From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)

Contents 1 Your recent edit to Talk:Waldorf education 2 separate articles 3 Waldorf Project Update 3.1 Request 3.2 Please don't delete links to relevant and useful material 3.3 removal of weblinks 3.4 WP:AN/I 3.5 Race and Steiner 3.6 Answer by PeteK 3.7 Vandal account 3.8 Qualified experts 3.9 your annoying blabla 3.10 Web-published documents 3.11 Blocked? 3.12 Please stay civil 3.13 24 hour block 3.14 User notice: temporary 3RR block 3.15 Regarding reversions[1] made on November 8, 2006 to Waldorf education 3.16 Hello 3.17 AfD 3.18 Reply 3.19 Advice 3.20 Arbitration 3.21 Rudolf Steiner's views 3.22 User:Crzrussian/Rudolf Steiner's views on race and ethnicity 3.23 Unprotecting PLANS page 3.24 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education 3.25 translate this

[edit] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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)

[edit] separate articles

Pete,

Wikipedia 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia. 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 ^talk 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia:Reliable sources Regards --Golden Wattle ^talk 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 Wikipedia, 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 ^talk 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 ^talk 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 ^talk 20:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia should act on this. It is inappropriate for Wikipedia 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)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia 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)

Pete, I have discussed this change. You are saying I haven't discussed it simply because you don't agree with my reasoning. But I'm tired of your attempts at stalling progress. You will be reported if you revert again. You are out of line with wikipedia policy--reverting is only to be used in cases of blatant vandalism. This is a constructive edit.

I have made my points ALREADY on the talk page and you ignore the good points and spin the ones that are easily spun. So what am I supposed to do? Besides, I don't have to have your permission to edit. Boogafish 00:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, friend... I tried to be nice about it. Pete K 00:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Vandal account

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

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

[edit] Qualified experts

Pete, you are dealing inconsistently with the question of who qualifies to be quoted in Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Blocked?

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

[edit] 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. Wikipedia 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)

The block on User:Professor marginalia may not have been warranted. Blocking you was certainly warranted, and if you continue with personal attacks and disruptive editing you will be banned. —Centrx→talk • 00:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess I misunderstood your comment. If you don't mind - I'd like to know exactly what disruptive editing you are referring to. I've been discussing every edit on the talk pages of every article I've been editing - especially on the PLANS page where and when I was banned. This is, as I understand it, exactly what I'm supposed to be doing. I'm sorry, but I don't believe the blocking of me was warranted and I asked for an explanation above on my own talk page, the only place I could post a comment. I am involved with several controversial articles and that may show me in a harsh light. Nonetheless, several administrators have looked at the complaints against me and as far as I know have agreed that I haven't crossed the line (but I may have straddled it) - they acknowledge that these are heated discussions that sometimes get a little ugly when frustration sets in. Yes, I can be brash - but my edits are good ones and are supportable. I don't believe them to be any more disruptive than those of the some of the other editors who are involved in these articles - some of who follow me around from article to article and start section headers in the discussion pages devoted to attacking me. I'm not vandalizing anything - I am editing and supporting my edits. How is that disruptive? Pete K 00:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 24 hour block

You have been blocked for 24 hours for violations of WP:CIVIL after previous blocks. When proceeding in a content dispute, please be judicious in your talk page comments and edit summaries. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution has many appropriate avenues where you can bring in unbiased editors and address content concerns. During your block I hope you will read this essay and bring your best self to Wikipedia when you return. Respectfully, Durova^Charge! 03:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Please show me where my actions have not been civil. I think you may have misinterpreted something. Pete K 14:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User notice: temporary 3RR block

Apparently, other editors agree that the edits I made were justified. A group of meat-puppets working as a team to revert an article to their own POV is what has caused this block. At issue was the "advert" tag which is justified, was placed on the article by one editor, replaced by me, replaced again by another editor, and replaced again by me. Three editors, so far, have indicated the tag belongs there. I'm sure a forth editor is going to weigh in on this side too. The article is riddled with brochure language. Please note that I was removing brochure language right up to the lock-up of the article. There's still lots more in there that needs to come out before the advert tag should be removed. Additionally, I don't believe I broke the 3RR rule which requires a fourth reversion. Pete K 23:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

According to the 3RR report, the four reverts were 1, 2, 3 and 4. Thebee 02:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Meatpuppet (from the Wikipedia page)

Wikipedians (and others) should remember that the use of the term "Meatpuppet" may be perceived as highly offensive to the people involved. By definition the first contribution of a new user will be to a particular area, and they may start by expressing a view on what should happen on a particular before they subsequently add material of their own. Only if there is very strong evidence should such a term be used in relation to an account created by real person. Note also that "JDoe is a meatpuppet" can only mean "the account called JDoe is a meatpuppet" and to avoid offence the longer form is preferable.

