Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:29, 22 August 2005

Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3. Archive 4

pov or not pov, but pov nontheless

ok, so we all know tha someones whining about people being POV, but isnt claiming they ARENT real a POV in itself? articles on religion dont say " o and by the wy, these freaks are nuts" but a single other editor keeps trying to make this and other articles say exactly that bout the articles subjects. why cant we say that THEY do trace it, weather its sceintificlaly verificable or not shouldnt matter, because this article has nothing to do with science.Gavin the Chosen 12:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but it can't say the beliefs are true either. By the way, you're on the edge of violating 3RR. ~~ N (t/c) 12:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

i wont actually do so. i honestly thoght that narrow mindedness had no place in an encycplopediaa, and stating that its what they beleive in the most friebd;ly way possible seems the way to go. if you look at Draginfly's explaination, it seem reasonable.Gavin the Chosen 12:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I have to disagree with Dragonfly on this. "by tracing their ancestry to..." is not neutral phrasing, although the "they claim" version is also not as NPOV as it could be and has a sceptical tone. Vashti 13:23, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

can you figre a better way to say it then the way it vcurrently is? anything i would try would be instantly reverted without being read by DreamGuy.Gavin the Chosen 13:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Clinical lycanthropy redux

DreamGuy, I believe it's been firmly established that it is against consensus to have references to clinical lycanthropy on this page, as you have refused repeated requests to demonstrate the link to otherkin from the papers you've cited. I've removed it, again. Vashti 11:48, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Hello, it's already been explained thoroughly... the freaking article explains the link. It was bad enough that someone with a huge amount of bias removed the references from the article itself and justified it with a throughly screwed up twisting of what the No original research policy says, but it is beyond disgusting that even a See also link has been excised. And I think your "consensus" consists of you and the guy who has been blocked upteen million times for POV warring.

Considering that you never did come up with a real reason for its removal from the article, a see also link is absolutely positively necessary, unless you just want to give up any pretense of pretending to folow policy and just admit that you are removing information out of spite. DreamGuy 13:02, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

See also sections are for related topics. This article is about people thinking they are beasts and animals and stuff, that one is for people thinking they are animals... regardless of whether you think that this article itself should mention it, it clearly without a doubt fits see also criteria. It's not "original research" to list related topics. Any supposed consensus you tihnk you have for the article content has nothing to do with related topic links. DreamGuy 13:15, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

My consensus includes User:SlimVirgin and User:PWhittle, as well as myself and Gavin. The closest I could find for anyone supporting your point of view was User:Friday's suggestion that perhaps the literature on clinical lycanthropy might contain something relevant. However, you have repeatedly failed to provide that something relevant, or to document a link between clinical lycanthropy and anything like the modern otherkin subculture. In the absence of such a documented link, or even a documented suggestion of a link, there are no grounds for a See also which would imply the link without discussing it in the article body.

You have been asked several times to provide cites from literature that support your position, rather than using the Misplaced Pages page as a reference, and you have not done so, despite being told repeatedly that your personal opinion is original research and not an encyclopaedic source.

Plus, I think, given your expressed opinions on the subject, you should perhaps consider avoiding accusations of spite or bias on this topic. Vashti 14:57, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

How does one justify not linking or discussing in the article body a psychiatric syndrome that explains the behavior of a subset of people who describe themselves as "Otherkin?" Is this article designed only for Otherkin who do not suffer from a delusion? Hipocrite 16:48, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

The thing is that there is no research linking the phenomenon - by whatever name it goes - and any disorder, at least none that I have been shown. In the absence of some sort of encyclopaedic claim, Dreamguy's opinion that clinical lycanthropy applies is no more valid or applicable than my opinion that schizotypy is likely to apply, or Gavin's that no disorder applies. We can't just put our personal opinions in the article and say that it's encyclopaedic, because it's not. Vashti 01:08, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Hoqw do you jusify tyrying to claim that all otherkin suffer from some sort of delusion? thats highly POV.Gavin the Chosen 19:04, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I do not claim that all otherkin suffer from some sort of delusion, nor would I claim so in the article. Some are playing make-believe and what not. Some, however, are suffering from a psychiatric syndrom that manifests itself in delusions. Unless this page is only about non-delusional otherkin, I don't see how you can exclude this info. Do you deny that some of the people who believe they are Otherkin are actually suffering from this dellusion? Hipocrite 19:15, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

thats non notable, because EVERY subset of people, including normals has people suffering from delusionbs.Gavin the Chosen 19:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi. No. There's a specific condition that makes people believe they are Otherkin. It's a medical fact. How could you possibly not want this in the article? I think it should be in the body, don't you? Hipocrite 19:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, stop edit warring. 3rr is still a rule around here, and you're at it. Hipocrite 19:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Finally, stop using the word consensus, because it clearly dosen't exist here.Hipocrite 19:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

as i have told someone else, if you can find a source that prooves in some fashion that otherkin are CL, then by all means, until then, no. as for consensus, read above, and see that there IS a consensus, that onlny DreamGuy is ignoring.Gavin the Chosen 21:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Prannic Energy

You can have prannic energy in the article if you go ahead and make a page about it. I doubt such a thing exists, but if it does, it should have a wikipedia entry. Go to it! Hipocrite 19:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

well there is an article about it. PranaGavin the Chosen 19:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't you think it would be more productive for you to have done the redirect page I just made, or added a pipe in the link, as opposed to edit warring with me? Hipocrite 19:32, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Dont you thinik i was going to, once i had finished looking? it took me a while. and during that time i wanted to make sure the mention was already there.Gavin the Chosen 19:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Clinical Lycan

