User talk:JGVR

Extended content

Edit warring I 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) OK where is chapter 4 wherein is information that is relevant?..JGVR (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC) I was working on an entry to dispute resolution while you added the note to article talk and my talkpage (analogy: Van (Dutch)...JGVR (talk) 19:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC) I find it a bit strange that Kraxler has yet to respond to my inquiry regarding the reason he does not change all the von Richtofen articles to fit that editors world view?JGVR (talk) 19:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC) ANEW JGVR, 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) Agreed, I would like very much for Kraxler to agree also but my agreement w/Voceditenore does not hinge on the other editors choiceJGVR (talk) 19:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC) December 2012 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Van Rensselaer (surname). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{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) 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). JGVR (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) 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): ^ U.S. Government Printing Office Style Manual; Chapter 3 - Capitalization Rules; Rule 3.14: "In anglicized names such particles are usually capitalized...but individual usage...should be followed." 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): Van Rensselaer (surname)‎; 21:02 . . (0)‎ . . ‎Kraxler (talk | contribs)‎ (→‎List of people with the surname Van Rensselaer: the faculty biography spells Van capitalized) (Move log); 19:16 . . Kraxler (talk | contribs) moved page Henry K. van Rensselaer to Henry K. Van Rensselaer ‎(all sources spell capital V) (Move log); 15:49 . . Kraxler (talk | contribs) moved page Nicholas van Rensselaer (military figure) to Nicholas Van Rensselaer (military figure) ‎(all sources spell capital V in "Van", according to American usage) (Move log); 13:41 . . Kraxler (talk | contribs) moved page Philip van Rensselaer (author) to Philip Van Rensselaer (author) ‎(corrected) (Move log); 13:38 . . Kraxler (talk | contribs) moved page Philip S van Rensselaer to Philip S. Van Rensselaer ‎(corrected spelling, and added dot, per MoS)- dont forget to change that v *Strangely enough, this following edit no longer shows on my watchlist BUT it was just copied from HERE. (please note how there is no compunction to 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 ____?) 16:20, 24 December 2012‎ Kxxxxxr (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,360 bytes) (-183)‎ . . (→‎External links: wow, this user is quite a bit misguided....) (undo) Is totally uncalled for...JGVR (talk) 08:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC) 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: (Move log); 16:23 . . Kraxler (talk | contribs) 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...) 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 newbie but from an experienced editor; reversing a DAB and no consideration for articles therein: 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) 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) 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). JGVR (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: Undercite or oversight? Regarding the currently misleading citation [1] at Van Rensselaer (surname): ^ U.S. Government Printing Office Style Manual; Chapter 3 - Capitalization Rules; Rule 3.14: "In anglicized names such particles are usually capitalized...but individual usage...should be followed." 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): Van Rensselaer (surname)‎; 21:02 . . (0)‎ . . ‎Kraxler (talk | contribs)‎ (→‎List of people with the surname Van Rensselaer: the faculty biography spells Van capitalized) (Move log); 19:16 . . Kraxler (talk | contribs) moved page Henry K. van Rensselaer to Henry K. Van Rensselaer ‎(all sources spell capital V) (Move log); 15:49 . . Kraxler (talk | contribs) moved page Nicholas van Rensselaer (military figure) to Nicholas Van Rensselaer (military figure) ‎(all sources spell capital V in "Van", according to American usage) (Move log); 13:41 . . Kraxler (talk | contribs) moved page Philip van Rensselaer (author) to Philip Van Rensselaer (author) ‎(corrected) (Move log); 13:38 . . Kraxler (talk | contribs) moved page Philip S van Rensselaer to Philip S. Van Rensselaer ‎(corrected spelling, and added dot, per MoS)- dont forget to change that v *Strangely enough, this following edit no longer shows on my watchlist BUT it was just copied from HERE. (please note how there is no compunction to 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 ____?) 16:20, 24 December 2012‎ Kxxxxxr (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,360 bytes) (-183)‎ . . (→‎External links: wow, this user is quite a bit misguided....) (undo) Is totally uncalled for...JGVR (talk) 08:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC) 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: (Move log); 16:23 . . Kraxler (talk | contribs) 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...) 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 newbie but from an experienced editor; reversing a DAB and no consideration for articles therein: 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) 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: 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) oversight Has FACT become a 4 letter word around here??JGVR (talk) 03:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC) On the off chance that your inquiry is not rhetorical, FACT is of the utmost importance here. The point that many editors have been attempting to communicate to you is that we employ guidelines, editing conventions and policies to ensure FACT is reliable and notable. One of those policies, explained at Wikipedia:Edit warring, is designed to promote article stability and editorial consensus. An editor that violates this policy effectively thwarts their own efforts to add FACT. Tiderolls 04:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC) And you do not see the irony in my being the one that is blocked? 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) This response is an example of what I'm trying to explain. First, the point is not the correctness of your content. Second, you did not read the policy I linked in my message or you would already know this. Third, you incorrectly formatted your response so that its clarity, and thus its effectiveness, is diluted. Now, it's no real problem for me, and is certainly no policy violation, for you to format your responses as you wish. However, if one's aim is to effectively communicate one's views, then I should think that one would make an effort to follow established talk page usage. Tiderolls 05:03, 30 December 2012 (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). JGVR (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: The following should be a reasonable understanding for the editors of article. The intro below should be acceptable and left alone even protected if need be: Henry Van Rensselaer should be a DAB instead of going straight to Henry Bell Van Rensselaer]] and the changing of the namespaces of the articles I created should be put back to the original "v" because they are correct and never should have been changed in the first place, because the instigated edit wars deliberately or not. 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. This page is about the surname "Van Rensselaer". For other uses, see Van Rensselaer and Rensselaer. Van Rensselaer coat of arms originally had the Dutch motto: niemand zonder; no one without it (the cross). Modern motto: omnibus effulgemus; we shine for all. 