User talk:Fashionistic

A beer for you!

Thanks for the link to Mahiole - can you add good stuff to article as well? Victuallers (talk) 22:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! This is my first time contributing to Wikipedia and I'm still a little confused/disoriented with its format. I have taken some notes on mahiole here -- http://www.forensicfashion.com/1795HawaiianChiefCostume.html -- but I'll need to read the style guide in order to figure out how to add content appropriately.

Fashionistic (talk) 05:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Fashionistic. You have new messages at Charlesdrakew's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

July 2011

This is your only warning; if you insert a spam link to Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 23:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bob, I don't understand why you consider my links spam? Each of them links to referenced content relevant to the pages in which they appear. One author (Victuallers) even thanked me for the link! Please clarify. Thanks, r Fashionistic (talk) 23:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:SPA which explains why we are highly suspicious of people who come along to Wikipedia with one purpose in mind. Then I suggest you read WP:COI which deals with Wikipedia's conflict of interest. Finally I suggest you read WP:ELNO and consider the very first of the listed criteria which states that a link should provide more information than what would be in the article were it to be of featured article quality. The website you point to has very little actual content about the items in question - just a couple of paragraphs and photos. The content is simply too low quality to be of relevance to Wikipedia. I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings, but this is an encyclopaedia not a place for you to push your personal website (assuming that's what it is). I called you a spammer because on Wikipedia (WP:DUCK) if something looks like spam, smells like spam and tastes like spam then that's probably what it is. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 23:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I see from your comments elsewhere that you want to add references to Wikipedia. also suggest that you read WP:RS which explains what makes a reliable source. The site you add does not meet the reliable source criteria. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 23:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bob, Thanks for the reply. Don't worry about my feelings; as an attorney and professor, I often find myself at odds with other people and know how to take it in stride. I do appreciate Wikipedia's need to be vigilant against spam but offer the following to differentiate my contributions from spam. (1) My links were to photos with informative captions to objects which were un- or under-illustrated in the Wikipedia articles. On articles about weapons, for instance, the links provided information about measurements and provenance which are typically sought by and expected from researchers in that field. (2) It may not be immediately obvious from the pages I directly linked, but all the content on those linked pages is quoted either from a reputable museum, or from a published (usually academic) source. (3) As I understand the guidelines pages, the conflict of interest admonitions are to guard against people promoting their personal views on a subject. However, none of my links expressed personal views; instead, they offered citations often missing in the articles themselves. Do you think it would be better to edit the article content directly and insert the links as end-of-page references?

The "Talk" instructions advise us to "assume good faith." I hope you can see now that I have participated in good faith, and that you'll work with me to improve the article pages in question. Perhaps with your guidance we can convert them into a more agreeable (or less "spam"-like) form.

Thanks, r Fashionistic (talk) 23:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)