Talk:Vampire/Archive 2

Picture

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)

Edit: I put one up of Count Orlock...can't get much more iconic than that...Hope this helps.Gnrlotto

Summers link

The link to Montague Summers's book is broken. PedanticallySpeaking 18:31, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

Request for references

Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. Further reading is not the same thing as proper references. Further reading could list works about the topic that were not ever consulted by the page authors. If some of the works listed in the further reading section were used to add or check material in the article, please list them in a references section instead. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message when a few references have been added to the article. - Taxman 18:42, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

4th century

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)

Featured article?

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)

Separate articles

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)

I also think we should remove the long discussions of Chupacabra and Vampire watermelon. Those only need to be mentioned in passing, since those articles exist for further reading. Decius 15:40, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Redundant sections

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)

References for some of my recent edits

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., ISBN 0-8050-4913-4. 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)

Where is the featured article discussion?

How come that the discussion leading to the featured article status of Vampire is not archived anywhere? It is nowhere to be found on the featured article candidates index or on the sub pages of the featured articles log, and those go back as far as "October 2003 and before". Salleman 06:19, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I also posted this question on Talk:Featured articles. Filiocht | Blarneyman gave the following explanation:

"This is something of a misrepresentation. In the very early days, there was no voting, but the candidacy procedure now known as WP:FAC did, in fact start during the Brilliant prose days. In late 2003, early 2004, Muriel Victoria had the idea of running all the older BP articles through a voting process, the results of which can be seen at Wikipedia:Refreshing brilliant prose - History and religion, Wikipedia:Refreshing brilliant prose - Science, Wikipedia:Refreshing brilliant prose - People and culture and Wikipedia:Refreshing brilliant prose - Others. The BP candidate discussion of Vampire can be found here and reflects the much smaller community that existed on wikipedia 19 months ago.

While it has become increasingly the done thing to sneer at BP on these pages, it must be acknowledged that it was a genuine attempt to drive higher standards on Wikipedia and that it led directly to the creation of our much-beloved FA process."

--Salleman 15:39, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Merging

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)

This article needs serious work

I suspect this article has had many, many changes since it was called "brilliant prose". :-) It seems a mess. Needs organization. If I have time I'll attempt a suggested outline. Also needs sources; many details about vampires are presented as though factual. With so many authors (and lately, games) featuring vampires, all with potentially different attributes and abilities, it might be overly long and pointless to try to detail them all. Maybe only the more commonly known features of vampires should be discussed. As for merging, it seems reasonable to me that Vampire would talk about folklore, while modern people who believe that vampires are real are already described in Vampire lifestyle. If people really want to describe different types of fictional vampires in detail, it could go in articles about the respective books or games, like Vampire: The Masquerade Friday 5 July 2005 02:24 (UTC)

I've just made a (much-needed anyway) article on vampires in the World of Darkness setting (to be linked from Vampire: The Masquerade, Vampire: The Dark Ages etc.). It needs some fleshing out but at least it clearly states what a vampire (in WoD) is and does. --Pablo D. Flores 5 July 2005 11:29 (UTC)

"Nosferatu vampiro"??!!!

The article identifies the vampire "species" as "nosferatu vampiro" by contrast with humanity "homo sapiens." This seems like some pretty ridiculous pseudo-latin that someone invented on a lark--certainly, I can find the term in none of my resources, nor can I find it referenced elsewhere on the web via Google. I seriously doubt that the term "nosferatu vampiro" represents the genus and species name of a full Linnean descriptor of the vampire. Are there other species in the "nosferatu" genus? Even if one obscure source, somewhere, has this term, it is obviously not in general use, and is totally inappropriate for the first paragraph of a general encyclopedia article. I propose to remove this doggerel straightaway barring a sensible explanation of the error of my ways.

