Revision as of 23:57, 30 October 2006

Please see these instructions about excessive use of links without relevant content. Please also see this guideline about not disrupting an article to prove a point. Also note that

"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as Misplaced Pages sources." (from this guideline) Hgilbert 00:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Pete, I totally respect your point of view on the Waldorf page and appreciate your willingness to join the project. At the same time, I feel that i must be clear that the point of view must be to briefly explain Waldorf ed. there will be a "Critical Views" section (or some other title) as with any other article.

I see your role on this as totally welcome as a balancing viewpoint for other parts of the page, and possibly writing the paragraphs in the critical views section. Is that how you see it?

Also, I know that this viewpoint is not welcome , but I think you should know that after discussing this in-depth with an administrator, I feel strongly that we will eventually go to no outside links other than scholarly articles. To set an example, I have removed my own site and all other homeschooling links from the page.

This is because the article has to move away from being a brochure, yes, and it also has to get away from being a war-zone for links and text.

I am open to any opinions on this.

Also, I will be setting up the project pages in the next day - sorry, I broke a finger on my left hand last week and typed very little. When I do, I plan to put you down as a member of the project team. Please let me know if you prefer not to be listed as such. Wonderactivist 15:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Talk:Waldorf education

I note your recent edit on the talk page of Waldorf education in reply to User:Thebee. Please make yourself aware of the official Misplaced Pages policy regarding No legal threats. Whilst I am not actively involved in the article, I have been asked to keep an eye on the apparent war that is ongoing there. Legal threats are best left off Misplaced Pages, and it's not uncommon for good editors to find themselves blocked for making them. -- Longhair 15:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I should respond to you here or on your own talk page (fairly new here, sorry) but I don't recall making any legal threats. I have invited TheBee to make good on his own legal threats if he feels he as a basis for them. I find that it is difficult not to respond to unfounded challenges to my integrity. In any case, I'm very interested in giving this page a fair edit so I'll tone it down to a more level-headed roar and try to ignore his comments as much as possible. --Pete K 15:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You may respond on my talk page, or yours, whichever takes your fancy. I trust you'll allow me some time to absorb the entire debate that is raging at the Waldorf education article. The article and talk page discussions are quite long and there's a lot to learn about both sides. I'm sure you're not the only editor involved in the fierce debate, and other editors who are behaving against Misplaced Pages policy will be reminded in due course. It'd help if you could provide any diffs pointing to offensive behaviour or behaviour contrary to policy and I'll take the matter on personally and point those editors to the correct policies. Please don't feel as though I'm watching you with a fine tooth comb. I was asked to oversee the article by a concerned editor and am not interested in taking any side whatsoever. Any way I can be of assistance, please let me know. -- Longhair 15:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Longhair. You are definitely in for a challenge here as both sides of this issue have been at it for decades. I didn't assume you were singling me out in this. I appreciate how hard it will be to keep tempers on simmer instead of full boil. I appreciate the tip about diffs. Hopefully we won't have too many future problems as some of us are trying to iron out our differences (sometimes heatedly) on the discussion pages and not in the article. That has been a good first step. I'm hoping level heads will prevail here. --Pete K 16:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Pete K, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Longhair 15:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

separate articles

Pete,

Misplaced Pages policy is not to consider whether things deserve separate articles; some of the weirdest things get these (rock albums, ....) If someone wants to bother writing up some aspect of the world of more than minimal note, so be it. That's the advantage of virtually unlimited storage capacity. There used to be true sub-articles; this structure was given up and everything that used to be a sub-article is now an article in its own right. It leads to an amorphous structure but is useful in tidying up articles; there's a place for everything.

In the case of the Steiner on races subject: this section of the article got very long and complex. It was eventually put into the current sub-article and the current summary agreed upon. Please don't start adding quotes, or the whole sub-article will end up back in the main article. Have some faith in past editors, who represented the whole gamut of opinion. Hgilbert 10:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure the whole gamut of opinion has been represented here, but I'll have a look. On the discussion page, it seem that a lot of people wanted to put Steiner's significant discussion about race in the article. The "compromise" language that is in the article now is pretty much the type of "Waldorf speech" I have become accustomed to hearing - "to modern ears" is disingenuous. Steiner said racist things that were racist in HIS time. It wasn't customary to write racist material - and that is evidenced by the fact that most philosophers in his day DIDN'T write racist material. So a very careful review of this wording is still necessary and quotes that exemplify his thinking on race are relevant. Again, I have 25 or more pages of quotes by Steiner that are racist. It isn't as if he just brushed over the topic. His racist stance in spirituality is in large part what defines Steiner, IMO. --Pete K 14:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stay civil

With regards to your comments on Talk:Waldorf education: Please see Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy. "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Misplaced Pages. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users." Please keep this in mind while editing. Thanks. In particular, I am referring to this comment you made recently where you said Sune, none of your criticisms are supportable so don't even start. Yours are the ravings of a lunatic. I think it's good for ordinary people to get a peek at what some Waldorf teachers are like.--Arktos 00:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I really don't know who you are, but civility is a two way street. --Pete K 06:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• No personal atttacks is an absolute, retaliation is not an excuse I am afraid.--Arktos 08:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Then please let me know where I can go to lodge complaints about others on this list. I know this sounds retaliatory, but I'm only here because I was notified of a false (libelous) statement by a Waldorf supporter who said I don't have custody of my own kids - as if the custody share arrangment of my divorce settlement is somehow a topic appropriate for discussion on the back pages of Misplaced Pages. Where should I go to complain about that? --Pete K 18:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• The right place for complaints is WP:PAIN. First you should warn the contributor - see Misplaced Pages:Template messages/User talk namespace and remember to subst - ie the text would be {{subst:npa2}} or whatever. I recommend using a diff to clarify (as I did above) so it is absolutely clear what it is you are talking about. Check that it falls within the scope of Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks. The rest of the instructions are on that noticeboard and somebody should come along and help. The advantage will be they are unlikely to know anything about the content dispute and will look at it objectively. --Arktos 20:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Saw your latest comment about your weekend's work. I think you should be using {{fact}} to call for references or when you remove references - ie leave the assertion in there, replace the reference with {{fact}} and then perhaps comment out the reference with <!- ... -> tags and why you think the ref is unacceptable. Give people a chance to respond. Otherwise you are likely to escalate an edit war (or escalate even further). Just a suggestion - Good luck.--Arktos 20:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks AyArktos! I'll make myself familiar with these notations and take your advice. It would be great if this procedure could be used across the board for all editors instead of people's work being deleted willy nilly. I've spent several hours a day for the past several days with the total accomplishment of having one sentence removed and one sentence and one link added. I don't know about you but I get very frustrated when so much effort goes into so little progress. --Pete K 22:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

AyArktos, I took your advice above and spent two hours adding in ((verify source}} and to the information that was doubtful, only to have my edits reverted. When I reverted them back, they were again reverted. The third time got me blocked. Others who reverted my edits, HGilbert, for example, have not been blocked. Is this blocking policy going to be applied fairly? I don't know how to display this information to you and how to lodge a complaint. HGilbert reverted the article at least three times on September 2nd and the article history shows this clearly. If I am to be blocked, so should he. --Pete K 20:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

See WP:3RR#Enforcement - If you violate the three-revert rule, after your fourth revert in 24 hours, sysops may block you for up to 24 hours, or longer in the case of a repeat violation. In the cases where multiple parties violate the rule, administrators should treat all sides equally. The other user reverted 3 times not 4 based on my reading of the article history.--Arktos 23:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Personal issues

Pete,

I realize that I haven't personally apologized for bringing your personal situation into the PLANS debate, and for accidentally misrepresenting this on top of this. I had been told that your child was in the Waldorf school against your wishes, and drew what I now know to be the false conclusion that you did not have custody. I apologize for the misrepresentation, and for naming you at all (in response to Diana's demand for names).

Deep and heartfelt apologies. I feel we are working slowly toward a mutual understanding around editing, though many battles surely lie ahead, and hope we can engage with ever increasing mutual respect and civility. Hgilbert 00:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Harlan, I am happy to have this from you - and your apology is accepted. This is why I, when pressured by others to name names, prefer to keep those names to myself - even if it makes me look bad. People know they can talk to me in confidence about problems with Waldorf and that I will never betray them. In my personal case, my ex wanted my kids in Waldorf, and the only way I would consider allowing this is by getting additional custody of them so that I could monitor their experiences closely. I'm living literally across the street from the school so I can be available to them at a moment's notice.

For the record, there are a few people at Highland Hall that dislike me because I don't let them get away with the types of cover-ups they are accustomed to. I have had several teachers fired through my relentless efforts to expose wrongdoing. I've made a few enemies there (even some teachers hate other teachers there so it's not surprising), but I have also gained the respect of, I'd say, most of the parent body and the majority of the teachers. The thing that most people will say about me is that I never compromise integrity. So as far as editing goes, if it's true, you won't get a fight from me. If it's false, I don't care if God is the source of the citation, it's not going to end up on the page.

