User talk:Thebee

PLANS

As a friendly suggestion: reduce your arguments to a cogent paragraph or two; this is more effective and leaves a better impression than sprawling pages. Even I, sympathetic to your point here, shudder at the format! Best wishes. Hgilbert 14:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for telling. I don't like long drawn out discussion back and forth about details. That's why I try to be as thorough as possible from the beginning in my argument. But the thoroughness does't seem to impress my main opponent. Or maybe I just read too much Steiner ... ;-) --Thebee 18:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Invitation to join a Project

Dear TheBee, I am starting a project to overhaul and balance the article on Waldorf ed. I would like to invite you to take part because of your ongoing contributions to the page. Please le me know at my Talk page if you would like to participate. Wonderactivist 16:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Wonderful Bee,

I will send your friend an invitation to join the project and will be thrilled to list you as a participant. Unfortunately I broke a finger last week and have not been typing much - I will set up the project pages later today.

I understand everyone's concern...and I also love Waldorf ed...but I also love Wikipedia and find that it is just necessary to intervene to make this a fair, unbiased page which is notthetopc of ongoing edit wars. Please understand that one of the ideas I plan to advance with this project is no outside links other than to scholarly articles. This step alone would end many of the ongoing problems.

My own page and other homescholing pages have been removed from this page - as the homeschooling page offers resources which will help them find everything - and has gone through its own process of reducing huge numbers of links to just a few.

I hope you know that I respect your contributions to the page over time and will welcoe you asa member of the team to make this a more stable article.

Best wishes,

Lucie Wonderactivist 15:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

New Project Page

Dear Bee, I just want to again invite you to join the project - the project page has been moved to its proper Wiki place (I am here a year and still a newbie really),User:Wonderactivist/Waldorf Project Team Page. I really think you have a whole lot to offer this project amnd with the help of unbiased Wiki editors, I believe we can end the ongoing edit wars that have been the waste of so much time for so many really good people. Please do join us, we're currently talking about the introduction. Wonderactivist 02:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you contact me?

I'd prefer to keep all wiki related discussion on-wiki if you don't mind. When conversation goes behind closed doors there's always somebody ready to shout Cabal!!! or similar. If your question relates to the Waldorf Education article it's in the best interests of everybody to keep all discussions open and transparent. That said, how can I be of assistance? I'm also looking into the other points you raised now and will help out shortly if I'm able to. -- Longhair 00:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

Wikipedia has several levels of dispute resolution detailed at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. If there's editor behaviour that you are not happy with, feel free to provide me with the actual diffs where you feel the editor concerned may be breaching Wikipedia policy. I will be happy to act accordingly if it is proven breaches of policy are occuring. Of course, you are welcome to initiate any dispute resolution procedure you deem necessary without my intervention. I trust this advice is the best course of action for now considering the size and length of the dispute, but if there's any other way I can be of some assistance please let me know. -- Longhair 07:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

...and a belated Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome!

Hello, Thebee, and welcome to Wikipedia! 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 Wikipedia
• 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 Wikipedia: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 07:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Waldorf debate

Pete K was the one who mentioned this debate had been raging for decades. I never made any assumption as such but I'm aware this issue hasn't recently began here at Wikipedia. He's currently serving a 24 hour block from editing, imposed by myself for a violation of the three revert rule. He is welcome to return once his block expires. Please be mindful of this policy so it doesn't catch you or anyone else out. I'm not interesting in taking any sides, but I will keep the article free of edit warring and personal attacks from both sides. Thanks for your assistance to date. I'm here to help further if any other issues arise. -- Longhair 01:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

"Decades" is an overstatement, maybe typical of Pete. Maybe 9 years in a more organized form initiated by "PLANS, starting its anti-Waldorf campaign by picketing against a public Waldorf methods school, spreading and supporting allegations that anthroposophy is a satanic religion and that public Waldorf methods schools teach Wicca to the pupils.

