User talk:2601:642:4001:D1B2:2022:3CAB:320A:C1B5

July 2018

Hello, I'm John from Idegon. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, Houston Independent School District, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Provide secondary sources that show this has been of widespread interest over time, per WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOT. John from Idegon (talk) 01:22, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Lanier Middle School (Houston). Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. John from Idegon (talk) 01:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Hello John!

I have gone over the changes in detail and I cannot find which portion you felt was opinion or improperly cited. The facts in the updates were direct quotes from the court in order to avoid biases on a controversial subject. I am replaying the changes for now, but I would love if it you could join me on the talk page for the article in order to give a more detailed explanation on where the issue you see is so it can be fixed.

Thanks!

August 2018

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Houston Independent School District. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. John from Idegon (talk) 05:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

100% of the content is sourced as far as I can see. Please show me where this content is not sourced so it can be corrected instead of making full deletions. You are deleting sourced, verified material without identifying the problematic material.

Your recent editing history at Houston Independent School District shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
I've been doing this for 7 years. You can either WP:AGF and believe me when I am telling you you are wrong (see WP:CONSENSUS), go to the discussion you correctly started and work it out, or you can keep reverting and get blocked for edit warring. Your choice. John from Idegon (talk) 06:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Threatening me will not resolve this dispute. I have requested a third party opinion.

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

About third opinion request...

Considering this, it's much easier to deal with one issue at a time; not to mention that you should link to a discussion on a talk page, not to a main article page. Given that, I have deleted the entry and then I invite you to resubmit. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 12:29, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Your request for a third opinion has been denied. I'm sorry you are struggling with this, but if you add content to any article, your addition is subject to review, editing and even removal. You've got to discuss and get consensus for including, and factuality is far from the only consideration. If you revert again, I will be taking you to WP:ANEW, where you will likely be blocked for edit warring. I'm sorry you are not understanding this, but what is happening is how Wikipedia's supposed to work (minus your repeated reinstatement of disputed content). I'll be happy to discuss the content on the article talk page, but it won't be now. Everyone on wikipedia is a volunteer, and I have work to do. John from Idegon (talk) 17:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

PS, this applies to Lanier too. John from Idegon (talk) 17:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing subjective about a court decision. I am now moving forward with the formal dispute resolution process.

August 2018

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Lanier Middle School (Houston). restoring disputed content in defiance of WP:BRD and LYING about it in your edit summary is disruptive, and not going to help your cause in winning a consensus on the disputed content. Go to the talk page and make arguments based in reliable secondary sources and informed by Wikipedia policies and guidelines in order to attempt to gain a consensus for inclusion. I do not know what you think here, but neither you or I have a right to add whatever we want. Content is decided by WP:CONSENSUS, which you do not have. Until you do, please stop re-adding it. You do not have "Freedom of Speech" here. Wikipedia is not the government. The Wikipedia community has every right to tell you what you can and cannot say. YOU have every option to go to another place and say what you are saying, but you will not say it here without consensus. John from Idegon (talk) 20:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please understand this: YOU are causing this problem. If you just try to talk it out and explain what it is you want and why it is important to be in the article per Wikipedia policies and what SECONDARY sources say, you may be getting some of this in. Bulling forward like you are doing is not going to get that for you. John from Idegon (talk) 20:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring, as done at Houston Independent School District.

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 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 ~~~~}}.  SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:22, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

You're now blocked for not following Wikipedia policies on resolving content disputes. You'll be unblocked around 4pm tomorrow California time. When you return, please go to the two article's talk pages and make arguments why your content should be included based on SECONDARY sources and Wikipedia policies. Please note that argument based in why you think it is important or precident will likely be ignored. If you keep in mind that for anything to be included, you are going to have to get others to agree with you, things should proceed smoother. Don't waste your time making arguments from the court documents. Encyclopedias are tertiary. We have little interest in what primary documents say. And again, don't concern yourself with what is or isn't in other articles. We are only talking about these articles. I'm going to ask SarekOfVulcan to protect the two articles so this can be resolved without further disruptions to the encyclopedia. John from Idegon (talk) 22:03, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

---