User talk:Frecklefoot/Archive16

Non-free rationale for File:TapperTitleScreen.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:TapperTitleScreen.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wikipietime NPOV discussion

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Frecklefoot. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. This is about the user Wikipietime who has been contributing to Son of BOSS among other pages; I would welcome your input. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 02:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Among the Sleep

Evening Frecklefoot. After considering your rationale for tagging Among the Sleep, I removed the tag as WP:FNNR explicitly permits the inclusion of general references that do not constitute citations. Cheers, Mephistophelian (talk) 20:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Whereas the documentation page for Template:No footnotes states: Use this template to indicate that there are currently zero inline citations in the article, the article plainly satifies the requirements for in-line citations, with the prose referenced properly. For the above reason, Template:More footnotes isn't applicable either. Thanks, Mephistophelian (talk) 20:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Peace out ...

I was trying to present a piece of history that I thought should be preserved.

For whatever reason, you've chosen to destroy that bit of history.

You win.

pcG — Preceding unsigned comment added by PcGnome (talk • contribs) 14:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What "bit of history" are you referring to? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking from your edit history, I think you're talking about the Epyx article. I seem to remember that you added some content about your personal experiences at the company. Personally, I found the information interesting, but the problem is that it is totally unverifiable. That's one of the pillars of Wikipedia: verifiable information. Personal experiences aren't verifiable, and are also original research, which is another big no-no here. If you can find verification of your information somewhere--online or in a magazine or book--then, great, it can be included. Otherwise, we can't add it to the article. Sorry, if I hadn't removed it, some other editor would have. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know that whole "anyone can participate" is a lot of hooey.

There should be a balance between "new information" (NOT to be confused with "new research" ) and this place's insidious determination to be GateKeeper.

you want to increase human knowledge or keep the riff-raff out?

My suggestion is to adopt a rule something like:

Before deleting a submission, check to see if the information could be incorporated in some place and some fashion so that the appearance of meeting the mission statement of WikiPedia could be upheld.

Just chopping potential contributors off at the knees has soured uncounted numbers from ever trying again.

A plan, a scheme, a path ...

There's something seriously wrong here.

pcG — Preceding unsigned comment added by PcGnome (talk • contribs) 04:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to double edit here - but there's this problem I'm having with definitions. What exactly qualifies as "new research"? It would seem that a little over a hundred years ago Albert Einstein presented "new research" and you have no trouble with that.

Honest, I'm NOT being facetious - what is the difference between the guy you know who did something for the first time and the guy you don't know who did something for the first time and just plain new information.

If that last qualifies - then you cannot allow anything to be added to WikiPedia.

I'm so confused.

pcG — Preceding unsigned comment added by PcGnome (talk • contribs) 04:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I left the tildes out ...

PcGnome (talk) 05:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you brought up a lot of issues. Let me attempt to address each one. But, what would help you most would likely be to read the guidelines on verifiability. Now, to your questions, comments:

You know that whole "anyone can participate" is a lot of hooey.

No, it's not. Anyone can contribute. But we want to make sure anything contributed is constructive. Otherwise, it's just anarchy, and there's enough of that on the Internet already.

you want to increase human knowledge or keep the riff-raff out?

Well, both. Initially we assume good faith, but if someone consistently vandalizes the 'pedia, we may block them from editing for a time. Your edits weren't vandalization, but they didn't meet our submission guidelines either.

My suggestion is to adopt a rule something like...

You can propose any new policy suggestions at The Wikipedia Proposals Village Pump. Mention it and discuss it with other editors there.

Just chopping potential contributors off at the knees has soured uncounted numbers from ever trying again.

My intent wasn't to "chop you off at the knees, and if that's how my edits came across, I apologize. I'd love for your information on the last days on Epyx to be included in the 'pedia, but it can't under the current guidelines. I can help you get it in, but it will take some work. Please ask me if you want help with this issue.

What exactly qualifies as "new research"?

Anything that you come up with yourself, such as a conclusion or an opinion, that you can't cite from verifiable references. For example, looking at the body of Einstein's work and concluding he was a communist as a result. You can cite others who've done so, but you can't include your own opinions or conclusions in the article.

what is the difference between the guy you know who did something for the first time and the guy you don't know who did something for the first time and just plain new information.