Again, thanks for the apology - it sincerely means a lot to me. --Pete K 01:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I respect your stance. If I can continue on the basis of your exceptional frankness, I agree that all institutions, including Waldorf schools, need people willing to stand up for the truth. They also need people who can see and respect others' points of view; as Steiner said :), there are always at least twelve equally valid viewpoints. I hope that we can bring both a respect for truth and a respect for other points of view (including each others') to this and all our work.

Warmly, Hgilbert 18:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Excessive use of tags

In your recent edit of Waldorf education, you put tags on numerous sentences with cited sources, as well as many other areas that are reasonably considered common knowledge, or which can be found in numerous sources cited in the bibliography. Please use common sense and moderation in editing articles. Hgilbert 18:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Common sense tells me to remove the material that is erroneous, but having attempted this only to have my edits reversed, tagging those areas appears to be my only option. Please read the discussion page for information about why multiple tags were used. In the mean time, I'll keep reverting the article until the issues are addressed. --Pete K 18:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for a violation of WP:3RR

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

-- Longhair 21:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

We can't unblock you at this time, because you haven't given us the information we need to even look into your block. If you still want to be unblocked, feel free to add the {{unblock}} tag back to this page, and be sure to include a reason why you want to be unblocked. Without that information, we won't unblock you.

It's been 24 hours give or take. This is a first offense of a rule I was not aware of. I can wait out the 24 hours but I have some time in my schedule to do some work on the Waldorf project. It's not a big deal, just an inconvenience for me. If necessary, I'll wait until the block has been lifted. --Pete K 19:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

AyArktos, I took your advice above and spent two hours adding in ((verify source}} and to the information that was doubtful, only to have my edits reverted. When I reverted them back, they were again reverted. The third time got me blocked. Others who reverted my edits, HGilbert, for example, have not been blocked. Is this blocking policy going to be applied fairly? I don't know how to display this information to you and how to lodge a complaint. HGilbert reverted the article at least three times on September 2nd and the article history shows this clearly. If I am to be blocked, so should he. --Pete K 20:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't really want to buy into it, I htink you went over the top in a big way and hence you just put every bodys' back up. Editing is a collaborative effort. You can request sources but as the following is an example, I will comment on an example of your tagging taken from a recent diff of yours reinstating tags:

'''Waldorf education''' (also called '''Steiner education''') is a worldwide movement {{verify source}} based on an ] first formulated by ]n ] and which grew out of his ] {{specify}} , ]. Waldorf education aims to educate the "whole child" {{specify}} by maintaining a balance between physical activity, artistic ] and academic work against a backdrop of well-defined stages in child development {{verify source}}, which is seen as a process of ] of the child's ] and ].<ref>Carlgren, Frans, ''Education Towards Freedom'' ISBN 0-906155-04-5</ref> {{verify credibility}} Its curriculum focuses on the ], ]s, {{verify source}} ] {{verify source}} values as well as practical and integrated learning {{verify source}} . The typical Waldorf school is described as the school of the ''head, heart and hands''.<ref></ref>

which produced the following:

Waldorf education (also called Steiner education) is a worldwide movement based on an educational philosophy first formulated by Austrian Rudolf Steiner and which grew out of his spiritual science , Anthroposophy. Waldorf education aims to educate the "whole child" by maintaining a balance between physical activity, artistic creativity and academic work against a backdrop of well-defined stages in child development , which is seen as a process of incarnation of the child's soul and spirit. Its curriculum focuses on the arts, social skills, spiritual values as well as practical and integrated learning . The typical Waldorf school is described as the school of the head, heart and hands.

There are 107 words in four sentences. It is the lead paragraph which means one would expect any of its assertions to be dealt with later in the article. You added 8 tags. It is too many.

Let's take it tag by tag:

1. citation requested as to whether it is worldwide or not
   • http://www.waldorfworld.net/Waldorf/Directories/ (which was easily reached via one of the external links listed) shows Waldorf (Steiner) Schools in the UK, Colegio los Charcos San Miguel de Allende, Mexico, Directory of Waldorf Schools in Denmark, French Waldorf School in Paris, New Zealand Waldorf (Steiner) Schools, Steiner Schools in Austalia, Waldorf Education Directory for South America, Waldorf movement in Ukraine and Russia, Waldorf Schools in Italy, Waldorf Schools in Norway, Waldorf Schools in Switzerland
   • It was easy enough to provide your own citation if one was required. It was not to my mind necessary to request a citation, the information was likely to be easily verifiable - what were you trying to prove by calling for a citation?
2. You added a specificity tag to an educational philosophy first formulated by Austrian Rudolf Steiner and which grew out of his spiritual science. The tag is a fixit tag for cases where statements and the terms used therein are too general, and thus need to be specified. Immediately following the tag was a link to Anthroposophy which provides more than enough specification for the term and /or concept. This is clearly a gratuitous tag.
3. Similarly the specificity tag was added to the term "while child" which was already in quotes and seems to be specified by the rest of the sentence, ie the words immediately following are by maintaining a balance between physical activity, artistic creativity and academic work against a backdrop of well-defined stages in child development which is seen as a process of incarnation of the child's soul and spirit which procvides specificity.
4. Next you ask to verify the source of the assertion about well-defined stages in child development - not clear at all what you are calling for here. However the article has aa whole section on pedagogy which goes level by level and links to the philosphy of Jean Piaget which in turn links to Theory of cognitive development. It does not make sense to me why you are challenging this. Certainly not int he lead papra but in fact anywhere. My response to this sort of thing in fact is, is there an educational philosophy that ignores "well-defined stages in child development"?
5. The next tag seeks to verify the credibility of a book by Frans Carlgren. Not clear under Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources how you are challenging the book. The author is not one who is held by the National Library of Australia. He is held by the Library of Congress with one translated work (all the others in foreign languages). The work cited is not self-published. Is held in a library. Not sure if this search will be accessible later by link but here is the full catalogue record from the Library of Congress What are you trying to prove by requesting verification? How does it not meet WP:RS? As I suggested above, you should probably have used comment tags to clarify your request.
6. The last tags all seek citations for elements of the curriculum. I would again turn the question around. Is there a curriculum that does not focus on the arts, social skills, spiritual values as well as practical and integrated learning? Secondly requesting three citations within a sentence within the lead paragraph is just over the top. That material is dealt with in the lengthy article below.

So in conclusion yes you took my advice but you did so in a way that makes me despair. I have difficulty assuming good faith when I look at the tagging. It is hard to look at the tags and understand what you are trying to do - none of the examples above would have helped to clarify the article. The use of excessive tags had already been drawn to your attention several times.

In future, I suggest you add one tag at a time, and only at the end of a sentence. You discuss that tag on the talk page - ie provide a rationale for why you think the tag is necessary. For example, it seems you want to challenge the assertion that "All students learn to play instruments" You assert they don't. Tag the assertion, provide discussion on that tag on the talk page about that and that only. Allow responses. I would be very surprised if a child made it through any education system without being offered a triangle, drum or some other instrument. If you don't like the assertions at Waldorf_education#Music, make clear on the talk page what it is you object to. Do they not sing? Do they not sing each day? Do they not play the recorder? Do they not play string instruments? Are pupils not "generally required to take private music lessons"? Does orchestral instruction not continue through to 18, though as an elective in many schools?

Before you add a tag, make sure there is not citation available in the extensive list of references and external links already available - or a wikilink providing the specificity you are requesting. For example, before adding a tag about music, is there a citation available already that deals with music int he waldorf curriculum? (I can't see one at a quick glance.)

When there is a response, move on to the next one. Leave lead paragraphs alone. Check that the assertion is not dealt with in a wikilinked article. Above all else, don't violate the 3RR. You will be blocked again. Note admins are not obliged to block - you ask why HGilbert was not blocked - he reverted three times, not a fourth - it is the fourth that is the violation. S/he also had the agreement of other editors - others also reverted your tagging and commented on the article's talk page.--Arktos 23:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for going to this effort.

1) "citation requested as to whether it is worldwide or not" - no I want clarification about what connotes it as a "movement". Nothing is moving - enrollment numbers aren't moving, there is nothing progressive about Waldorf education, it is exactly the same as it was 80 years ago when Steiner died. In my kid's school, they don't have computers in any of the classrooms. Waldorf education is like Mrs. Havisham's wedding cake - no movement at all. Labeling it as a "movement" is saying it's going some place. Great if there's some verification that it IS, then let's leave the wording. Otherwise it's brochure talk.

