User talk:Truthcon

Welcome and Bo Lozoff article
Hi Truthcon, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your presence here is appreciated and encouraged.

I don't know for sure, but based on your choice of user name and also the contributions you have made so far to Wikpedia, it sounds like you may be someone whose life Bo Lozoff has touched personally and/or someone who considers certain information contained in his Wikipedia article to be untrue. I can appreciate your desire to leap to his defense. However, this is not a justification for breaking Wikipedia's consensus editing principles and, in effect, vandalizing the Bo Lozoff article. Please stop or administrative intervention will be sought. The changes you seek to make should be raised for discussion on the discussion page before you make them again.

One thing I would encourage you to take comfort in is the fact that the standard for inclusion of material on Wikpedia is verifiability, not anyone's thoughts about what is true (see WP:Verifiability). The article provides citations for the material you are concerned about. By doing this, it is left up to the reader to decide whether the cited publication is trustworthy or not and therefore whether the material is likely to be true or not.

Floorsheim (talk) 20:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Bo Lozoff
Please discuss why you are removing content at Talk:Bo Lozoff before doing it again. Thanks. -- Neil N   talk to me  02:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, your actions are being discussed at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. -- Neil N   talk to me  02:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011
This is your last warning; the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Bo Lozoff, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.  Neil N   talk to me  14:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Bo Lozoff. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.  Neil N   talk to me  23:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule&#32;at Bo Lozoff. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

wikipedia standards
Please take care - WP:Edit warring is a violation of wikipedia policy and that your ability to edit the project is a privilege and not a right. Although in this case the uncited addition is a likely WP:BLP violation and as such you are likely exempt from any action for removing this. I have watchlisted the article and left the other user a note to join in the discussion. Regards. - Youreallycan (talk) 13:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:AN/I discussion notification
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The discussion is here.--Shirt58 (talk) 04:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Bo Lozoff article
Hi Truthcon, thank you for your continued interest in the Wikipedia project. As you know, Wikipedia operates on consensus editing. When there is a dispute about content, it needs to be discussed and worked out on the article's talk page, not through edit warring. I see that you have brought up some of your current concerns in the ANI discussion mentioned to above. Please bring them up on the article talk page so we can discuss them and hopefully reach consensus before editing the article again. Floorsheim (talk) 21:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

current edit war
As I said on the administrator talk page, Bo Lozoff has never "not denied many of these allegations" when those "allegations" are referred to as emotional and sexual abuse. Lozoff firmly denies ever being abusive to anyone in any way. The writers have personal animosity toward Bo Lozoff and are using Wikipedia to maximize the single controversy he has been involved in during forty years of devoted public service. The edit I did recently did not remove all references to the controversy, it just removed the wording that says Lozoff does not deny many allegations of being abusive. He has acknowledged incidents of his controversial behavior, but the current wording sounds like he acknowledges having been "abusive."


 * Take it to the article talk page. Also, don't forget to sign your comments. --Floorsheim (talk) 01:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Your reverts at Bo Lozoff
You have repeatedly inserted claims in the Bo Lozoff article that must be supported by reliable third parties. You have also restored content that cited a source that did not support the claims made in any way. Please consider reverting yourself. JFHJr (㊟) 22:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring on the writings section of the Bo Lozoff article and instead work out a consensus version with other editors. --Floorsheim (talk) 23:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

JFHJr's edit war
I don't know who you are, JFHJr, but you are certainly not just an objective editor here. I just wrote a talk section that includes a comment about your claim that the Mister Rogers piece is unsupported. It is not. A direct quote from Lozoff's book was Fred Rogers' last comment to Benjamin Wagner, and then he said "spread the word, Benjamin," and that inspired the whole documentary. You are the one doing edit warring, not me. The controversy over Lozoff's behavior at Kindness House is covered now in the article and reworded to everyone's satisfaction. There has never been any controversy about whether Lozoff's writings and music have inspired many people around the world. What is your motivation here? And please don't hide behind Wiki guidelines. There is plenty of documentation on Lozoff and his influence. His books AND MUSIC are all on Amazon and other sources. If Wiki still believes Lozoff does not qualify as a public figure, fine; remove the entire article. But if there is a biography, to keep editing out every word that doesn't fit some cookie-cutter formula is something that few Wiki articles share as a standard. Quotes from The Village Voice newspaper, awards such as the Temple Award for Creative Altruism, even Lozoff's honorary doctorate from Chicago Theological Seminary, the oldest seminary in America, have all been removed because editors like you challenged Lozoff or his friends to provide Wiki-standard sources which we do not have the sophistication to provide. Bo Lozoff won't engage in any of this stuff, and many of us who admire him don't know how to do it. He HAS won many of these humanitarian awards, he HAS been awarded an honorary doctorate and been quoted in many publications, and you are being vandalistic to hide behind Wiki technical standards to minimize any positive things about this person. I have not tried to put back in a lot of this stuff, but it is ridiculous to omit the Mister Rogers and Me reference and his being a musician. Wiki admin people, please check bbb23's vandalism.Truthcon (talk) 00:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

