User talk:Libzzy

March 2021
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Mayonnaise. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges on that page. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges.

''The article has other refs that support alternate theories of origin. I don't see a scholarly review that fully rejects them, merely multiple sources that support different ideas. So our article needs to avoid making a definitive claim.'' DMacks (talk) 04:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Tzatziki. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Macedonian (talk) 07:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources, and a welcome
Hi there. First of all, I'd like to welcome you to Wikipedia here, and thank you for your efforts so far. From what I've seen, it looks like you're genuinely trying to add your unique contributions and improve articles you're interested in. However, there are some things about Wikipedia to be aware of before your edits will really stick around. The first thing is to always try to provide a reliable citation for any non-obvious claim (and some would even say to provide a citation for obvious claims as well). This is especially important for edits which challenge previous claims. It's not always easy, however, to find reliable sources when making your citations. It's also not always easy to know which sources are reliable or not.

I noticed your edit to the Mustard (condiment) article here:. When looking at the source you provided, there are a couple things that jump out at me which indicate that it's probably not a suitable source for use as a citation on Wikipedia. The first thing is that the website is actually a commercial webstore that's selling mustard. Now: if something is true, it doesn't really matter who says it; it'll be true regardless... but it does matter for the purposes of providing a citation on Wikipedia. When someone is trying to sell you something, that creates a conflict-of-interest, as that person has an incentive to tell you whatever makes you most likely to buy their product, regardless of the veracity of their claims. While I don't know if there's any official rule to totally refrain from using commercial web-stores as sources, I personally would advise avoiding them. Another issue with such commercial websites is that if you provide links to those kinds of stores on Wikipedia, people might think that you're just trying to advertise the website by adding "spam", so that readers will find the store and buy the product. The user Macedonian has surely seen many such attempts at adding spam to Wikipedia articles, so it's understandable why they would revert the addition with a "revert spam" explanation, even if you didn't intend to add spam.

The other main thing which jumps out to me about the store's page on the history of mustard is that it doesn't provide any citations of its own, so it's impossible to follow the breadcrumbs and see if they were correct or not. There also isn't an author listed. If you see these kinds of red-flags in the future, I would say that you should take the website's claims with a grain of salt, and then try to find a more reliable source instead. There is some information about this available at WP:RS.

Again, thanks for your efforts so far; I don't want to make it seem like anything you do will be instantly reversed. However, there are some rules--some which are official and some which are more culturally-enforced--which you should be aware of. Otherwise, people will likely keep reverting your additions, and it'll seem like nobody wants you here. But, the community in general (barring some very prickly people) does value the unique contributions and perspectives of any editor looking to add honest, genuine contributions to the project of Wikipedia. It's just that your edits need to meet certain guidelines and standards, before they have any chance of being accepted by the Wikipedia community. Okay, bye-bye for now. BirdValiant (talk) 16:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Kudos for your thorough explanation. :) I usually take it for granted that new users would have read at least the first short welcome note and I guess that would be enough in most cases. Macedonian (talk) 16:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)