User talk:ReubenBredenhof

Assertions supported by your own work
Hi - I'm Girth Summit, an administrator here. I noticed that some of your recent contributions have been adding assertions in Wikipedia's voice supported by a work by someone called Reuben Bredenhof who, I am assuming from your username, is yourself. There are a couple of guidelines which are relevant to edits like these - WP:SELFCITE and WP:CITESPAM - which I would respectfully suggest that you familiarise yourself with. If the assertions that you are making are widely accepted by the scholarly community, presumably it would be possible to provide additional references to support them, aside from your own work? If you are the only person who has espoused these views, it is likely possible that they would not carry enough weight to be included in the article; at the very least, I would suggest that they should be attributed to yourself, rather than stated as fact. (When I say attributed, I mean something along the lines of: rather than "The sky is blue", we would say "Skyologist John Smith argues in his book The Colour of the Sky that the sky is blue".) Might I also suggest that, since you are writing about your own analysis, supported by your own work, you consider whether it would be more appropriate to make an edit request on the article talk page for other editors to review, if only to avoid any suspicion of your having a conflict of interest with regard to the inclusion of this source? Best Girth Summit  (blether)  18:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Girth, Thank you for your helpful suggestions. I'm new to this, as you can see! Appreciate the guidance. Yes, not trying to spam the page, just hoping to highlight some of the work that I've done and which has been published by a reputable publisher. Thank you, Reuben