Let's try starting from zero. Deal with me, instead of someone who you clearly have a longstanding dispute with. Clearly, some psycologists attribute the belief of being "Otherkin" to a clinical condition. Step one is a discussion as to if this merits inclusion. I clearly believe that it does - much in the way that if we had an article about people hearing voices in their heads, we would mention that there were many explanations for this - voices actually speaking to people in their heads, them attributing their consience to a little voice in their head, their desire to hear voices making them believe voices are speaking to them, and a physical defect in their brain causing them to hear voices and so on and so forth. If we had people who heard voices because voices actually spoke in their heads, we wouldn't ignore the fact that SOME people hear voices because they have a physical brain disorder. Hipocrite 19:44, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

the percentage of people among otherkin who har voices and the like is non notable, because its the standard among all people; theres always some deluyded wierdos outr there, doenst mean you have to associate the entire subculture with deluded strangeness.Gavin the Chosen 19:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think people who believe they are Otherkin hear voices more often than anyone else in the population. They do, however, suffer from clinical lycanthropy at a much higher rate, given that all sufferers of clinical lycanthropy believe they are otherkin. The noteable point here is that there is an explanation for why some people are Otherkin believe they are such - a physical defect in their brain, as detailed in that article. This doen't mean that every otherkin has said defect. I'd ask that you take just a bit to think about how, if you believed what I believed, you would want to edit the article. In turn, I'll try to figure out if I believed what you believed, how I'd want to include this fact in the article. Are you interested in trying to figure out what the other one wants? I still can't understand why you don't want this information included, and I think that this might help me. I've put a section for this below.Hipocrite 19:58, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

no, not all sufferers of clinical lycznthropy identify themselves as otherkin. mecical studies have yet to have been done on these people in oreder to figure out just what makes them clinical lyncanthrops. I would be interested to see proof links as to the mnuch higher rate claim... as we said before, if you have medical proof, or " scholarly sources" or any source at all, flr that matter , that corrolates wiuth your claim, then by all means.Gavin the Chosen 20:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Now I'm confused - if you think you've transformed into an animal, aren't you Otherkin? Medical studies have been done on these people - see the CL page. Hipocrite 20:10, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

there is an iportant distinction. clinical lycanthropy is strictly a phsical transormation, in thier minds, right? Otherkin isnt about animals either, Otherkin is about supernaturals, Therianthropy is about animals, anbd psycical shifters arent nessessarily clinical lycanths... id say its complicated....Gavin the Chosen 20:12, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

If you are a CL, you believe you have or are transformed into an animal. I understand that this doesn't explain all otherkin. However, every CL is otherkin, because they believed they have transformed into an animal, correct? All CLs are Otherkin, all Otherkin are NOT CLs. Otherkin includes animals - according to the article: "The otherkin subculture is made up of people who describe themselves as non-human in some way." Hipocrite 20:15, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

clairification should be introduceds to make people notice that its usuallyh a supernatural non human. have you noticed, demons, dragons, and elves are listed...Gavin the Chosen 20:18, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

So are therianthropes. This section already explains that it applies to people who "believe they have transformed into an animal."Hipocrite 20:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

again, therians are very differnet from CL's. ... its harder to explain then i like.Gavin the Chosen 20:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. I'm a smart guy. Explain to me how werewolves are different than a subset of people who believe they have or are changed into wolves?

Hipocrite, before phrases like "Clearly, some psycologists attribute the belief of being "Otherkin" to a clinical condition." are taken as given, I would like to see the medical literature making that claim. It has not yet materialised, despite requests in the past that it be provided so that we can write a section that passes NOR; perhaps you can provide it? Vashti 01:11, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Keck PE, Pope HG, Hudson JI, McElroy SL, Kulick AR. (1988) Lycanthropy: alive and well in the twentieth century. Psychological Medicine, 18(1), 113-20.

Garlipp P, Godecke-Koch T, Dietrich DE, Haltenhof H. (2004) Lycanthropy - psychopathological and psychodynamical aspects. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 109 (1), 19-22.

Dening TR, West A. (1989) Multiple serial lycanthropy. A case report. Psychopathology, 22 (6), 344-7.

Moselhy HF. (1999) Lycanthropy: new evidence of its origin. Psychopathology, 32 (4), 173-6.

I'm aware of these sources, and I'm sure they'd be very useful if I were questioning the existence of clinical lycanthropy, which has never been at issue. However, since it's the bearing of it on this topic that I have a problem with, I've no way to tell if these are relevant or not, as neither of you have yet provided any citations from them to back up your argument. Since you and DreamGuy will have read the papers, perhaps one of you could do this for me? It would certainly make it a lot easier to reach a decision on this. Vashti 08:34, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

I would be happy to include the material you want, if you can find a medical cite that discusses lycanthropy in relation to similar historical beliefs. I believe that totemistic and shamanic beliefs regarding animals are well documented; surely someone has done some research on this issue? Vashti 09:12, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Hipocrite edits for Gavin

This goes to the very end of the article:

Some psychologists believe that the entirety of the otherkin subculture can be explained by clinical lycanthropy. This is not correct. While there are a small few members of the subculture that suffer from this condition, the vast majority of the otherkin subculture does not. Hipocrite 19:58, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

that could workGavin the Chosen 20:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

See, I knew I could do it. Now it's your turn:

Gavin edits for Hipocrite

I be;eive that if we were to place a disclaimer, on the articles beginning, we could speak of the beliefs as fats without people becoming cross about that. seem reasonable?Gavin the Chosen 20:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

No. WP:NPOV. Beliefs must be attributed to believers, then they are facts. Hipocrite 20:11, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

and why shouldnt we be free to discuss the vliefs withthe claim qualifier? a disclamer at the top would sufficeGavin the Chosen 20:18, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is a policy of this encyclopedia. If you want to talk about what someone believes, you attribute it to them. Hipocrite 20:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

thats what the proposed disclaimer is forGavin the Chosen 20:35, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

