User talk:AMRAP23

AMRAP23, please cease your vandalism of the CrossFit page. Criticizing CrossFit's affiliate screening process is a coherent and valid argument. You are welcome to offer a counter-point to it, which I did, by including CrossFit counsel Dale Saran's response to the charges, but you cannot keep deleting it. You are also incorrect in calling the article on CrossFit Mean Streets a "guest blog post," it was published in the print edition of LA Weekly the same week it was posted online. Further deletions will result in you being reported to Wikipedia.

Dear Anonymous editor, I have have raised what I believe to be valid criticism of your inclusion of this content on the CrossFit article. Calling my disagreement and subsequent revisions “vandalism” only implies your insincerity in producing a neutral and truthful article in the Wikipedia spirit. Best practice when editors disagree on wikipedia is to discuss (BRD cycle, see Wikipedia:Edit warring). From the same page Wikipedia recommends “When disagreement becomes apparent, one, both, or all participants should cease warring and try to discuss the issue on the talk page, or approach appropriate venues for help.”

I think a debate on these issues is far more likely to preserve the integrity of the article than simply sending me a threatening message because we disagree. I will initiate by creating a section on this topic in the CrossFit talk page.

Also, From the wikipedia:Vandalism:

“Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing. Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful.”