User talk:TruthInAdverts

August 2020

Hello, I'm Calton. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Petfinder, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Calton | Talk 00:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Calton. I did in fact provide a citation (URL to PF ToS), which proves the accuracy of the post. Also, if you re-read the complainer's claim and compare it to the original paragraph (before today) you will see that the complainer misrepresented the content of my post. It did not say that Petfinder banned charities, etc. It said that by banning courtesy listings and application fees, the consequences are that the big wealthy 'charities' are advantaged and the small ones are disadvantaged. Please re read that. Thank you. TruthInAdverts (talk) 01:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I just saw your response to complainer, calling my report "bloated". The report is absolutely accurate and I can provide email evidence. However posting the emails (how would I even do that?) and/or the name of the victim charity would only open it up to further harassment and further misrepresentation. Again, I did include a citation to the Petfinder ToS to prove the accuracy of the post. TruthInAdverts (talk) 01:46, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what "URL to PF ToS" means, but if this is your reliable source, please reread WP:RS, keeping in mind that reliable sources should, in most cases, be secondary. This is neither. Drmies (talk) 01:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It means the citation is the Terms of Service document (prepared by other parties and posted on the Petfinder site) that confirms that Petfinder did indeed ban courtesy listings and application fees. This is the citation that proves the claim https://pro.petfinder.com/tos/ I read your page re. citations and believe mine is valid and within the definitions. Please advice what more evidence you need in order to allow true info to remain. This company has harassed a charity animal rescue/welfare org with no accountability whatsoever. Wikipedia is the only remaining option for letting the public know--outside of paying lawyers.TruthInAdverts (talk) 02:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then go pay a lawyer, because it's not Wikipedia's role to do your PR for you.

What you're doing is writing your own narrative of things, without the slightest indication that anyone, anywhere, agrees or even cares. That's called, on Wikipedia -- if I'm being generous -- original research. --Calton | Talk 06:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So help me out here: which exact passages in your citation directly -- not implicitly, not your interpretation of, not "logically", but DIRECTLY AND SPECIFICALLY -- ~~support~~ say these?

that in 2020, Petfinder began strictly regulating how animal welfare charities can offer adoptable animals on its website
that courtesy listings were banned
that Petfinder attempted to regulate animal welfare organizations' internal policies
that Petfinder deactivated a charity's longtime membership
that it was a false accusation
that they refused to reinstate it

Etc, etc, etc.

I'll save some time you can't because they don't. --Calton | Talk 06:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What gives with you being so rude? Try professionalism for goodness sake. If you actually read the citation source, you will see that these are DIRECTLY supported:

that in 2020, Petfinder began strictly regulating how animal welfare charities can offer adoptable animals on its website
that courtesy listings were banned
that Petfinder attempted to regulate animal welfare organizations' internal policies

And these there is documentation evidence that I offered to post or cite if you'd simply tell me how:

that Petfinder deactivated a charity's longtime membership
that it was a false accusation
that they refused to reinstate it

Please be helpful instead of snarky. TruthInAdverts (talk) 19:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Before you delete anything further, as what is there now is absolutely from the citation, please put the edit up for review as your deletions are inappropriate and your comments to me are not helpful. You think you're right. I think you're wrong. Let's have a more fair audience decide. The post is not "original thought". From the OR page: "The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source, even if not actually attributed'''Italic text.[a] The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged. For example: the statement "the capital of France is Paris" needs no source, nor is it original research, because it's not something you thought up and it is so easily verifiable that no one is likely to object to it; we know that sources exist for it even if they are not cited. The statement is attributable, even if not attributed.

The post IS EASILY VERIFIABLE. The material is attributable to a reliable, published source. Please stop deleting it. And don't assume things you don't know. I'm a concerned citizen providing useful, verifiable information. TruthInAdverts (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much everything you wrote above is factually wrong, your attempt to rules-lawyer your way through using rules you quote but don't understand notwithstanding. Going over them all would clearly be a waste of time, but I'll bring up the one guideline that should stop you dead in your tracks regardless of your hunt for the Magic Words Cheat Codes that you think will grant you victory: WP:ONUS. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. You've had three veteran editors, so far, remove this content and two explain to you directly why it doesn't belong. What do you think you know that they don't?