"Infnatesimal(sic)"

You haven't posted proof that "infnatesimal(sic)" is the percentage of otherkin that are due to CL. Take a look at what you changed, and decide the way you wrote it is better or worse than the way I wrote it, then come here, and justify. I won't make any changes to the article untill we talk that change over. I challenge you to do the same. Also, I run all of my non-talk changes through a spell checker. You should too. My spelling is only slightly better than yours, but no one knows it because I treat my changes to article pages like I was writing in the Encyclopedia Brittanica, except one with less errors. Infinitesimal Hipocrite 20:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Im not going to deny that some Otherkin are CL, i will , however, insist that this number is so small its nearly non notable. i say nearly becasue for the sake of oinclusionism, its being uncontested.Gavin the Chosen 20:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

WP:NOR. I think the best we can reach is that it's a percentage of the people who believe they have changed into animals. Hipocrite 20:32, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

by the same poicey, without something to proove that they are corrolated, then the entire passage about CL should be removed. why not leave it as a copmprimise?Gavin the Chosen 20:34, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I know I promised, but everyone who believed they have or are changed into an animal is otherkin, so there is clear one to many coorelation. Hipocrite 20:35, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Animal changeers are Therianthropes, superhnatural creature changers and other things, are otherkin. thats the difference.Gavin the Chosen 21:11, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

The word is extremely POV and unverifiable, it doesn't belong at all... And, Gabriel, you removed clinical lycanthropy from See also four times already... you've broken 3RR yet again. And you've been blocked for more hours in the last couple of weeks than you haven't been blocked because of your 3RR violations and personal attacks, so one would hope that you'd at least be trying to follow the rules now? But then, OK, having you blocked yet again is fine by me, as that's the only time we can make any headway on this article without you pushing your extremely biased and unscholarly nonsense into the article. DreamGuy 21:00, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

find sources for your views, or go away.Gavin the Chosen 21:08, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I already gave sources... the sources are in the clinical lycanthropy article... and it's ridiculous for you to say I should give sources for things I already have given when you are throwing in things (like this whole "infinitesmal" claim) that you have no sources for at all. DreamGuy 21:14, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

also dreamGuy, the notion that you express that CL is everywhere and rampant within the othgerkin community is horribly POV and extraordinarily unverifiable. practise what you preach and FIND SOURCES or you will likly be ignored.Gavin the Chosen 21:11, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

See, and that's your major problem -- your bias is so extreme that you think even mentioning clinical lycanthropy is the same as saying "everywhere and rampant" -- I never said that, the aricle never said that, you have in your head all this stuff going on that doesn't exist in reality. I do not need sources to support something i am not arguing. DreamGuy 21:14, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

still waiting for those sources DreeamGuy, that say anything about the corolation of CL and Otherkin, which , last i looked, there arent any of, and if you arent arguing it, GO AWAY, because your swasting your time, editing without your own arguments .... pshaw....Gavin the Chosen 21:17, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Break

I think we've made substantial headway, and I hope I've been disguising it well, but while typing the 20:24, 19 August 2005 reply, my first draft violated WP:NPA, as did my point out of WP:NOR. As such, persuant to WP:COOL, I'm taking a 4 hour break from Misplaced Pages, at least, if not longer. Over my WP:COOL break, I'm hoping that Gavin will edit for the enemy, and play both his part in this dispute, and my part. I bet if you try hard enough to be me, you'll convince you that the CL section deserves its own subhead - it would take the bit about overabundance of MPDs (and I'm going to ask for proof of excessive MPDs in otherkin) and the bit about CL and combine them into one. Have a nice afternoon, drink a beer if yer legal or something. FRIDAY! Hipocrite 20:32, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

i still maintain that the presensce of mental dosorders is as small as any other community. which is why i added infantesemnal.Gavin the Chosen 20:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Please source that claim. Come to think of it, is there a source for the "clinical lycanthropy" claim at all? If not, it's OR and belongs only in see also. ~~ N (t/c) 22:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

We've been through this... The clinical lycanthropy article itself is a source for the claim. It's not so much that anyone who identifies as otherkin is has clinical lycanthropy, but that the beliefs they hold overlap the symptoms but type if not severity. The question of severity is what is needed for an individual diagnosis, but then the idea that we can't mention any possible connection without a confirmed diagnosis goes against the way the profession works... only individuals can be diagnosed, not whole groups. I don;t know if the shoplifting article here (assuming there is one, I haven't checked) mentions kleptomania, but would you argue taht kleptomania couldn't be mentioned becase it's allegedly "original research"? The symptoms overlap, the professionals mention the symptoms, they don't and can;t diagnose all shoplifters as kleptmomaniacs but mentioning that some could certainly fit because of the obvious and undeniable overlap in actions and symptoms is in now way biased or original research. DreamGuy

All right... it still smells like OR, but I think it can stay. It would be good (but not necessary) to find someone else saying this, though. BTW, I'm reporting Gavin for his fourth 3RR this week. ~~ N (t/c) 22:12, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I would be reluctant to see the clinical lycanthropy claim stand purely on the basis of the WP article, since it appears to me that there is a qualitative difference here. Vashti 01:18, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

To further elaborate on this, you asked whether Gavin would be against mentioning kleptomania in a page on shoplifting. Can I suggest that you do a PubMed search for "kleptomania shoplifting"? You'll see that there are many, many papers on this exact thing, including "Psychiatric aspects of shoplifting", "Causes of compulsive shoplifting" and "Shoplifting: is there a specific psychiatric syndrome?". The evidence for including such material would be overwhelming. There is no such overwhelming evidence in this case, just the same handful of papers cited again and again, but with no demonstration of how their contents apply to this particular case. If nobody had documented a link between kleptomania and shoplifting, I would indeed be against including it on Misplaced Pages. Vashti 09:00, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Like I said before, I'm a smart guy, help me out here. Those are four papers about why people who feel they have transformed feel that they have transformed. Before, you were asking for cites - now, apparently, you want me to tell you why those cites, about why some people who feel they have transformed into animals feel they have transformed into animals is relevent in an article about people who feel they have transformed into animals? Hipocrite 14:42, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

would you please stop being obnoxious and find a spource to back up your words?Gavin the Chosen 22:08, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Firstly, since I don't have access to the papers to read them, I have been asking (for over two months now, I believe) those of you who do have that access to provide me at least with the relevant quotes so that I can make an informed judgement. I don't believe that to be an entirely unreasonable request, and without reading the papers I can't make any determination as to whether the cites given have any relevance to this page. Without having read them, I can only give you my opinion.

