Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Please do not CENSOR information without a valid reason. Removing information even after adding citation, believed by NeoFreak or not is not job of burden of proof when the information CLEARLY is there. Your personal bias is clear, you only have to read your bio to see you have a personal religious slant to your censoring NeoFreak. Take a step back and just allow information to be learn and allow others to decide and filter on their own. Your filtering the way you want it, never mind what this forum was made for, is your attempt to take or usurp control of this forum. Please bring more breath to your objection and explain your objection MORE then just censor. We learn nothing if you auto delete what YOU do not like.
I'm not going to get into a revert war with you. Your behavior since you have started here is inappropriate to say the least. Please abide by our policies and try to assume good faith in others. I'm afraid if you don't stop with your adding of inappropriate material at Vorarephilia I'll ask an admin to take a look at your edit history. I hope you do the right thing and restore the page to the policy compliant version. If not I will do it myself and refer you for administrative action. Also, do not remove or change warning templates on your talk page. Feel free to hit me up on my talk page. NeoFreak19:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Valar:
I do not see the reason for the removal and I have seen the edits.
Rather what I see as censorship.
What in plain english is the reason for the censorship?
The actions you have shown to the community do not show good faith in your actions.
Feel free to look at the edit history, facts and information stand on their own.
Is it the policy of Wiki to censor information?
A yes or no will be fine.
Note if yes then the information is questionable if not suspect.
Is no then let the edits and information stand.
Reasons for censorship maybe many, maybe if you explained that bit it would be good and productive.
Your comment about "since started" as being inappropriate is a personal attack not founded on my background nor actions.
As a expert in Gaming and its history and very familiar with the subject I could place myself as a source on many of the subjects I write about. I prefer to low key my history for now.
You maybe in need to lightly reflect on what I have said. Actions from a outsider like yourself only anger those in the stated community. Why would you do that if your acting in good faith? I have been only trying to correct incorrect information. That often means expanding where it needs and further defining.
I've tried top be patient with you and you've done nothing but attack me and throw around accusations and rude behaivor in a place that you are new in and don't seem to know much about. The "sources" you are providing are not reliable by wikipedia's definition. You are adding material that is not properly attributed. This is against the rules. For the last time sign your posts with four tildes (the wavey line button tothe left of your "1" button). As for accusing me of attacking you? Come on. I'm out of Goodwill, if you can't take the time to read our rules here (esp original research Mr. Game Expert) then I'm not going to waste my time with you. NeoFreak20:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid your actions have cause this. Ask before doing would be polite. Reverting with out a better explaination.... Citations are given, what is wrong with them? If you do not take the time to explain yourself then no one if going to take your censoring seriously, rather as a attack on their work. I would like to work with your objections if you explained more then just citing articles without say HOW it fits. Your comments to me also have been hostile, At this point I am taking the deep breath. But the rules seem to be interpreted by you one way, your way. It makes no sense denying like your actions indicate. Vore exists, get over it. We can quivel over verbage, but removal of such verbage makes no sense.
You ignored the more recent additions I am adding to the page.
I have re-deleted the text from the image Image:Dave_Arneson.png. This is in compliance with Wikipedia's guidelines which prefer that captions be in the text of the article, not in the image. This makes the image easier to edit and use for other articles. It also means that disputed text can more easily be changed. — Alan De Smet | Talk22:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that in your edit summary for the image you uploaded, you said, "with permission to be used unaltered." Such terms are not acceptable for content submitted to Wikipedia. Without the ability of other editors to improve submitted content, Wikipedia would be unable to continue to improve. I note that when your originally uploaded the image in question, you specifically licensed the image under the GFDL and the CC-BY-2.5 licenses, both of which allow other people to use and modify the image with a great degree of freedom. Was this your intention? If you only intended to offer the image under an "only unaltered" restriction, please edit both Image:Dave_Arneson.png and Image:PortrateDave.jpg to delete the existing "Licensing" section and make a clear statement of under what terms the images can be used. (You need to make this edit so that it's clear that this is your intent.) Of course, such a restriction is generally unacceptable to Wikipedia, and doing so pretty much ensures that it will be promptly deleted. — Alan De Smet | Talk22:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