The post IS EASILY VERIFIABLE. The material is attributable to a reliable, published source.

1) Wrong; and 2) obviously and objectively wrong.

If you're going to cut and paste the WP:OR wording, let's see you demonstrate that you understand it. Though the Petfinder TOS page is NOT by any stretch of the imagination a reliable source in this context, nevertheless we'll play this game: let's start by having you answer the straightforward questions you were asked before, rephrased to remove ambiguity or wriggle room, "verifying" this information. Specifically:

Point out the EXACT quote from your "reliable source" that shows Petfinder began (started, undertook, etc) to regulate how animal welfare charities can offer adoptable animals on its website
Point out the EXACT quote from your "reliable source" that shows Petfinder began (started, undertook, etc) to strictly regulate how animal welfare charities can offer adoptable animals on its website
Point out the EXACT quote from your "reliable source" that shows Petfinder banned courtesy listings, and WHEN
Point out the EXACT quote from your "reliable source" that shows Petfinder attempted to regulate animal welfare organizations' internal policies
Point out the EXACT quote from your "reliable source" that shows Petfinder deactivated a charity's longtime membership
Point out the EXACT quote from your "reliable source" that shows the name of the charity on question
Point out the EXACT quote from your "reliable source" that shows this specific incident was based on a false accusation
Point out the EXACT quote from your "reliable source" that shows Petfinder refused to reinstate this charity
Point out the EXACT quote from your "reliable source" that shows that any of these things happened in 2020.

Also, I see that you haven't responded to the question regarding your potential conflict of interest ("Wikipedia is the only remaining option for letting the public know--outside of paying lawyers"). So, what is your connection to this unnamed charity? --Calton | Talk 02:04, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are simultaneously a child and a bully. I am not interested in any further exchanges with you. I'll be posting a dispute instead. Do not bother responding to me any further. I don't need a bully in my life. I have also posted to the Admin notice board/incidents.TruthInAdverts (talk) 04:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, then how about I lay it out? We have zero tolerance for people bringing external disputes onto Wikipedia (see also WP:Requests for arbitration/Bogdanov Affair). We are an encyclopaedia, and our readers do not appreciate being treated as pawns in a public shaming scheme, especially if the dispute is irrelevant to Wikipedia's operation. Use Reddit, Twitter, or Facebook if you want to hurl accusations at other people. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 04:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have NO idea what you're talking about. The only people bringing disputes are YOU guys. I've no personal anything here. I've asked for help several times and my requests continue to be ignored because you seem to be more interested in wielding your power. Please do not respond if you are not willing to engage in efforts to HELP me. TruthInAdverts (talk) 05:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"This company has harassed a charity animal rescue/welfare org with no accountability whatsoever. Wikipedia is the only remaining option for letting the public know--outside of paying lawyers." - In other words, you are bringing a dispute between two entities that does not involve Wikipedia in the slightest onto Wikipedia for the sole purpose of winning that dispute. We don't do that here, full stop. (And in case you try to deny that you said that, here's the diff.) —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 07:10, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, TruthInAdverts. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Petfinder, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Calton | Talk 06:57, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of this is accurate but I no longer care. I just have to remember now that Wikipedia cannot be trusted to be objective. As a professor myself, I should have known that from the start.

August 2020

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Petfinder; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.And a reminder, before you start cutting-and-pasting the wording of the three-revert rule (3RR) as a defense: the 3RR is not an entitlement, but an unambiguous "bright-line", and administrators can and will block with fewer reverts as the trigger. Calton | Talk 02:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You might have missed it earlier, but Wikipedia prefers the use of secondary sources over primary (WP:RSPRIMARY). Please take that into account. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 13:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Petfinder) for repeated introduction of poorly-sourced content to Petfinder.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. GeneralNotability (talk) 13:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]