Talk:Flightsim.com

Creation

This page was deleted as a result of an AfD some time ago, which I believe was in error. As a result, over time I have developed a small collection of sources which have been surprisingly easy to find. More content can probably be developed but I feel the article is an excellent start and well sourced from books, newspapers, press releases, and websites. It is my intention to create a separate article for the Avsim.com website, as I have been finding this easy to get sources for. My plea goes out to those who participate in the AfD without doing a simple: Google Books search, Google News search, and THEN a generic Google search. This website has been in the media since at least 1996, including published books. Had such searches been conducted, I would not have had to write this article from scratch. Assuming good faith does not protect you from being attacked for laziness! Icemotoboy (talk) 02:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

OK - maybe - but I would like to see an up to date, authoritative reference to support being "one of the two main sites". The reference at the end of that paragraph is from 1999 and is NOT sufficient in terms of currency or I would say authority. Yes it shows that the website was popular in 1999 and its longevity (the fact that it is still popular is undisputable) - but that is not evidence that it is one of the TWO MAIN sites NOW. I should also note that although you have removed all community links from the "External links" section of the Microsoft Flight Simulator article (which I agree with), your addition of the internal link to this page has already resulted in one link spammer placing a similar internal link to fsplanet.com, so the problem may just have moved to the "See also" section. I should also warn that a real cynic could suggest that your removal of the external links before creating this article and linking to it could be a way of promoting flightsim.com above all others. You have wikilinked to avsim.com in your article - are you going to create a page for that too? Halsteadk (talk) 17:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not concerned what a cynic thinks at all. The wiki-way with this is to ignore the effects of spammers, vandals, and those who don't assume good faith. There are plenty of wikipedia editors who, like me, assume good faith and would see through any statements that I am favoring flightsim.com. Eventually they will get bored with trying to disrupt things, and move on to someone who will take the bait of such trolling. Definitely think that you raised some good points so I'll provide a response below:

• I said above I was going to make the avsim.com article, and I shall. I have been researching all the other flightsim websites and will write articles about all such articles that meet the basic guidelines of WP:WEB], and any flight simulation topic that is adequately covered in literature and on the web. I've been nominating for deletion any articles I am unable to source of verify.
• Regarding your statement about being the "two main websites", I have added the reference to the official Microsoft Flight Simulator book that lists both Avsim.com "One of the most comprehensive flight simulator sites on the web", and flightsim.com. I'm certainly open to rewording, I borrowed that wording from other websites. The opening summary needs to establish the reason for their being an article (the claim of notability). Perhaps it might be better to be more generic, saying "one of the main" rather than one of the "two main". The reason I stated "two main" was because that was written in the book (a very reliable and credible source regardless of age), and supported by multiple other references (including Microsoft's official strategy guide), and because I wanted to reference the other flight simulation website with plenty of coverage (avsim.com). I will change the statement to reflect a more generic expression, at least until I establish the other currently notable websites.
• While I think maybe the internal link addition was not the best idea, the reason to remove it shouldn't be because it encourages vandalism or spam. Wikipedia is not censored nor do we make content changes simply to reduce this risk. The link should only be removed because it does not add to the content. When I am finished my project, I think that link should be replaced with an article List of Flight Simulation websites that outlines the articles on all flight simulation websites.

Many thanks for your thoughts, please do let me know if you see anything else that needs addressing.Icemotoboy (talk) 22:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies - apols for not noticing your original mention of an avsim article! I think your longer-term solution for the internal link is a good one, and as you say it's ok to keep it for now - if more links get added there by spammers to pages that don't exist it's pretty clear cut whether they should be deleted anyway (ie if they don't actually link to an article). Halsteadk (talk) 09:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Flightsim.com. 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://web.archive.org/web/20080713103917/http://www.flightsim.com/help/ourfaq.htm to http://www.flightsim.com/help/ourfaq.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080714174815/http://www.flightsim.com/cgi/kds?%24=main%2Fm-who.htm to http://www.flightsim.com/cgi/kds?%24=main%2Fm-who.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)