Talk:MechWarrior: Living Legends

Do not delete
Please do not delete this article! This game is a very big project, it took years to make, and it's definitely mention-worthy. I'm tired of all the bias on Wikipedia. 99.6.143.133 (talk) 22:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Articles are deleted mostly because of a lack of notability. Whether or not a topic is notable depends on whether it has received reliable coverage in neutral third-party sources. As it stands, this articles has only one valid source -- Shacknews, which it cites twice. If you're worried about the status of this article, you should go about finding some more sources and coverage of this mod. Eik Corell (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Notability is a very broad term. Something considered being "notable" by someone may not be considered "notable" by someone else. The real question is, who is it that decides if an article is deleted due to lack of notability? I see valid articles deleted from Wikipedia all the time, because of bias and sometimes even double standards. This game is still pretty new, but it has already gained a lot of attention and a very big fanbase. As time goes on, it will expand a lot and there will be much more information.99.6.143.133 (talk) 01:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You can read Wikipedia's notability guideline here. A lot of people make the errant assumption that because something has a big community attached to it, that it automatically becomes notable, which is not the case. Articles can be OK quality-wise, but still get deleted because there are no sources to indicate whether the subject matter is actually important. The best thing for this article would citing some sources for the recently released beta. Eik Corell (talk) 15:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't call me errant, Wikipedia is rife with articles that violate those so-called guidelines, and it constitutes double standards. I don't blame Wikipedia, I blame the community. 99.6.143.133 (talk) 08:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia actually has a guideline that addresses this kind of argument: Other stuff lacking notability does not exempt this from the rules. Eik Corell (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Per my below notability entry, there's no good reason to remove this article as it would detract from the quality and thoroughness of parent articles. This mod is not a fly-by-night project doomed to obscurity with no historical note: it is an award-winning, multi-year, on-going project in heavy development with a firm place in the history of the Battletech and Mechwarrior universes, and a loyal following. Given that it has survived to actually produce a usable product, I'd say the simple fact that the project received firm authorization from Microsoft makes it notable in and of itself: removal can only diminish the quality of this encyclopedia. Besieged (talk) 21:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * @Besieged: You have severe conflict of interest issues here. Your Support is therefore not relevant and is a breach of Wiki etiquette.  Please see WP:COI - and my comments below. SteveBaker (talk) 01:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't delete! Mechwarrior: Living Legends is a notable Mod as evidenced by 2 awards on ModDB, including Mod of the year 2009 as well as general media coverage like done by Gamestar, PC Games and quite a few more.
 * There is a certain fan-group around the Mechwarrior series of games, for those and other gamers interested in such playstyles Mechwarrior: Living Legends is very notable - especially in the absence of official continuations of the series. --wizzar (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Notability
To mitigate the notability problem, the best course of action would be to find some more sources like the ones already present. I'm gonna go have a look for additional coverage in reliable sources. Eik Corell (talk) 14:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I've added another such reference. I have to argue for notability given the games place in the long and unquestionably notable history of the Battletech universe (which, with dozens of novels and publications, cannot be argued against) and the series of video-games spawned from it, much less the fact that it serves as one of the rare examples in which a mod community received authorization for production on an otherwise highly-contested piece of intellectual property. A lack of an article on this topic would leave a gaping hole of a reference in the parent Battletech and Mechwarrior articles where a distinct and valid part of their own history and reference is concerned. Besieged (talk) 21:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

"Rarely in the history of modding has a game be(sic) changed in such a drastic manner." Besieged (talk) 05:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Besieged should not be editing this article!
User:Besieged says on his user: page:


 * "I am a Systems and Network Administrator with over 15 years of professional industry experience and a recent entry into the world of video game development as a texture artist and game designer for Mechwarrior: Living Legends."

So he actively works on this game project. That constitutes a clear breach of the Conflict of Interest rules - and this is an exceedingly serious matter here at Wikipedia. It is especially inappropriate to be demanding that the article not be considered for deletion when you have such a vested interest in getting publicity from Wikipedia.

