User talk:Xyzerb/Archive 1

Barbie's careers
It looks like Barbie's careers was created with back in November 2004 by User:Zanimum. They are still active on Wikipedia, so if you're really curious as to why the page was created and how it has survived up until now, you can always just ask them at User talk:Zanimum. - Marchjuly (talk) 11:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's factual information, so let it stand. I'm happy to have made a small contribution to the page. --Xyzerb (talk) 12:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I think I created the page just because it was an inherently funny topic, but at the same time, relevant. The article, by today's standards, certainly could use work, more references and a chunk of prose about the notability of the topic in society. But it is a legitimate and frequently discussed topic that usually is representative of a larger issue in feminism or related topics.
 * Barbie tries out a new job: RCMP officer
 * Barbie Just Got A Brand New Job, And It Could Be Her Toughest Yet
 * Barbie can be a computer engineer ... but only with help of a man
 * Programmer Barbie isn't about girls in science – it's just more fake plastic femininity
 * That's just the tip of the iceberg in content. --  Zanimum (talk) 16:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There's certainly nothing wrong with a little humor, and even if you didn't cite a single source, it has merit. You'll never catch me dropping "WP:Afd" on an article. --Xyzerb (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Yellowbird-habanero-condiment-front-label.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Yellowbird-habanero-condiment-front-label.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Marchjuly (talk) 01:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Go ahead and delete it. Also, please review my userpage and let me know if I need to make any additional edits. Thanks for your time and effort. --Xyzerb (talk) 03:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have some other minor edits awaiting your review. When you have a minute, please check out List of Barbie's Careers and make sure I have alphabetized the list correctly. --Xyzerb (talk) 05:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I am not an administrator, so I do not have the ability to delete files. Besides being nominated for deletion is not a guarantee that the file will eventually be deleted. It's possible that other editors will not agree with my reasoning and decide that the file should be kept. There's no wrong with simply waiting for the discussion to run its course, but I believe you can request the file be deleted since you are the uploader by simply adding db-author to the file's page per "Author requests deletion". Also, I saw your comment about "creating a drawing" and using that instead, but please be advised that in many cases simply "drawing" a copyright-protected image does not mean its copyright no longer is in effect. Such a drawing would still most likely be considered to be a derivative work. FWIW, the logo (File:Yellowbird logo-180x160.png) used in your draft seems fine and acceptable per Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. Images, like text, need to be relevant to the article and this is especially true of non-free images. I don't see how a drawing of the bottle is going to satisfy all 10 criterion for non-free content.


 * Regarding your userpage, it seems OK to me. Deletions of userpages only tend to happen when the user requests that their page be deleted, when there is a serious violation requiring immediate action or when several warnings (escalating in degree) were issued and corrective action has been still not been taken by the user. None of these were applicable in your case, so your page was not in immediate danger of deletion. Most violations of Wikipedia's policy regarding userpages are unintentional and turn out to be nothing more than a simple misunderstanding. I just meant my reply at the Teahouse to be a friendly heads up, so I apologize if it put you a little off Wikipedia. That was not my intent at all.


 * Regarding Barbie, your edits seem fine to me, but I am not sure if the items were being randomly listed (i.e., in the order they were added to the article) or they were being intentionally being listed that way. You were being bold which is what Wikipedia wants you to be. If nobody reverts your edits then you can assume they are OK. If someone does revert your edit, and you want to know why or think their reversion was a mistake, you can discuss it on the article's talk page. You're not required to do so, but it does tend to help avoiding edit warring. Also, sometimes when you're not sure if your edit is OK, it helps to check the talk page first just to see if the same edit had been made or discussed before. Once again, this is not something that is required, but it can help avoid problems with other editors. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I added db-author to the page. As far as the drawing goes, it's a horrible image that I'm using for placement only until I obtain the rights to use the real image from the Yellowbird Sauce company. Take a look at it's majesty: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Generic-hot-sauce-fpo-picture.png


 * It's difficult to avoid having a userpage look like an article, but now that I've added the userpage template and a ton of garish badges, the chances of a user thinking it's an article are slim to none. And no need to apologize--you may have prevented me from losing my userpage, or who knows, perhaps my entire account. I bristle here because that's what's required. Go to news.google.com, search for "wikipedia notability", and read some of the articles. Everyone knows this is the editorial Thunderdome, and that probably one of the reasons for Wikipedia's gender gap problem.