Secondly, as I said before, there's a qualitative difference here. Firstly, this is not a page about people who believe they've transformed into animals. That's the therianthrope page. I believe it is the case that even within the therianthrope community, claims of what they call "p-shifting" are quite rare, and of great controversy within the community. I've only seen one person attempt to document such a change.

It's been my experience that the majority of people who describe themselves as otherkin consider it to be an internal, spiritual thing. Your description of otherkin as "people who feel that they transform into animals" is not a description that I feel anyone in the community would recognise. I've encountered a great many people who believe they have lived a past life as another species, a fair number of people who believe they host the souls of members of other species, a small few who believe that they are, today, a member of another, invariably humanoid species. I would feel reasonably safe in saying that most otherkin consider their "otherselves" to be of human levels of sentience, and not running around on four legs and eating out of bowls.

These are my personal observations, and I certainly don't expect them to have any bearing on the article. However, I do feel that you're working from several misconceptions about what otherkin actually believe. Vashti 17:52, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

The only thing I know about what otherkin believe is whats in the article. It reads as follows: "Some otherkin claim to feel wings, tails, and other organs from past incarnations that are not part of their human body." You can find those cites at your nearest reputable library, or you can accept the summary of them as presented on Misplaced Pages. Hipocrite 20:52, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

That sounds more like the symptoms of schizotypal personality disorder, to me. I take it that you haven't actually read the papers either? Vashti 21:54, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

WP:NOR

Unless you can source "infinitesimal," it's out. I am not your vicious nemisis, and you're going to have to work with me to compromise, not insist that I do what you want. This is not about you vs. me. This is about getting things right. My broader edit, by definition, is right. Your narrow edit may very well be wrong.Hipocrite 03:31, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

If you can source something that prooves its NOT infantesemal, as in EXACTLY like every other group of people, then its out, otherwise, you have no call to proove its not true.Gavin the Chosen 03:37, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

You do not understand WP:NOR. Please read it, come back here, and tell me if it is required that I prove you are wrong, or that you prove you are right. You also owe me an apology on my talk page, which I expect before I will continue speaking with you. Hipocrite 03:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

you act rude, i call you rude, no apologies nessessary fore that, becaseu its fact. please go away, calm down, and come back, all clear headed and rational. thanksGavin the Chosen 03:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I take it, then, that you do not wish to read WP:NOR, or did it take you less than two minutes? Hipocrite 03:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

if all your going to do is be someone elses sock puppet, then youd best go away.Gavin the Chosen 03:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

WP:AGF applies in this case. Please read it as well. These are policies and guidelines of this project. I follow them. You will also. Hipocrite 03:56, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

your not impressing anyone with your mastery of quoting policeies. see, until yopu start showing something called good faith, which you quoted, ill show you none, becasue otherwise your just wasting my time, and patience, and im through being a doormat. now either stop

I am showing you a great deal of good faith. I haven't written you off yet. Have you read the policies? We can discuss them after you verify that you have. Hipocrite 04:08, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

you are not showing any faith at all, foing and presenting attempted, but paltry, and childish, "evidance" at my RFAr, and telling people that you think my having one such for Dreamguy is bad faith, do you think i wouldnt see? do youthink iwouldnt see these in chronological order? how very rude of you. your showing no good faith at all. yes i have read the polioceies, and this makes me damned sure that your not shjowing any good faith at all. now pleae, take the cfolliwing advise without getting angry. Go away for a while, calm down, if youre not calm, and come back with a more polite attitude, please.Gavin the Chosen 04:14, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. WP:NOR reads in part "A Misplaced Pages entry (including any part of an article) counts as original research if it proposes ideas, that is: it introduces a theory or method of solution"

Here's how you justify the inclusion of the phrase infintesimal - "there is a very small number, very very small, of delusional people in any group of peoole, thus, the number odf delusional people is in cat infantesmal."

It appears to me that you have determined the number of people suffering from Clinical lycanthropy (the belief that one has, or is transformed into an animal) in the Otherkin population is "very small." I believe this may be origional research. Can you cite it outside of your strongly held belief?? Hipocrite 04:21, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

clearly you havnt read enoug on this subject, of lycanthropy, cliniocal or otherwise, or on Otherkin, or on Therantrhropy to understand this subject. come back when you hacve done some more reading., for now, your sticking to points that have already been discussed heavily and solved.Gavin the Chosen 04:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

As an editor of this encyclopedia, I've done the requisite research on the science - the field that I am qualified to discuss. I did not see any literature that evidenced that the size of the CL population inside of the Otherkin population is "very small." Can you cite your source, please? Alleging that I don't know what I'm talking about isn't proving it. Hipocrite 04:26, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

as i have told and convined others beforwe, this has very little to do with sceince, nor would you be able to claimthat islamic faith has anything todow ith sceicne. i dont see your point. and your making it clearer and clearer that you have no clue what your talking about. go read, calm down, and then maybe we can have whats called an informed discusssion.Gavin the Chosen 04:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Please point me to a Reputable Source that you would have me read. I have ready access to a major library. Please be certain that your source can verify the CL population inside the otherkin population is "very small." Hipocrite 04:30, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

please proove w that you know what your talking about. oh, right you don. please stop being annoying. your constant unwarrented reversion of my very good, very well explained edit on Theriantropy is aggfravating, you dont even expain it. thats whats called BAD FAITH. ytou no longer deserve my time or patience. good by.Gavin the Chosen 04:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

