Sims 2 on Wikipedia

[Sherry]

I do admire everyones struggle to keep it up there, but, come on, we knew it would never last.  It's the reason why SFV had to buy a server to stay alive, and why PMBD has to be in Malyasia.  Censorship.

There is plenty of content on wiki which does not meet their own criteria of unbiased or verifiable opinions.  It just lacks the concern necessary for it's removal.  Where there is money to be made, there is alot of concern.  Wiki is a war we will probably not win.

[yippee]

youtube is the most recent example of that kind of bullshit.  money.

[Célimène]

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.

There has been some controversy as to whether paysites can legally charge for custom content since the EA license agreement states "You may include materials created with the Tools & Materials on your personal noncommercial website for the noncommercial benefit of the fan community for EA's products"[6]. Protest sites such as http://paysites.mustbedestroyed.org have started offering pay items from other websites for free stating that those websites are the ones that are illegal per EA games license agreement.[6]. The fact that paysites may not be legal and that other websites are offering these payfiles for free is subject to censorship on many of the fan communities The first casualty of the paysite controversy was popular site retailsims.com [7] who after closing urged other paysites to also close in protest.

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.

[jesserocket]

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.

There has been some controversy as to whether paysites can legally charge for custom content since the EA license agreement states "You may include materials created with the Tools & Materials on your personal noncommercial website for the noncommercial benefit of the fan community for EA's products"[6]. Protest sites such as http://paysites.mustbedestroyed.org have started offering pay items from other websites for free stating that those websites are the ones that are illegal per EA games license agreement.[6]. The fact that paysites may not be legal and that other websites are offering these payfiles for free is subject to censorship on many of the fan communities The first casualty of the paysite controversy was popular site retailsims.com [7] who after closing urged other paysites to also close in protest.

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.

I can't be bothered to argue this, I'm no debater, and Célimène, you obviously have your own agenda for so DESPERATELY wanting to keep this out, and it's NOT an issue of neutrality or whatever, if it was, you would not be fighting so hard against everything everyone else is saying on the subject. I don't actually CARE about the Wiki entry, if I did, I would be one of the people constantly re-adding the paragraph, but I sure as hell will defend what it's saying to not just be biased opinion.

And by stature, I meant people in a legal or general high-business placements. High-up. Stature. With status. Why the fuck would I mean tall people? I've tried to be polite, but you're really just a more pseudo-intellectual version of the trolls we get here all the time, and frankly I'm tired.

[Sherry]

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.

There has been some controversy as to whether paysites can legally charge for custom content since the EA license agreement states "You may include materials created with the Tools & Materials on your personal noncommercial website for the noncommercial benefit of the fan community for EA's products"[6]. Protest sites such as http://paysites.mustbedestroyed.org have started offering pay items from other websites for free stating that those websites are the ones that are illegal per EA games license agreement.[6]. The fact that paysites may not be legal and that other websites are offering these payfiles for free is subject to censorship on many of the fan communities The first casualty of the paysite controversy was popular site retailsims.com [7] who after closing urged other paysites to also close in protest.

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.

So does alot of other information on the various other sim sites and creators and they remain.  It's everything to do about others wanting to censor it.  

Your right though it is not valid according to Wiki and that we can't argue that.  Jesserocket is right, I doubt your agenda on keeping the argument out of wiki has little to do with your concern of it's integrity as an encyclopedic entry.  It's a loop hole you have found to have it removed, just like the loophole we have to share files.

[Pescado]

I don't care what anyone's reasons are. I don't want the site associated with Wiki-vandalism.

STOP VANDALIZING THE FRIKKEN WIKI!

[Sherry]

I don't care what anyone's reasons are. I don't want the site associated with Wiki-vandalism.

STOP VANDALIZING THE FRIKKEN WIKI!

I didn't think anyone was still doing this.  I was pretty sure this was all after the fact commentary.

[Noodle]

I don't care what anyone's reasons are. I don't want the site associated with Wiki-vandalism.

STOP VANDALIZING THE FRIKKEN WIKI!

I didn't think anyone was still doing this.  I was pretty sure this was all after the fact commentary.

From Wiki:

This page is currently protected from editing until disputes have been resolved.

Anyone feeling passionate about its content can debate here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Sims_2#Custom_Content_Controversy

[Ensign EO]

Why are people fighting about the Wiki and the mentioning of PSMBD?  There are better things to do.

[yamikuronue]

I tried. You guys now got a protect put on the page. Way to go. *sighs*