User talk:Molliegiles

Welcome!

Hello, Molliegiles, 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:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

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 on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Rich Farmbrough, 17:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

for your information - BLP noticeboard report

- Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Bo_Lozoff

Hi there is a report about your desired addition to this WP:BLP Bo_Lozoff article. Please stop replacing the disputed content and join in the discussion at the noticeboard, thanks - please be a ware - WP:Edit warring is a violation of wikipedia policy and that your ability to edit the project is a privilege and not a right. Youreallycan (talk) 13:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

January 2012

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Bo Lozoff. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Youreallycan (talk) 14:01, 8 January 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

HI. I am sorry I am pretty new to Wikipedia so I am not sure how all of this works. I am not quite sure why I was blocked. I do have references that back up everything that I wrote on the Bo Lozoff page. Another user, Truthcon, keeps pulling it off including the link to an online article that references things that I have written. What do you need from me or how should I put it up in a way that shows all of my references. Once I have done that, can you block the person that keeps taking it down? Molliegiles (talk) 11:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

A section or so above, you were provided a link to our Biographies of Living Persons noticeboard - specifically to a section regarding your edits. It appears the online article you're trying to use is not considered to be a reliable source, and thus cannot be used to reference items in a biography. Wikipedia takes such biographies seriously, and when asked to stop - and advised where to go to get better information - you need to stop, especially since we go by WP:CONSENSUS (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:21, 9 January 2012 (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 accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I am sorry I did not see the previous notice that I received. I am just learning how to use this site, and it is taking me awhile to navigate everything. I am not so computer savvy :) I however, want to appeal again, noting that the online article (http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/the-two-faces-of-bo-lozoff/Content?oid=1210498) is quite reliable, stating that the reporter even won an award for superior investigative reporting for that article. Can you explain why someone would say it is unreliable? What makes an article reliable or unreliable? What other resources would you like? I can get another article written, I have online files, documents, etc. What is needed. I want to do this the right way, so if you can tell me what I need to be reliable, I will do it. Thank you for your time. Molliegiles (talk) 14:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

You have been unblocked, but the unblocking admin forgot to edit the unblock request to remove this page from the list of outstanding unblock requests, so I am doing it now. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "I can get another article written". Would you care to explain? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me the main problem here is failure to discuss; Independent Weekly seems reliable enough. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are also clear COI and "involved" issues. As per "I can get another article written, I have online files, documents, etc. What is needed." - user is clearly closely involved and should not edit the article - perhaps the talkpage only, but in this recent and ongoing discussion there is some support for not even allowing editing of the talkpage when there is so clearly such a strong real life association and dispute. - Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Editing the biography of someone you have been in a real-life dispute with - As this is the single contributory issue the account wants to contribute to, I can see no benefit to unblocking them - Their previous and recent additions were clear BLP violations.Youreallycan (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HI. Yes, I can explain. I am a writer and was asked to write another article about Bo Lozoff. I was given files, documents, etc. as well as having talked to several sources. At this time I have chosen not to write another article, I was just trying to update his Wiki Page so that it had more information on it. I was surprised to see that It seems to be one sided and to me, represents a very narrow view of his life and what information is already out there. I was trying to put in truthful and documented information but have been blocked. The article in the Indy seems very reputable to me and I am confused as to why it is not a reliable source. If I have done something wrong or should do it in a different way, please advise. I am very new to Wikipedia and would like to continue to add and help revise other pages as well.

Did you write the Indyweek article? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not write the Indy article, nor have I ever spoken with the writer. I did look him up, though and read other articles, etc. that he has written. Molliegiles (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Molliegiles, I am willing to unblock you, but there are conditions. Wikipedia takes very seriously that negative information on living people needs to have the strongest possible verification, and sourcing. If there's any doubt whatsoever, we simply exclude the material. We are also very hard on people who come here with an agenda of simply adding negative material. Please read our policy on living people. I am willing to unblock you if you agree to abide by these policies, and you agree either not to add any negative material whatsoever to the Bo Lozoff article. You are welcome suggest how the article might be improved, either by making suggestions on the talk page, or by joining the discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Bo_Lozoff. I'd also like you to tell me if you have any connection with Bo Lozoff. If you have what we call a conflic of interest we'd ask you not to edit the article at all. I will await your response.--Scott Mac 22:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Mac, thank you for responding. I do apologize for not using this site correctly. I thought that if information could be referenced it could be included in a biography. I do not like to break rules and I apologize if I did. My connection to Bo Lozoff is that I was approached by a few people and asked to write another article. I was given documented information as well as doing my own research. The Independent Article seemed very reliable to me. As part of my research I looked at his Wikipedia page. I was surprised at the inaccuracies of what was written and referenced. I have read the policies on living persons and agree to not only abide by them, I also agree to not edit Bo Lozoff’s page. I will, however, post my thoughts on the discussion page. I also just want to make sure I don’t screw up in the future. If the person is living, even if there is documented reliable information, if it is negative, we can not post it? Just reliable, positive information? That is not a loaded question, I promise. I have just been quite confused on this site and don’t want to screw up again. Thank you so much for you time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Molliegiles (talk • contribs)