It is not my obligation to prove that I am smart, it's your obligation to help me educate myself. I'm looking for this source to read (I've read everything in the article, and have requested the psyc papers on CL - about 1 week) which will ifnorm me about the size of CL inside otherkin. Please point me at this source so I can find it. I'm happy to help here, but apparently I don't know something that is in a Reputable Source, and I'd like to know it. Hipocrite 04:34, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

there are no such papers. if there were, youd havet hem at the ready, and so would i. stop bluffing.Gavin the Chosen 04:39, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

As such, then, wouldn't you agree that the only way to determine that only a "very small" number of otherkin suffer from CL is to do research on it? Hipocrite 04:40, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

socialoigical statistics state that among groups of people, the average rate of "deluded " people is extraorinatily small. POEPLE is all encompassing, any group whatsoever, aside from, of course the group of deluded indicviduals itself. dont beleive me? top bad. try the lastest sociualogiy textbook. ( the one i read last year) sorry, but i cant remember the name of the book.Gavin the Chosen 04:43, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe the question is not about a generalized population, but about a specific population. The contention in question is, given that every CL believes they are otherkin (specifically, they believe they have transformed or are transformed into animals), can one be certain that only a very small number of otherkin are, in fact, CLs? This would not hold true for, say, Detriot, which is what your sociology textbook refers to. The sociological concept is Self-selection.Hipocrite 04:47, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

the basis for your theory is erronious, not every Clinical Lycanthropy suffer are otherkin, they ust think they are ether wolves or werwwolves, on average, theres only a very small number who would call themselves otherkin.Gavin the Chosen 04:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I use the definition of otherkin as found in the article: "The otherkin subculture is made up of people who describe themselves as non-human in some way." Would not a werewolf consider themself non-human in some way? I also reccomend you reread the CL article - it does not apply to wolves only. Hipocrite 04:56, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

the differences are in the uances of how they are not human, werewolves and therians beleive they aren natural animals, though not human, Otherkin bleieve they qre supernatural creatues, or supernatural speakingg races, examples are dragons, demons, elves, and many others. therein lies the diefference and why there are separate articles. each kind of different requires a differnt context. this is whny one ca not easily draw a parrellell between lycanthropes and Otherkin and Therianthropes. ( im doing my best to explain, please tell me if i am making sense)Gavin the Chosen 05:03, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

This distinction isn't in the article, and it's not at all clear from your above paragraph. In fact, the next time you think you need to put the phrase "tell me if I am making sense" in a paragraph, assume you are not. Take the rest of the night, while I sleep, to figure out how to correct the definition of Otherkin to exclude people who believe they have changed or are changed into animals. Or, just get rid of the infinitesimal. Hipocrite 05:08, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Where it's due

Gavin, you removal of the trans comment was right and propper. I support it completly, untill such a drawer of parallels is found in a Reputable Source. Hipocrite 04:49, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

thanks! :-) i am trying to do things properly.Gavin the Chosen 04:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Do not consider my praise as an endorsement of your behavior. Your removal required that I fix the sentance, and it still appears to me, as someone who could care less about this entire subculture, that you are POV crusading here. Hipocrite 04:57, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

i am trying to do what is needed, i care about everything i touch, but it is not my point of view im trying to get put forth, if you see what i mean.Gavin the Chosen 05:03, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

If you really cared about the changes you made, you'd look at them five times before you hit submit. If it's not your POV you are pushing, in the interest of openess, why is it so important to you that the word infinitesimal remain in the article? Do you think it's more encyclopedic that way? Hipocrite 05:10, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

i think it prevents people from labelling the entire group as nutballs. no one deserves that.Gavin the Chosen 05:12, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Looking carefully at WP:NOT, do you see anything that applies? It is not your goal to prevent people from labeling the group as nutballs. Misplaced Pages is not a propaganda machine, in either direction. It is our goal to encyclopediacelly describe what we can. Please edit with this in mind. I hope that you will revert your "infinitesimal" change and prove my assumptions about you from earlier this evening wrong. Hipocrite 05:17, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Compromise on the See also link

Would it be acceptable to everyone if, rather than being under "See also", this page and Therianthropy had a link to it under a "Compare" heading? So it would be like this:

===Compare===

Clinical lycanthropy

===See also===

other links here

Or would that be POV? Vashti 09:19, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Honestly, I think Compare would be more of a problem than See also for the pro-Otherkin crowd, wouldn;t it? Seee also includes the concepts of compare, subsets, realted topics, so I don;t get why your solution would be any better. DreamGuy 11:11, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

"Compare" seems to communicate more that these are similar but distinct concepts, to me. Vashti 11:17, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Ah, but "distinct concepts" is a POV conclusion others disagree with and therefore not allowed, if that was your intent. DreamGuy 12:09, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Your conclusion that clinical lycanthropy and otherkin are the same thing continues to be original research. If having the link is POV, and not having the link is POV, then we are, to use the vernacular, royally screwed. There is no way between, which is why I've proposed this as a possible way to satisfy both sides of the argument. Vashti 12:26, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

But it doesn't have to be proven to be a see also. It's similar, which is what see alsos are for. Including it there is not saying that they are the same, so your argument doesn't work. Censoring it would be not being in the middle at all, it'd be a complete POV victory for your unproven belief. DreamGuy 12:50, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Self-references

