Lee-tree
This is a polite request to stop this tendentious editing regarding CrossFit. I agree with you that there are editors who have a promotional bias; it has been been raised at Wikipedia:COIN#CrossFit. The situation is not going to be helped by stupid propaganda like adding an image showing the founder looks fat. Deal with it though WP:COI and WP:NPOV. And now it has been spotted, the multiple anonymous edits - both pro and anti - will be stamped on. So just drop it and tell your pals on IronGarm to do likewise; deal with it through proper Wikipedia channels, and we'll get a neutral article. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- I both see and read that you are very involved in wiki. For that, I thank you. On the flip side, I would appreciate it if you would stop arbitraily making decisions which you may or may not be legally authorized to do (i.e. making US copyright law decisions). Re the image, it is not for you sir, to decide whether or not the image is a valid one and whether or not it should be used. As I have stated, it is both current and relevant to the discussion. It also is fair-use. I do not represent IronGarm or the people from that site. I am an interested party and demand to be treated as such. As stated previously, I have no desire to get into a war of words with you or anyone else. However, I would like to suggest that someone other than you or me make the decision on this image.
- Personally, I do not think it is possible to get a neutral article on this subject. Crossfit is an exercise program (which we both agree on). The merits of such a program cannot be articulated on this encyclopedia. If I were to agree with you on one point, it would be that perhaps we take an existing article (like Jazzercise, another exercise program) and copy the format for Crossfit similarly. I am willing to come to a common ground, but do not believe you are prepared to do so based on your tone.lee-tree (talk) 02:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC).
- It's perfectly possible to be neutral, but only if people who feel hot about the subject butt out. You share a username with someone on an off-wiki site where they're calling the guy "Couch" and referring to his alleged doughnut consumption and clearly want the image because the guy looks fat in it. Reasonable enough cause for suspicion of bad faith. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- I am perfectly capable of being neutral about the topic. My primary concern is that all who edit do the same. Honestly, I have my concerns about you from your previous actions (no offense intended). There is very rarely discussion on the off-wiki site about donut consumption. If you are able to find a current photo (the one I posted is only a few months old) of the guy (which will not be easy), I am willing to consider it as a replacement. Also, the one I posted is fair-use, and finding another that is also fair-use will be difficult. I used the one I did for reasons previously stated. Having seen him recently, with the exception of the hair (which he always cuts before a photo op), this is an accurate photograph of the man. Give him a haircut and he still looks fat. This is honest and fair. .lee-tree (talk) 05:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Blocked edit
You have been blocked for disruptive editing and violation of our policy on the coverage of living people, as a single-purpose agenda account connected to externally coordinated campaign. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Re.: your e-mail edit
Please keep all talk about blocks and unblocks here on-wiki. Seeing as how you are part of a coordinated campaign against this guy ([1], see contributions by user "l-tree"), I will most certainly not unblock you, and I highly doubt anybody else will. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- While I admit I am a participant in the website you reference, I am not, nor have I ever been part of a coordinated campaign against this guy, or the organization Crossfit. My personal opinions aside, what I am trying to do, and have only done is to try and have an honest discussion on the wiki site re this article. I have merely posted a current image (which was ruled as a copyright violation due to my misunderstanding) and asked for proof of some of the 'facts' stated on the Crossfit wiki. I have done nothing malicious, I am not a meatpuppet and I truly only want the article to be written like all other exercise programs on the wiki site have been. I hope you will reconsider in the light of what we are all here to do. I assure you, my true intentions are in the spirit of what this site has been built to do.
- In order to help me better understand how to ask for this ban being lifted, could you please explain how I have been disruptive, how I have violated the policy on covering living people and how I have a single purpose account? I believe I understand how I have violated, or how you might think I have violated the meatpuppetry (coordinated campaign). Thanks. User:lee-tree 20:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Well, looking at your deleted contribs, you also tried to create several pages that were evidently designed as forums for systematic Crossfit-bashing, including two pages whose title contained your friends' disparaging nickname for the person in question, one of them named identically with the ongoing hate thread on that external forum. I can only surmise you were planning to duplicate the nature of that discussion here. I can see just no way any of these actions could have been motivated by an honest wish to create neutral high-quality coverage.
