User talk:JGVR
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Extended content |
|---|
Edit warringI was concerned that you ignored Kraxler's warning on Talk:Van Rensselaer (surname) about edit warring and your subsequent many reverts, so I have reported the matter here. Yours, almost-instinct 09:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC) You have not read my closing comments and decided to re-open the discussion, so I have closed it once more. Do not make a new section for that dispute, nor at any other noticeboard. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 18:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
ANEWJGVR, Voceditenore has stated at WP:ANEW that they will not edit Van Rensselaer (surname) again. In exchange for not being blocked for edit-warring, I need a similar promise from you. Please so state at WP:ANEW.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC) December 2012 {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.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. Bbb23 (talk) 19:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)  JGVR (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI) Request reason: Uncited edids were repeatedly made on an article nobody seemed to have any interest in until I added facts that are against the world view of some editors. Based on facts that are supported by this entire article: Van_(Dutch)#Collation_and_capitalisation. A review of histories will show some articles that I started with the correct lower case "v" within a complete name had been changed for no apparent reason other than world view and exposure to a long history of extant misprints in most "all references Krakler has seen" (paraphrase). The purpose of Wiki (in my understanding) is to be factual and informative. That is what I was doing until un-cited world-view opinions replaced them repeatedly by Kraxler. As he said in the talkpage " But I'm prepared to test whether it is possible to add a reference to an article or not. Kraxler (talk) 16:09, 29" But what was REALLY done? the entire article was replaced by a copy of the talk page. Is that an example that should be set by a reviewer? JGVR (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC) Decline reason: You were asked to refrain from editing the article as a condition of avoiding a block for edit-warring. You did not agree. Your limited response indicated that you wished to have a clear field for your preferred version, effectively stating that you planned to continue. Acroterion (talk) 20:30, 29 December 2012 (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. Undercite or oversight?Regarding the currently misleading citation [1] at Van Rensselaer (surname):
I'm not certain if this was overlooked. but on that exact same page is a 100% contradiction to the assertion made in the article. Much to my surprise a rather strange co-incidence compounds my fact based edits to the degree that the US government page to which the citation refers clearly mentions in paragraph 3.13 a certain individual that happens to be listed in the Van Rensselaer (surname) article. As I stated in the 3O board (paraphrase), 'Just because a person constantly see extant examples throughout history (edit comment as he changed Margaret):
dismissing User:Uncle G (does he really have to be within an hour of every post I PERSONALLY MAKE? does his pattern of following me seem a bit ____?)
Habits of improper form can become commonplace to the extent that those habits have been passed down through the generations. Does this now mean disseminating proper form is "misguided"? (above edit comment) or no longer useful information a researcher that is endeavoring to find facts? To demonstrate Kraxler is most defiantly interested in more than simply CAPS and those pesky little red links, (which by the way are actually encouraged in hopes a person might have enough to start an article.) Kraxler seems so over eager to perfect every article I am involved with, it is pointed out in edit comment:
Lo and behold the Schenectady article to which I cite has his name in the 3rd paragraph. The history will show that it was not put there after the point was raised. (Though I mistakenly wrote 2nd paragraph on Admin board.) I would bet 1 more day of being blocked: neither Kraxler nor User:Voceditenore has ever had any meaningful input on any Anthroponymy page before 3 weeks ago. I mean more than tosing another name on a list. Shall I go into detail how it is physically impossible for any Van Rensselaer (properly capped as stand alone) that has inherited that surname came from one progenitor and how they were members of a church that got guidance from the Netherlands and not the British crown, meaning this nonsense about Anglicized names does not apply here?? JGVR (talk) 01:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC) Maybe from a newbiebut from an experienced editor; reversing a DAB and no consideration for articles therein:
Said editor should be proud of the New York articles they created, I really must wonder why the articles i have contributed to have had ZERO constructive edits with any attempt, just nit-picking with a particular editor. 15:59, 24 December 2012 Kraxler (talk | contribs) m . . (4,113 bytes) (0) . . (Kraxler moved page Henry Van Rensselaer to Henry Bell Van Rensselaer over redirect: this is the name given in the congressional bio) (undo) JGVR (talk) 02:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC) JGVR (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI) Request reason: Undercite or oversight?Regarding the currently misleading citation [1] at Van Rensselaer (surname):
I'm not certain if this was overlooked. but on that exact same page is a 100% contradiction to the assertion made in the article. Much to my surprise a rather strange co-incidence compounds my fact based edits to the degree that the US government page to which the citation refers clearly mentions in paragraph 3.13 a certain individual that happens to be listed in the Van Rensselaer (surname) article. As I stated in the 3O board (paraphrase), 'Just because a person constantly see extant examples throughout history (edit comment as he changed Margaret):
dismissing User:Uncle G (does he really have to be within an hour of every post I PERSONALLY MAKE? does his pattern of following me seem a bit ____?)