WP:ASR is not about using Misplaced Pages articles as external references; it is about not naming Misplaced Pages as the name of this collective work, as it might be published under many names. Vashti 11:17, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Please read circular reference. We cannot reference ourselves to prove ourselves right. Anything written in that other article should be referenced, and thus those references should be brought in here, not us referencing another article. You may also wish to read this discussion. violet/riga (t) 11:30, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I think you may be right. I would like to draw your attention, though, to WP:CITE#Citing Misplaced Pages, which states "Avoid duplicating references on a single topic unnecessarily — put the references in the most specific Misplaced Pages article on that topic, and not in other articles that link to that article.". My reading of that indicates that, in this case, the references should be in Furry lifestyler, not here, and we should simply wikilink to that page. My apologies for the confusion. Vashti 12:07, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I would agree with that then. Thanks. violet/riga (t) 12:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Violetrega, I'm not going to debate you on the internal reference thing (I'd have to look it up), but be aware that your first revert to try to get rid of it put back in countless highly POV statements that were removed by consensus. I see the newer change didn't do that, so hopefully that was just a mistake and will not be repeated. DreamGuy 11:51, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry but if you check the history (and the diff) you'll see that I only removed that reference. violet/riga (t) 11:53, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, my mistake... There were a ton of changes recently and it looks like I garbled what went where. I couldn't see Hipocrite leaving such outrageous statements there and you came right after him, but I see he had used up three reverts already so probably was just trying to avoid a 3RR violation. Sorry for that. DreamGuy 11:59, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Not a problem - that's the problem with revert wars, sadly. violet/riga (t) 12:21, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, the little evening revert war kinda fed up the article. Whatyagonna do. I don't want to runafoul of 3rr, so if someone could revert the changes to "A parallel has also been drawn between otherkin ..." - no such parallel has been drawn to my knowledge, so either find the drawer or go back to my sentence structure. Thanks! Hipocrite 12:38, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

You mean the transvestite statement? That parallel most defintiely has been drawn by some otherkin and some therianthropes. That's where they came up with that whole species thingy. It should be clear (if it's not) that it's some otherkin drawing the comparison and not anyone else. The Therianthropy article already went over that. Some therianthropes claim that, others are offended by it, outsiders tend to call both sides nuts. DreamGuy 12:48, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Cite please. Random internet message board would be fine. Hipocrite 12:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

How about this? It's the reference that the claim was linked to. Vashti 12:58, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, that's linked to "drink blood," but yes, it suffices for me. Thus, my project today is to clean up the footnotes. Hipocrite 13:06, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Because my position was requested

I don't think clinical lycanthropy should be anywhere other than "see also", unless an actual scholarly source mentioning both it and otherkin can be found. But I'm not going to touch that part of the article at all without further discussion, because I'm unsure of consensus and don't want to fan the flames of edit-warring. Gavin, how is Hipocrite being rude to you?? ~~ N (t/c) 12:10, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I've only breifly looked at the history of this discussion, so please forgive me if my suggestion is seen as taking any viewpoint or is just plain wrong. I would include the following somewhere in the main article:

Unlike clinical lycanthropy, involving the delusional belief that a person has transformed into an animal, otherkin is not a psychiatric condition.

I'm not saying that it is the best option or that it meets everyones requirements and POVs - just thought I'd suggest it. Perhaps it could the basis of an acceptable version. violet/riga (t) 12:40, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Do you have a professional cite? Sounds like original research to me. (I would agree that it in and of itself is not a psychiatric condition, but that statement gives the idea that there is not significant overlap, which again is a POV and unverified at that.) DreamGuy 12:45, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Now that's a great idea! I agree that there might be a problem with saying it's not a psychiatric condition, so I would clarify the difference more, saying that otherkin generally do not believe they change into animals, do not have delusions, etc. etc. (If these things are true - I've barely read the article.) ~~ N (t/c) 12:47, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Uhhh... but they are highly delusional, IMNSHO. They think they aren't human, for crying out loud (at least the ones who are serious, many of them are just poseurs). That's not something backed up by anysort of real world evidence. They just don't admit that they are delusional. (And I'm speaking here from a POV side, not how something would be worded in an article.) And some of them do believe they change into animals... and.... geez. DreamGuy 12:59, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Whether they are delusional or not is not the issue, though. Otherkin is in itself not a psychiatric condition. Such people might have a psychiatric condition, but that is not the same thing. A psychiatrist would not describe someone as "suffering from otherkin" or anything like that. Otherwise we might argue that Christianity and all other religions should be so classified. violet/riga (t) 13:07, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I would be perfectly comfortable, regardless of the statement made by Nickptar being true, that the phrase: "Clinical lycanthropy is one psychiatric syndrome that may explain a percentage of the segment of otherkin who believe they have transformed into an animal," be included in the article. Hipocrite 12:54, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Without some kind of documented link where we can say "Person A has suggested a link between clinical lycanthropy and otherkin beliefs", or any sources indicating whether any otherkin believe that they have transformed into animals at all, let alone how prevalent their beliefs are, I would be against including any paragraph like this. Vashti 12:57, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll try it again - untill the wikipedia definition of otherkin is changed to exclude people who believe they have changed into animals, it currently reads "The otherkin subculture is made up of people who describe themselves as non-human in some way." There is a segment of the population, described by CL, who believe they are non-human in some way, specifically, they have or are changed into animals. This is a subset. Hipocrite 13:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I would say that the core definition of otherkin should be "those people who identify themselves as otherkin". This article isn't about clinical lycanthropes or any other group, it's about the collection of people who have identified themselves under the otherkin heading. This should be self-evident, especially if you read the entire opening section. Vashti 13:09, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, let's comare to another culture/type, and you can tell me what otherkin is. Homosexuals are people who are attracted to people of the same sex. Some homosexuals go to gay bars. Is the otherkin article about the gay bar scene (which includes only gay people), or is it about homosexuals?

