MJG639
Your recent edits edit
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
- Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
- With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (
or 
) located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Your recent edits edit
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
- Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
- With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
COI and self-promotion edit
Based on your user name and the fact that you seem to be a WP:SPA for promoting the works of a certain author with matching initials, it seems likely that you have a WP:COI that's affecting your editing pattern. This is generally not OK on wikipedia. We don't generally let an editor show up for the purpose of promoting one person's work, even if the COI is not so obvious. Dicklyon (talk) 17:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- Dicklyon, MJG639 admits that these citations are to his own books, see: [1]. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I do indeed. I still don't see any problem with adding the references; it doesn't make sense to me that, if anyone else added them it would be OK, but since I added them, it isn't. Where's the harm? But maybe we'll have to agree to differ on this one. MJG639 (talk) 17:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- Mike, a good way to proceed is to offer these book references on the article talk pages, as author with COI, and let other editors decide whether they would be good additions to the article. In general, we don't link every possible or good outside work, so don't be too disappointed if they don't take you up on it. And to somewhat answer your question "where's the harm?" please do read WP:COI. Dicklyon (talk) 17:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Sure, but in these case, there are very very few other texts for people to read. If any other editor would like to suggest that the books cited are themselves inappropriate, or that there are similar but beter ones, that would be absolutely fair criticism. Also, since the majority of editors anonymise themsleves, but I do not, in effect I'm being penalised for being honest enough to use my own name/initials - that is the only way that you and Isambard homed in on the fact that I am the author. Also, as I understand it, you are saying that if I'd done lots of editing of other pages then that fact would make it OK to add my own titles (that's what I uncderstand by your reference to my "editing pattern" above). But surely this is a very strange position for you to take? Either the books are useful references for users of the Wikipedia pages that reference them or they are not - it should not matter who put them there, and it should matter even less what else the person who put them there has been doing on Wikipedia! MJG639 (talk) 17:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Also, I've read the COI page, and it really doesn't answer my "Where's the harm?" question; did you have any particular sub-section(s) in mind?MJG639 (talk) 17:38, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Dicklyon, how about I start a discussion on the Talk pages, inviting other editors to discuss whether the books listed are acceptable and/or whether any should be removed or added, but in the meantime I leave my books on the pages? Does that seem a reasonable compromise?MJG639 (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- No, that's not how it goes. And it's not a question of "acceptable", but rather of whether there's a consensus that these additions would improve the article. If we left it up to authors to link their own stuff, we'd have extreme bloat; that's the harm. Dicklyon (talk) 17:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree - I'll add to the talk pages and see if there is a consensus; after all, this should be left to subject experts and no-one else. I'd still like to hear your responses to my several points above. MJG639 (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I have now added the suggested discussions to the Talk sections, and will follwo up suggestions there from subject experts. Thanks for a useful discussion. MJG639 (talk) 18:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)