User talk:Mcumpston: Difference between revisions

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)

Did not realize

I did not realize you were an editor here, sir. I've been a fan of your articles for many years.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

just occasionally, when I have some time on my hands. I'm not very skilled with the editing process and try not to get in over my head.--Mcumpston (talk) 23:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Gallows

Hello. I reverted Image:Gallows.jpg to the earlier version, as the license tag said it was by an author dead more than 100 years, and I'm quite sure they didn't have digital cameras back then :-) If you wish, revert it back to your photo, but if you do, please fix the licensing as well (for example, if it is a photo you took, say so and tag it as released to public domain, or licenced under GFDL or whatever you prefer; see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for more details). For future reference, if there is an existing image at a particular image name already here, in most cases its a good idea to upload any new different image at a different name (eg, Image:GallowsFortSmith or something similar). If I might be of help, please feel free to ask. Thanks. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 13:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I found the image and it did have the 100 year old language in it. Actualy I took this one my self last year or the year before. I changed the licenising to self-public domaine.--Mcumpston (talk) 16:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I see you reverted to your upload, but left it as "Author died more than 100 years ago public domain images". If it is your photo released to public domain, switch where it says {{PD-Old}} to {{PD-self}}. Also a short description on the image page, while not required, is strongly encouraged (eg, "the gallows in Fort Smith, Arkansas" or something similar. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I note that it was a self produced image when I first uploaded it and then became corrupt somewhere along the line. I briefly placed the self made image /public domain licence on the picture but I see that it reverted to th 100 year old language. I have deleted the image entirely. --Mcumpston (talk) 19:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You removed all text from the description, but the image is still there (unlicensed and undescribed). What would you LIKE to do with image? (I'll gladly help if you wish.) Do you want the image you uploaded deleted? Would you prefer to keep the image you uploaded? If the image currently at that title is your own work and you wish to keep it, you can just add {{PD-self}} to it. (I'll keep an eye on your talk page for a couple days in case you have a question.) Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 20:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I have uploaded a different image of the gallows and put it in the Fort Smith Arkansas artiole under "Landmarks" The discription and licensing information at the time of upload are as follows: Summary Description Gallows at Ft Smith Historical site

Source I created this work entirely by myself.

Date 11/07

Author Mcumpston (talk)

Permission (Reusing this image) See below.

[edit] Licensing:

I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide.

In case this is not legally possible,

I grant any entity the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.

File history Click on a date/time to view the file as it appeared at that time.

Date/Time Dimensions User Comment 

current 04:21, 2 August 2008 679×509 (89 KB) Mcumpston (Talk | contribs) (

File information

Description	Gallows at Ft Smith Historical site
Source	I created this work entirely by myself.
Date	11/07
Author	Mcumpston (talk)
Permission (Reusing this file)	See below.

)

I will make no further alterations to this image or article and have no interest in either --Mcumpston (talk) 21:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I copied the info above into the photo description. I'm not sure why it didn't appear before, things usually aren't so problematic; but it's there now. Thanks for the nifty photo! You are, of course, welcome to make more edits (or not) as you wish. Best wishes, -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Colt Police Positive Special article

Mr. Cumpston, First I wanted to let you know that I've enjoyed reading your articles over the years and have used many of them as sources for my own Wiki firearms articles. Wikipedia and especially the Firearms project are fortunate to have someone with your knowledge and abilities making contributions, the rest of us are rank amateurs in comparison. Anyway, I just used and cited information from your excellent Colt Police Positive Special article to create a similar article here. One thing my article lacks though, is an image. Since I know you had several images which you used in your article, I was wondering if you would have one you might consider contributing for use here? Wikidenizen (talk) 19:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I had one with a distracting background so I did some photoshopping. I think it will do and uploaded it to your article. --Mcumpston (talk) 23:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)