Hello, Plasmanine! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! CaptainMorgan (talk) 02:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've deleted my earlier comments on your talk page about your WP:COIlinkspamming to promote Shave. I have reverted your most recent edit since there is nothing I can find at your website to indicate that Shave is a print publication as well as an online magazine. Please do not add uncited claims. If Shave has a print component, a reliable-source citation for this should exist. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We need a secondary source. Aside from that one implication on the website, nothing says specifically where it's published, where it's distributed, how often it's published or anything else. Even that page says simply that the magazine is "updated" regularly — "updated" being a Web term, not a print term. Again, if it's a print magazine, then surely there is some published reference to this somewhere. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a source that says it's an online magazine: http://www.tsbmag.com/2010/04/22/blog-of-the-week-shave-magazine/. I know very well what linkspamming is, and going around Wikipedia adding links to one source and one source only, as you have done, is linkspamming. I would ask, in turn, that you read about secondary sourcing.
Rather than butt heads, I suggest we ask for a third-party mediator if you can't find proper sourcing. Would you agree to that, or would you rather edit-war? --Tenebrae (talk) 17:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That would be okay. I will leave it as is for now until I find proper sourcing, then I will submit it to you and you can make a judgment call --Plasmanine (talk) 17:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
