Talk:Steve Breslin

From IFWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Cunningjames writes: "It is poor form to edit one's own entry. I'm reverting to an older one." This seems to me absolute nonsense. I have edited my own page several times, and I didn't see any complaints. I don't think there should have been complaints, either--what is wrong with adding factual information to one's own page?

I strongly suggest reverting Cunningjames's revert. If he objects to any specific things written by Steven Breslin, let him say exactly what those things are and why they would be inappropriate.

VictorGijsbers 09:05, 2 May 2009 (PDT)

About editing one's own entry: see Talk:People (style guide)#Editing own entries and Talk:Mark J. Tilford for an answer. It's not forbidden, anyway, and I don't think it should be. And I'm quite happy that (for instance!) Bonaventura Di Bello edited his own page, because we had almost no info about him at the time.
About Steven's edits on his own page: I think most of them are OK, and they certainly shouldn't be all removed at once like that. However, I personally find the word "major" (in major IF theorist and programmer) not neutral enough: it isn't a word people should use about themselves. I also think that some of his comments -- on this page and also on the page of the game -- about Being Steve are his own point of view, not neutral point of view. But the rest, including his page about The Battle of Walcot Keep, seems acceptable to me. --Eriorg 13:09, 2 May 2009 (PDT)
I have reverted the edit, but changed the things which you (and I) felt were not neutral. VictorGijsbers 07:11, 3 May 2009 (PDT)

I noticed that this page has been re-edited recently. And yes, on IFWiki, Steve is permitted to edit a page about himself. I'm willing to allow the reference to the attack piece to be removed; I suppose I wouldn't care for such a thing on a page about me either. (I'd rather that reference wasn't deleted, but I can live with that deletion here.) However, I'm a little less happy with the "major" and "hundreds of articles" mentioned. I know we're not Wikipedia, and we don't normally demand citations for unsupported statements, but since this does seem to be a point of contention, I would like to see something to help back this up. Like, I'm hoping these "hundreds of articles" are not just newsgroup postings but are on webpages somewhere that we can link to. Links to theory articles would be very welcome; like, look at all the links we have for Nick Montfort. Perhaps I'm just ignorant as to where all of Steve Breslin's articles are. Show, don't tell, y'know. -- David Welbourn 21:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)