2) "You added a specificity tag to an educational philosophy first formulated by Austrian Rudolf Steiner and which grew out of his spiritual science. The tag is a fixit tag for cases where statements and the terms used therein are too general, and thus need to be specified." - I've already discussed that the term "spiritual science" needs to be specified and at the very least put into quotes. It is not "science" by any stretch of the imagination (even Steiner's). That's what the tag to specify was for. "This is clearly a gratuitous tag" - maybe others may think so. Making a statement that calls Steiner's ideas "science" and then expecting someone to follow a link to get the explanation that it's NOT science (if that were on the Anthroposophy page - and I don't believe it is) is silly. Just put quotes around "spiritual science" to make it clear it was Steiner's term.

3) "Similarly the specificity tag was added to the term "while child" which was already in quotes and seems to be specified by the rest of the sentence, ie the words immediately following are by maintaining a balance between physical activity, artistic creativity and academic work against a backdrop of well-defined stages in child development which is seen as a process of incarnation of the child's soul and spirit which procvides specificity." - You mean "whole child" here. The problem here, for me, is that there is no "balance" maintained here. Children in early grades are only kept in the spiritual - their questions are not answered for them because asking "why are Johnny's eyes blue and mine are brown" is too intellectual - it brings them "into their heads" too soon - answering questions can cause them to incarnate too soon. There is a problem with the sentence in may areas and I'm trying to identify the problem completely since nobody here will allow me to edit it myself without having my edits reverted.

4) "Next you ask to verify the source of the assertion about well-defined stages in child development - not clear at all what you are calling for here. However the article has aa whole section on pedagogy which goes level by level and links to the philosphy of Jean Piaget which in turn links to Theory of cognitive development. Certainly not int he lead papra but in fact anywhere. My response to this sort of thing in fact is, is there an educational philosophy that ignores "well-defined stages in child development"?" Here I'm questioning the "well-defined stages in child development" - which are "well defined" by Steiner. In the next portion, they try to present Steiner's ideas as if they are similar to Piaget's (which is not accurate). Piaget's work is something Waldorf schools have latched on to because of its popularity. It has nothing to do with Steiner, doesn't agree with Steiner at all. It's a Waldorf buzzword to legitimize Steiner's ideas. Nothing more.

5) "The next tag seeks to verify the credibility of a book by Frans Carlgren. Not clear under Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources how you are challenging the book. The author is not one who is held by the National Library of Australia. He is held by the Library of Congress with one translated work (all the others in foreign languages). The work cited is not self-published. Is held in a library. Not sure if this search will be accessible later by link but here is the full catalogue record from the Library of Congress What are you trying to prove by requesting verification? How does it not meet WP:RS? As I suggested above, you should probably have used comment tags to clarify your request." I'll admit, I don't trust Anthroposophical sources because, like the Anthroposophical commission in the Netherlands who concluded that Steiner didn't make racist remarks in his work, Anthroposphists verifying the work of Waldorf is akin to Catholics supporting Catholic schools. Yes, sure, Anthroposophists have been published, and sure, their work may be in the Library of Congress, but validation of Waldorf activities by Anthroposophists is not something that I don't find very reassuring - especially when claims are unbelievable (like claims that kids in Waldorf schools are healthier than kids in other schools - and attributing this to Waldorf education).

6) "The last tags all seek citations for elements of the curriculum. I would again turn the question around. Is there a curriculum that does not focus on the arts, social skills, spiritual values as well as practical and integrated learning? Secondly requesting three citations within a sentence within the lead paragraph is just over the top. That material is dealt with in the lengthy article below." - The issue I have is, again with each of the elements of the sentence. No, social skills are not focused on - in fact bullying is a huge issue in Waldorf schools, much more common than ordinary schools because Waldorf schools believe in a karmic relationship between the children - and teachers will often watch fights on the playground without helping children resolve their differences. Also, socialization is an issue because children are in a very small class for 12 years - they are only accustomed to the kids in their class - and in the older grades, still only with the kids in their, often very small, school. Waldorf kids generally don't socialize well in the outside world and it is common to see high school graduates come unglued when they have to move into a college environment. I've also discussed my concern with the words "spiritual values" which are really meaningless, especially when one doesn't know what spiritual bent Anthroposophy has. A reader will assume it means their own spiritual values - and it is almost certain NOT to mean these. The words "practical and integrated learning" are also misleading. Two of my own kids who have been in Waldorf from kindergarten - one is in high school and one in 7th grade - cannot name more than 5 presidents. I don't find that very practical. Their learning experience is absolutely full of holes and certainly not "integrated". This is common of most kids in Waldorf. Kids are never taught about dinosaurs, for example, because Steiner didn't think this was necessary. My cite requests were intended to challenge each of these things individually. I understand it looked ugly. The article needs a lot of work.

":So in conclusion yes you took my advice but you did so in a way that makes me despair. I have difficulty assuming good faith when I look at the tagging. It is hard to look at the tags and understand what you are trying to do - none of the examples above would have helped to clarify the article. The use of excessive tags had already been drawn to your attention several times."

If I would be allowed to actually edit the article, as is the intention of Misplaced Pages, without my edits being removed offhandedly by the Waldorf police, I would certainly not have needed to go to this effort. I tried to tag every instance where the language is problematic. If I simply tag a sentence, most of these are compound sentences, then there is even less clarity about what I find problematic. If I could just edit the article, an activity everyone else apparently has available to them, I could make some headway toward cleaning it up. The problem is some overzealous Waldorf defenders won't allow it - and they outnumber me, so they can revert the article to their heart's content. In each discussion where I've made a legitimate point for change, they have just dropped the discussion - no agreement is arrived at - and so the change doesn't happen. Everybody seems to agree that the article needs work - but nobody can agree that any changes by a critic of Waldorf should belong there. Even on the project page outline, critical comments are labeled as "hysterical". This is not conducive for honest good faith. It makes me wonder if being on the editing project is better than not. Trying to work cooperatively with people who characterize critics as hysterical doesn't make good sense to me.

":In future, I suggest you add one tag at a time, and only at the end of a sentence. You discuss that tag on the talk page - ie provide a rationale for why you think the tag is necessary. For example, it seems you want to challenge the assertion that "All students learn to play instruments" You assert they don't. Tag the assertion, provide discussion on that tag on the talk page about that and that only. Allow responses. "

Again, discussions don't seem to go anywhere. They dead-end whenever I've made a point. I've got three students here that don't play any instruments. So, no, all students don't learn to play instruments. You saw how many issues are in the article. Discussing each and every one is something nobody has time for. I have seen some effort in the last day or so by the Waldorf people to address some of the citations, but it's basically an exercise in finding Waldorf sources that confirm the brochure dialog.

"I would be very surprised if a child made it through any education system without being offered a triangle, drum or some other instrument. If you don't like the assertions at Waldorf_education#Music, make clear on the talk page what it is you object to. Do they not sing? Do they not sing each day? Do they not play the recorder? Do they not play string instruments? Are pupils not "generally required to take private music lessons"? Does orchestral instruction not continue through to 18, though as an elective in many schools?" - But that's not what is being claimed here. They claim that all children "learn" to play instruments, not that they are offered a triangle or drum. The claim is that children come away with an abilty to play instruments. Some do, some don't - certainly not ALL.

":When there is a response, move on to the next one. Leave lead paragraphs alone."

For the time being, I'm still part of the editing project team. We're working on the lead paragraph right now. It is full of flaws and everyone agrees with this.

"Check that the assertion is not dealt with in a wikilinked article. Above all else, don't violate the 3RR. You will be blocked again. Note admins are not obliged to block - you ask why HGilbert was not blocked - he reverted three times, not a fourth - it is the fourth that is the violation. S/he also had the agreement of other editors - others also reverted your tagging and commented on the article's talk page."

Yes, it's no surprise that other editors reverted my edits. And I read that the 3RR doesn't apply to groups - so a team effort by Waldorf supporters is OK, I suppose - so they slide because they have more people involved. I commented on the talk page and on the project page as well. I was told what to do on the talk page - how to tag the problem areas. I guess my problem was that I thought the issues I have with the article might be taken seriously. I'm not inclined to invite a team of critics here to support me, yet I'm facing a team of Waldorf supporters working together to ensure that my edits don't make it on to the page. Please know that my efforts are in earnest. The article is riddled with problematic language and the reality of Waldorf education, one of the most controversial educational systems in the world (as you have no doubt guessed), is not expressed fairly here. I'll settle in for the long term and fight the edit wars by the rules - which I guess I'll be learning as I go along. --Pete K 01:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Waldorf Project Update

Dear Pete, I am sending each project member a copy of the note I am sending to the adminsitrators about our project. I remain very optimistic that this project can make a big difference in the quality of the Waldorf page as experienced by the Wiki reader. I am pasting the letter below my signature and invite feedback on my Talk. Wonderactivist 04:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Longhair and Cormaggio, Thank you immeasurably for your help with the Waldorf project so far. As you will note below, I am planning shortly to move the project pages to within alt ed - just want to clarify structure first. It is currently at User:Wonderactivist/Waldorf Project Team Page

With your admin experience, and the amount of back-n-forth this article has undergone - actually speeding up since the proposed project - I would like your opinion on strategies to manage the project if you should have time.

