User talk:Mcumpston

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Self-published Source in Smith & Wesson M&P

Hey there, I noticed your contributions to the Smith & Wesson M&P article, and I'm glad to see that there's someone knowledgeable around to help improve it! However, I noticed that the article you added appears to be something you wrote yourself (considering your user name). Problem is that's against a Wikipedia policy on self-published sources (see WP:SPS). From the look of things, the article is probably okay to use, but it's just against policy for you to list your own publications. I haven't removed the link to the article, but have placed it in a separate section called Further Reading, which I think is appropriate for it. Of course, I'm no expert on how Wikipedia policy works, so someone might get a little anxious and take it down if they do a closer reading of the page. Thanks again for helping out on the article! Mendaliv (talk) 14:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Mcumpston|Mcumpston]] (talk) 15:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

  Here it is in the policy:

[edit] "Citing oneself Policy shortcut: WP:COS This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources. If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publicationItalic text, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy. See also Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest".

The point in question is an online magazine. Other similar citations I have used are from print magazines -generally VonRosen publications.

--Mcumpston (talk) 15:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, I see. Sorry, I guess I totally missed the point of WP:SPS, considering you yourself didn't publish that article. I hadn't known about the provision for specialists to add their knowledge- I'd always seen in practice that in such cases that info would get removed, but in retrospect it was generally due to it being an unreliable source or because of WP:NPOV... and in retrospect this doesn't break either of those. Anyhow, good luck with the M&P article if you decide to do further work on it! Mendaliv (talk) 16:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

About all I had to add to that one was the information about the first model of 1899 and some images ref: the lockwork evolution. --Mcumpston (talk) 16:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)