April 2012
Your recent editing history at Bo Lozoff shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;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. 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. Bbb23 (talk) 00:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I am doing exactly what Wiki says to do: I have posted two major comments here today. You, bbt23, are the one engaged in an edit war. Please follow the guidelines yourself, because you are about to violate the three-edit rule.Truthcon (talk) 00:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Final warning
This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You have been warned previously about edit-warring and you are already being discussed at ANI. You are not doing what Wikipedia says to do, you are trying to game the system to get your preferred version of an article. If you continue, you will be blocked. Dennis Brown   (talk)   (contrib)  01:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I do not understand these two separate sections of messages and talk. When I click on "talk," why do I not see the other dialogues as well? And Dennis Brown, I am indeed doing what Wiki editors have urged, I am trying to maintain civil discourse in these comments and messages while restoring the most basic facts about Bo Lozoff to a biography that gets shorter with each edit of you folks who seem to have it in for this man. JFHJr says my citation of Amazon.com "is only a store," and that boggles my mind!! If Wiki's standard is VERIFIABILITY, and I mention Lozoff as a musician with three CDs, and verify it with a link to Amazon.com's webpages on those CDs, how is that not independent verifiability? I do not think there is a single biography on Wikipedia that could survive your stringency that you are applying to this biography. Same thing goes for the MIster Rogers conflict. In the film's own website there is a direct quote from Lozoff's book and an explanation (on the "about" page, which I cited) that this inspired the producer, and you are calling for something more technically stringent, FOR WHAT PURPOSE?? Who is the one being vindictive and petty here?Truthcon (talk) 01:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I do believe, Truthcon, that your intention in being here is to make Wikipedia a quality online encyclopedia. However, other editors have made it clear that they do not agree that the material you're trying to include should be included. Consensus editing means you need to step back and discuss the issue until an agreement can be reached. If you feel other editors are being unreasonable, you can appeal to others for their input or request mediation among other options. But continuing repeat the same edits without seeking resolution is what is called edit warring and needs to stop. --Floorsheim (talk) 03:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * As to using Amazon as a reference, that is usually not appropriate. The debate isn't whether or not something "exists", it is whether or not it is a notable feat.  Any one can self-produce a CD and get it on Amazon.  Literally, it takes less than an hour for the whole process.  If you want to provide sources for his music career, the source would have to pass WP:RS, meaning the source has to be independent of the subject matter.  This would include an unbiased website, newspaper or magazine that gave the album a review, for instance.  Amazon isn't independent because they are profiting from the sale of said CD and they will allow anyone to offer them for sale on their website.   Dennis Brown    (talk)   (contrib)  17:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Floorsheim, I respectfully ask once again, why you are not saying this same thing to two parties -- JFHJr, and bbb23. They have violated the 3-revert rule with my edits which I have cited in ways I feel are valid. Why are you not warning them to stop until further discussion? I am just about ready to give up, which is clearly what you all wish, and it is with disgust and frustration that Wiki is being so unreasonable with childish things like not mentioning that Bo Lozoff is a musician. It's stupid and vindictive. Bo would actually be happy to see the Wiki editors pull this whole biography which they seem to question for his "notability" anyway. Wiki is not being a decent democratic forum here, and I maintain my assertion that a very small percentage of Wiki biographies, even those of people like Bruce Springsteen, could meet the incredibly trivial technical requirements for every word in the biography, that these two editors are applying to my friend Bo Lozoff. You just about have me on the ropes, so you can relax. I told Bo I would be decent and reasonable as you requested, and have an intelligent forum, but that is not what is going on here with the Mister Rogers film, Bo being a musician, his honorary doctorate from CTS, and many other true and valid credits to his name. I still ask, why are you not admonishing bbb23 and JFHJr like you are me?Truthcon (talk) 06:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, it became edit warring the second you reverted something you had recently added that someone else had immediately removed. That's the point at which discussion is supposed to take place and no more edits made until some manner of consensus has been reached, as we were successfully able to do in the case of the allegations/incidents section, which I'll postpone adding until things have settled down. The reason I'm addressing you and not others is that you, basically, started it. What Bbb23 and JFHJr, to me, are doing is closer to merely standing up for the proper editing process.


 * I want to alert you that as per your most recent edit, a block, possibly indefinite, for you is imminent. I strongly suggest that you demonstrate good faith to other editors by self-reverting your most recent edit. You're not going to be able to contribute to the article at all if you get an indefinite block. --Floorsheim (talk) 17:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I have again reverted your persistent addition of unencyclopedic content at Bo Lozoff. The problems with your edits have been explained repeatedly, and you have been blocked previously for edit warring. To boot, you are a single-purpose account and seem uninterested in complying with editorial standards that you disagree with. I encourage you to disengage from editing this article until you are willing to work within unambiguous Wikipedia editorial policies and consensus. JFHJr (㊟) 19:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead and block me, go ahead and ruin Bo Lozoff's Wiki biography that he would rather you deleted anyway (why doesn't Wiki ACT on its notices at the top of this article that have been there for months?? -- that Lozoff is not really "notable" enough?) You are replying to me like robots and no one is addressing the simplest human, common-sensical issues such as why JFHJr and bbb23 keep removing things like the word "musician". Lozoff is a writer and musician, he has an honorary doctorate from the oldest seminary in the nation, he has garnered praise and awards for decades, and his quote from "Deep and Simple" is the basis for the Mister Rogers film. Go ahead and act like intellectual idiots hiding behind "standards" that you do not apply to nearly any other Wiki biography. Your obsession against this man is disgusting and pathetic. The internet is a false democracy that empowers people like yourselves to host reality shows to hold power over others who have accomplished a hell of a lot more with their lives than you have with yours. This is disgusting at this point. Go ahead and block me forever. You're going to do what you want anyway. I just wish you would stop pretending that haters like bbb23 and JFHJr are some sort of objective journalists. They are haters who know how to use the internet for their personal emotional agendas and pretend they are respectable people.Truthcon (talk) 23:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Disruptive editing. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Truthcon reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: Indef). EdJohnston (talk) 05:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)