If it is about the gay bar scene, are people-who-turn-into-things somehow prevented from going? If not, wouldn't you expect that some percentage of the segment of otherkin who believe they turn into animals have their condition explained by a psychiatric condition that entails someone believing they turn into animals? Hipocrite 13:18, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

This page should primarily cover the gay bar scene, as you put it. It should cover homosexuality as well, but what it should not cover is those aspects (like the questionable beliefs in physical shifting) that are more than adequately covered by pages on the other communities.

As regards the purported otherkin belief in physical shifting, I've done some research on this. There are ten hits on Google for "otherkin shifting". The top one is my user page and the second one is this page. One is a Misplaced Pages mirror and two are from the Google directory. One discusses it entirely under the heading of therianthropy. As far as "otherkin believing (sic) they turn into animals" is concerned, the results are uniformly negative - and most of these pages are therian pages that mention otherkin only in passing:

"why haven't I heard of dragonkin shifting?"

"Physical shifting is often described as impossible. There is no documented proof of any were changing their physical form (besides hopping into a fursuit) and most first hand accounts are dismissed as fantasy fiction."

"There is no debate. Without the aid of reconstructive surgery, physical transformation is impossible.

People who believe they transform into animals wouldn't be otherkin, they're therians. That's over here. The communities are separate. They have their own sites. They have their own message groups. That's why this article says that, although "otherkin" is a term sometimes used as an umbrella for all the non-human identity communities, therians, dragons, vampires and so on may not consider themselves otherkin. That's toned down from "they may take offence at being called otherkin".

Based on all of this, I feel confident in stating "otherkin are not people who believe that they transform into animals". Vashti 13:59, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

A circular definition is not a workable definition, and again it's only your POV that the article isn't about clinical lycanthropes because you assume they have no overlap, which is unproven, unsupported, highly POV and I would go so far as to say highly illogical. DreamGuy 13:15, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

They may overlap, but to state they do without a source is original research. ~~ N (t/c) 13:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you do not need professional opinion to weigh in to determine that people who think they change into animals and otehr nonhuman forms and people who think they change into animals overlap. That's not original research in the slightest. DreamGuy 13:56, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

WP:NOR says original research includes introducing a theory. If this theory is not documented anywhere else, it has no place in the article. It can go in the "see also", or you can make a comparison in the main article, but you can't say "clinical lycanthropy may explain...". If it is documented, it does belong. That you think it's obvious is irrelevant. ~~ N (t/c) 14:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I will change that sentence now. Hipocrite 18:34, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Intro Rewrite

To be completly clear, according to Vashti, if one believes that they have shifted into an animal at some point, that would make one NOT otherkin, rather X. Given this, I have to insist that the intro be rewritten to reflect this. Hipocrite 18:34, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I think Vashti is wrong on that point... Some otherkin believe they have shifted into animal forms, others believe that they are part animal (also a symptom of clinical lycanthropy). Maybe you ought to slow down a bit on your changes here, they aren't making much sense for either side. You just labeled all therianthropes as clinical therianthropes, which is like saying anyone depressed has clinical depression, and then you said that no therianthropes qualify as otherkin, which many people disagree with. DreamGuy 19:07, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Can you produce some sources to back up what you're saying, please. Vashti 19:16, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

It's a good start. However, I don't believe that it belongs in the overview any more, as it's now a fringe topic. I've moved it down to the "Physiological beliefs" section and had a go at rewriting it for increased accuracy. I believe "almost universal disbelief" is an accurate summation of the research I did earlier on, and that this also demonstrated that p-shifting is a belief nonexistent in the otherkin community proper.

We're also faced with a problem I found when I first began working on the article, namely that there is a large chunk of material on therianthropes that is detail that should really be in Therianthropy, not Otherkin. A year ago there was a lot of material here that belonged more at Therianthropy, and I moved it. I am reluctant to see it creep back. Vashti 19:03, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately your rewrite assumes that clinical lycanthropy only covers physical changes, and the whole "yeah but those people who think they physically shift are nuts and a small minority"-esque statement is the same sort of original research POV statements you were accusing others of. DreamGuy 19:10, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to remove the entire paragraph as original research, if you want to. Vashti 19:16, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

So, what now, you write a highly POV and factually incorrect statement and try to use that as justification for removing all mention of clinical lycanthropy from the article, which you never wanted there in the first place? Cute, but that isn't going to fly. DreamGuy 22:42, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

I am getting a little tired of being accused of POV edits by someone who repeatedly demonstrates a prejudice on the subject matter of this article. Did an otherkin kick your dog when you were six or something? Vashti 08:56, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

The whole mention of clinical lycanthropy is original research which doesn't belong in this article. I see that when you insist on inserting original research into an article, it's something obvious which anyone should be able to figure out, but when I try to edit the original research you've insisted on to make it resemble fact, and point out that those facts belong in a different page, it's "a highly POV and factually incorrect statement"? I think you're blinded by your extreme POV and dislike of otherkin. By the way, I take it your refuting sources for the Google research I did are coming? That comment I left a few lines above seems to be another one that you've flatly ignored. Vashti 09:02, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the above statement. I've listed this on Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection - it's about time we hash this out civilizedly on this talk page instead of warring on the article. ~~ N (t/c) 14:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Poll

This reverting with both sides claiming consensus is getting annoying. How about we do a poll to determine the real consensus? ~~ N (t/c) 14:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

