User talk:I am a shadow

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Please don't start an edit war over FreeInfantry. The issue shouldn't be a point of major contention, and I believe it can be resolved amicably in a manner irrefutably consistent with policy. In addition, you are involved in a content dispute, and neither your edits nor the edits of those with whom you disagree constitute vandalism. Please don't represent them as such; it only increases the hostility. Finally, if you have been editing with another account, and have created this account to support the first, please be aware that this constitutes forbidden sock puppetry, and you could face serious consequences if you continue. Adding more users to the war won't help, since there is a clear solution, and we can and will find and ban sock puppets used for edit warring.

What you need to do to further your cause is find reliable sources that reference FreeInfantry, so that its inclusion will comply with the attribution policy. If you can do this, your opponents will find it very difficult to argue against inclusion. Thanks --Philosophus T 05:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC) Removing information over and over again from an article isn't vandalism? If so then I'll just cut out the parts of the site that I don't agree with as people have done to the infantry page.

This is my second account but only because I forgot the PW to "Onlyashadow" and the email is no longer in use, I am fine with using this one so no worries there.

www.freeinfantry.com <- Forums, links to DL, as well as obvious proof of it's existance. There should be no reason to have the freeinfantry information removed from the page is there? If there is please tell me.-I am a shadow 10:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, the problem is that we need independent sources. News articles, independent web sites - something to show that FreeInfantry is notable, essentially. See WP:RS and WP:A for more information. The site itself usually isn't sufficient for this. Lacking these sorts of sources, you could try to argue something based upon player numbers or forum users, if you have that data. The removal of the information in this case isn't vandalism due to the definition of vandalism (see Vandalism), but is edit warring and isn't necessarily in line with policy. Just because edits are bad does not mean that they are vandalism - many of the edits I deal with are worse than vandalism.
 * As for the accounts, in that case everything is fine. --Philosophus T 10:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Reiki
Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Sandbox for test edits. --Ronz 03:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)