Lee-tree (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Thank you for the explanation. I agree with your comments. The pages I created were indeed named inappropriately, but were done so as more of an experiment. I never put any text into these wiki pages and had no intention of doing so. I am new to wiki and was trying to figure out how to use the system. I apologize for this inappropriate learning experiment. :I also apologize for the transgressions committed and will not do them again. My intentions were truly to insure the accuracy of the article in question. I do have experience with this article and the company referenced. While I am a new editor, this is my first try at contributing, I am not a SPA, and am not trying to violate the policy on any of the other violations listed. My contributions to the article itself were only two things. The first was to ask the authors for references (citation needed) and to post a current image of the co-founder (which was determined to be a copyright violation). I did not understand the policy at this time and this will not happen again. :In trying to keep this simple, I respectively request to be unblocked and will do everything in my power to follow the rules of Wikipedia and the editing of this and any other article. Thank you for your consideration. I hope that you or someone will reconsider in the spirit of allowing me to make a mistake and then correct it going forward
Decline reason:
I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. -FASTILY (TALK) 22:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Lee-tree (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am still trying to learn how all of this works, so I will try again. Thanks for the guidance. I would like to assure you that this block is no longer necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia. This truly was never my intent. I understand in retrospect that I have been disruptive in my editing, and understand how my contributions were construed as BLP violations and having a single-purpose agenda account connected to an externally coordinated meatpuppet campaign. Noneof these are my intent either. I would like to apologize for my actions. I commit to not causing damage or disruption moving forward and will do my best to make useful contributions to Wikipedia.
Decline reason:
Your record here is discouraging enough that I suggest you wait six months before reapplying. (The attack pages which admins can still see in your deleted contributions are hard to take, and I assume you did know what you were doing). Even if you would accept GlassCobra's suggestion (below) of avoiding all articles related to CrossFit, I personally would not unblock. Further admin review is still possible. EdJohnston (talk) 04:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- Would you be amenable to a restriction on editing any article related to CrossFit? That might make it more likely for you to be unblocked. If so, what other topics might you edit instead? GlassCobra 18:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- I guess the short answer to your question GlassCobra, is yes, although I do think I can add value to the Crossfit page(s). I will also wait for 6 months if that is a requirement. I am very passionate about what I do, and say, and so if my actions have been misconstrued as attacks, I apologize. Truly they were not. I was defending what I thought right and fair, and the rules of Wikipedia were not known to me. Also, please note, there are other pages on Wikipedia related to Crossfit, which I did not edit.
- To further answer GlassCobra's question, my areas of expertise are in exercise (I do have a couple years of Crossfit first hand experience as well. As a person who took Crossfit. I have never owned a gym, or been a trainer, or affiliated with Crossfit), and woodworking. Thanks. User:lee-tree 20:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I believe it's fairly obvious that you have personal experience with Crossfit, which is what got you into this predicament in the first place. I believe that you would likely only have your account unblocked if you were to agree to a total permanent restriction on Crossfit and related articles, to be honest. I'd recommend you place a fresh unblock request here, acknowledging your mistakes and noting that you've read the relevant policies and will not repeat the errors. An uninvolved administraor will then be along to evaluate your statement. Good luck, GlassCobra 19:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- To further answer GlassCobra's question, my areas of expertise are in exercise (I do have a couple years of Crossfit first hand experience as well. As a person who took Crossfit. I have never owned a gym, or been a trainer, or affiliated with Crossfit), and woodworking. Thanks. User:lee-tree 20:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Lee-tree (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
It has been requested that I request a permanent block to the Crossfit Wiki which I am now requesting to do in order to be unblocked from the Wikipedia site. I am trying to add new Wiki for a completely different subject (non sports related) and require editing capability. If further explanation of the new subject I am trying to add is needed to reach a decision, I am more than happy to provide it. Your consideration is appreciated. lee-tree
Decline reason:
I'm sorry, I think you have misunderstood the point. Whether or not you are blocked on the Crossfit wiki is irrelevant. What you are being asked to do is to voluntarily restrict yourself from any Wikipedia article related to Crossfit. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
{{unblock|I placed a new unblock request here a few days ago and it disappeared. I will voluntarily not edit any Crossfit or related articles going forward. I understand what I have done and will not do this again in the future. I respectfully request being unblocked. I would like to be a contributer to Wikipedia. Your consideration is appreciated. Thanks.}}
Speedy deletion nomination of Jussle edit
A tag has been placed on Jussle requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Schuhpuppe (talk) 19:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Talkback edit
Message added 08:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.