Some years later, the President and Secretary of PLANS then hired a Private Detective to "in secret" sneak in at a voluntary, private, off campus, outside school hours Advent celebration with K-grade 3 children of the coming Christmas with a video camera hidden under his coat, to prove to school districts that Waldorf methods schools are religious in a way that violates the U.S. Constitution. See the history of the WC.

Maybe you can call that debate.

How do you - strictly as Admin at Wikipedia - view the repeated insertion of identical material in a short introductory page to a sub section of an article, that belongs in the sub section, and is discussed there, by someone (PK) who refuses to discuss the issue in connection with its proper page? Or can't I ask you how you - purely as Admin - view Wikipedia guidelines and their application?

To tell you honestly, this debate at Wikipedia is killing me.

Thanks for your comment and support,

--Thebee 02:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Question regarding NPOV

You asked on my talk page a Question regarding NPOV - my response: Talk:PLANS#NPOV_-_In_support_of_Plans and [1]. I agree with the issue you raised. This is not really a content dispute I want to get dragged into but I am happy to support the observation of Wikipedia policies, if necessary expalining them to users.--Arktos ^talk 09:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Will you do this in this case? Thanks, --Thebee 10:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I will provide my opinion on matters of policy, but I know all but nothing about Waldorf or PLANS. The way out of content issues to my mind is with citations of reliable sources and I think the Wkipedia policies and guidelines provide useful parameters to operate within.--Arktos ^talk 10:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Will you implement what you tell with a request at the page? Thanks, --Thebee 10:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

As per above, or are you looking for more?--Arktos ^talk 10:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Would you suggest I delete the argumentative section, referring to violation of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#The_neutral_point_of_view or take some other action? --Thebee 10:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Allow 24 hours for a response to the tag and in the mean time think how to phrase more neutrally if possible rather than remove altogether. Replace with more neutral text after 24 hours (some will say 24 hours isn't long enough but on a volatile article I think it is) - perhaps having allowed discussion on proposed replacement text on talk page first. If you had placed what others deemed controversial text, how would you like it to be dealt with? - how would good faith be demonstrated? The end state needs to be neutral though, so its not only about being nice.--Arktos ^talk 10:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! How about the long quote at the end from a general and Copyright perspective?

I don't see it as a copyvio, it is properly attributed and clearly a quote if we are both talking about the speech extract within the section PLANS#Waldorf_Master_Teacher_talks_about_PLANS. I think a cite is needed about the consequence of the speech. I don't know enough as to whether the whole thing is sufficiently notable to be included. Would naything be lost if it wasn't. Could it be referred to more briefly, ie paraphrase to give something like:

Waldorf teachers have noted that Dan Dugan, noted critic of the Waldorf system was not the cause of the problem but rather shed light on to issues with the Waldorf education system (and give cite to speech already referenced)

Just my two cents. What is there doesn't breach any policy or guideline but is perhaps unnecessarily verbose for the purpose.--Arktos ^talk 11:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I have described how the speech is used by PLANS at its site in a comment at the Waldorf:Talks page. It is also described here. Can that be described at the PLANS page as addition to the quote? --Thebee 11:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

On "If you had placed what others deemed controversial text, how would you like it to be dealt with?":

Well, I try to avoid violating Wikipedia guidelines, not argue in articles, describe facts using neutral language and stick to statements that I can provide references/citations for. --Thebee 10:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Then I hope all goes well with your editing :-) I know it isn't always that easy but it helps if your editing has met all the guidelines.--Arktos ^talk 11:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's sort of not quite my experience from discussions at the Waldorf:Talks page. --Thebee 11:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Question regarding possible personal attack

At the PLANS:Talks page one user writes to me: "You have replied to a request for documentation, with a bunch of sleaze." Does that fall within the category of personal attack? Thanks, --Thebee 11:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, probably - are you sure you want to escalate though or just ignore - it reflects badly on the writer not you doesn't it?--Arktos ^talk 11:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a limit to accepted number of personal attacks at Wikipedia. If they do not start to be pointed out at some time, how do you know when the limit has been reached? --Thebee 11:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You can record instances via using diffs - all instances contribute. The user who made the comment above has been warned by me [2]--Arktos ^talk 11:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, these personal attacks are killing me. --Thebee 11:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