I see two major issues:

1 there are "sides" within the group instead of a single focus on creating a good article. While this is somewhat to be expected, I also expected a greater level of professionalism. Is there a known strategy to begin to turn this around?

2 Unbelievably, I think,we have actually reached almost a consensus on the Introduction. I would like to focus on this positive and if possible have it become a springboard for examining just one section at a time. 3 On the current project page, a format for the article has been proposed, while the person actually rewrote the whole article, I propose taking just the OUTLINE - the section names 0- and beginnning with agreeing upon the sections.

Other than the administrative questions, my project strategy will be to set up two pages within the alt ed project:

1 to lay out a structure - outline only - for the page 2 to finalize with formal agreement, the introduction. 3 ONLY begin work on the next section when we have agreed upon the above two, then moving just one section at a time.

My hope is that it will disarm the ongoing wars over fine points and pet projects.

What is your opinion?

And thank you from the bottom of my transplanted Texas heart! Wonderactivist 04:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Request

Hi - I have been asked if I "can suggest a next stage of action, or intervene in some constructive way" to the perception that you have made a large number of edits to talk pages with personal comments.

I guess once again I draw your attention to WP:NPA and also WP:NOT - wikipedia isn't a soap box ...

Not all of the diffs are in my view personal attacks. In fact most of them to my mind fall within the scope of Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks#Examples that are not personal attacks - but not all, and perhaps you could tone it down just a little and still get your point across - I am not sure.

At one stage you state - I don't speak German and I'm not going to take your word for it as to what it says - nothing personal. - even though you qualify with nothing personal, it isn't really satisfactory. If the source is available only in German and it serves to verify the assertion in the article and it is, apart from the language issue, a reliable source. The source does not need to be accessible to you or any other particular editor, it needs to meet the verifiability criteria of Misplaced Pages. It probably does. Similarly if someone quotes from a book that I have not got access to, for example it is no longer published and there is no copy in an Australian library, it does not make it an unsuitable source - the assertion can be verified - just not by me.

Please try to abide by WP:AGF and work with other editors towards producing the best possible article on Waldorf and related topics - the best possible article will be neutral - not merely an attack, not merely puffery. It will not be based on unpublished sources. It will not reflect the views of any one editor or a very few editors. After reading these articles, any reasonable person will say - that was fair, I am better informed, I know where to go for more information or to follow up on some of the points made. A good article will develop collaboratively and will not be written overnight.

As per the advice above on requesting citations, go slowly, one assertion at a time. Fix that to a good standard and with concensus and then move on to the next ... It is obviously not easy and especially when there are strong views on both sides.--Golden Wattle 21:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

All I can say in response is that this is an effort by others to have me removed from Misplaced Pages. You are the third moderator they have contacted to try to accomplish this. They have been complaining about me ever since I got here. This is because I can back up what I say with actual references. Some of us have bad blood going back many years. Harlan Gilbert, in fact, characterized my custody and divorce situation HERE of all places, and when I was alerted to this by a friend, I was drawn into these discussions. Regarding my edits, I believe I have made responsible edits that are continually rejected by a group that wants to preserve their side of a controversial issue. My friends on the other side of this debate have, indeed, twisted translations of quotes in German to make them seem like they say something different. That's why I don't trust them to translate anything - my view is based on experience. I wouldn't trust a card shark in a poker game either - and yet, I could say this about the person without insulting him. What we have here is an effort to use material published by a religious group to support the view of that same group. It would be like pointing to the gospels and saying this proves Jesus is God. While that may be proof enough for some, it would be improper for an encyclopedia to exclaim that, indeed Jesus is God, based on this type of reference. So, when I see a reference to someone within the Waldorf schools supporting ridiculous claims by Waldorf schools - simply because this information was published in a Waldorf resource, I feel compelled to speak out. I've seen far too many children AND parents AND teachers hurt, physically, emotionally, psychologically by some factions within Waldorf education to just be quiet about this. And this is what makes me dangerous to our editors on the other side of the isle. My righteousness is supported by the fact that I know where the bodies are buried. I've seen the worst (hopefully) of Waldorf, and I am quite sure my fellow editors have also seen it but refuse to discuss it. I honestly don't feel Misplaced Pages is a place that would allow a group on one side of any debate to push out the single voice on the other side of the debate. If you will carefully look at the edits I have made, not just the ones Harlan Gilbert sent you, but all of them, you will see that there is validity to what I am trying to do. They don't like that I continually quote Steiner's own words. How does it make sense that an article about a man should not include quotes from him. Even the article about Steiner's RACISM is guarded over by this group to swiftly remove all quotes by the man himself. Each quote I've supplied has a citation and page number reference. And the efforts by these people to whitewash all the articles relating to their belief system is obvious if one were to take the time to look at it. AND this was going on long before I got here. --Pete K 00:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't delete links to relevant and useful material

The transcripts of the PLANS trials are relevant and useful. If you can find other places that they exist, feel free to replace the existing links. Otherwise, they fit the WP:External links guidelines of including links to accurate and relevant material. Please avoid unnecessary edit wars. Hgilbert 01:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Harlan - but I'm not about to agree to link this stuff to the defammatory Waldorfanswers site. I agree with the need to have the transcripts available, but directing people to Waldorfanswers is not an option here. Let's make a sub-page of the PLANS page and post the transcripts there. In the mean time, I'll continue removing the links. --Pete K 01:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• I think the guidleine you should both be referencing is Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources Regards --Golden Wattle 01:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It isn't the source of the material that is in question here (we're talking about court transcripts and we both agree they should be linked to the article) - it is linking to a website that is replete with false information. Once a person has been directed, via an innocent-looking link, to this site, they are likely to look around the site. Per the guideline:

"Partisan, religious and extremist websites

The websites and publications of political parties and religious groups should be treated with caution, although neither political affiliation nor religious belief are in themselves reasons not to use a source.

Widely acknowledged extremist or even terrorist groups, whether of a political, religious, racist, or other character, should never be used as sources for Misplaced Pages, except as primary sources, that is to say they may be used in articles discussing the opinions of that organization. Even then they should be used with great caution, and should be supported by other sources."

So while the good information is warehoused at this site, it is not, I feel, appropriate to link to this particualr site, even though the exact page that is being linked to contains accurate information. I feel that the court transcripts could be a sub-page of the PLANS article and the link could go directly to that sub-page. --Pete K 01:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

You probably need to place the transcripts at wikisource - that seems to me to be the appropriate repository for transcripts and probably more appropriate than a sub-page of another article.--Golden Wattle 01:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll make that suggestion. --Pete K 15:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• For an example of how it might work, see Bermagui, New South Wales - the link to the associated piece by Lawson is just after the info box and is done by the code {{wikisource|Bermagui - In a Strange Sunset}}. which produces the box to the right and which in turn will take you to Lawson's piece. Regards--Golden Wattle 20:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I like that approach. Thank you Golden Wattle. I don't know if I'm able to do this without help, but I can try it as soon as the lock is removed from the Waldorf Education article. Or, if someone else wants to do it, that's fine by me. Thanks again! --Pete K 20:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel you should be stalled by the lock on the main article. In the meantime, you could probably usefully start to put the stuff on wikisource. It is another project so you need to sign up for it (you can edit as an anon but it perhaps makes it easier for people to identify you if you have the same login there.)

Have a look at how case law is presented at Wikisource:Wikisource:Case law, see for example Wikisource: Cetacean Community v. Bush, 386 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2004). I don't like that example - no header or links (I prefer my work on Bermagui and think it helps the reader more as it has an intro with some context and links back to wikipedia for people and places). Wikisource:United States v. Dominguez Benitez has some headings. A much better write up is Wikisource:Marbury v. Madison - note also the associated wikipedia article Marbury v. Madison.

The Waldorf education article in my opinion is getting too long - or perhaps off-tangent - not very readable anyway. I would suggest that perhaps a separate article on legal challenges in the US might be useful. Firstly, the legal challenges are US specific and the education system is worldwide. Notwithstanding that we have separation of church and state here in Australia, such a challenge would not for example be successful in Australia - the article on Waldorf Education should as much as possible have worldwide scope. For an example of a lengthy article broken down with other articles and referenced, see for example Indigenous Australians#Languages - there is still some reference to languages on the primary article but there are two other articles which tackle the same subject in more detail thereby improving readability of the overall topic. There are already some references from the main article to other articles in the Waldorf Education article.