@Besieged: I assume that you were unaware of this most important rule and were editing in good faith. But now you are aware that the rule exists, please read the WP:COI page - and behave accordingly.

SteveBaker (talk) 01:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Following WP:Bold and WP:IAR, period. No one else was editing it, and it bore improving - would you rather it remain incomplete? That the Wikipedia itself should suffer in quality and content because... What? Someone with an interest in the subject shouldn't be allowed to contribute? Perhaps you should then be disallowed from contributing from all video-game related topics because, as an owner of a game development company, you have a vested, commercial, for-profit interest in making sure all related Wiki articles reflect your point of view. *I* am a volunteer in a no-profit (not non-profit, read it again, no-profit) non-commercial project with information that no one else has come forward to provide. If you actually read WP:COI, notably what constitutes COI, you'll find that my contributions (outside perhaps my lobbying in favor of the articles notability, which does not actually change the fact that it IS notable) flatly do not meet any of the guidelines for COI, whereas based upon

"I'm a computer games/graphics programmer with Total Immersion in Austin, Texas and my son and I run TuBaGames. Please go to my personal website for information about me. You can email me at steve@sjbaker.org - or using the "E-mail this user" link in the left-side menu."

I'd say the actual COI here lie in a direction other than the one you're pointing in: I am not actually professionally employed in the games industry itself and instead make my living as a SysAdmin for an ISP. Thanks for playing.

Are you familiar with the subject matter of the MechWarrior: Living Legends article and wish to take the time and effort to improve it? Then please, feel free to do so - I have not removed or interfered with anyone else's contributions to this article. Otherwise, please don't lawyer me on rules: I have as much right to edit and support that article in a non-partial or non-contentious manner as you do for texture artist or anything related to video games. For that matter, because I am also a falconer with expert knowledge as well as distinct and subjective opinions on the subject, should I also be banned from contributing to those relevant articles? (see for example Jesses which would not exist without actual falconers to provide first-hand expert information). My interest in the MW:LL article is the same vested interest in making sure accurate information is available as I understand it on all the topics that fall within my field of interest. Besides my support for the notability of the article in various talk/discussion pages (where I in most or all cases admit I am a game developer so that others may weigh my bias as they wish), keep in mind that only my own honesty compelled me to admit my status as one of the game's developers in the first place, and in the end run, I can just as easily question your own motivations and conflict of interest, since you DO have a commercial, for-profit motive in ensuring the ascendancy of your own point-of-view. Now please, back off before what started as a simple complaint over your hack-and-slash job of my entries to texture artist becomes the foundation for a WP:HARASS complaint resulting from your inability to follow directions:

