User talk:Mihow19822

January 2015

 * 1) I have reverted your edit at Handkerchief. The page you linked to does not contain any verification at all of the statement that you attached it to, so that it was not a reference for that statement.
 * 2) It is very rarely suitable to add external links to pages that exist for the sole purpose of advertising or marketing, which seems to be your sole activity, both in editing from this account and in editing anonymously, without logging in to an account.
 * 3) Some of your edits, while adding your own unsuitable links, have also removed valid references and links. Please be careful to avoid doing so again. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Mihow19822 (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)James JamesBWatson there are references on here that talk about different fold, for instance. what would be a suitable reference that you would accept?

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Handkerchief. While objective prose about beliefs, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Mabalu (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Mihow19822 (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)i agree it shouldn't be. and thanks to you guys it won't be. I am trying to gauge why some sites that clearly are producing content that is relevant (and have a shop on the site as well) are allowed, and some sites are not. my links pointed onto a specific topic not to the shop or newsletter signups, or anything like that. Just trying to figure it out. that's all.

Mihow19822 (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)would it be easy if i just keep adding links that i feel are relevant, and let you decide what should stay and what should not? would this be acceptable? http://www.realmenrealstyle.com/pocket-square-fabric-types/

I assume you are User talk:88.171.246.42
Regarding your enquiry on that talk page - the site you are linking to is a self-published blog which is not an acceptable source. Wikipedia is not for plugging and promoting self-published or commercial websites or writing - and the Men's Finest website is also selling pocket squares which means you appear to be advertising. While the page really needs references, these also need to be rock solid legitimate sources, and with respect, Men's Finest is poorly written with imperfect use of English throughout, which means it cannot really be trusted as a source. Mabalu (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Mihow19822 (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)you are assuming right. I know you are very particular when it come to English language. I have read your Bio. i assume you are going to remove also: http://www.mrpocketsquare.com/pages/pocket-square-history (which is dead link) and http://jetsetthreads.com/history-of-pocket-square-handkerchief/ and http://jetsetthreads.com/how-to-fold-a-pocket-square/ because it has got a shop section there as well. If that's is the case then I understand throughout as both my site (mensfinestpocketsqaure.co.uk) as well as jetsetthreads.com has been created as a self-promoting and commercial website. Is that correct?
 * I was actually just looking at these and have already replaced them all with a link to an article from GQ magazine. As GQ is considered a highly reputable published source, it is acceptable. Mabalu (talk) 18:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Mihow19822 (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)excellent! so you are going to have one hell of a busy night then...check them out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bow_tie are all the links correct there - non-commercial, self-proclaimed, unbiased links? Are you going to remove those as well? I wonder why did you that to my links? Was there anything in particular that i have done, or did not do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mihow19822 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 6 January 2015‎
 * You appear to be making a very mistake which is very common among people new to editing Wikipedia. There are 4,687,386 articles in the English language Wikipedia. There are a only few thousand reasonably regular editors, many of whom edit only in their own little niches, leaving even fewer who regularly patrol articles in general. The fact that particular content exists in an article does not necessarily mean that it satisfies Wikipedia's guidelines and policies: it very often simply means that nobody with a knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines has noticed the content yet. It is certainly not valid to assume that because a particular editor removes something from one article and does not remove similar content from another article, the editor must be applying different standards, as nobody can possibly read every single article, nor even 10% of them, so the chances are that the editor has simply never read the other article. However, you are quite right about the fake "references" in the article Bow tie, and you were perfectly right to remove them. As for "you are going to have one hell of a busy night", none of us can hope to do everything that is worth doing: all we can aim to do is make some improvements here and there. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, Mihow19822, it may appear that you have been targeted, but the fact is that when someone is seen making problematic edits, particularly a new editor, the natural reaction is to look at all their other edits to see if they have edited other articles in a similarly problematic way. As JamesBWatson says, we simply do bits here and there, focusing on things that pop up in our watchlists or as a direct result of things we happen upon. So it is a case of directly tackling problems when and as spotted, and taking action in the moment. It is not personal - it sounds like you are getting a good grasp of how Wikipedia works and I'm sure JamesBWatson and I both wish you the very best of luck and support with your continued contributions to the site. Please do ask on my talk page if you have any further questions or need a second opinion on anything and I will do my best to help. Mabalu (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

June 2017
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Handkerchief. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you.  General Ization  Talk   20:33, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Please note that this exact issue was discussed with you (above) more than two years ago. Please review the relevant policies and stop adding links to https://www.mensfinest.co.uk or any other retail site.  General Ization  Talk   20:35, 21 June 2017 (UTC)