 * This is a bold place and we must maintain all of the lists! Especially the List of lists of lists. As far as the Barbie career page goes, the thought that it ever made it through the approval process made me laugh. But then, when I read the talk page and saw the original author pleading for people to keep things in alpha order, I couldn't leave without giving it a scrape and sort. Hardly anyone would find it notable, but there's at least one person out there that cares about it. Perhaps I made them a little happier. --Xyzerb (talk) 07:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * There are lots of articles that lots of editors probably think shouldn't be on Wikipedia and probably even more articles that many think should be on Wikipedia. I guess that's the inevitable result of having an encyclopedia that pretty much anyone can edit and to which any confirmed user can create an article. The trick, I guess, is to be able to step outside yourself and try to look at an article as neutrally as possible. Comparisons to other stuff is natural and can occasionally even be beneficial, but generally arguing other stuff exists or doesn't exist so this should exist or shouldn't exist is a subjective argument not really based upon Wikipedia policies and guidelines and is not going to get you very far. Inclusion in Wikipedia is typically not considered an indication of notability. Ideally, each article needs to be evaluated in and of itself. If the subject matter has received significant covered by multiple reliable sources, even though it may be something as "silly" as a brand of hot sauce (no disrespect intended), and it satisfies WP:GNG, then it can have an article. Hopefully, the article will be a well written and well thought, but perfection is not required. I guess the ultimate goal is that over time all articles, including niche articles like Barbie's careers, will be incrementally improved through collaborative editing so that they eventually become good articles or even featured articles. If you notice something that you feel shouldn't have a Wikipedia article, then you can be bold and nominate it for deletion if you wish. Generally, it's considered best to try and fix it first per WP:BEFORE or WP:PRESERVE, but sometimes things simply cannot be fixed no matter how hard you try and deletion is the only recourse. If your reasoning is policy-based, then other editors will most likely support your nomination. Deleting, of course, may not always seem fair or nice, but it's a necessary evil to try and keep things somewhat manageable. Finally, some advice about talk page usage. On Wikipedia, unlike some other online forums, it's generally considered bad form to insert replies or comments into the posts of others as you did above in my paragraph breaks. Each talk page post is supposed to be signed and time stamped at the end, so inserting stuff can make it hard for others to follow by making a single seem to be many separate posts. Inserting replies like that can also be seen by some as "editing" another's post which is usually something frowned upon on Wikipedia. Talk pages are the way we communicate with each other, so you might want to take a look at Wikipedia's talk page guidelines for reference. This is your user talk page so you are granted lots of leeway, and I realize you were just trying to make it easier for me to follow. Article talk pages and other talk pages, however, are different animals all together, so knowing how to use them properly will save you lots of grief in the long run. Anyway, good luck with your editing. - Marchjuly (talk) 08:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for letting me know that inline comments are bad form. I made my best attempt to fix that here and on my draft article pages. And thanks for the well-cited responses. You've quoted the rules like an old master. And if I may provide a suggestion of my own, throw in a paragraph every now and then. Long, solid blocks of text are difficult to read. --Xyzerb (talk) 12:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "Old master" does kinda sounds like a euphemism for "pedantic old fart", but no worries either way. Most of us are here to have a little fun and try to contribute as best as we can in our own little way. The longer you stay here, the greater the chance you'll come across an angry mastodon, a diva or an annoying pedant. In such times, it usually helps if you can cite a policy or two to help smooth things over. One of the better ones to remember is WP:IAR.
 * FWIW, I normally do try to write in paragraphs (even though I usually end up writing too much), but I purposely left them out of that post to try and prove some kind of pointless point. Anyway, good luck with your editing and remember that it sometimes helps to take the dog for a walk and feel fine even when it's the end of the world as we know it. Good luck with your editing. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "Old master" is a postion of honor, but it only makes sense if you watched a lot of 70s martial arts films. I'm the old fart plus a combination of all the things you linked there, but I feel my mastodon phase is on the wane. I may play the diva role a bit longer until I become comfortable with the rules, but I'll try harder to keep that under wraps. Thanks for all the help. --Xyzerb (talk) 23:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I have deleted the bottle photo. I've got to say, I love the mock-up of a bottle.  You gave me a good laugh - it's a great way to poke fun at how absurd our copyright stuff can seem at times.  --B (talk) 11:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. A single-letter username? Love it! You must be one of the original members. Glad you enjoyed my fine art. It's all in good fun. I'm not sure if I'll ever manage to publish the article that uses that image, but I'll certainly have fun along the way. --Xyzerb (talk) 12:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, actually there was a single letter craze a few years ago when the usurpation policy was first created. Most of the single letter names had no edits and were probably just created by spambots so they were free for the taking.  I think there's only one other single-letter user still using their single letter name.  The rest are either gone or have renamed themselves as the novelty has worn off. --B (talk) 12:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

db-author
If you want to add Template:db-author to a page, then you typically should do it at the top of the page. Also db-author is just a shorter way of Wikilinking to template pages; It's the same as Template:db-author. If you use that mark up, the system will treat the template as just other Wikipedia page. You need to remove the "tl|" like in  if you want the system to treat it as a template. Use your sandbox to experiment if you want to actually see the difference between the two markups. - Marchjuly (talk) 08:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
ww2censor (talk) 10:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Yellowbird Habanero Condiment (March 25)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Flat Out was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Yellowbird Habanero Condiment and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User_talk:Xyzerb Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flat_Out&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User_talk:Xyzerb reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