*"When investigating possible cases of COI editing, Wikipedians must be careful not to reveal the identity of other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over this guideline. An editor's conflict of interest is often revealed when that editor discloses a relationship to the subject of the article to which the editor is contributing. Where an editor does not disclose an existing affiliation or other conflict of interest, carefully following Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy may help counteract biased editing." Apparently I had the interpretation of this one wrong, however this still feels a lot like harassment. "Wah, someone complained that I hacked up an article without actually contributing to it. Let me go check all their contributions to see if I can find something to complain about in revenge." Besieged (talk) 17:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no knowledge of MechWarrior - nor do I have any interest whatever in editing the article. This isn't about me - it's about you.  My concern is only to help you to avoid getting into administrative trouble - and to keep this article 100% independent of the biased views of those who are involved in making this game.  If Wikipedia allowed the manufacturers of every product to write about them then this would become an advertizing site...and that's something that I'm sure none of us want.
 * I understand your feelings about being the "right" person to put content into this article - that is such a common reaction to a COI complaint. But is it is simply not allowed according to the principles of this website.  This is a serious matter and if you continue to edit this article in direct violation of the COI rules, I will seek to have you blocked.
 * As for your vague counter-accusations, you will note that I have not edited any articles related to games on which I have worked - nor on any other games except those that are clearly not in competition with my other interests. Nor have I edited on the general topic of "serious games" which my commercial interest - nor on the subject of TuBaGames or any of our products (which, incidentally is also a "free" game site).  I have edited on general topics relating to computer games and computer graphics - but that's perfectly OK (per WP:COI).  It is not a COI for a mathematician to edit math articles.  Check out TuxKart, for example.  You'll see from the article that I wrote that game...now look at the edit history and note that not one single edit was by me. Then look at the top of the Talk: page - notice a clear warning about my conflict of interest in that article...something I take very seriously.
 * I have not revealed your identity - nor do I intend to (actually, I have no idea who you are).
 * You have disclosed your affiliation - on your public user: page - so there is no privacy concern here.
 * I have not harrassed you - when you complained about my edit to texture artist I was curious about your background - so I did what most people would do under those circumstances and checked the information you wished to be made public on your user page - and I checked your contributions to discover what your editing interests are - both are perfectly normal things that Wikipedians do when they bump into someone they haven't met before. When I saw the obvious connection, it was my responsibility as a good Wikipedian to bring the COI rules you your attention (in case you are unaware of them) - and to bring the issue to the attention of others who are working on this article.  I have not taken it any higher - and I have not pointed out the problem to any admin.
 * No matter your qualifications - the COI rules make it extremely clear that you should not be editing this article - period. If you continue to do so, I will take matters further.  Wikipedia's independence is far more important than any personal knowledge you may have of this subject - and in any case, any personal knowledge you do have would be "original research".  You should limit your input to this article to pointing out reliable sources about this topic here on the talk page.
 * Yes, I would prefer that this (borderline non-notable) article did not include your contributions...and perhaps they should be actively removed unless they can be strictly backed up by reliable sources. Since the entire "Gameplay" section was created by you, has not one single reference and reads just like an advert for the game - it needs to go.


 * WP:COI says:
 * "The definition of "too close" in this context is governed by common sense. An article about a little-known band should preferably not be written by the band's manager or a band member's spouse. However, an expert on trees is welcome to contribute to articles on that subject, even if that editor is deeply committed to the subject."
 * I submit that someone who works in a game mod team falls into the same category as the band manager in the example given. My position as an authority on computer graphics makes me welcome to edit articles on computer graphics...even though I am indeed deeply committed to the subject.


 * If you wish to take this to higher authorities - I'll be happy to do that - but I can tell you from L-O-N-G experience here at Wikipedia that you wouldn't like what would likely happen as a result. I've seen this charade with COI editors play out dozens of times before - and the result is always the same - they fight, they get upset, they get a short-term block from the site, then they usually start sock-puppets and an indefinite ban from the site soon follows.  You would be wise to quietly cease your work on this article forthwith while you can still claim "ignorance of the law" and I can still assume good faith.


 * SteveBaker (talk) 18:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I agree here. It would be best if you took a step back and not edit this article, or at least contribute in a lesser fashion. That could include bringing up sources here on the talk page or correcting grammatical errors, or cleaning up the page, but not adding new content. I reinstated the notability template because clearly your neutrality is compromised when it comes to judging whether or not your own work, so to speak, is notable. Eik Corell (talk) 19:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * While i can see the COI point when it comes to praise of the project etc., i don't see how reverting the links to moddb entries is helping anyone - they are just linking to external informational pages. --wizzar (talk) 18:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:EL has some pretty stiff rules about what should be used in external links. In fact, I've just removed the link to the MechWarrior wiki because WP:EL specifically disallows links to other Wiki's.  I'm not quite sure why Eik decided to remove the moddb link.  The COI rules are not about whether the editor in question praises something or whatever.  It's about neutrality in general.  At any rate, if you have problems with the COI rules - it's best to take them up on the WP:COI talk page.  Right now it's clear that those rules were breached - and that situation is now rectified. SteveBaker (talk) 20:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