For examples of other articles on court cases, see Dietrich v The Queen - though no transcript is at wikisource - Coomonwealth Law reports transcripts are referenced. This article is a featured article, in other words regarded as a good example of an article.--Golden Wattle 20:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Rudolf Steiner edit warring

This edit warring has to stop. I am warning all three parties involved, yourself, Thebee and Hgilbert. I am also not going to be a mediator in this content dispute. But I am warning all three of you, if anymore diffs I see are revert warring on this article or any other related article, all three of you will be reported for 3RR vioations. Please don't put yourself and others in conflicts which result in edit warring. Please discuss this until resolved and then make the appropriate change, ok? — The Future 19:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

If you will see the discussion pages, I have continually tried to discuss this issue. All that happens is the continued clipping of quotes. I am quite sure what I am doing is within the guidelines of Misplaced Pages, but if I am doing something wrong, please tell me exactly what it is. I have posted as an example of Steiner's racism - several different quotes. I have gone to the discussion pages and made my case for putting the quotes there and the other two editors you mentioned continually remove them - with NO discussion other than to call my edits vandalism. I feel I have behaved appropriately in this issue and that others who are continually reverting the article should be cautioned about their activities and held to the 3RR rule. Having once violated this rule in the past, I don't believe I have violated this rule at all in this instance. --Pete K 21:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

If you want third party intervention, you may want to try the Incidents noticeboard, where you can get an unbiased third person's opinion on the situation. But I do find something wrong with what you said above. You stated: "I have posted as an example of Steiner's racism", which doesn't fully comply with our Neutral Point of View policy, and that very well may be the reason it is being removed. Or if there's somewhere else thier posting this information, you may want to find out where that is. And you said you violated 3RR before, and which you believe you haven't done so now. I can safely say that you have, at least reverted 3 times in the last 24 hours. 4 reverts and you would be blocked. So please take caution around reverting on that article for now on. — The Future 00:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

There is NO POV in quoting what the person the article is about has said. I'm not interjecting any POV in this - it is a quote of his exact words. If anything it is Steiner's POV, not mine. The subsection I am posting this in deals exactly with Steiner's racism. I have not reverted the article, as I understand revert to mean undoing the edits of someone else. I have put different quotes in the article, not the same quote. The effect, however is the same as NO quote demonstrating Steiner's racist views is acceptable to the "editors" who are removing this material. If anybody is reverting the article it is they who continually remove my edits to bring it back to the condition they want to maintain. --Pete K 01:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks on Talk:Rudolf Steiner

This comment constitutes a personal attack against me. Please stop attcking me personally. — goethean ॐ 14:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You are, perhaps, too sensitive for this type of work.--Pete K 02:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Or are you too nasty? Hgilbert 09:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, in your view. I've come up against some very nasty people here. Here's a secret - I'm a mirror - you get back what you give. If you're nice, I'll be nice, if you're nasty, you get nasty back. People who are nasty, who call me a vandal or spammer, who rip out my reasonable edits, get back a double dose of what they give. People who take the time to discuss things before wiping out my edits usually have no trouble arriving at a reasonable compromise with me. I'm here to work with others to make several one-sided articles better and more NPOV - not to rip out any edit I don't agree with. Sure, some people here are just here to insist on their POV, and those don't get treated very nicely by me. Those that are willing to discuss what needs discussing will find me generally good-natured and willing to compromise. --Pete K 17:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

You have already been told that WP:Civil does not excuse incivility or personal attacks on the basis of these being a "justified response". Allow me to remind you of this. In addition, the above user, Goethean, did nothing incivil; you began the incivility. Hgilbert 06:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I will allow you to remind me... but thanks anyway. This is just a long-winded attempt by an organized group of Waldorf supporters to have me dismissed from Misplaced Pages. It's pretty clear from all your whining what you are up to. I'm not interested in playing your game. Like I said, perhaps Goethean is a little too sensitive for this work. --Pete K 14:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposal at Waldorf Project

With advice from an admin, I have taken the next step in the Waldorf project and invite your opinions or alternative suggestions for a first formal proposal. In the face of the ongoing conflict it will be necessary to work especially hard toward NPOV and to establish groundrules before we can begin our real editing work. I invite you to be part of that process at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Waldorf_Project_Proposals Wonderactivist 14:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Cool it

Comments that other editors' contributions are the ravings of a lunatic are quite uncalled for regardless of the problems you may have had with the editor in question. Please cool it and avoid personal attacks. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your unsolicited criticism. I guess that's why your name says "uninvited". Those comments are two weeks old. I've already cooled it. If you want me to change my current behavior, then please find something current to point to. --Pete K 20:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

removal of weblinks

Can you explain why you removed the links that I put in the Rudolf Steiner article? I put the links in so that people could see the quotations in a larger context, which is exactly the problem with all quotations and especially with your very problematic quotations that seek to "expose" a figure as a racist. — goethean ॐ 16:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be happy to explain. The links are to Waldorfanswers - which is an original research website that warehouses defamatory information and a lot of myths about Steiner and Waldorf education. If you have a valid reference, it needs to be warehoused somewhere else - not at Waldorfanswers, or Americans4WaldrofEducation or similar original resource sites. This issue has been resolved by the administrators and Wikisource has been offered to us as a good place to warehouse information rather than using the defamatory websites listed above. Please note that I am not AT ALL against referencing the information you want to reference - only the website where it is stored. --Pete K 19:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Who, exactly, do you allege that the linked website defames? By the way, there is no Misplaced Pages policy that dictates that one cannot link to an allegedly defamatory website. I have reverted your edit. — goethean ॐ 20:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll just revert it back. Not a problem for me. The material you want to point to can be posted on Wikisource. But if you would rather have an edit war over warehousing it at this site - a site that everyone else has agreed is defamatory and should not be linked here, go right ahead. It's completely your call here. --Pete K 22:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

That appears to be a refusal to discuss the issue. Reverting without discussion is vandalism. — goethean ॐ 22:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I've discussed the issue in the past, and I'm discussing it here, and I'm discussing it concurrently on the Steiner discussion page. Posting links to defamatory websites is vandalism, my friend.--Pete K 22:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

You are being coy. Who was defamed? Where? What Misplaced Pages policy are you invoking? Until I have the answers to these questions, I will — correctly — return the links to the article. — goethean ॐ 22:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I've got time - how many reverts is that for you? I'm keeping track. There has already been agreement that the Waldorfanswers site is not an acceptable warehouse for material here. Enjoy yourself, I know I am. BTW, your talk page shows a history of this type of behavior on your part. What's up with that? --Pete K 22:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

You are introducing irrelevancies, a sign that you have no argument. What agreement? Where? Who was it with? — goethean ॐ 22:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The agreement was reached on the Waldorf page. Several of the moderators were interested in this issue but GoldenWattle provided a solution that allows editors to put the material on Wikisource without having to link to defamatory websites. The particular website you are referencing is extremely problematic. The agreement was that someone researching information shouldn't be directed to a website where misinformation is prominent. I have, BTW, tried to find a reference to the information you want to link to on the Rudolf Steiner archive, but it doesn't seem to be there. I really don't know why - but it may be that there is a copyright violation issue and that's why legitimate websites don't have this particular lecture available. In any case, if you have access to it and want to put it on Wikisource, that would be the best way to resolve this. --Pete K 22:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

There. was that so hard? Also, you may have heard of new technology called a link. — goethean ॐ 22:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Naw... I'm against link as they often serve dishonest purposes...--Pete K 23:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

No offense, but that's stupid. What I see now is that you edit warred on that article also, removing the same link repeatedly, until the article was protected by an administrator. There appears to be no agreement; merely your unilateral edit warring. I will keep this, as well as your creative attitude towards describing events, in mind. — goethean ॐ 23:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

No - the article is locked up because of the same silly person who continually wanted to link everything to his same silly website - so people could get a good helping of his same silly opinion. As for the agreement, you will see several of us (everybody involved except the silly person) agreed that the warehousing of material at the Waldorfanswers site was not appropriate and that the warehousing of it at Wikisource was appropriate. That's called an agreement. I really don't care how you characterize me, btw - it's not as if I value your opinion. --Pete K 23:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The history of that article makes for some mighty interesting reading. So the anti-Steiner group lost a court case, and you are here to make sure that Misplaced Pages doesn't link to the evidentiary documents. Good to know! — goethean ॐ 23:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

No, you actually have to read what is there to understand, my friend. Is commentary based on a superficial understanding of the facts characteristic of your participation here? There is no Anti-Steiner group, BTW, but a group that is testing whether separation of church and state applies to Waldorf schools. But, getting more to the point - there was never any reason or desire to suppress the court documents - only to warehouse them in a neutral site and not a site that is defamatory of the group that filed the lawsuit. This makes perfect sense to people who don't have their head up their ass (not meaning you, of course). --Pete K 23:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello Waldorf Project Team Members

