User talk:Freelifelegal

Welcome!

Hello, Freelifelegal, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Ronz (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Username[edit]

You might want to change your username. See WP:U --Ronz (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice. I used this name so that there would be no question about who I am - an employee of FreeLife. Do you suggest just using my given name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freelifelegal (talk • contribs) 23:03, 6 February 2008

My personal suggestion would be to select a username that protects your identity.

I don't know why I didn't point it out before, but you should read through WP:COI as well. --Ronz (talk) 01:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to FreeLife[edit]

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
and you must always:
avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. --Hu12 (talk) 19:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR of FreeLife article[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on FreeLife. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that you suggest I use the talk page. That is exactly what I have been doing and have received absolutely no comments, suggestions, or changes. How I have approached this is exactly how Jimbo Wales suggested we handle this entry. See the discussion page for an excerpt from Jimbo's e-mail to our Vice President of Marketing. Why does the 3RR not apply to the person that started the process of reverting the entry back to what it was before I made reasonable and balanced entries. A level playing field it is not.Freelifelegal (talk) 23:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editors who find themselves on the verge of 3RR violations have several options to avoid engaging in such an edit war. These options include discussing the subject on the article Talk page (which you have attempted). As that has not produced results, other options available are requesting a third opinion or request comment on the article, or one of the many other methods of dispute resolution. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for edit warring on Freelife[edit]

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

TigerShark (talk) 23:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've been mentioned at WP:COIN[edit]

Hello Freelifelegal. Your are welcome to join that discussion and give your own opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 00:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has been blocked from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended or used for promotional purposes. Please read the following carefully.

Why can't I edit Wikipedia?

Because your account was used for promotion of a company or organization with a username that promotes or implies affiliation with that company or organization. Wikipedia does not allow any form of spam or other promotion of people, products, companies or other groups (even non-commercial or charitable ones). Using Wikipedia for such purposes will result in the blocking of the account involved. Please read Wikipedia:FAQ/Organization and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for our policies about this.

In addition, user accounts are for individuals only, not for companies or groups or other collective editing. Your username should reflect this. Usernames that appear to be promotional (such as those that make reference to a company or product) violate our username policy and are typically blocked to enforce that policy.

What can I do now?

If you have no interest in writing about some other topic than your organization, group, company, or product, you will not be allowed to edit Wikipedia again. Consider using one of the many websites that allow this instead.

If you do intend to make useful contributions about some other topic, you must convince a Wikipedia administrator that you mean it. To that end, please do the following:

Add the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below this message box.
Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In this reason, you must:

Tell us what new username you want to use. Please make sure that your new username does not violate our username policy and check that it has not already been taken (click here to search).
Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the edits for which you were blocked.
Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

If instead you believe that you have been blocked by mistake (i.e., you have not in fact been using Wikipedia for promotional purposes), please write {{unblock|Your reason here}} below this message box and replace the text "Your reason here" with the reason why. See also Wikipedia:Appealing a block for more information.

--Orange Mike | Talk 20:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Freelifelegal (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I find it amazing that my changes to the FreeLife entry have been deleted and my account blocked without any discussion whatsoever. Did the person responsible for this even read the discussion page before doing this? I have always been up front with the changes I am suggesting. I put them on the discussion page before I do anything for comments and suggestions. I have worked in the past with other editors successfully to make this a fair and balanced entry. Take a look at Jimbo Wales comments to us on how to work to get fair content on the site. I have followed his advice without fail. The two of the clinical studies that were cited are published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and included on PubMed, a service of the U.S. National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health. The other study has been accepted by the Journal of Medicinal Food and is in press. What more is needed for verification? Furthermore, I have always taken the position that the mere fact that I am a company employee should not automatically preclude me from adding content to this entry. If you look at my history, I have done so in fair and unbiased manner. I have also always provided notification on the discussion page of my intent to add content. I will not vary from Jimbo Wales' advice - once again, it appear that Wikipedia editors expect everyone else to live by the rules but when it comes to dealings on this entry and my involvement, they act as if the only rule for them is that there are no rules. I respectfully request that my account be unblocked and the independently verified content be allowed on the entry. Isn't that the raison d'etre of Wikipedia?

Decline reason:

The issue here is your username leaves the impression that you're only here to promote FreeLife. Blueboy 96 22:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Freelifelegal (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

So if I had used a name that had hidden my identity rather than being up front about it, the verified information would have been added to the entry? Does that make sense to anyone? I have been using this username for quite some time now and I have been following Jimbo Wales advice in this regard, as follows: "In terms of a recommendation for you, what I think is best is to post openly (name and title) on the *discussion* page of the article. Be unfailingly sweet and loving and kind, even if there are other people being rude. We call this "leaving a clean paper trail"... in case we need to discipline or block some people from editing the page, it is normally much better if one side has followed the highest standards of behavior. Refrain from threats that sound like legal threats, and just portray an attitude of acceptance that some criticism will be mentioned, while also being clear that a balanced picture must be presented. If you can do that, then this will all go very smoothly indeed. :) --Jimbo". Why do the rules keep changing? Once again, please review the entire discussion page and you will see that all along I have merely been trying to get a balanced entry and verified clinical studies by peer-reviewed journals certainly is something that should be included on Wikipedia

Decline reason:

I'd suggest you re-read Jimbo's advice. As you have quoted, "is best is to post openly (name and title) on the *discussion* page of the article". Your edits have been mostly to the article directly, showing a disregard for those words and our conflict of interest policy. ➲ REDVERS ^{Buy war bonds} 10:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

That is not correct. I have not shown a disregard for Wikipedia's COI nor for Jimbo's advice. I have and will continue to follow his advice, in spite of what appears to bias on the part of the editors in this regard. Again, I urge you to look at the history of the discussion page. Each time I have made any changes to the article, I have put my intentions on the discussion page and asked for comments or worked with an editor (see past history on discussion with BAREK). In the most recent instance, I put exactly what I intended to include as a summary of the studies and listed the references. At the end of the text in my last discussion topic I included the following statement, "Please let me know if there is a problem with posting these clinical studies or my references.Freelifelegal (talk) 22:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)" There was absolutely no comment and no indication that I should not include this information. Furthermore, since there was already one reference to the first clinical study (an entry which I did not create, I could not imagine that this would cause a problem since these are peer-reviewed, randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled clinical studies. These were carried out in a medical facility in China and not by FreeLife, with test subjects that had never even heard of FreeLife or GoChi).Freelifelegal (talk) 15:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]