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 #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)

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)

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)

---

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)

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)

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.