For a description by User DW herself 3 September of how she relates to the expected reasoned discussion culture here at Wikipedia, and the warning she received against making personal attacks in the discussion here, see here. For some comments on the issue she writes that she would bring into the discussion, if she did not get her will through, see here and here --Thebee 10:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Hmmm - I didn't understand the latter two refs - I am not into the content! She noted that she was chastised, hopefully she will behave here in future (ever the optimist). The page you need by the way is WP:PAIN to report instances of personal attacks and/or lack of civility. Please note the rules at the top of the page.--Arktos ^talk 10:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the ref! The main bait used by the WC's since some years, to get people hooked up and enraged in their anti-Waldorf campaign, after the first allegations that Waldorf schools teach the pupils witchcrft, is to cultivate a myth that Steiner was an anti-Semite. The two links analyze some of the main arguments used by the WC's to achieve this, and describe the view of R.S. of Jewry and Judaism and how it is related to in Waldorf education. The first mentioned link and other articles at Waldorf Answers try to document the baselessnes of and dismantle the myth, and other demagoguery by the WC's.

On "hopefully she will behave here in future (ever the optimist)": Her own description of her habitual way of "arguing" can seem to speak against your hope. But optimism is what keeps the world up and running ;-)/ How do you suggest arguing against self described "rants and raving, and rants and ravings" every second hour by people here, using it seemingly to try to "prove" that the WC-group is not a hate-type of group ...?-/ --Thebee 11:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Stay unenraged (is that a word? perhaps stay calm is better) and reference your assertions with reliable sources. Be reasonable. Edit elsewhere too - there is a tonne to do :-)--Arktos ^talk 11:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Question regarding revert

Does the three revert rule refer to three reverts in three different articles, three reverts of different edits in one article, or three reverts of the same edit in the same article? Thanks, --Thebee 15:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• WP:3RR - refers to three reverts concerning the same content in one article. 4th revert and you will be blocked if reported. Please read the policy - there are a few exceptions (egregious vandalism for example).--Golden Wattle (formerly known as Arktos) ^talk 19:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! --Thebee 07:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Charter school case

Arktos, You suggest that a special article be written on the charter school case by the WC against two public school districts. It is already described in detail in the article on PLANS. --Thebee 21:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Possibly worth breaking into a separate article. There are formats and templates to writing up cases - no reeason that they can't be employed iwhtin a section though. I recommend the use of info boxes as an easy way of summarising the case. I would aso recommend a categorising into a relevant category , eg Category:United States First Amendment case law and Category:United States church-state separation case law and adding to the body of similar articles - see Abington School District v. Schempp or Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet. The more important point though was if the placement of the court transcripts wasn't OK and there is no link to government transcripts (not sure why not, there is in Australia), place the transcripts on wikisource to resolve the website dispute. A write up about the case occus here on Wikipedia.--Golden Wattle ^talk 20:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Question on limit to acceptible Edit warring by User P.K.

Hi Golden Wattle,

Can you look at 25+ examples of Edit warring by User P.K. in different articles from 20 August up to 9 September (seven of them today), 8 personal attacks, and spamming of Talks page with duplicate POV quotes from vandalism of main article on subject, belonging in other article, there as part of NPOV, and spamming of Waldorf article with duplicate links to anti-Waldorf site in different link categories, documented here, and tell where the acceptible limit is for such personal attacks and vandalism of articles, including the latest one, using false and defamatory allegations as motivation, making another admin block the article from further editing, and with the user then telling he's Rolling on The Floor Laughing?

Where's the limit to where you go from warning and 24 hr block to permanent blocking? 10 Edit warring examples? 15? 20? 25?

Do you have a standard?

Just curious, sort of ...

