User talk:Jvanr

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


 * 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)

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)

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)

AIT discussion
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)

AIT edit war
Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits. 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)

3RR warning
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. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 22:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 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)

You have a significant COI
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


 * {| style="border:black solid 1px" width="90%"


 * style="background-color:#c8ffc8" | 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)

You've been mentioned at the Conflict of interest/Noticeboard
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)