Online communities form with their own rituals, norms and defense mechanisms based on commonality. There the neuroses and prejudices of their members are embraced and nurtured. God help you if you interrupt the delicate balance of things. No one demographic holds the monopoly.

Great skin. Anyone know if it's available to download?



Someone's mod hat is a bit too tight.

Edited: Pissy little pirate girl, you can delete this one as well. But then it'll be harder to look as though you got the last word with your charming "get fucked" smackdown.

As I said in the response post you deleted.

If you truly gave two shits about image hotlinking, you had only to "right click" the artists image and then rubberdubdub's image to answer your silly farking question. Of course though you already knew as moderator nothing says welcome to the forum more than calling out people as hotlinking leeches.

Thanks though for pointing out that "your" rude thoughtless accusatory question had nothing to do with your jackbooted too tight modhat and EVERYTHING to do with your ignorant ninny asshat.

It is short-sided and willfully ignorant to believe the argument regarding that entry has anything to do with censorship and or money.

The argument (and I know this for an absolute fact since I started the farking argument) is whether the entry is valid according to Wikipedia official policy stating articles must be written from a neutral point of view.




The above quote is:

1. Is contentious (Involving or likely to cause controversy)
2. Self-serving (Since the source is from Paysites Must Be Destroyed)
3. Involve claims about third parties (ie: Not a direct spokeperson for EA nor a paysite owner)

At best the quote is nothing more that anecdotal. And again has no place as an encyclopedic entry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view



You'll note the above quote states ALL significant views. Not just yours, mine or as earlier suggested "people of stature" (Whatever that means. Perhaps really really really tall people?)

I would agree there has been since 2001 ongoing and heated controversy regarding paysites, EA's EULA, the layperson's varied interpretations of same, apparent non-enforcement of same and filesharing.

I would remind however that the very definition of the word controversy is an opinion or opinions over which parties are actively arguing. Controversies can range from private disputes between two to large scale disagreements.

And as such, the entry in question does not qualify for inclusion based Wikipedia's official policy. Continually adding it constitutes vandalism.

Question: Why is it fair, balanced and non-biased when it's only YOUR opinion YOU feel is being censored?



Whomever wrote this Wikipedia entry is clearly expressing their own personal opinion. And as such this entry hasn't any business on an open source encyclopedia.

There has been controversy over Wikipedia's reliability and accuracy, with the site receiving criticism for its susceptibility to vandalism, uneven quality and inconsistency, systemic bias, and preference for consensus or popularity over credentials. Information is sometimes unconfirmed and questionable, lacking proper sources that, in the eyes of most Wikipedians, is necessary for an article to be considered "high quality".

The author of the qouted entry is obviously neither a spokesperson, representative, nor laywer for Electronics Arts. Neither I suspect, is he a judge charged with interpretation of the EULA for the Sims community.

He like others, is simply one person with his own opinion. I will respect his right to expressing it whether I agree or disagree. But there is no question that using Wikipedia to espouse one's personal agenda isn't appropriate.