I just wanted to let you know that two proposals have passed on the Waldorf project and two more - one based on Fergie's starting place - have been set out for discussion here. Feedback has been given that the project has been going slow. I apologize as I had hand surgery a week ago, but truly nothing should wait for one person. If we each check in once or twice a week, we should be able to get through the article in a month or two. I would appreciate your valuable insights on the proposals and timing. Wonderactivist 12:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Waldorf Edits In clicking around to user pages to send the note, I have seen that the edit wars are truly still raging - they just have moved from the Waldrof page to user pages. As a result, I do not advise speeding up this project - time will be well-spent hashing out the disagreements civilly, with the result being a better page for Misplaced Pages and its readers. The problem with this page, overall, has been each person's need to push their own agenda without taking time to consider other viewpoints. Please do not resume your edit wars on the page. Wonderactivist 12:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Waldorf_Project"

Your report of edits to my talk page

Hi PeteK. I suggest you take a read over WP:SOCK, especially the section at Misplaced Pages:Sock puppetry#Meatpuppets. I'm trying to be fair here to all concerned, yourself included, and to let you develop the articles you're working on amongst yourselves. I will only act accordingly as an administrator on any report of abuse outside policy if I witness it myself, or if edits in question are referred to me in the format of a diff. Providing a diff helps me get to the edit in question directly, without wading through a ton of information. -- Longhair\ 23:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Longhair. Yes, I believe you are trying to act fairly. I'm sorry I haven't figured out how to link diffs like Harlan Gilbert is able to. It is known to me that I am working against a religious organization when I try to edit here and that their resources are greater than mine. I'll see if I can figure out the diff format. --Pete K 23:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

To create a diff, simply view the article history, click (last) to see the edit concerned, then paste the URL from your browsers adress bar within two square brackets to my talk page. Let me know if you need help. -- Longhair\ 23:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm working on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pete K (talk • contribs)

Let me get this clear. You feel as though a gang of editors is gaming the 3RR rule and forcing a point of view into articles? Could you also give me a brief description in addition to your recent message to myself of your complaint regarding those diffs you've provided? Your diffs worked fine btw. Easy huh? :) -- Longhair\ 23:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, assmuming your diffs are in the same order as pasted above your recent edits to my talk page, I don't require descriptions. I'll just refer to the earlier examples. -- Longhair\ 23:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, basically, it's two people working as a team to restore their POV without effort to discuss the edits. It's just rude and leads to edit wars when discussion isn't at least attempted. There has been discussion about this section by myself and DianaW, and a couple of sentences by HGilbert, but most of it is me talking to a wall. --Pete K 23:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, Pete, tell me that you and Diana have had no discussions about editing Misplaced Pages articles, and this particular article! We know that you two are amongst the most active in the very small group of active forum contributors at the Waldorf critics site, and she appeared very quickly after you asked if it would help to have others on your side in the editing question!!! You both are trying to suppress a valid POV, valid by every Misplaced Pages (and human) standard, written and published by a widely recognized authority on human rights. I have made this clear on the talk page, now please respect it. I'm not suprised that others also see this and revert your attempts to remove clearly significant work. Hgilbert 19:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Harlan, I've already made my point on the discussion page. There is no validity to the POV that Steiner didn't say the things HE ACTUALLY SAID - or that they don't mean what they ACTUALLY MEAN. But let's keep the discussion of this on the appropriate discussion page where it belongs. --Pete K 22:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

PeteK, with all due respects, this issue is getting out of my hands. When accusations of sock or meatpuppets are cast, I am not equipped with any facility to determine the truth, however others are. As I mentioned earlier today at goethean's talk page, I suggest one of you take this matter before the Mediation Committee or try other avenues of dispute resolution to determine a basis for a solution here. The edit warring simply moves from one article to another related to Waldorf and Steiner, from talk pages, to user talk pages, into the article themselves, then around again we go - it's an endless circle of frustration for everybody concerned and tiresome as I'm sure you agree. Clearly a wider view from editors outside the debate are required to resolve this ongoing conflict. -- Longhair\ 00:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You may also wish to raise the matter at Misplaced Pages:Suspected_sock_puppets -- Longhair\ 00:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thanks Longhair. I understand. I'm just watching these guys systematically filing complaint after complaint with administrator after administrator trying to get me kicked off the grid here. I'm doing my best to defend myself and I apologize for my part in the headache you must be getting from all this. If this stuff continues, I will, indeed, seek the mediation you have recommended. --Pete K 00:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I see this kind of stuff regularly here and am asked to intervene. I'm sometimes involved in heated debates myself. I must enjoy it - I keep coming back for no pay :) - Longhair\ 00:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again (that's why I keep thanking you - no pay but you get the thanks of a grateful public). --Pete K 00:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Knowledge is my reward. I love learning. Once the Waldorf series of articles is complete, maybe I'll learn all about that topic too (and perhaps throw in the odd edit, fixing typo's only of course :) Seriously, try some attempts at dispute resolution. I'll add my views at I've witnessed them if I can to aid the case along. This raging debate at articles and talk pages is only going to promote grey hairs prematurely in all of us. -- Longhair\ 00:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've got a bottle of French Brandy with a little left in the bottom... maybe I'll call it a night tonight and let everyone's tempers cool down a bit before taking that next step. --Pete K 00:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with compiling evidence you need for later use in your own personal space if you feel it will help. I've not taken any sides. I'm willing to assist with an offer to anyone involved to bringing this dispute to a close. If you need help with anything, you know where I hang out. Brandy? I've got some scotch whiskey here, but it's only 10am. I couldn't - yet :) -- Longhair\ 00:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate this. I found myself backing out of the Waldorf project because it was me "against" a group of Waldorf supporters (plus, I couldn't keep track of where they were doing the edit proposals) - so I suspect that edit war will continue there as well if some resolution isn't arrived at. I don't think the "project" will resolve anything since the current group is only Waldorf supporters and they will, in all likelyhood, produce another Waldorf brochure and not a factual representation of Waldorf ed. But I'll try to keep an open mind. Well, I'm in California - we're in the middle of happy hour here... so the brandy is looking better and better. --Pete K 00:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Aggression

I've noticed you feel strongly about certain topics. Although your point is often reasonable, but when you throw insults or demean people, it is hard to reach a compromise. It becomes more and more of a grudge match. Please try and watch this. That's all. --Connor K. 22:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Kiss my ass! (Just kidding)... --Pete K 01:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

3RR Breaking

Pete, you seem like a decent good faith user but you've got to understand that the three revert rule is an important part of Misplaced Pages. As you have engaged on the talk page of Rick Steiner, I am going to warn you on this occaision.

Remember that to break the rule, you do not need to perform the same revert - in your case, you twice reverted one editor, then twice reverted another; the rule still applies.

DO NOI BREAK THIS RULE AGAIN; BREAKING WILL RESULT IN A LENGTHY BAN (longer than the 24 hours you had last time).

Note that any other reverts on the Rick Steiner page within the next 24 hours could be considered as breaking the rule again. I have been very leniant here - most others would have banned you. If I (or others) find you breaking the rule again, then do not expect such clemency. --Robdurbar 16:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing you're an administrator. And, I imagine you mean *Rudolf* Steiner and not "Rick". Yes, I have been reverting that article. As I have noted to other administrators here, there is are a team of editors with a single agenda working together to present a biased POV. I understand this does not break any specific rule, but that there is a term "meatpuppet" that describes what they are doing. I'll certainly let some time pass before reverting the article again, but their biased POV will not be allowed to stand as long as I am here. I'm not trying to cause harm here, just doing my best to deal with people who ARE here to cause harm. --Pete K 16:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW, the article has been vandalized. I'm reluctant to revert the vandalism as apparently one of my revert edits that you are counting was to revert exactly this type of vandalism. Here's what someone has added today: "Rudolf Steiner (February 25, 1861 – March 30, 1925) was an Austrian prankster, nuclear physicist, hashish eater, reality television producer and esotericist. He is the inventor of the H-bomb and the grandfather of Paris Hilton." A similar vandalism that I reverted talked about Steiner's penis, etc. If reverting this kind of thing counts towards the 3RR rule, then I imagine I will just leave them up there for somebody else to deal with. Can you clarify for me if this counts as reverting the article? --Pete K 17:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

No; reversion of blatant vandalism (As defined at WP:VAND) is allowed under the rule. As I always say to people in these sorts of cases is that if you go down the official dispute resolution routes, then you will probably get your best results. Alternatively, find some editors from a similar subject area and invite them to get involved - a little message on a few relevant talk pages can bring in editors. Clearly, these outsiders can agree or disagree with you. --Robdurbar 23:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

This particular subject is very specialized - a second-rate philosopher of marginal interest to anyone outside a very small and specific group of people. I'm hoping, after the article has been reverted so many times, people will actually use the discussion pages as they were intended and not produce wholesale drastic edits to the article on the fly. When I revert the article, I sometimes feel I am dealing with a puppy who refuses to pee on the newspaper. I have to keep bringing him back. Maybe a bad analogy, but really it sometimes feels that way. Some editors, myself included, get frustrated when people refuse to discuss proposed edits and just keep pushing their POV. I'll check myself (as much as possible) when I think I need to revert an article. Thanks! --Pete K 23:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

This user page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you might try contacting the user in question or seeking broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/OpenNote is deprecated. Please see User:MediationBot/Opened message instead.