I concur. Presenting an alleged scientific name for vampires is amusing, but inappropriate. Friday 22:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay, okay, I did, I fess up, I did it. Heehee. Whoever edited the article before me identified vampires as a species so I decided to mess with them. Nosferatu was coined by Bram Stoker in his novel Dracula to identify vampires which simply means the Undead. Since there are technically many folkloric forms of the undead; e.g., zombies, ghosts, ghouls, mummies, etc.; it would only be appropriate for nosferatu to be the genus whereas vampiro would line up neatly with the traditional Latin scientific naming convention for species. Come on guys, it may be immature, but it isn't that though a code to crack. evmore, 20 July 2005

Removed sentences on "real" as opposed to "mythical" attributes

Removed the following sentences:

"Vampires, though presumed to, do not and cannot evolve into any other shape or form than that of their vampirish body. Yet another myth tells that vampires have extended canines, like fangs, but they do not. Their teeth and nails are twenty times harder than a humans, so they use their fingernails to cut open a vein briefly to take what they need from their human victim. No vampire is thick enough to use their teeth, for it makes a noticable mess and the marks are easier to identify, resembling teeth."

Someone seems to be pushing their own particular take on the vampire myth as the "true" version. This material was entirely inappropriate where it was placed, in the main article, and there was no indication as to a better place to locate it. So I have deleted the material. (anon)

since its easy to find references, itsclear the anon wasnt really trryiong, so i reinserted the data. Gabrielsimon 21:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

--Okay-shoot. I'm happy to be proved wrong. But I have trryioed, and it does not seem to me common or consensus information that vampires do not "really" have long canines, or the ability to shift their form, or decline to use their teeth to open veins. See, for instance, _Dracula_, _Interview with the Vampire_, and just about everything in between. Please provide some of the references you mention. If this is your own take on the vampire myth, or one from a particular folk tradition or modern work of fiction, that is fine--but it should be identified as such, and not written up like this in the main text of the article as a statement of the "truth" about vampires. So I ask again: please cite where you're coming from on this.

Gabrielsimon's edits

To the above user: Don't bother. Gabrielsimon has a long history of editing pages to reflect his own ideas about what's mythical and what's real (check his contributions). He has been harassing other users (including administrators) because they revert his changes; he has been blocked several times for reverting those reverts repeatedly (see WP:3RR, WP:AN/3RR). I've reverted his changes again, as well as the "nosferatu vampiro" classification. You don't need a source to "prove" that vampires are not real but mythical. The rest is as you said, otherwise it falls under the policies of WP:NPOV or WP:NOR.

This page is already a mess as it stands; it would be a pity if it had to be protected. --Pablo D. Flores 22:24, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

you should be nicer, pablo, i have no "long history" of such, i have a history of trying to undo deletionist edits. Gabrielsimon 22:24, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I beg to differ. I've attempted compromise wording in an effort to avoid ongoing edit wars. Gabrielsimon, please understand that your own research and experiences with real vampires is not admissible to Wikipedia. Please see WP:NOR and WP:NOT. Friday 22:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

your comprimises werent comprimises at all. you are freuqntly the one reverting my edits and not explaining. Gabrielsimon 22:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