Habits of improper form can become commonplace to the extent that those habits have been passed down through the generations. Does this now mean disseminating proper form is "misguided"? (above edit comment) or no longer useful information a researcher that is endeavoring to find facts? To demonstrate Kraxler is most defiantly interested in more than simply CAPS and those pesky little red links, (which by the way are actually encouraged in hopes a person might have enough to start an article.) Kraxler seems so over eager to perfect every article I am involved with, it is pointed out in edit comment:
Lo and behold the Schenectady article to which I cite has his name in the 3rd paragraph. The history will show that it was not put there after the point was raised. (Though I mistakenly wrote 2nd paragraph on Admin board.) I would bet 1 more day of being blocked: neither Kraxler nor User:Voceditenore has ever had any meaningful input on any Anthroponymy page before 3 weeks ago. I mean more than tosing another name on a list. Shall I go into detail how it is physically impossible for any Van Rensselaer (properly capped as stand alone) that has inherited that surname came from one progenitor and how they were members of a church that got guidance from the Netherlands and not the British crown, meaning this nonsense about Anglicized names does not apply here?? JGVR (talk) 01:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC) Maybe from a newbiebut from an experienced editor; reversing a DAB and no consideration for articles therein:
Said editor should be proud of the New York articles they created, I really must wonder why the articles i have contributed to have had ZERO constructive edits with any attempt, just nit-picking with a particular editor. 15:59, 24 December 2012 Kraxler (talk | contribs) m . . (4,113 bytes) (0) . . (Kraxler moved page Henry Van Rensselaer to Henry Bell Van Rensselaer over redirect: this is the name given in the congressional bio) (undo) JGVR (talk) 02:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC) JGVR (talk) 02:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC) JGVR (talk) 03:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC) Decline reason: This unblock request - if it can be called that - does not address the reason why you were blocked, but instead appears to attempt to justify it. This does not convince me that unblocking you early would not result in more edit warring; quite the opposite. Please see this guide for more information on how to appeal your block. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:15, 30 December 2012 (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. The template is breaking, I think due to the contribution logs you copied in here. My decline reason follows:
oversightHas FACT become a 4 letter word around here??JGVR (talk) 03:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
as one should plainly see, Kraxler has been adding the edits that have no citation or blatant misrepresentation in the "v" reference when the proof that exposes as mumbo jumbo about anglicized surnames having ANYTHING to do with the surname Van Rensselaer (capitalized correctly ONLY because it is standing alone), is a mere three inches away from the mistaken editors focus.... not me. so evidently it may still be a question of rhetoric, but on whose part? JGVR (talk) 04:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
JGVR (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI) Request reason: The following should be a reasonable understanding for the editors of article.
That being said all the involved editors should be satisfied with the balance and referencing needed. It is without any opinion or bias and we should agree to keeping it as is once it has been edited.  Van Rensselaer is a surname of Dutch origin. van is a Dutch preposition meaning from and is a common prefix in Dutch language surnames. The use of a lower and upper case "V" is explained here[1] Most of the Van Rensselaers emigrated from the Netherlands to a large area along the Hudson River in the present day Albany, New York. The Van Rensselaers and other patroons called their colony New Netherland. Many members of the family have been active in politics and in the military.[2][3] JGVR (talk) 06:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC) Decline reason: The policy is very simple: you must not edit-war, even if you believe you're right. Max Semenik (talk) 08:04, 30 December 2012 (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.
Can you say psychological projection?Stop being disruptive. If you start an edit-war about an absolutely uncontroversial issue, then it will be time to take it to the proper authorities. I asked you already several times to stop trolling. Kraxler (talk) 00:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC) you can read Kraxler say it is uncontroversial yet he concentrates on creating the very controversy we were involved in. JGVR (talk) 08:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC) JGVR (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI) Request reason: Admins are overlooking the fact that Kraxler has been engaging in WP:WIKIHOUNDING. I request a response from Kraxler as to their opinion of my being unblocked. Kraxler should be aware of my intentions of reporting the Hounding should this offer be found unacceptable. *agree to the intro that was earlier offered *agree not to edit the intro in the future (as I will agree) EXCEPT for the purpose of preserving this bare bones intro by reversing any additional edits. Just a few examples of as described: WP:WIKIHOUNDING is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia. * "Troll" 20:03, 26 December 2012 Kraxler *Talk:Henry_K._Van_Rensselaer#No_references_and_no_content As any objective person should be able to see this is one fine example to add to the previous list of edits containing snide comments, ad homonym attacks, and hyperbole in addition to the established pattern of following my edits (as had been previously dismissed by previous rejecters of my "un-block" attempts. Again I ask - Is THIS the way a reviewer that has never heard of "dispute resolution" is supposed to welcome newbies? Does wiki endorse hounding editors and baiting them into edit wars with a combination of not only bogus edits but with misleading references and a refusal to see facts and accept them, as opposed to clinging to a mistaken "world view" and an apparent voluntary dyslexic reading of references as in Talk:Henry_K._Van_Rensselaer#No_references_and_no_content where clearly this person WAS mentioned but in a rush to sully an editors work it was either ignored or overlooked. JGVR (talk) 7:22 pm, Today (UTC−6) Decline reason: I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. You seem to be failing to grasp the concept that an unblock request is meant address YOUR behavior, not the behavior of others. You continue to point fingers at other editors for the reason why YOU were edit warring rather than explain how you will not edit war in the future. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 01:55, 31 December 2012 (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. January 2013{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 00:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)Your message on my talk pagePlease discuss any changes, or perceived mistakes on the talk pages of the pertinent articles. Please avoid adding WP:Original research. Be careful to source and reference all statements of facts, and the spelling. By the way, the "Stephen van Rensselaer" mentioned in Chapter 3.13 is Stephen van Rensselaer I; the person named Stephen Van Rensselaer III used during his lifetime capitalized Van, as you can see here:
WP:Original research Certainly you can provide a reference for this absurd assertion?? Obviously you just do not get it or you are being obtuse. The point is not who all makes the same mistake, it is what is proper.