No no, you guys are right. I bow to your superiority and egos, you're certainly the end all of knowledge of everything and apparently don't need help; after all, while subjects you have claimed expertise in go untouched and fallow (ala texture artist, which you did precisely nothing to actually improve in terms of content), it must be okay for subjects you know or care nothing about to be left the same way, right? Because they must not be notable or worth the disk-space on the Wiki. Obviously you have so much free time and expertise that the Wiki doesn't need other editors to contribute to the areas in which they have knowledge, because if it were notable, you would have added it already, right?

So yeah, someone touches an article supposedly in your domain (WP:MANDARINS much? vested interest goes both ways), you hack and slash all the information out of and then go on and on about how much of an expert you are while you didn't actually provide any content or information to the article. Then, when someone has the gall to complain in good faith that they feel you're doing more harm than good by not following WP:PRESERVE, instead of actually CONTRIBUTING to this encyclopedia, you spend your spare time hunting through the contributions of the person who dared speak up against you on what is clearly a WP:WITCHHUNT, looking for something to complain about, and then when you find it you have a field day. Then you drag Eik back in, who has also never actually contributed anything to 'this' article either, or even contributed to this talk page in over a year. As for the notability statement, WP:GETOVERIT, because it is, and I've provided the references to prove it; just because I happen to think so doesn't change the fact, and you wouldn't mark the article on Wikipedia itself as non-notable just because Jimmy Wales expressed the opinion he thought it was. I can WP:CHILL with the best, but the question is over 3 years old and people need to stop beating a dead horse.

You guys obviously have the encylopedia well in hand and don't need anyone else's help, so I'll leave you to it. As a side note, on your repeated threats of "continuing to assume good faith", if my quacking annoys you, maybe you should read WP:NOSPADE, notably the duck test. While you're at it, read (or refresh yourself on) WP:SOW/REAP, WP:DONTBITE (the implied impending sock-/meat-puppetry is just one example, as is your repeated claims of assumption of good faith which, in context and the way it was stated, reads as hollow as the Trojan Horse and implies you believe the exact opposite), and before you go all WP:BITECLUB on me, I too know how to use the search box and do my own research, and am only lawyering back at the people who started it. WP:NOSHAME, WP:BOLD, WP:IAR, all in good faith with the intent of adding to and improving this encyclopedia, not because I don't have better things to do than argue with people who only want to subtract from - instead of add to - the whole or have an agenda to push. I'll continue to assume in good faith that no one here arguing against is now or ever has been a developer for a competing mod that shall remain nameless.

Anyway, I've said my WP:CHUNK while maintaining WP:Civility as best I can (given the environment, though, I'm sure it reads at least a little less than civil) and I'm done being an angry mastodon; I'm also done with this article, talk page, and - for now anyway - editing this encyclopedia in general: I'll find some place my time and efforts are appreciated, where my energy and zeal won't be painted as fanaticism, and am just going to WP:LETITGO from here on and go reread Animal Farm. Besieged (talk) 18:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:DIVA applies here I think. Eik Corell (talk) 19:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Removing errors from articles is just as important (arguably more so) than adding new content. In the case of texture artist, I have to say that the information there before I edited it was flat out wrong.  Poorly written, misleading, meaningless garbage, actually.  So I fixed it.  That's OK - it falls perfectly well within the COI guidelines.  As the quote I gave from WP:COI above says: "...an expert on trees is welcome to contribute to articles on that subject, even if that editor is deeply committed to the subject.".  Someone who is an expert in some general field (such as computer graphics) is absolutely encouraged to work on articles in that general field.  However, someone with a very direct and personal involvement in a specific person, group, company, band, game, whatever - is absolutely NOT allowed to edit articles about which they have such a pesonal vested interest.  That's why the COI policy exists.  If you disagree with that policy - then take it up with the policy-makers.  I merely point out that the policy exists and strongly urge you to follow it.