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 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. 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. Where did I defend having an edit war? I said his constant chasing my every move just to change namespaces that I create instigated and edit war. Do I have to use words that only have one syllable??JGVR (talk) 08:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC) The point is that edit warring is what *you* are blocked for, and *your* edit warring is what you will have to address if you want to be unblocked - I'd suggest a commitment to stop edit warring, and to seek and accept consensus (even if it disagrees with you) would be a good way to start. Simply continuing the "Van vs van" argument here will not get you unblocked. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC) Well the bigger picture is Kraxler NOT SEEKING CONCENSUS with this editor. You are saying it is OK to provoke an edit war by editing with nonsense but not to engage in one based on Government Printing Office Guidelines (facts) is something to be ashamed of? JGVR (talk) 17:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC) 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) 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). JGVR (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) 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" [1] 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 the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you have been blocked for, will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and will make useful contributions instead. 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. I'm not going to pretend I feel bad about removing misleading and uncited hogwash and replacing it with sited facts which apparently has someone feeling embarrassed after being shown their knee-jerk ridicule of someones work. JGVR (talk) 02:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC) January 2013 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for resumption of edit-warring and harassment of other editors, as you did at Van Rensselaer (surname). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{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 page Please 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: Kraxler (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC) certainly your assumption as to which Stephen is being referred to your 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. As i have said before bad habits can be so hard to break they even get handed down through the generations.JGVR (talk) 01:27, 1 January 2013 (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). JGVR (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) 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 Your self-defined "only meaningful contributor" indicates that you have no interest in collaborating with or convincing other editors that your edits are appropriate and factual: you wish to be sole judge. That is not acceptable on Wikipedia, and is at the root of your problems. I advise you to reflect upon this, as recognition that your conduct is the central issue, not the rightness of your edits and the alleged wrongness of everybody else, will be the key to unblocking. Acroterion (talk) 02:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC) I guess you are right misleading information is "meaningful" It would sure be heartwarming if Kraxler would cite the absurd notion that a particular Stephen van Rensselaer was referred to in that reference JGVR (talk) 02:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC) 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) 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). JGVR (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) 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 RM Hi 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) I'm not sure what move you wanted to make, either. Moving a redirect to a title containing "disambiguation" makes no sense, so I can't believe that is what you meant. If you are not sure how to request whatever it was you wanted done, then please do explain what you intended and ask for help. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC) January 2013 again This is your last warning. The next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:Henry van Rensselaer (disambiguation), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors.. Do not call say other editors are obtuse, and do not "dumb it down" for them. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC) You have been blocked indefinitely from editing, because the disruption and waste of time caused by your editing far outweigh any possible slight benefit that might occasionally come from your editing. It has become evident that, despite enormous amounts of time and effort put in by numeorus editors in trying to clarify various issues for you, you are not going to change your ways. The problems have been extensively documented in various places, particularly on administrators' noticeboards, and I will not spend time enumerating every problem here, but the problems with your editing include the following: persistent refusal to accept consensus; an astonishingly strong ability to completely fail to hear what others are saying to you whenever it does not fit in with what you wish to hear; endless unsubstantiated accusations of vindictiveness, hounding, and other offences against anyone who disagrees with you; forum shopping, a recent exmple being your post to my talk page asking me to intervene in an issue where you had failed to get the result you wanted elsewhere; edit warring, continuing despite three blocks for doing so, most recently in this edit; editing with an apparent conflict of interest, apparently with the sole purpose of using Wikipedia for promotion of information about members of a particular family; personal attacks on other editors; etc etc ... You have already been told how to request an unblock, but I advise you that if you once again make an unblock request which does not address the reasons for the block, which attacks other editors, or which in any other way is unsuitable, then it is likely that your access to this talk page will be removed. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:58, 15 January 2013 (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). JGVR (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) 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-QINU?4?UNIQ3a0009757c5e0590-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 Schuyler?UNIQ3a0009757c5e0590-nowiki-00000011-QINU?5?UNIQ3a0009757c5e0590-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 the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you have been blocked for, will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and will make useful contributions instead. Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information.  — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:47, 16 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. Hello, JGVR. You have new messages at RightCowLeftCoast's talk page. Message added 20:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for exhausting your appeals without acknowledging what you have done wrong. We do not want to waste our time further. At no point did you gain consensus regarding the edits that you wanted to make but quite the contrary you have kept forcing them onto others. Your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-appeals-enlists.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)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill ^[talk] 17:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)