JGVR (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI) Request reason: I was never told that I was not allowed to edit a page that I was the only meaningful contributor to. the only disruption was pointing out gross misrepresentations So long as Van Rensselaer (surname) remains as it is at the present moment I will agree to leave it as it is and no longer edit it JGVR (talk) 01:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC) Decline reason: Your request demonstrates that you do not comprehend the issue that resulted in your block. Your first edit after your block expired was to return to the article and revert to your preferred version. You are not prohibited from editing the article; it has been explained to you that edit warring and failing to obtain consensus is disruptive and will not be tolerated. Until you read Wikipedia:Edit warring and Wikipedia:Consensus and can convince a reviewing administrator that you can find a way to edit within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, you will not be unblocked. Furthermore, if you continue to request unblock while avoiding the central issue of your block, you risk convincing reviewers that you will never be able to edit within Wikipedia's framework of policies and guidelines. Users that cannot edit within this framework risk indefinite block. Tiderolls 02:00, 1 January 2013 (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. While the purpose of article talk pages is to discuss the content of articles, the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user. WP:OWNTALK This is supposedly harassment??? to ask someone to quit WP:WIKIHOUNDING
Strange nobody can show me where I was told I could not edit that page once my block was over. Looks like Kraxler has some good friends has his back, but that will not stop me from reporting his hounding ... just a delay no biggie see ya then :o) JGVR (talk) 02:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC) JGVR (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI) Request reason: So we are all on the same page here. I just want to confirm that THIS or Wikihounding is appropriate behavior? Not only does it seem a bad example to set, but Shouldn't a person actually be correct while they are instigating an edit war? Anybody? Bueller? JGVR (talk)10:49 pm, Yesterday (UTC−6) :A sharp observer would not only see there is NO "contradictory" statement, What WAS removed was a cited fact. Mind you I am dealing with a person demonstrating a pattern of Wikihounding following nearly every edit I made trying to rattle me playing it off like a missed cap is an earth shifting issue...... well, yeah IT WORKED! So it is acceptable for Kraxler to practice bullying behavior on a newbie waving MOS around while I was even double-teamed? That other editor, I am going to have to dig up and thank them. It didn't take much for that editor to see what I was working on was a list of names and not a DAB as Kraxler KEPT insisting it was DURING the time I made notice. Then from the bench comes Voceditenore. Now this baffling little gem of collegiate editing tries not only to mistakenly inform me that a surname list isn't a Anthroponymy page. Helllo? Did you see that way off target argument Kraxler was HOUNDING ME WITH over disambiguation pages way back on Christmas eve when I made that post. Yeah I picked the wrong synonym at the time I made that complaint but, Someone has a serious penchant for: *Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia. HELLO?... JGVR (talk) 06:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC) Decline reason: It has become quite apparent that you don't understand why you were blocked as you've failed to ever address that. Instead, you continue to shift blame to other editors despite numerous attempts by many people to explain otherwise. It doesn't matter on how "wrong" someone else may be nor does is matter how "right" you may or may not be with your dispute. The fact remains that you were edit warring to solve your dispute, which is NEVER the right answer. That's the reason for your block and reblock. If you continue on this path, I have a feeling that will be the reason for a future, extended (if not, indefinite) block. I've revoked access to your talk page until your block expires as every one of your unblock requests is essentially the same thing and is now becoming disruptive. In the mean time, I would strongly suggest you start reading the advice given throughout your talk page (and it's history) and follow those links and read them, too. It could do you some good. Best of luck. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 06:46, 1 January 2013 (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. Malformed RMHi JGVR, it looks like you initiated an RM on a redirected talk page. This is a malformed request because it doesn't appear when you view that page. I'm removing the request so it doesn't appear in the RM backlog. When you're unblocked, feel free to start a similar RM, probably at Talk:Henry Bell Van Rensselaer or Talk:Henry van Rensselaer (disambiguation). Also, don't forget to include an argument—even now I'm not quite sure what move you wanted to make. If you need any help, you may contact me on my talk page. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
