User talk:GPZ76

Please stop inserting references to your newly-publisher paper into the Rolling resistance article. First, they appear to violate wp:coi. Second, they are not backing up a claim in the text near where they are inserted, as references are intended to do. If there is some new, noteworthy detail in the paper, perhaps you could add that detail to the article and use the paper as a reference. -AndrewDressel (talk) 16:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I just edited the first paragraph of the article on rolling resistance and corrected a major error in the statement. The added references support my claim and therefore constitute undeniably a valuable contribution to this article on Wikipedia. I see no conflict of interest anymore... — Preceding unsigned comment added by GPZ76 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved you excellent addition from the lede paragraph to a section specifically about applied torque. Since you do not provide links to online versions of the references, I will accept on good faith that they support your not-unreasonable claim. It could be argued that a reliable online source for the same detail would be more valuable, but I'll leave that for another day. As for conflict of interest, I agree now that your references meet the guidelines spelled out in Wikipedia:Coi#Citing_yourself: specifically Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. Thank you for your contribution. -AndrewDressel (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]