Hgilbert 02:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You're kidding right? The four of you want to attack me in mediation? I've been to such ambushes at the local Waldorf school - I'm not walking into this. If you want to mediate this, let's not start by stacking the deck. Pick two of you and I'll ask Diana if she wants to participate. Four against one is an ambush. Two against two will be more acceptable. --Pete K 02:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

PeteK, have a little faith in Mediation. If your points are valid, then mediation will hopefully hear you out and decide as an uninvolved party on the best outcome. All parties involed in the dispute should be listed however, and that includes Diana and other editors who drop in from time to time such as Fergie. If mediation fails, you can always take it to the Arbitration Committee. -- Longhair\ 03:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Longhair. I have faith in mediation - but I also have faith in the fact that Waldorf people will play dirty (sorry to say this but I've had more than a lifetime full of very nasty encounters with them at my kid's Waldorf school). So, I'm not too keen on the way this is shaping up. Some of the items on the list for mediation aren't necessarily on the table for discussion. They (the Waldorf team) are going for broke here - hoping to get original research sites referenced in the articles. There's no reason to discuss this or have it mediated - it's not allowed in Misplaced Pages. This is somebody's personal agenda.

I don't think mediation is necessary and I trust both sides will be more willing to come to the table and work these things out while the articles are locked. I will, however, if mediation is presented in a fair way addressing only the issues that are in contention, expect an even balance of editors participating. I saw the results of the ill-fated Waldorf project first-hand, and it was a huge waste of time for me to try to be involved in that because of the one-sidedness of the opinions. Speaking of which, I see Wonderactivist on the mediation list, despite that she hasn't been active on the Steiner pages. I am not aware that any mediation is required for the Waldorf Education page as it is currently unlocked and we are all waiting for the project team to produce something with an NPOV. Are there issues on that page that will be resolved from the mediation here? I don't see anything that applies to that page and I don't see any benefit of having her participate in this mediation except to weigh in on the side of the Waldorf team. So, I'm not saying mediation is out, but I *am* saying it needs to at least start out balanced and fair. This way, all parties will be more likely to abide by the results. --Pete K 03:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Mediation means that neutral parties will come into the picture. I see that you are, as a rule, 'shouted down' by biased proponents of the waldorf and athroposophy systems, and that your contributions are consequently edited out. Mediation would mean that this would not happen. This is probably the only real chance you have to make headway in your effort to introduce some sense to the articles in question- I hope you will agree to and participate in mediation --Fergie 19:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Fergie. I'm holding out to see if the mediation request will be adjusted before the deadline. As it stands now (and I tried to document this adequately on the discussion page, although I can see it has gotten messy) this is just somebody's laundry-list of complaints about me. It looks like kangaroo court is in session - and I can see both TheBee and HGilbert are keeping lists of everything they believe I have done to offend them. 99% of this is nonsense, but am I interested in spending any time AT ALL pointing that out to anybody here? Probably not. Do I have faith that mediators will have the opportunity to look at these issues objectively? Not really. Will they examine the verifiability of content? Who knows? Will they read the countless pages of discussion that has already addressed the issues? Or will we have to reproduce these? Personally, I have a life that requires some attention once in a while. I can't see spending endless hours trying to justify why Anthroposophists don't make good character witnesses for Steiner - I've already spent too much time here doing exactly that. In any case, I have voiced my objection to the one-sidedness of the mediation proposal and so has DianaW. Neither of us, apparently, can see anything positive coming out of this mediation if the basic premise for the mediation process is flawed. If somebody neutral will determine what actually needs to be mediated here, maybe we could move forward. As it sits, the request itself is a stumbling block - and I've gone to considerable effort to make that clear. --Pete K 20:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Most reasonable people who read the points you make here would take your side. As you rightly point out, many of the 'issues for mediation' are actually nothing of the sort- they are simply breaches of Wikiquette that need to be rectified.--Fergie 08:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Is there ANY point listed that requires mediation, in your view?--Pete K 13:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

All controversies benefit from mediation. The fact that several of the points involve breaches/bending of wikipedia policy means that they should not really be in dispute (ie not issues for mediation) and that mediation will be even more effective in these cases.--Fergie 17:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

OK fine. So what's in it for me - other than (I'm guessing having never been through this process before) several days and nights of restating what has already been stated here a dozen times - and listening to the blatherings of Sune with his "I have commented before on the by you disregardable since long uncredited summarizing (for textual analysis ) reckless and unreasonable and since long disputed as unreliable proven by me to be therefore in my fantasy unprovable. Do you deny this is the by you position taken."? --Pete K 18:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The ranting of others only strengthens your own position--Fergie 08:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Make no mistake - I don't think my position is in jeopardy. I'm just not interested in producing the additional effort it will take to make a case (if that's indeed what I need to do here) to argue against this type of nonsense. Whether my position is weak or strong is really the decision of a million readers of Misplaced Pages, not a handful of mediators. Pete K 16:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• My two cents: given the effort you have already put into editing and discussing articles on this topic, I can't see that mediation is more effort in that sense. It really would work better if you participated. I would appreciate it if you did.--Golden Wattle 23:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Golden Wattle - I don't mean to disrupt the process. The time I've put into editing and discussing articles on this topic was intended to actually make some edits to the articles. I've said from day 1 that I am interested in the mediation of the issues. The time that will be invested in mediation, to resolve the discussion points listed currently, doesn't seem like a good use of my time. Some of the discussion points misinterpret the problems we've been having and the reasons for them. Others are asking for an exemption to Misplaced Pages policy. If we can't get to the real issues, we can't mediate this - with or without my participation. If the idea is to start another slug-fest - i.e. people asking me why on August 24th I called their edit "nonsense", and why don't I consider that a personal attack - I'd rather put my efforts into actually editing articles. Pete K 06:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Signature (and general advice)

Pete, the way I get my signature is '''~~~~''' . That is three apostrophes to turn bold on, four tildes, which WP automatically converts to the user name, time, etc., and three apostrophes to turn the bold off. If you want italics instead of bold use two opening and closing apostrophes. If you want bold plus italics, use five opening and closing.

I notice from above that you have been having problems with a number of experienced users. I suggest you take it easy. Rather than jumping in on the longer articles that have a lot of contributors and controversial topics, start with shorter less controversial topics where there are a relatively small number of regular contributors. That will give you a better feel for article formats, what is considered POV, etc.

A big problem with WP is that often they claim something is a POV violation when they mean, "It's not politically correct in somebody's view." In the article on Messiah there is a Messianic Pretender section that defines the term. Someone added the names of two people mentioned by Gamaliel in the New Testament Book of Acts as examples. Somebody responded, "You can't call them "pretenders" because it's POV."

There are a lot of cliques on WP and on controversial topics the clique usually includes a few administrators. If you tick off one of the main members of the clique you suddenly find 3-5 people jumping on you about everything. Worse yet, one of the clique admins will start monitoring every edit you make and every article you create. They'll start deleting things left and right as "unsourced", POV, etc., until you leave their pet article permanently. It looks like you may have gotten yourself involved in one of those articles.

Also, some articles are just not worth getting involved in. The Intelligent Design article is extremely biased. Every time someone tries to explain an ID position, five evolutionists hack up the addition, revert it, add four refuting sentences for each pro-ID sentence that was added, etc. In extreme cases WP has a "lock article" procedure where articles can only be edited by authorized admins after the group has agreed on the exact wording.

RickReinckens 23:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Alzwahaad

• Blocked for 24 hours. Rather than complaining to a specific person, might be better to complain to WP:PAIN or WP:AIV - you will more likely get a quicker response there. Regards --Golden Wattle 21:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll post it there next time. Sorry - I know you are on a well-deserved break. Pete K 21:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

His edits are apalling. If he returns again, I would be prepared to block indefinitely as a vandalism only account, however, I don't recommend you request a ban of the user from a previously uninvolved admin - the admin community often prefer to work these things out for themselves. However he has been warned for being a vandal, blocked for being a vandal, to date made no constructive edits ..... Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy#Disruption applies and also the grounds at Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy#Protection Regards--Golden Wattle 21:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Plus, since he's interested in discussing the size of my penis, shouldn't he discuss it in the "Proportion and Sub-Articles" section of the page he edited? (Just trying to be funny here - not offensive). Yes, I'll take your advice and not make any administrative recommendations. I'm sure you guys are accustomed to dealing with trolls. Thank you Golden Wattle (I was going to abbreviate it as GW, but that sometimes has a bad connotation here in the USA). Pete K 21:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Rudolf Steiner. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

WP:AN/I

I saw your request at the Administrators' Noticeboard and I'm going to hold off on any action. Here's why: the matter is in mediation right now with both parties participating. I hope you work out your differences there. Administrator intervention at this particular point could be counterproductive, especially because this case isn't black and white. This is my particular take as an administrator, not necessarily the view that other administrators would have and not necessarily applicable to every dispute in mediation.