January 2013 again
 JGVR (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI) Request reason: enormous amounts of time and effort put in by numerous {sic] editors in trying to clarify various issues for you ...I will not spend time enumerating every problem here **I count One', which led to the first time I was blocked. Which, obviously you are referring back to to justify this block. There were two editors who repeatedly tried making me misunderstand the following articles which are clear but there is no MOS that I am aware of clarifying what is proper as opposed to intrenched misunderstanding. Van (Dutch) Dutch_surname#Surnames UNIQ3a0009757c5e0590-nowiki-0000000E-QINU4UNIQ3a0009757c5e0590-nowiki-0000000F-QINU *The problems have been extensively documented in various places, particularly on administrators' noticeboards. ** Yes you are quite correct, the problems were detailed here: User_talk:JGVR#Undercite_or_oversight.3F, yet the substantiated accusations of vindictiveness WP:hounding by Kraxler has not been addressed. *"forum shopping, a recent example [sic] being your post to my talk page" ** I tried one forum since my second block to address the creation of a MOS, when I was told it was the wrong board I stopped and in a totally UNRELATED matter I used the board to address a legitimate dispute over this Henry_van_Rensselaer_(disambiguation) improperly formatted DAB after getting a confirming WP:3O. I never saw any rule that said I shouldn't ask an Admin for help. Quite the opposite. *"edit warring, continuing despite three blocks for doing so, most recently in this edit **Where do I start here? So far, until this current block, I have only been blocked two times, once for an edit war, for which I was already blocked. But for some reason you seem comfortable with "double jeopardy". This "edit war" at Henry_K._Van_Rensselaer is a figment of someones imagination. **As for the second time I was blocked, beforehand you will find nowhere was I told I should never edit Van Rensselaer (surname) again or face being blocked. No "edit war" happened the only edits at that time were by me. ** If you are counting this: 06:36, 1 January 2013 Jauerback changed block settings for JGVR with an expiry time of 00:19, 8 January 2013 as one of the three blocks, I was not aware I was not allowed to try editing my SANDBOX just after the 2 day block (that block lasted 2 hours for no reason whatsoever.) **I would be ever grateful if someone could show me anything that I added to any article that is biased, untrue, or embellishment. And please show me where it is demanded I write about more than one topic... **this block: 06:36, 1 January 2013 with an expiry time of 00:19, 8 January 2013 was for trying to edit my sandbox just after expiration (it lasted a whole 2 hours) ** additional substantiation of KRAXLER's WP:hounding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kraxler#Addition Notice KRAXLER is the one who refused WP:DR not me. *As luck would have it I was just now advised to used the message boards...do what I am being blocked for. (other than re-blocking for past violations) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RightCowLeftCoast#thank_you * here is another fine example of Kraxler's WP:hounding **(Move log); 16:23 . . Kraxler moved page Hendrick K van Rensselaer to Hendrick K. Van Rensselaer (I expect this to be moved around a bit more, since none of the sources so far mentioned in the article actually state his name...) ***One of his sons, Colonel Hendrick Van Rensselaer, was directed by General SchuylerUNIQ3a0009757c5e0590-nowiki-00000011-QINU5UNIQ3a0009757c5e0590-nowiki-00000012-QINU **This reference was copied from the very version page Kraxler overlooked HENDRICK's name http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_K._Van_Rensselaer&action=edit&oldid=529616266 *Now can anyone explain why the need to change the namespace when the admitted reason is Kraxler's unfounded claim of no mention of a name in reference that is clearly there?? ****Kraxler changing Hendrick to Henry while the reference clearly says his name as Hendrick http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_K._Van_Rensselaer&diff=next&oldid=530263001 in the same edit removing the very reference that uses the name Hendrick.....curious that? JGVR (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)JGVR (talk) 15:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)JGVR (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC) Decline reason: I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. 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.  Message added 20:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.  lists.wikimedia.org. — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC) |
ArbCom unblock appeal
The Arbitration Committee has carefully considered the user's appeal and has declined to unblock at this time. After six months of not editing Wikipedia under any account including IP accounts the user may again apply to have the block reviewed.
For the Arbitration Committee. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Re: Possible ArbCom block review
User:D12Blame appears to be a sock used to evade this user's block. See D12Blame's reinserting JGVR's source misquotation. Tiderolls 19:44, 2 June 2013 (UTC)