I'm not sure what you're asking here, but everything in the 'pedia is supposed to be backed up by verifiable references (a book, magazine article, online article, etc.). If you know something firsthand, it can't be included unless the fact is published somewhere that is verifiable. For example, if you have an email conversation with John Glenn, in which he claims he invented Elmer's Glue, you can't include that in the article on John Glenn. Even if he really did claim it, it's not verifiable. Only you and he are in possession of the emails, so no one else can check them to verify the conversation. However, if you or he release the emails to, say, TIME magazine, then that information can be included, because once they're printed in TIME, they are verifiable.

Feel free to ask me any questions you have about editing, but also feel free to reach out to the rest of the community too, such as at the Village Pump or the question desk, which even has help via live chat. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, you've been most gracious - I hope I haven't been too impolite.

My consternation stems entirely from having contributions deleted without explanation. It seems if folks like you are prepared to take the time to watchdog areas of information, it shouldn't be too much to say why in the process.

True, most are very good about answering when asked - but this place is mighty confusing and it takes some ingenuity just to figure out how to look for answers. It seems that to properly participate here, one must almost need to take a college course on the subject. I've explored supposed "how to" "guidelines" and other supposedly helpful pages - but they seem written for someone who already understands what's going on here. I know you're not personally responsible for anything I'm complaining about - but when someone here writes "helpful" information, they really should put it before someone who knows nothing about WikiPedia and if they cannot understand it - you've done it wrong.

Right now, maybe you can tell me what's the deal with talk pages? Specifically, the paragraph you nixed on the Epyx page is now on the talk page and nobody seems to mind that. I'll admit that I am using it to save a record of what I couldn't seem to get right on the main page. Is this appropriate or am I misusing this?

And I'll stop now with a couple of questions about previous attempts that also failed. On the "grandfather paradox" page I pointed out it should really be called the "maternal grandmother paradox" as lineage (prior to DNA testing) could only be assured for the female line. Seems obvious, but was branded "new research" and I don't really understand how sound logical reasoning could be considered "new research".

The second on the "golden ratio" page. I merely pointed out that this number is irrational, which means just one thing - it cannot in fact be a ratio, golden or otherwise.

You see, I'd consider these things "new information" rather directly appropriate for the subject and should in no way be considered "new research".

Any clue to what I'm missing here? I think the contributions are both valid and pertinent and I ... well ... got "chopped off at the knees" without any understanding about where the lines are. They seem to stick on their respective talk pages, however.

Thank you for your time,

pcG

PcGnome (talk) 15:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC) PcGnome (talk) 15:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages are for discussing articles and how to improve them. As an example, see the game programming talk page which is chock full of discussions about the article.

Talk pages aren't really a good place to store information forever, but big blocks of text are sometimes slapped there for editing and review before making it into the main article. This isn't normal practice—normally new content goes straight into the article—but it does happen.

I guess the Wikipedia "how to" and "guidelines" material can be confusing if you're not already familiar with some aspects of the 'pedia. The best advice I can give is, instead of trying to contribute new information, just read some articles and improve obvious small things, like grammar, punctuation and the like. This will get you accustomed to editing, style and terminology on the 'pedia and later, when you do want to contribute new information to an article, you'll have a better grasp of how to do it and what's expected.

From your post: I don't really understand how sound logical reasoning could be considered "new research". If you're drawing a conclusion, it's considered original research, something we discussed above. But you're right: the best place to discuss these issues are on the talk pages of the pertinent articles.

Just out of curiosity, what was your role at Epyx? Programmer, designer, producer, artist? Something else? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 16:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was a programmer. My first project was 6502 (Apple //e) versions of "Summer Games". Don't recall the events or even the official year. My second project was on Handy (with confidential agreements). Oddly, Handy was billed as a 16 bit game, but it was still good old 6502 8 bit. It was intended to allow (by infrared or direct caple) for 8 players, if I recall right. I wrote the communication software for this interaction. The most troubling problem was how to decide if "this machine" is first and everybody else listen to it. Seems there was a problem if two machines were switched on too closely together - both listen, hear nothing and decide to be Master.

As for your suggestion about minor grammatical fixes - I've actually done that in half a dozen places without subsequent edit - so I am happy to contribute that way.