--Okay, I admit to being a pretty new user here. Maybe I need somebody's help. Are you saying that removal of inaccurate or unsourced or blatantly POV material is "detetionism" and therefore can not be accepted? No one, as far as I can determine, has ever used the pseudo-classification "Nosferatu vampiro" to refer to vampires in the classic Linnean taxonomy. It is certainly not common practice, and therefore has no place in the first paragraph of a general survey of vampires. The other paragraph of text in question similarly makes bald assertions about the "truth" of vampires that simply do not gibe with the majority of sources--it is, by definition, POV material--but it makes no reference to _whose_ POV it is...so where _should_ it be located? Not in the main text of the article, unless with a disclaimer ("According to <source>..."). Am I way off base here? It is wrong to keep this material, unsourced and unattributed, in the main text of the article. It is contrary to every vampire tradition I know of, it is contrary to what would obviously be the consensus view of vampires in modern cultrue, and, frankly, it makes this article look ridiculous. --Craigkbryant 22:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Craigkbryant for your comments. I'm a newb here too, but IMO you've got it right on. There's a similiar issue going on in Vampire lifestyle regarding proper verifiability and citing sources. I believe that some outside views on these topics would be helpful. Friday 22:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I am also a new user. And whereas I agree with everyone else Gabrielsimon, it is a tad unnerving hearing a person distiguish a certain myth as folklore rather than "realism," I have to take blame for the Nosferatu vampiro crack, not Gabrielsimon. (See my confession on section 22 of this discussion.) Anyway, under the little section I drafted up on strengths and weaknesses someone made some real good changes. Examples are the necessary addition on silver which is one of the few widespread vampire limitations not included in Dracula and also the Eastern holy devices, which I couldn't think of for the life of me, such as the shinto seal. But I think their are two sections that should be removed. The one change that contrasts between intelligence and ferocity, "This is somewhat contradictory to the aforementioned savagery." Really it isn't otherwise Stoker would not have assigned the two traits. He didn't just make a mistake that everyone else caught except for him. A great example of this combination of intelligence and ferocity would be the Marvel comic book character Wolverine who has years of experience and discipline in fighting but also is very fierce and savage when he fights. The two are apples and oranges. I personally think it should be removed. Also under limitations, the implied ways to kill a vampire, the qualifier, "provided that the Vampire is actually weakened during daytime in the myth in question" was already addressed above with, "The level of debilitation varies on the variety of myth: some vampires do not lose their powers at all (during the day)" and is simply confussing where it is. I personally think this should also be removed. Also, a widespread ability of vampires that someone might want to add is their speed or quickness. Example, a person is facing a vampire, turns to run, and the vampire is already standing behind them. This ability wasn't specifically identified in Stoker's Dracula so I didn't add it. But it has been associated with vampires so much on the big screen, and I'm sure other literature, that it is worth mentioning. --evmore, 20 July 2005

Also, under a vampire's ability to see in the dark, I will remove the added sentence that reads, "This is normally associated with their abilities connected to the form of a bat, as bats are reputed in folklore to be able to "see" in total darkness." This is plain wrong and here's why:

• 1) This is not a mythos that evolved over time, this is a trait specifically assigned by Stoker, "He can see in the dark, no small power this, in a world which is one half shut from the light." Prior the novel Dracula there is no record in literature or folklore indicating a vampire could see in the dark.
• 2) Likewise, the vampire's association with the bat is solely due to Stoker's novel. There is no record in literature or folklore indicating a vampire's association with the bat prior to Sroker's novel. (Yet alone the ability to shapeshift into a bat)
• 3) Lastly, it isn't folklore, bats can "see" in total darkness, or more accurately hear due to their sonar called echolocation. Bats emit short pulses of high-frequency sounds that spread out in front of the them, striking any objects in its flight path and bouncing back in the form of an echo. By interpreting the echoes, bats are able to discern the direction, distance, speed, and size of the objects around them, all in total darkness. As for their actual eyes, they are very poor, thus the expression "blind as a bat."

If I am mistaken, just let me know. I am here to learn. --evmore, 21 July 2005

Silver (Part 2)

I really don't like listing something and not adding any refrences. So under the the silver limitation of vampires, I refrenced the Blade series whose vampires are of course completely vulnerable to silver. Existentializer chided me saying, "Mention wide range of movies, don't just plug hollywood" and then adds Nosferatu (1922) and Interview with the Vampire (1994). It as been a VERY long time, but I am almost 95% positive that in none of these movies was there any refrence at all to a silver vulnerability. If anyone could verify this, I would recommend removing the Nosferatu and Interview with the Vampire refrenced. I also added the single qoute found in Stephen King's 'Salem's Lot that indicated a weakness to silver so as to not "just plug hollywood." --evmore, 20 July 2005