OK, I am unblocking you on the understanding that you will not add any negative material to Bo Lozoff, but that you are free to make any reasonable comments on the talk page. To answer your question, Wikipedia does allow negative material on living people, providing it is proportionate, verifiable from reliable sources, neutrally worded and doesn't distort the biography by undue weight being given to the negative. However, we do have a policy of erring on the side of caution here. The source really needs to be rock solid - and the fairness of inclusion obvious. If there's any doubt we omit the material. If any editor disputes the neutrality of material, or believes the source to be less that solidly reliable, the default is to exclude the material unless and until there's a consensus that it does meet out standards. So, if someone removes material, and you think it ought to be included - don't simply replace it. Discuss it with them. If they are non-responsive or are making unreasonable objections, widen the discussion to get more views. You'll find ways of doing this under dispute resolution, or you can always ask at the appropriate noticeboard to get more advice. We need these precautions as you can imagine we do have problems with people who want to use Wikipedia either to libel people, or to push some agenda against them. I hope that helps. If you want any further advice, have a look at Wikipedia:Welcome to get an overview.

Wikipedia can be a lot of fun. It is a pity that your first experience has been in a controversial field. My advice would be find an article in a less-contentious subject you know something about and learn the ropes there. I hope that helps.--Scott Mac 17:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bo Lozoff talk page

Hi. I saw your post at the Bo Lozoff talk page, and though I think you meant well and raise valid concerns, you should instead post at WP:ANI or at WP:BLPN because you're discussing the behavior of another editor, not particularly the subject of the article or any of its contents. I've removed your comment from the talk page, but please don't take it personally. I'll keep an eye on ANI and BLPN, in case there's a way that I can help you further. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 19:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Not taking it personally at all. I cannot seem to navigate this site well and I appreciate all the help I can get! At least all of this is forcing me to become more computer savvy...slowly :) Thank you for keeping an eye out. I appreciate it. Molliegiles (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Broadening scope

Thanks for adding some tidbits to your user page. I like your quotations, and it's good to know a little bit more about you. You may also consider getting involved in a few other articles in the overall project so that you can gain some wider experience and get rid of that unfortunate single purpose account label. A good way to do so is to browse ~~the requests for comment request board~~ any of the request for comment boards such as Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies, which is basically a list of biographical articles where an outside voice is needed. If you don't have much time, you can swing by, get a sense for what's going on and leave your thoughts and be very helpful in the process, though please see Wikipedia:RfC#Suggestions_for_responding. Also, any time you catch any grammar or spelling errors on any article that you read, it's very helpful to quickly go in and correct those, cf. wiki-gnoming. --Floorsheim (talk) 03:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to thank you for all of your kindness and help! I didn't even know about the User Page. Where do I go to find answers about things like that? The other problem I seem to have is I find a page that tells me what to do, but for the life of me, I cannot understand what it is saying. Is there somewhere I can just go to ask random questions? Oh, and I did find another page I am interested in so when I get back in town (going away again, but only for a few days this time) I am going to see what I can add! Thank you! Also, I was very impressed with your kindness to everyone :) Molliegiles (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) -- although I would say I'm just following the rules (e.g., WP:CIVILITY and WP:DONTBITE). On the subject of spirituality, I've definitely found editing Wikipedia to be a very challenging and overall highly beneficial practice--although not in all instances a pleasant one. Have fun on your new project :D . Any time you have a technical question, you can visit the help desk. --Floorsheim (talk) 21:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]