My first programming job, Software Engineer actually was for a company called "Linear Corp", first noted for wireless garage door openers - but then got into wireless security systems. I was a major contributor to their original SS32 security system. I am a big fan of the MM1468705G2 micro controller.

I used that micro controller to build a personal project - a 3D display cube. Surprising results from extremely low resolution. The above processor driving an mm5486 serial display driver chip and 189 LEDs. That's a 4 cube inbetween a 5 cube to simulate a 9 cube with a lot less bits, 189 to be exact. Very few were built, but I did take one into Epyx one day and my favorite recollection was an Aussie guy who said "Yea, but what does it do?" somewhat derisively - then proceeded to stare at it for 15 minutes.

I live computers since about 1981, but before that I was a theatre projectionist and hung around with phone phreaks.

My first video game experience was in I think 1972 at LAcon. A space game with a glitch where you could position yourself in a certain place on the screen and the enemy ships couldn't hit you. Next computer game was what would later be called "Adventure" at a remote terminal connected by one of those pre-at&t breakup modems where you had to put the handset into two cups. This was about 1978.

Lots of history, shame this isn't quite the place. They have projects for things like talking to WWII vets before they all died off, I wonder if such places exist for my purposes?

Hope I didn't rattle on too much.

pcG

Darn, forgot the tildes again. Shouldn't there be an option to automatically attach it to "save page"? I mean, if everybody's supposed to do it, shouldn't it be automatic?

PcGnome (talk) 17:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you didn't rattle on too long. I'm always happy to meet a former game programmer like myself. Actually, all that stuff above would be good for your user page. : ) — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 17:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This may be a difference without a distinction, but in a world of "look at me", I'm more of a "look at my ideas" kind of guy. Presenting myself is not my strong suit. So, facebook and the like are decidedly not for me. I suppose I could just ramble on as I see fit with my user page. Have to give this some thought.

How permanent are a person's user page? If somebody dies, there's little chance of notification, so is it a permanent posthumous record or does it time out somehow?

Thanx for the suggestion,

pcG

PcGnome (talk) 19:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's something I don't know. I seem to remember one well-known editor dying at some point and they put some message on his user page. I don't remember what happened after that. This is a really good question, but you'll probably have to ask someplace. Start here. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 20:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found this: WP:RIP, which lists deceased Wikipedians, but I haven't found any guideline that says User Pages are deleted (the dead Wikipedians listed still have their user pages intact). You can request a "right to vanish", but it's only granted under special circumstances. It sounds like you may need your heirs to ask to have your userpage deleted after you die, citing some verifiable reference that you are actually dead. But your best bet is probably to ask a question somewhere from the link I provided above. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 21:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I'm now using up more than 3/4 of your talk page.

Anyway, the short answer is as suspected "The user page remains as a memorial forever"

The long answer is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2007_March_18

Speaking of forever - there's been a paradigm shift in UseNet. If you see the ads, you'll notice that retention rates are increasing at the rate of one day per day - essentially UseNet articles no longer expire. Everything posted to UseNet from early September of 2008 forward is now forever. So, if you want to store something for free forever with only a minimal monthly fee to access, consider UseNet. As storage prices drop, this is only going to become more certain. Even the recent spike in HD prices due to that tsunami thing hasn't had the slightest effect on retention. And it is the most egalitarian system going - no recourse because every one of many providers would have to obey a "kill article" order and I don't think that's in the least reliable.

pcG

PcGnome (talk) 21:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, probably better places to ask, but you do it, so you should know.

Every time you respond, your text is indented. When I answer other places, it doesn't indent. I tried the tab key - but that just tabs me around my browser.

What's the trick?

pcG

PcGnome (talk) 21:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot images on UFO: Enemy Unknown

Greetings, Frecklefoot

I have seen the page you have contributed to, UFO: Enemy Unknown, and really like the idea of using screenshots of the gameplay in the article. I am currently working with others to expand a stub of the video game Star Raiders (2011), and I was wondering what copyright issues we would have to be concerned with if using screenshots? The page for UFO: Enemy Unknown is well-developed and has been an example to us in expanding the page for Star Raiders (2011). We think incorporating screenshots would be compelling and add a lot to the gameplay section of the article.

