nothing like the version we were arguing over, and DreamGuy is no longer in the debate. They are clutter and make the page difficult to load and manipulate. I am archiving the conversations "Cleanup" through to "Removals" inclusive. Falcon 04:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unreferenced sections

The subsections "The thirst", "Creation of new vampires" and "Food sources" are completely unreferenced. Can verifiable cites be provided for these, please? -- The Anome 23:05, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

It will be done. Falcon 06:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gabrielsimon quote

Quote from Gabrielsimon, above:

thoae points ill accept, but you guys do know that for every idiot that makes the headlines there are more, carefull peopel who practise the subcultue, and if your going to leave the HIV thing in, i feel you ught to mention that they arent all carriers or risks, i know people who test themselves once every six months, and keep thier "feeding circle" small, well tesed ,and close knit. Gabrielsimon 07:31, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You assert that you know people who do this? That's really interesting. They only test themselves once every six months? Do they use antibody or nucleic acid tests? They should probably consider getting some medical/healthcare advice ASAP. -- The Anome 23:27, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

I know people who do it with no medical testing whatsoever. Falcon 06:39, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If one can say "Get a life", I suppose one could also say "Get a brain". That sounds to me like good advice for these fools. -- Hoary 06:18, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

Well, you could also look at it as evolution in action. -- Karada 23:36, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is there a gene for stupidity? Falcon June 29, 2005 19:56 (UTC)

if there was, then we would have an incredible paradiem shift, as far as treatement for idiocey goesm byt whats that have to do with the subject at hand??

Gabrielsimon 29 June 2005 19:59 (UTC)