User talk:Memollymoo

OK, feel free to show me where in eBay's terms and conditions it says:

Many sellers are at odds with Ebay's Detailed Seller Rating system.
Many sellers feel the fact they are rated on a 12 month time period (so a low rating remains on record for a full year) and the fact any buyer can leave a low detailed seller rating anonymously makes this system inherently unfair and flawed, leaving the seller at the mercy of buyer's moods

Those are essentially opinions; that's what you need a source for.

Also:

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

--jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

February 2013

This is your last and only warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to EBay. Martin451 (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Escape Orbit. I noticed that you made a change to an article, EBay, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Sourcing a collection of facts to "ebay.com" is not a suitable cite, particularly when they can be read as criticism of ebay.com. You need a reliable source to gather these facts and make the point for you first. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. The problem with what you are adding is that is what appears to minor detail of eBay's use policies and isn't cited properly. eBay has a great many policies, Wikipedia can't, and shouldn't, attempt to list them all. So what makes this one particularly notable?

It also isn't acceptable to discuss what isn't in the policy and what eBay sellers therefore can't do. There are infinite numbers of things sellers can't do. So why should Wikipedia highlight what, in your opinion, should be possible?

If you could cite for reliable sources discussion of this policy in particular (whether criticism or otherwise), particularly from a secondary sources, then there wouldn't be a problem. That would indicate that this policy is of particular note. But unfortunately all we have so far is the fact that you personally think it is notable, and controversial. That isn't enough for Wikipedia to especially highlight it. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]