How can we have a poll when we don;t even have the sides spelled out? How do you even know what "Dreamguy's form" is? And, frankly, the fact that two of you are voting for Vashti's side shows that you don;t understand at all what he's doing. It's the worst of all possible situations, because it gets the definition of clinical lycanthropy wrong and he uses it as a club against the kinds of otherkin he himself dislikes and nobody else. IT's both factually incorrect AND highly POV, and it looks to me that he may have pruposefully chosen to do that as a straw man argument to show people how bad his version is and hope to get it removed from the page completely, and the idea that people are voting for it is appalling.DreamGuy 15:29, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Are you rying to conceal a way to call other people brainless with the " straw man" thing? please note thatthis is EXACTLY the kind of behaviour that your on RFAr for.Gavin the Chosen 15:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with what I "dislike" (actually, my sister is a therian), and it says a lot for your misunderstanding of my position that you can claim that. "Otherkin" as an umbrella term (including the dragons, vampires and weres that *have their own articles already*), is pretty near meaningless. When I wrote the overview, I included it for completeness and that was all; it was never meant to take over the page, or justify including swathes of material on the communities that have their own articles already. What this article ought to discuss is the subset of the non-human identity community that identifies as sentient, usually mythological beings, and goes under the name of otherkin.

Needless to say, I flatly reject your mischaracterisation of my position, and continue to await your substantiation of your own claims. Vashti 15:48, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Dude, you aren;t even trying to make sense. You claimed and claimed that nay mention of clinical lycanthropy even in passing was POV and violated NOR and now you are claiming that the term applies only to a specific kind of otherkin? That's completely original research, and considering that you get the definition of clinical lycanthropy wrong it's completely incorrect original research. DreamGuy 19:21, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

This is my third ask on this. If individuals who believe they have transformed into animals are not Otherkin, please correct the article to make this clear. You inserted a paragraph that made it very clear that people who think they turn into animals are a subset of Otherkin. Hipocrite 17:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Simply believing that you have transformed into an animal does not make you otherkin, no. Therianthropes (who may or may not believe it; my understanding is that the belief is honoured more in its absence than its presence, but I'm not a therian) come under the umbrella heading of otherkin, but that's not what this article is meant to be about - material dealing with therians should be at Therianthropy. I'll have a look to see if I can improve the article.

However, if you're talking about the clinical lycanthropy paragraph that I rewrote, you know that I don't believe that information has any place whatsoever in this article. However, since it is there, I believe that what *is* there should be accurate. If I can't keep people from inserting original research here, I can do my best to make sure that what is inserted is factual. Vashti 17:21, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Hm, the page is protected right now, so I can't do anything to it. Can you explain in what way the current overview is unclear? Links to old comments are fine. If I modify the overview to make it clear that we're talking about two different meanings of the term (one specific, one vague) will that be sufficient? Vashti 17:26, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

"The otherkin subculture is made up of people who describe themselves as non-human in some way..." Humans don't turn into other animals. That you don't want the link to CL in the article dosen't in any way change the fact that you wrote a paragraph that reads, in part "Some otherkin...believe that they can physically transform into animals." Is this not true? Hipocrite 17:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I wrote a response to this, but my edits seem to be going missing. :/ In short, it's true for the umbrella term, it's not true for the specific term, and most of that section should in my opinion be removed. Vashti 18:23, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

If this is the gay bar scene vs. gay people thing, you'll need to revise the article to reflect the bar scene, as requested. Hipocrite 18:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

As I've said a few times, in my opinion the whole article needs rewriting, but I haven't had time to look at it yet. Vashti 18:29, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

For mention of clinical lycanthropy in article (DreamGuy's form or similar) and in see-also

1. ~~ H Distant second choice. Distant. REALLY distant.Hipocrite 14:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, I have to call foul here, as this is not my version. This was my attempt to help Hipocrite's version along a little. I actually didn't like his version all that much but liked how at least it was going somewhere compared to Vashti's attempts to remove all mention of the word (including an attempt to put info about it so bad that even people who want it in there don;t want his version so he could offer removing it completely, which is clearly what he wanted in the first place). It's absolutely ridiculous that people are voting on what's labeled as my version when it's nto mine at all, and it's bizarre to me that Hipocrite is voting so strongly against it as it's mostly his edit.

I must strongly recommend calling off this farce of a poll until there are real actual sides being discussed instead of misrepresentations of other people's positions. DreamGuy 19:29, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

For mention of clinical lycanthropy in article (Vashti's form or similar) and in see-also

1. ~~ H Hipocrite 14:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
2. Vashti 15:30, August 22, 2005 (UTC). Extremely distant third choice, as there is no supporting evidence for any link to clinical lycanthropy. Actually, I'm removing this vote pending a documented link between clinical lycanthropy and otherkin.

For mention of clinical lycanthropy only in see-also

1. Second choice. First choice. I actually think most of Vashti's paragraph should be there (if it is, in fact, correct), but the clinical-lycanthropy part of it is original research. ~~ N (t/c) 14:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
2. Vashti 15:27, August 22, 2005 (UTC). Second choice.

For no mention of clinical lycanthropy

1. Gavin the Chosen 14:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC) theres no corrolation, so why have it? thats like saying that tigers have some place in the emporer penguins article.
2. Vashti 15:26, August 22, 2005 (UTC). First choice. I don't believe that any relationship has been demonstrated to the core subject of this article (the otherkin community, as opposed to the umbrella term which is mentioned in the overview).
3. Second choice. There ought to be some mention of other human-animal issues, but I don't feel this especially strongly. ~~ N (t/c) 18:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Other (please explain)

Protected

I've protected the page as per User:Nickptar's request (and User:Vashti's request of a few days ago). FreplySpang (talk) 15:05, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

the transesuality parrellell

should be removed, along with the sentance after it, becasue it doesnt show anything about who said irt, i mean, where does this p;ossibly fictuiobnal parellell come from?Gavin the Chosen 15:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

. Keep up with talk. Hipocrite 15:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)