Optimistaverdad

Lawrence Academy (Groton, Massachusetts) - Badly written 'Scandal' section

You seem to be getting close to edit warring over content you added to Lawrence Academy (Groton, Massachusetts). I noticed it had been deleted a number of times as being incorrect. If you want to include serious accusations against individuals and schools, you need to learn how to cite your sources correctly. Please go back and re-edit your content in a neutral manner, removing all inline hyperlinks to external websites and use the Cite template to support each and every statement. I haven't gone through the text to check its veracity because of how badly it had been written. I'm happy to see it go back in, providing you write well and cite well, and nothing is inserted that names anyone without it being clearly verifiable to a reliable source and in a format Wikipedia users expect to see. Furthermore, it not not acceptable to put a section on 'Scandal' so high up in the order of content, unless you are POV-pushing in some way? See WP:REFBEGIN Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:38, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

October 2019

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Lawrence Academy (Groton, Massachusetts). Many of the items you have been adding to the article are emphatically not supported by the citations that you have added. In addition, any addition would need to adhere to WP:NPOV. It would be best to discuss ways forward on the article talk page at Talk:Lawrence Academy (Groton, Massachusetts). MPS1992 (talk) 17:58, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lawrence Academy (Groton, Massachusetts); that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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 engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. MPS1992 (talk) 16:06, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Lawrence Academy (Groton, Massachusetts). You CANNOT restore this material without gaining consensus on the article's talk page, which MUST include an excision of all material without reliable sources. This is not negotiable. This is under discussion at the Biographies of Living Persons noticeboard and it would behoove you to review the discussion there as well. Julietdeltalima (talk) 18:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Negative inferences

It is not okay to use Wikipedia as a soapbox. There are a lot of things that the world hasn't done to suit the liking of some. If you want to engage in a battle about whether this high school should have done x, that is a thing you need to: (a) discuss on the talk page and GAIN CONSENSUS ABOUT, and (b) create your own website and not divert the resources of an encyclopedia to fight. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:32, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring

The policy against edit warring is very clear and I will block you if you again add anything about a "scandal" at Lawrence Academy (Groton, Massachusetts) without first gaining consensus on the article talk page. Disputes are very common and they must be resolved by discussion—see WP:DR. Johnuniq (talk) 21:44, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Noting here that I've semiprotected the article one month per RFPP, and agree with Johnuniq about the consequences of re-ading the scandal material. EdJohnston (talk) 15:25, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

November 2019

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

You were warned not to add back that content about a scandal without gaining talk page consensus, and ignored the warning. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

reason: 1. I have made all the necessary adjustments, per the Biographies of a Living Person page, including removing names and any unnecessary adjectives. I responded to the initial post by making these changes to keep the text within the limits of Wikipedia. All original claims are further verified in the cited report by the Sanghavi Group. 2. I am concerned about the suggestion of 'poorly sourced' because a number of my citations had been removed without stated reason or cause; Citations were plentiful even still. 3. I also have real concerns about the use of insults and all caps in the Talk section. 4. I have seen no effort yet at compromise by visitors. Removal of content in its entirety is not productive. 5. I suggest the use of consensus function is not appropriate to this content. I believe this block needs to be reconsidered, given these points. Thank you.

Decline reason:

Your opinion on the appropriateness of consensus is irrelevant. Consensus is how Wikipedia operates, and if you will not abide by it, you cannot edit here. Yunshui ^雲_水 23:08, 8 November 2019 (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.

• A note; I believe that User:Optimistaverdad is not currently blocked, as the previous block has expired. MPS1992 (talk) 02:49, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Continued edit warring at Lawrence Academy (Groton, Massachusetts)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

On 15 November, you once again restored the scandal section you were warned about on this talk page on 1 November. You were advised to get talk page consensus first, but you have not done so. It seems likely that you are here to satisfy a personal concern rather than improve the encyclopedia. EdJohnston (talk) 18:04, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am willing to move through the process of consensus if other users in the talk section will please be specific about 1. what adjustments need to be made to be in compliance; 2. specific objections to sources or citations; 3. acknowledgement that insults and/or all caps all not part of the consensus process; 4. offer examples of what, if any, information is incorrect or unverifiable. 5. Lastly, the reference to a personal concern is not warranted, as the concern for the safety of students is widespread among students, alumni, parents, educators, organization leaders, and more. A true account of a school's history is part of protecting the safety of future students. I could make a guess as to the personal concerns of those removing the entry in its entirety; though I doubt that is productive toward the goal of consensus. Again, with specifics on objections and/or citation corrections, we could approach consensus. Optimistaverdad (talk) 08:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

It's up to you to make a case, preferably based in Wikipedia guidelines, for justifying your changes, which must be neutrally worded and done with the sole goal of improving the encyclopedia. It's clear that you have some degree of involvement with this matter and are here to advocate for it; there are places where it is appropriate to do that, Wikipedia is not one of them. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 10:30, 19 November 2019 (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.