The link to the talk page of Star Raiders (2011) is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nguyen102/Star_Raiders_(2011_video_game)

Any help you could provide to us on this subject or others would be greatly appreciated! KellyD78 (talk) 18:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the one to ask on how to use images in article. While I am a very experienced editor, the image use policy of Wikipedia is rather Draconian and often trips me up (see discussion below). Perhaps you could contact Sfan00_IMG for guidelines on how to incorporate screenshots into articles. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 16:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:DefenderOfTheCrown.jpg

Hi, I note you uploaded this media, would you mind expanding the fair use rationale so it addresses ALL 10 points of WP:NFCC?Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly why I--and probably many more users--don't contribute more images to Wikipedia. You make it so darn hard to contribute images and it really discourages it. The policy (item #10) only mentions THREE things the image description page REQUIRES and I fulfilled all of those. How about making a template or something that users can fill out so they know they're meeting all of the Draconian image requirements? Does all the stuff I added meet the requirements now? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Necropolis (browser game)

The article Necropolis (browser game) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The article admits the game got little critical coverage.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Gigs (talk) 06:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Rauch

Your edit is incorrect. Please see the article's talk page. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Sims Task Force Rebrand?

Hi and my name is Sundogs and I have submitted a public vote on The Sims Task Force talk page and I am notifying all The Sims Task Force members to voice his, or hers, voice and leaving your comments, suggestions, feedback, concerns, or opinions about the forthcoming re-branding The Sims Task Force as Electronic Art Project under the Video Games Project here on Wikipedia. Please stop by and leave your thoughts there and make your voice heard.

Thanks for being apart of The Sims Task Force.

Sundogs ^{talk page sandbox} 02:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q1 2013

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 6, No. 1 — 1st Quarter, 2013
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q1 2013, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation

VG Project Main pages
- Main project – talk
- Project category – talk
- Portal – talk
VG Project Departments
- Assessment – talk
- Cleanup – talk
- Peer review – talk
- Reference library – talk
- Newsletter – talk
- Video game images – talk

To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

A kitten for you!

Whoops, didn't know external links were last. Thanks!

Judsonhillman (talk) 03:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 13:07, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Patch (computing)

Why did you delete the tools I posted to "Patch (computing)"?

The currently listed tools are out of date.

I would accept it if you saw process patching as different then the "Patch" described on the page.

A number of on disk patching applications could be listed would that be more appropriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonmccoy (talk • contribs)

I discussed why I deleted in the talk page of the article. I even pointed that out in my edit summary. Please always sign your posts on Talk pages. Please go to the article's talk page to discuss this further. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 00:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By whose terminology

What authority do you claim for this reversion that a Hot Fix is not a type of patch?

A Hot Fix is certainly a type of patch! See the line: "The term hotfix was originally applied to software patches that were applied to live (i.e. still running) systems."—which incidently matches my experience in software; but perhaps you're an academic or haven't been coding since 1977 like me.
- So what's the problem with mentioning the term, particularly when a major software vendor uses the Hot Fix term regularly over a thirteen year history?
I was merely making sure I could cross link to a 'pedia term making a fuller explanation on the Trainz Wikibook.

With over a million registered users, Auran/N3V certainly has experience so where's your beef?

Note the dual use on this pageexcerpt
Build 57720	-	TS12 SP1 English
Build 57825	-	TS12 SP1 Hotfix 1 English
Build 57898	-	TS12 SP1 Hotfix 2 English

No matter, I added it back as a header 'see also', also saw the reversion trail there, Quick Draw, and reluctantly reverted his revert of you. see here and the Patch (computing) page now. Sincere thanks are expressed in green-grey spendable thingys. <G> //FrankB 15:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See my response to your comment on the Patch talk page. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 01:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Join WikiProject Microsoft!

Why don't you join WikiProject Microsoft?