Specifically in reference to a recent post of yours on the other editor's talk page, where you admit to being aggressive and state why, I'd like to suggest an essay and offer a few words of advice: topics that hit close to home aren't necessarily the best subjects to edit at Misplaced Pages. Myself, I never edit World Trade Center or 9/11 because I just couldn't be objective. My nearest relative was one of the last people to escape alive and I joined the military and went to war because of that day. Have a look at WP:NOT and ask yourself whether the reasons you're editing certain pages really fall within Misplaced Pages's mission. If you consider it necessary to warn other parents, then perhaps you'd get better results from the same amount of effort by launching your own public service website where you'd have complete creative control. Respectfully, Durova 14:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Durova. I don't believe this matter is being mediated. There was no consensus on the mediation process and now the articles are opened up for new edit wars. I would suggest to you that the people who are the least objective here are the ones who are promoting material dishonestly and who benefit from drawing people into their religious and school systems. People whose religion is based on certain ideas don't like to have those ideas challenged.

My request at the Administrator's Noticeboard had to do with unfounded charges of "hate group" - and simply slipping off to edit articles about snow-skiing is not going to help me in this. The term "hate group" has very specific meanings that are defamatory and that defamation directly impacts the people who are being targeted with this label (one editor here who was implicated is looking for a job) and Misplaced Pages should act on this. It is inappropriate for Misplaced Pages to hold off action on this particular matter while the person making those charges continues to do so. Pete K 15:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Race and Steiner

I support having a thorough and open discussion of this issue, and hope that you see (you have sometimes acknowledged this) that I am attempting to do so in the article devoted to it. It looks like having substantial parts of this article in the main article on Steiner is a highly contentious issue, ranging from suggestions of a merger to the brief (but quite balanced, I hope you'd agree) current summary. Let's try to keep our cool while bringing in as many viewpoints as possible here - and above all, let's keep a tone of civility, Pete...please? Hgilbert 15:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Harlan, I'm really trying to assume good faith. When something is done honestly - like the edits in the Anthroposophy article - I've got no problem accepting it. When the slash-and-burn people are pulling the same crap, I won't expend any effort to be polite. I suspect you knew that the Dutch Commission report wasn't settled when you re-inserted it into the articles. But I'll assume that was a mistake for now. We've got to get it properly identified before it can be included. I personally think it's dumb to add it anywhere, but it's up to you guys. Re: the current summary - while I agree it's brief, I'm not sure it's accurate. I've added a citation needed marker to one part. I don't agree that a case can be made that neither Steiner nor his followers promoted racism. But we can work on the summary. Some of the stuff that Steiner said was just wrong - it was wrong then and it's wrong today. I don't mind putting it in a nice way, but I absolutely mind disguising it completely - which is what some editors here want to do. Those will get a fight from me. I can be reasonable, or I can be unreasonable - it pretty much depends on you guys. Pete K 15:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about with "wasn't settled"; I just cut and pasted the description from another location, assuming that it was ok as stood. It's a little bizarre to hear you say you are trying to assume good faith and then say you "suspect..."; but I appreciate the following "but I'll assume..." (maybe just leave out the suspicions, which are false, and keep assuming good faith, which is both polite and Misplaced Pages policy and also accurate, at least in this case).

Add or correct the identification as needed, please; I keep supporting you here. I agreed with your citation needed marker, as well, and actually reverted the article to the earlier wording to which I had referred when I said it was an accurate summary. I think you'll approve of this version? Hgilbert 16:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, Harlan, I'll withdraw the "suspect" and say that you KNEW the issue wasn't settled. That's why it was an issue slated for mediation. When I said I "suspect" you knew it wasn't settled, I was being very kind. It wasn't settled - it was slated for mediation, you know this because you drew up the mediation request yourself - and the mediation never took place. So you knew the inclusion of the Dutch Commission report was contested and you pasted it back in anyway - which started the latest round of edit wars. Are you trying to bluff me with something here when you say you were "assuming that it was ok as it stood"? That's really just nonsense isn't it? You are well aware of the issues - they have been discussed in detail, and yet you didn't address any of them when you pasted in the report - as it was when it was contested. Good faith would have required some attempt from you to discuss the edit you were making and why you felt the two weeks of discussion had resolved anything. Instead, you didn't make any modifications, you didn't seek to identify the authors in any way - you just pasted it in there, knowing (I suspect) that it would cause problems - and it did. I will add the correct identification and the citation and the quote from the article that says it's "no big surprise" to find this commission saw no racism. Pete K 17:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Answer by PeteK

At my personal Talks page, Pete has made the following comment about a question I made to an admin. I've moved it here for documentation.

":Oh my... what drama... I spent 6 days documenting my viewpoint on the mediation issue. I did nothing wrong - and I described what I was doing. Sorry your mediation scheme didn't pan out. I'm always open to mediating the issues, but I won't mediate the personalities. Feel free to make another mediation request that actually addresses the issues. Pete K 00:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)"

Thebee 08:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but it belongs on your talk page with the rest of the discussion. I'll move it back. Pete K 13:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandal account

The vandal was blocked before I got to them by Luna Santin. Let me know if they resurface. Cheers. -- Longhair\ 03:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Longhair! Pete K 03:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Qualified experts

Pete, you are dealing inconsistently with the question of who qualifies to be quoted in Misplaced Pages. Do you really believe that anyone at all, without special qualifications, should be able to be quoted, as you assert for those you are quoting? Or do you believe that they should be historians, as you assert for those you do not wish to have quoted? Let's stick to one consistent policy, shall we? Otherwise claims of bias will be rather evidently justified... Hgilbert 00:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe you are asking this Harlan. Are you suggesting everyone quoted in Misplaced Pages is a historian? We have everything from magazine articles and editorials, to judges opinions, to Dutch commissions, to people on picket lines, the butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker being quoted in these articles. The material you object to is from a valid published article that meets Misplaced Pages guidelines - which, for some strange reason, don't insist that everyone who presents material must be a historian. It is not original research material, it is published and everything contained in the article is fully cited. Are you suggesting I have kept you from producing a valid source? Pete K 00:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

your annoying blabla

I've moved these to where they belong - see TheBee's talk page.

i moved it to both talk pages. seemed to be the most diplomatic solution. trueblood 17:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks - but I hope you'll understand why I don't want it cluttering up my talk page. This is TheBee's vendetta stuff. It belongs on his page. Maybe he should move it to one of the administrator's pages if he thinks he has an actual point in there somewhere. Pete K 17:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Web-published documents

Once again, after making a great fuss about removing others' web-published works from articles you have inserted information drawn from a web-published document yourself. Either this should be better documented (is it published anywhere?) or removed. Hgilbert 19:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem - let's remove the entire section on the Commission. You can't continue to disguise the nature of the sources you are providing and expect not to be called out on it. Pete K 22:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked?

Is there some reason why I am blocked from editing? An explanation would be nice. Pete K 00:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Please stay civil

I don't know what your question refers to. But you have made yet further personal attacks since you were requested last time by an admin to stay civil. Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Misplaced Pages has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you.

This refers to your two personal attacks, found here: "If you would get your head out of my ass, you might not think everything that emanates from me must necessarily be offensive. This is a standard trick for you - annoying everyone and using me as the bait to attempt to get us both kicked off the list. This is what you did at Mothering.com when I brought my Waldorf experiences to the Waldorf section there. It's a great trade-off for you, especially now that you have been shown to have no credibility - it's a pawn for a rook sacrifice." Thebee 00:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The request also refers to your personal attack on Hgilbert 15:34, 28 October: "Shove your reminders Harlan." Thebee 10:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

"I don't know what your question refers to." No, you don't - so buzz off little bee... Pete K 13:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I did not know, when I wrote it. Now I do. Thebee 19:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much like you "know" everything else - by drawing ridiculous conclusions from minimal information. Pete K 23:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

And, as if on que - the truth is revealed:

• • "This was many reverts over several days, but with further investigation of Pete K, this block does not appear to have been warranted. —Centrx→talk • 23:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)"

Pete K 23:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

1. Carlgren, Frans, Education Towards Freedom ISBN 0-906155-04-5
2. Essentials of Waldorf Education Study