 * As for this specific article, I'm sorry - but it truly will be a better article without you editing it. You won't think so...but that's a natural reaction.  With the best will in the world, you cannot be neutral about something that you are that passionate about.  You are blind to the flaws - it's inevitable - all game developers are the same...I'm the same...that's why there is not one line of my writing in any of the articles about games I've written and only spelling/typo edits to articles about companies I've worked for in the past (Midway Games for example).  Sure, I wish I could get in and write long, interesting sections about gameplay and such - but I'm adult enough to understand that there are times when you have to keep a distance...and this is one of them.


 * As a game developer you have to be passionate about what you do and be 100% convinced that what you make is (or soon will be) great. That's the only way you can keep sane while working on a project for years only to see it in the $10 remainder bin six months after launch.  Enduring long hours of crunch-time and grief from publishers and reviewers isn't easy and the firm belief that what you're doing is superb is the only thing that keeps you from chucking it in and doing something easier (and better paid!).  Passion about your game is an excellent trait in a game developer - and I'm glad you have it - it speaks well of you.  However it's a disasterous trait in an encyclopedia article writer where strict neutrality is prized above all else.  It is truly better that we have a brief but neutral article about your game than a comprehensive article that you wrote most of which may not be neutrally written.


 * Take the notability discussion, above. How can you possibly be neutral when someone says that your game - that you've lavished so much effort on - isn't even "notable"!?!?  Hell no!  Of course you can't!  But that is what (as an editor of this article) you are supposed to be - stone cold neutral.  It's inconceivable that you'd be neutral in such a debate...you'd be a lousy game developer if you were!  Hence, the only answer (from Wikipedia's standpoint) is to say: Please stay away from this article - your lack of neutrality is a bigger risk of loss than the benefits of having your intimate knowledge of the subject matter.  In fact, we don't even have to lose that knowledge.  The COI rules say that it is OK (within reason) to provide background information and links to reliable sources about your game here on the talk page.  You just have to stand back and leave it to the other editors to write the text and decide what goes in and what doesn't...that's tough to do though - so most people don't do it.


 * Case in point - I was one of the Philips Research Labs team that invented the CD-ROM. Hence, WP:COI means that I shouldn't edit the CD-ROM article...and I don't.  However, that did not prevent me from posting a first-person account of how the CD-ROM came about to the talk page.  Sadly, the editors of that article were unable to find reliable sources to back up my story - so none of that interesting history is in the article - and it will likely be lost.  I find that sad - but it's a part of what Wikipedia is all about.  I'll probably write the story on my own personal web site at some time in the future.


 * I'm glad you've decided not to edit this article any further - I'm disappointed that you won't continue to edit elsewhere in the encyclopedia. I hope that you'll take a short Wiki-break and consider coming back to do so in the future.  We all have bad run-ins with policy - it's a part of working here - but we learn to dust ourselves off and move on.


 * From my point of view - please don't shoot the messenger. I didn't write the COI policy - I merely seek to ensure that you don't violate it.


 * SteveBaker (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on MechWarrior: Living Legends. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.shacknews.com/article/61750/mechwarrior-living-legends-crysis-mod

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on MechWarrior: Living Legends. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/67JrFfqZt?url=http://www.mechlivinglegends.net/2011-02/discontinuation-of-crysis-support-for-mechwarrior-living-legends-with-mwll-0-5-0-release/ to http://www.mechlivinglegends.net/2011-02/discontinuation-of-crysis-support-for-mechwarrior-living-legends-with-mwll-0-5-0-release/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130121070215/http://www.mechlivinglegends.net/2013-01/mechwarrior-living-legends-final-release-0-7-0/ to http://www.mechlivinglegends.net/2013-01/mechwarrior-living-legends-final-release-0-7-0/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)