User talk:Jvanr

AIT[edit]

I noted some problems with the changes you recently installed into Auditory integration training, and discussed them at Talk:Auditory integration training #Further edits on 2009-02-12/13; please follow up on that talk page at your convenience. Eubulides (talk) 09:21, 13 February 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

It seems I have been blocked for Vandalism, and apparently that I disregarded a earlier caution - although I don't really understand on what grounds I have been found to have been vandalising, or which behaviours have been deemed vandalism. I have looked into this page for information and there is nothing, so I find myself wondering could this have been an error? I received no caution or prior warning. Can it be, is it possible that the edits I made to the article on AIT have been deemed vandalism? If this is the case, please may I say I did not mean to infringe any rule. I want to assure you sincerely and profoundly I was not intending harm to Wikipedia. On the contrary, it has been my intention to enter the (risky) arena of editing to assist in achieving a high standanrd of accuracy for this article, which as it stands is misrepresenting the facts about AIT so seriously as to be an unreliable source of information. As the past Chairperson of the International Association of Berard Practitioners, and more recently of the International Practitioner Forum, and a long-standing practitioner-trainer in this approach, it was brought to my notice that the Wikipedia article on AIT contained many errors, was misrepresenting the method, and appeared to be negatively biased in general. This we have known for some time. But it was pointed out that anyone may edit, as long as it is understood your contribution may be itself edited! As I read the rules, I noted that anyone was invited to comment and alter and edit freely although while observing etiquette. This I attempted to do in my first group of edits. However, I found that without entering into discussion with me, the original editor Eubulides had reversed all my edits, repeating the previous errors, and adding the negatively-biased comment that AIT is a multimillion dollar industry. This time I attempted to familiarise myself with the required method of explaining edits - a procedure I confess to finding difficult - but did attempt to leave notes in the discussion page and also the Eubulides talk page. I mentioned in these places my concerns regarding the inaccuracies and negative bias. Once again my edits have been quickly reversed by Eubulides, who again repeated the earlier errors regarding AIT with no reference to my comments. There is still no attempt by this editor at discussion with me, although as I study the recommended procedures there ought to have been an attempt to arrive at a resolution through discussion, and perhaps he as the more experienced editor might have been kind enough to show me how this works? Also, in the policies section I read that Everyone was new once, and most of us made mistakes. That's why when we welcome newcomers, we are patient with them, and assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. We also ask that newcomers make an effort to learn about our policies and guidelines so that they can learn how to avoid making mistakes. Before a block is imposed, efforts should be made to educate the user about our policies and guidelines, and to warn them when their behaviour conflicts with our policies and guidelines. I would have valued being treated in this way, and am extremely willing to learn how to work with Wikipedia in order to create an informative but correct entry on this topic. May I sincerely request that I be afforded the benefit of the stated Wikipedia procedures with a bit of leniency as a beginner regarding whatever breach of procedure it was, and that I be informed as to in which way my actions were vandalistic? If this is granted, would you consider the lifting of the block to allow me to work with the other editors to resolve this matter? Jvanr (talk) 00:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

That's a lot of words. But there doesn't appear to be a direct block on your account. If this is an autoblock of a different account, then you should follow the instructions on this template to try to get it cleared. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:06, 16 February 2009 (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.

That's good information, but I'm afraid you're not blocked directly. It may be an autoblock or a range block. Could you look at the instruction here to assist us? Kuru ^talk 01:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many Thanks - today this 'block' appears to have been removed... it was placed by someone signing themselves as 'brownhairgirl' Jvanr (talk) 22:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adminhelp[edit]

{{adminhelp}} It has become apparent that one editor (Eubulides) is repetitively editing the Auditory Integration Training topic to bring his own negative bias to bear, despite three attempts to correct the misinformations in his edits. Is there no way expert and informed edits can be safeguarded from his actions? Is this where I can call for arbitration, or can he be blocked from overly biased entries to this topic? e.g. he has been repeatedly reminded that AIT is not a medical intervention, but he persists in using medical references and terminology that mislead the reader and only present a one-sided and somewhat irrelevant view of this topic.

Please use dispute resolution. Administrators are not mediators. Regards So Why 07:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AIT discussion[edit]

The best place to discuss the Auditory integration training article is on that article's talk page. I just now added a section there, discussing the recent edits. Eubulides (talk) 06:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AIT edit war[edit]

Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits, as you are doing in Auditory integration training. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule (3RR) prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Eubulides (talk) 22:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to look at this article and am disturbed by the changes you are trying to make. Please our policy on neutral point of view. In particular, articles have to follow the mainstream view presented in reliable sources, which in this case is the peer-reviewed medical literature rather than webpages associated with pressure groups. If you continue to violate our content policies in this way your account will be blocked from editing. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have a significant COI[edit]

According to your user page, you are an editor with a very significant COI on this subject. You need to keep the following in mind:

Consequences of ignoring this guideline

Wikipedia's Law of Unintended Consequences

If you write in Wikipedia about yourself, your group, your company, or your pet idea, once the article is created, you have no right to control its content, and no right to delete it outside our normal channels. Content is not deleted just because somebody doesn't like it. Any editor may add material to or remove material from the article within the terms of our content policies. If there is anything publicly available on a topic that you would not want included in an article, it will probably find its way there eventually. More than one user has created an article only to find himself presented in a poor light long-term by other editors. If you engage in an edit war in an attempt to obtain a version of your liking you may have your editing access removed, perhaps permanently.

In addition, if your article is found not to be worthy of inclusion in the first place, it will be deleted, as per our deletion policies. Therefore, don't create promotional or other articles lightly, especially on subjects you care about.

Blocks

Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization in apparent violation of this guideline should be warned and made aware of this guideline. If the same pattern of editing continues after the warning, the account may be blocked.

Your track record

So far your track record is getting worse and worse. You are apparently new here and have been the subject of a great deal of leniency so far, although you may not realize it. You have read the comments of editors who are far more experienced than yourself, but have not only ignored them, you have failed to learn from them. You have also consistenly attacked other editors, most notably Eubulides. Be very careful about that. Instead of deescalating conflicts, you have actually sought to escalate them by forum shopping, making comments at various noticeboards and other editors' talk pages. You need to calm down, drink a cup of tea, and watch your step. You have already seriously compromised your position and damaged your reputation here, and even worse are on the verge of getting topic banned or indef banned from Wikipedia. Please slow down.

We actually need editors like yourself who know alot about such topics. If you tackle this properly, you can be an asset here. -- Fyslee (talk) 16:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've been mentioned at the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard[edit]

You are welcome to join the discussion there, which echoes some of the concerns about your editing that others have left on this page already. EdJohnston (talk) 18:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]