I've seen Nosferatu (though it has been a while), and I believe the requirement of a silver cross was mentioned. I know that in the Anne Rice book series, Silver is mentioned and I was under the impression the movie mentioned it at least in passing. Regardless, throwing in just a list of three hollywood pulp-movies that are based not in Vampire folklore but on a comic book series is a very weak reference, and it is much better to reference them as a trilogy rather than listing each movie individually. With a long history of Vampire movies, you can do better than that.Existentializer 15:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree, I typically stick to Stoker, but since it was added, I felt it needed a refrence of some sort. True, Blade is based on the comic book, but obviously the comic book is based on vampire folklore. And in the comic book, he actually uses wood not silver, otherwise I would have refrenced it directly. (And even the comics may have changed since the popularity of the movie.) Nosferatu is just a movie based on Dracula, everything is practically the same just the names are different that is why I find it odd that it would refrence a silver vulnerability way back then. As for Interview with the Vampire, I would have refrenced the books if that is what you are sure about. I haven't read them, so I suppose the 'Salem's Lot refrence will have to suffice. --evmore, 20 July 2005

In any case, "Hollywood crap" is not the proper way to refer to Hollywood crap in an edit summary. There is a lot of non-Hollywood material (crap and non-crap) in the list at the end of the relevant section. :) Pablo D. Flores 15:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

it would make the article shorter if here was a vampire in Film article, so we could separate the two conecpts. Gabrielsimon 15:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Nope, as I suspected Existentializer, Anne Rice vampires are NOT vulnerable to silver. Obviously you didn't read the books and just told me you did. I removed your refrence to Interview with the Vampire. And since the adversion to silver is a recent trait I know I will remove your reference to Nosferatu as well. It's just a matter of time before I verify that as well... --evmore, 20 July 2005

killing

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)

Destroying by fire

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)

Thanks, it looks good. Also, I did a little editing: For the article, initially, I put all general abilities and limitation outlined in Stoker's Dracula, most of which he coined anyway, then followed by the quote from the book. Well more and more I've noticed other people putting in qualifiers, variations, and new abilities, not found in the novel, even citing other refrences, which is great, but putting them before the quotes. More and more the quotes became out of place and sometimes it wasn't clear where the quotes were coming from. So I rearranged some paragraphes that were like this. Basically it now flows with 1) the general ability, 2) the quote from the book, 3) variations from other stories and tales, and lastly 4) the other refrences. --Evmore 03:00, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

i dont see what the big deal is, you set anyone on fire, vampire or not, and dont put them out, theyll die... \Gabrielsimon 07:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

The big deal, I think, is that there are traditionally only a _limited_ number of ways to kill a vampire. Sure, fire, decapitation, etc., will kill an ordinary human, too...but, depending on the rules of the particular story being told, starvation, extreme cold, suffocation, etc., will _not_ kill a vampire. And of course old age never will. There are only a very few things that will do the job--some deadly to humans, some not. That is the imporatance. --Craigkbryant 14:03, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Variation in vampire tales

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)

Rearranging

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)

I was wrong on the quotes (although it is very clumsy to list them over and over and over again with only an attribution at the top... and, honestly, quoting fiction nonstop only goes to prove my point that it should be in the fiction section of the article and not the section with the background ans history), but the rest you are just not listening to. Preferred link is listed directly on top of the edit page when the article is being edited. This article exceeds it. Your extreme hostility when I pointed out that your images do not have proper tags and are copyright violations, not to mention your insistence that a section you wrote be first in the article, shoors very poor judgment. DreamGuy 21:59, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Etymology et al

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)

I think that the trait of unnatural beauty could be added as an ability if it is well placed, clearly not part of another ability such as shapeshifting or hypnotic ability, and well referenced. For instance, the vampires in Interview with the Vampire do not have the ability to shape-shift; however, when they "turn" they automatically become impressively beautiful. They have the hypnotic ability to persuade people but they aren't really using it to make people think they are beautiful. So 24.22.48.163 does have a point, especially since it is an unnatural beauty. I just wish he would leave a reference. I haven't read the Anne Rice books so that movie is the single reference I can think of so I'm not sure it would be considered notable. In other tales, their beauty is usually a direct result of their shape-shifting abilities coupled with their hypnotic persuasion. --Evmore 21:29, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Rearranging 2

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)

See you in a week.  :-)

--Evmore 11:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)