User talk:Vegetariansalad

July 2021
If you are connected to someone or something you have written about (a few examples are writing about yourself, your business, your band, a member of your family, your client) then you should be aware that Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline discourages you from writing about that subject. The main reason for that is that experience over the years indicates that editors with such a connection to a subject they are writing about are likely to find it very difficult, or even impossible, to stand back from their writing and see how it will look from the detached perspective of an outsider, so that they are likely to write in ways that look promotional to others, even if they sincerely think they are writing in a neutral way. Also, if your editing forms all or part of work for which you are paid, whether as an employee, as a contractor, or in any other capacity, the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use require you to state who is paying you, and what your connection to them is. (To avoid the possibility of a surprisingly common misunderstanding, editing is part of paid work if it is done as part of normal employment or as part of a work to a contract, whether or not a specific payment earmarked for editing Wikipedia is made.) Promotional editing can take many forms, including removing material from an article because it portrays someone in a different light than they would wish. JBW (talk) 20:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Noted - and understood. No conflict here - and to remove any doubt, I will refrain from making any further edits to any Wikipedia pages; I have absolute reverence for the rules of this incredible resource. Sorry if I caused alarm; if anything, was trying to help Wikipedia avoid spreading an article that defames someone. Please read the Rosenthal blog article I removed - it is absolutely defamatory and wholly unsubstatiated (no legal or even on the record sources!). This Rosenthal blog post does not comply with Wikipedia standards for acccuracy, veracity and legality. In fact, sources like NYT and Bon Apetit (which are far more known sources) and others say (with on the record sources) precisely the opposite of Rosenthal's anonymously sourced story. Please read the article; you will see what the issue is, very quickly. Again - sorry to have caused any issues. Vegetariansalad (talk)
 * To be clear, I was myself highly dubious about the reference which you removed, which is why I didn't restore it. It is not at all clear to me whether you are in fact connected to he person about whom you have edited, and my message above was intended to be a warning in case that was so, not in any way an accusation. JBW (talk) 22:22, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, this is Joe Rosenthal, author of the article in question. I wanted to comment specifically on Vegetariansalad's claims about my article. I report on inequity in the food world, and my work has been referenced by many publications, including Today, The LA Times, The Washington Post, and others. I've discussed the nature of my work with New York Magazine's Grub Street and Forbes. I generally anonymize my sources because food industry workers are often retaliated against. Everything in the article has been corroborated, and the anonymity has no bearing on the quality of the information. Beyond that, the article specifically references legal documents from the Roberta's Pizza lawsuit, and those documents were obtained directly from New York State's PACER service. Additionally, I believe Vegetariansalad is Anthony Falco, and he's used the username carnivoresdilema_ for similar reasons. Joerosenthal (talk) 03:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)