 Flat Out  let's discuss it  00:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Offer of help
I am wondering if you re interested in learning about Wikipedia and contributing as an editor. If you are and you would like some help working out how things work please let me know. The Wikipedia Adventure is a very helpful exercise for new editors.  Flat Out  let's discuss it  11:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the link and for your kind offer of help. Wikipedia has certainly been an adventure for me so far. My inauspicious entry into the editing process has left me with quite a few bite marks, but I refuse to give up. --Xyzerb (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I finished the Wikipedia Adventure and I look forward to continuing to contribute. If you have any suggestions regarding my userpage, work in progress, or if you have suggestions for ways for me to contribute to Wikipedia, please let me know. --Xyzerb (talk) 17:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding Draft:Yellowbird Habanero Condiment, be sure that the sources you add actually support the statement that precedes them. For example, the source you provided for The hot sauce is named after the American yellow warbler, which is also known as the the "summer yellowbird"  supports the existence of the American yellow warbler but not that the sauce was named in its honour. While this is unlikely to be disputed, I'm simply using it to illustrate that sources must support what you write. Also, I would encoourage you to read the notabilioty criteria for subjects before you start writing an article to make sure your efforts aren't in vane. If in doubt, my suggestion is refer to WP:42 for a reality check.  Flat Out  let's discuss it  23:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * First of all, Flat Out, thank you very much for taking time out to review my new article and to make suggestions. Had it not been for your efforts, I would have been waiting for quite some time (or so the system told me at the time of submission). I will try to fix the problems you identified and resubmit the article soon. If I may impose on your time more, please continue reading and let me know what you think. And please do not take any of this as a sign that I am not grateful for your help. Thanks again.


 * You make a good point about the yellow warbler. And as it turns out, I was completely wrong about the reason for the name (other than the habanero bit). I'll fix that.
 * None of my work here is in vain--it's all good practice. And, as the saying goes, "one man's trash is another man's treasure". Even if all of my work is ultimately rejected, there are other sites that will find it valuable.
 * I used Cholula_Hot_Sauce as a template, but I suppose that wasn't the best example to use.
 * I'll add more sources. I listed five secondary sources and two primary sources. I need to weave information from the secondary sources into the article, but provided I do that, would five be enough?
 * As far as using images as sources go, I took those pictures today and entered the text shown in the pictures. I understand that they're not proof of notability because they are primary sources, but beyond that, if I want to provide a reference/proof for information on a label, what else could I do?
 * Finally, and this is the big one, please help me with notability. I can't imagine how difficult it must be to interpret these rules--they are certainly hard to understand and the wild variability in the application of notability standards across published topics is evident across the entire Wikipedia project.
 * Are Wikipedia's notability requirements blocking the flow of otherwise good information into the project? I'll use Sriracha as an example. I'm a real chili-head and I love Vietnamese food, so Sriracha is nothing new to me--we've had a bottle in the house at all times since the early 90s. What would have happened if I tried to add an article on Sriracha in 2001? I wouldn't have any secondary sources to cite and my article would have been rejected--the very same article that would be useful later once it became popular enough to merit inclusion. But is that what Wikipedia is all about? Popularity? Is this why Wikipedia considers a List of YouTube celebrities more fit for inclusion than a medical research hospital?
 * Perhaps my time would be better spent editing Notability_in_the_English_Wikipedia. I may be well on my way to being a subject-matter expert there.
 * --Xyzerb (talk) 01:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Good questions that you have raised. On the photo of ingredients, the primary source is OK but the ingredients are, in my opinion, not notable enough for inclusion in the article. Now on to the important point of notability. The key to this is that all wikipedia articles are supposed to be accurate summaries of what reliable sources have to say on a matter. If no independent sources have written about a subject it is probably not notable. Now, in comparing across categories - when it comes to the notability of a not for profit - you are comparing that with other not for profits. When you are considering Youtube personalities (shudder) you are comparing notability of one personality with another. For your OrthoCarolina draft, please look at the criteria in WP:NONPROFIT.  Flat Out  let's discuss it  02:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi Xyzerb! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

-- 16:42, Tuesday, March 24, 2015 (UTC)