What goes on in my head:I don't see you complaining about the fact that tepples references "Haunted Halloween" in every second development thread. (I.e. instead of saying "You could do this and that kind of compression", he says: "The Curse of Possum Hollow uses this and that kind of compression.")
Here, go to any of these 118 posts and tell tepples that constantly mentioning his game makes him insufferable if that's really your opinion
"Don't you see how this is wrong?"
"No, in fact, I don't. Please help me understand."
Sometimes when someone asks a question about how to do a particular thing on the NES, I'll answer based on how a released game has solved it. For example, if someone asks about level map data compression, I might describe the nested metatile structure of Blaster Master or the object list format of Super Mario Bros. Likewise with the use of small details in Blaster Master to trick the PPU into generating NTSC signals whose artifacts imply more colors than there are.
And the games whose internals I know best are my own previous projects. For example, if someone asks about aiming, normalizing a vector to a unit vector, or evening out a random number generator's distribution over a short period, I'll describe how Thwaite or RHDE approaches these challenges. Or when explaining how to organize a platformer engine, I may explain how things are done in one of the platformers that I have completed for Retrotainment Games. I don't mention unpublished projects in this context for a couple reasons: fulfilling my nondisclosure obligations and the possibility that the published version may end up using a different solution. At least I imagine it's better than referring to that M.C. Kids internals article from 2003 all the time.
In my opinion, making the solution concrete by referring to a particular game helps my answers appear stronger by satisfying the "Back It Up" principle, as described in "Good Subjective, Bad Subjective" by Robert Cartaino. Answers to the question "How widespread is the 'back it up' principle?" on Meta Stack Exchange state that over a dozen Q&A sites hosted by Stack Exchange have adopted this policy or something like it. Wikipedia likewise has its verifiability policy, which it holds even higher than truth. I acknowledge that forums are not quite the same as wikis and Q&A sites, as FrankenGraphics has pointed out, but the fact that a solution has proved workable in a playable game makes it appear more appealing than one that would work only in theory.
Does this habit of citing myself cause my posts to fail the humility test? Do I need to change my approach describing solutions to problems that I have encountered? Do I need to carefully read other homebrewers' source code and/or join the ROM hacking or TAS scene in order to become more familiar with others' solutions to the same problems in the interest of giving them equal time?
EDIT: Corrected link to post that prompted this; added quotation; added link to "Who is sick of me?" topic on gbadev