Please sign your comments. Thanks! Pete K 21:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Hey man, you shouldn't be uncivil, even though you think you are right. It's just not worth it... Nothing will come of your arguments after this has been settled, so you are basically wasting your time. I don't know what all of this is about, but out of experience I have learnt to keep my mouth shut when idiots won't accept that I am right... just a thought. --Adriaan90 16:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Adrian. Pete K 16:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD

Pete,

Once an AfD is started, you may not remove the notice. Go vote in the AfD. So can anyone else on Wikipedia. The discussion goes on on the AfD page. -999 (Talk) 23:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that was a mistake on my part - not done intentionally. Centrx put it back and I thanked him for doing this. And thanks for putting the tag on. I think when a merger is complete, the R & E page will be redundant and there won't be any problem with deleting the material you indicated today with your edits. Pete K 23:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

Replied on 999's talk page, in case you aren't watching it yet... —Hanuman Das 02:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Moving to your talk page, since 999 gets touchy about long convos on his. My observation is that the only way to resolve such issues (with follower's coming out of the woodwork) is to insist on the citation of secondary sources for all opinion and interpretation. It may or may not favor your personal opinion, but it keeps the worst of the religious org rhetoric out of it and results in a better encyclopedia article. —Hanuman Das 03:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Pete K, pleased to meet you. And thanks, H.D., for moving the conversation. Though what's on my page is quite amusing. -999 (Talk) 15:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Pleased to meet you too. Could I ask you guys, as experienced Wikipedians, if there is a way to see who the sock-puppets are - or to request someone to look into them? It would be nice to thin the field to just one editor per set of opinions. Not that I don't appreciate diversity, but stuffing the ballot box doesn't seem like a level playing field. Pete K 17:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advice

Pete: you might want to look at WP:VANITY#COI_in_POV_disputes, which says, "Another major case is a POV dispute. Underlying conflict of interest can clearly aggravate editorial disagreements, and it is common enough to see accusations of editing with an external agenda.

In that scenario, it may be easy to make claims about conflict of interest. Don't do it. This is negative advice, but the existence of conflicts of interest as a fact of life here does not mean that assume good faith is past its sell-by-date. Quite the opposite. Conflicted editors should back off, but two wrongs do not make a right. (This guideline will not help you win an edit war, but no guideline here is intended to, except as far as all guidelines are intended to help improve the encyclopedia.)

Remember the basic rule: discuss the article, not the editor." Hgilbert 02:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Harlan, you've got a conflict of interest here - you should do the right thing and step aside voluntarily - especially since your edits are what continually make the Waldorf article a brochure. Stop trying to "sell" Waldorf. That's what you are doing - and it affects the article and clogs up the edit process. I assume you are saying you won't recuse yourself voluntarily... right? Pete K 14:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Since Durova's complaint was about something you and Paka edited, not about something I edited, I think you should reconsider your own involvement. I'm not trying to sell Waldorf; I am trying to have only verifiable information there, rather than editorializing by editors who are pushing a POV (if the shoe fits, wear it). Hgilbert 23:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I don't think I need advice from you. You ARE trying to sell Waldorf. It's exactly what you are doing. The only verification for your information comes from Waldorf and Anthroposophical sources. I'll take my chances that you think you can connect me with an editor whose last edit on the article was two months before I arrived here. Pete K 23:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration

There is a current request for arbitration relating to the articles Waldorf education, Anthroposophy, Rudolf Steiner and Rudolf Steiner's views on race and ethnicity. Hgilbert 01:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rudolf Steiner's views

As I said, I'll be happy to post the text into userspace if you would like to slightly merge it. - crz crztalk 23:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

But I think we should hold off until after the arbitration is done? - crz crztalk 23:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)`

OK thanks. Pete K 03:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Crzrussian/Rudolf Steiner's views on race and ethnicity

History undeleted to my userspace. - crz crztalk 00:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks but it looks empty. Am I looking at the wrong thing? Pete K 00:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Oops - got it never mind - and thanks!!! Pete K 00:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Do we get the discussion page too? This is just as important as it demonstrates how much effort some of us have gone to - to talk things out during the edit wars. Pete K 00:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure, NP. - crz crztalk

We must have been posting at the same time - I didn't think you saw this here. Thanks again! Pete K 15:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotecting PLANS page

Please note that the PLANS page is one of several that is currently in arbitration. That's why there has been little talk on the talk page there. If you're going to unprotect it, you may want to also keep an eye on it... just sayin'... Pete K 01:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay; I wasn't aware of the arbitration case. I'll keep an eye on it. -- tariqabjotu 01:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 01:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] translate this

hi pete, your evidence 148 (fake german link) actually reads if you stroll far down enough:

"Die Waldorfschulbewegung ist am Anfang des 21. Jahrhunderts auf über 800 Schulen angewachsen, 3/4 davon in Europa (einschließlich Ost-Europa), und davon die Hälfte in Deutschland und den Niederlanden. Sie ist damit weltweit mit Abstand die größte von Staat und Kirche unabhängige Schulbewegung. Neue Steiner Waldorf Schulen entstehen ohne jegliche zentrale Steuerung fast immer aus lokalen Elterninitiativen. Schulen vernetzen sich zwar auf regionaler, nationaler und internationaler Ebene, bleiben dabei aber völlig autonom. Darüber hinaus arbeiten weltweit etwa doppelt so viele Kindergärten wie Schulen sowie über 500 heilpädagogische Einrichtungen auf anthroposophischer Grundlage.

note the sentence :Sie ist damit weltweit mit Abstand die größte von Staat und Kirche unabhängige Schulbewegung. maybe you already picked up enough german along the way to translate it. hint groesste means biggest and unabhaengige schulbewegung means independent school movement, oh and weltweit means worldwide... cheers trueblood 18:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You should post that on the evidence page if you haven't already. I've made my case that most of this stuff comes from Waldorf-supporting sources. If you have proof that this IS true (and not a puff-piece on Waldorf) you have an obligation to present it. Pete K 19:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)