It seems that you have been editing Microsoft related articles, so why don't you consider joining WikiProject Microsoft, not to be confused with WikiProject Microsoft Windows. WikiProject Microsoft is a group of editors who are willing to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Microsoft, its technologies, web properties & its people. This WikiProject is brand new and is welcoming editors to help out. Add your name to the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Microsoft/Participants and/or add the userbox {{Template:User WikiProject Microsoft}}. Thanks! jcc (tea and biscuits) 14:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Capcom list

Just letting you know, a legend table for consoles is highly discouraged. It would be affective just to give the full name if there's no renowned abbreviation such as PSP. Also you can link them in the list once.Lucia Black (talk) 03:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first I've heard that a platform legend is discouraged. Could you point me to the policy? For short lists, I would link to the platform once and have the full name of the platform. But for long lists, like this one, I've found abbreviations and the legend more useful. Also, for entries like this:

Name	Year	Platforms	Description
Buster Bros.	1989	Ami, Arcade, C64, CPC, DOS, GB, iOS, PCD, PS1, SNES, ST, ZX

The full name of each platform would make the entry pretty unwieldy. I'm open to changing, but there is some pretty solid precedence for how I'm doing the list now. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 12:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a specific rule by policy, but their discouraged by principle, and not by VG list specifically, but any list that has a variety of. SNES, iOS, etc. their fine, but the rest seem unnecessary and their not as long as you make them out to be.Lucia Black (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. This discussion is probably moot now, however. I think I'm going to change direction and format it more like the Square Enix list instead, with the full system names like you suggested. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 23:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Comparison of BPEL engines (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Activiti

Datcroft Games (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Unity 3D

Stephen Kaplan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Elmhurst, New York

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 20:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding WP:Systemic bias

Hello there. If you wouldn't mind, I'd like to discuss something with you. The English Wikipedia is a global project, and does not specifically cater to any regional, political, cultural or linguistic circles. Per WP:PILLAR, one of the central founding principles of Wikipedia is WP:NPOV. One specific concern of the English Wikipedia that is frequently cited is a WP:Systemic bias towards topics that relate to the western world, most specifically the United States and Europe. There is greater coverage of western topics than those from other countries, which severely harms the project and its goals. I would strongly disagree with the idea that foreign concepts are "better suited towards foreign-language Wikipedias", because this only further worsens the state of systemic bias on Wikipedia. The language divides between different language editions of Wikipedia are to specifically increase accessibility to information for people with varying competencies in languages, and not to allow for the splintering, forking and fragmentation of POV and information. I hope you are able to understand my points here. --benlisquare_T•C•E 14:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, if it's comparative notability you're worried about, then KanColle is getting at least four times as much buzz as Farmville, and magnitudes more than Mafia Wars, both which are considered "prime examples" according to the rest of that article. Not to mention, "艦これ" returns 29,800,000 web hits and 12,100 news hits, compared to 20,700,000 web hits and 5,870 news hits for "Farmville". --benlisquare_T•C•E 15:00, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, guilty as charged! I didn't see how an R-rated game with impossibly buxon babes, which are actually starships, was a notable Facebbok game. I didn't check the references (I couldn't where I was), but I thought it was highly unlikely. I won't undo your revert, but you have to understand, a lot of people spam that article with their favorite Facebook games and I thought this was just another instance of that phenomenon.

In the future, discuss issues like this on the Talk page of the article so other editors can chime in. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 00:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I can understand where you're coming from. I wasn't trying to guilt-trip you, by the way, just a friendly reminder. :) --benlisquare_T•C•E 00:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for reversion on List of level editors

Hi Frecklefoot - just wondering what the reasons were behind your reverting of my edit? You said in the comment the link I added was "non-notable" but I thought it was, given that the editor works with a number of games that do not already have editors listed in the article. Can you please clarify? Many thanks. -- Malvineous (talk) 08:53, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two reasons:

In most lists (such as list of indie game developers and others), an entry is non-notable if it doesn't have an article written about it. And that article, like all articles, cannot be written by someone who has a conflict of interest with the entry.
You used a direct external link to the editor, as opposed to a wikilink. Direct external links are discouraged in the main article text; they normally should only appear in the external links section or used as references.

There may be other editors in that list that are non-notable, and in general, they should be removed as well. HTH! Please keep contributing to Wikipedia! — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 12:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? On second thought, I'll restore it, with some changes. There are many level editors in that list that don't have articles, but the games they work on are notable. Since the one you listed works on several games, including it is fine. I've added it back here. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 12:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great, many thanks! As you say, I was thinking more of the notability of the games rather than the editor itself, and I was hoping by adding a link to the editor, even though it is my own, would benefit people looking to edit some notable games. Thanks again for your explanation. -- Malvineous (talk) 09:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]