Thanks, --Thebee 18:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• I don't have a standard, not I believe do other admins. There have been editors blocked indefinitely for exhausting the community's patience. It usually gets discussed on the admin noticeboards. I strongly suggest you take it to WP:PAIN or Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts and admins who have not previously been involved can look at it - this applies to a more immediate response required - I have no experience with the latter, forum but issues raised at PAIN get dealt with quite promptly. For the longer term, you can raise a Request for Comment and gauge the community's reaction that way - I would recommend that as the next step rather than a dialogue with just one or two admins. See WP:RFC#Request comment on users. It may be that you want to raise an article RfC instead.--Golden Wattle ^talk 20:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Waldorf Project Update

Hey Bee, so sorry to read of the problems. I know you haven't formally signed up for the project, but since you expressed interest on my Talk page, I wanted to give you an update as I am doing with all project members. You are so welcome to join in at Wikipedia:WikiProject Waldorf Project

Consultation Stage

We are currently in a stage of consulting with unbiased Wiki administrators about project management and plan to proceed with our next steps in 2 or3 days.

At that point we will also surely have final project pages set up outside of my user. Wonderactivist 04:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is a copy of my note to admin and input has already begun. Wonderactivist 05:06, 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)

Rudolf Steiner edit warring

This edit warring has to stop. I am warning all three parties involved, yourself, Pete K 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)

Pete does not describe his repeated spamming of the article with ever new and earlier POV quotes as 'reverts'. He does not accept to bring them to the proper article for discussion and editing there, and has refused to accept any such suggestions whatsoever. It's the same type of spamming of the waldorf article he engaged in with repeated duplicate links in all sorts of link categories, to an extreme anti-waldorf site when he entered Wikipedia. What do you suggest? Just leaving them as they are in the main article? Or do you not consider them to constitute spam of the article? Thanks, --Thebee 20:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not involved in this case, nor do I want to mediate it, as I said above. My suggestion to you if the other party is unwilling to discuss it with you to ask for a third parties intervention, maybe kindly ask someone at the Incidents noticeboard for someone's opinion on the situation. — The Future 00:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Different quotes even though on the same topic do not breach the 3 revert rule. Removing quotes to revert the article to the state before the quotes quite possibly would breach the rule.

All editors need to spend some time on very meaningful edit summaries explaining their rationale for the edit. In my view, PeteK's edit summaries are better than most of the editors contributing to the Rudolf Steiner article in explaining what he is doing and why.

When you removed the Jewry quote [3], you said in the edit summary Rudolf Steiner's views on race and ethnicity - Revert repeated vandalism of article by spamming with POV quotes that belong in other article. You didn't however, place the quote there appearently. In reviewing the Rudolf Steiner article after your edit summary, I feel you removed information that had been cited and the referral on to the other article disguises the extent of the issues with this topic. The lead does not say strongly enough that there were issues with his approach.

I don't in any way wish to be provocative, but if you said about another famous Austrian that only The views of [this famous Austrian-born person] on the subject of race and ethnicity take up less than [X, X being very small] percent of his lifetime's work output it would not wash. There is a difficulty with anachronism, ie were his remarks reasonable at the time. There is a difficulty with what he should be remembered for. But apparently there are also difficulties with what Steiner said.

Joan Sutherland, very famous Australian singer is noted mostly for her singing but did make racist comments in 1994 (Although, she does say she's sorry for saying in public in 1994 that she was not pleased to be interviewed in an Australian post office by a Chinese or Indian to get an Australian passport.) and the controversy is recalled more than a decade later.Profile with Australia's national broadcaster - note the lead position for the controversial remarks for somebody who is noted for singing. Similarly, Australian politician, Arthur Calwell, is remembered for his racist quip "Two Wongs don't make a White". Perhaps the difference between Calwell and Sutherland is that Sutherland's sphere of endeavour was nothing to do with leading thinking on the way people treat other people. As a politician, Calwell was in the sphere of people relations and thus his remarks on racism are more important. As an educator, philosopher and social theorist, Steiner was also in that field, thus a different standard applies as to whether his remarks are reported and are considered important.

One's views, and the impact of those views, are not summed up by the percentage of effort spent making those views. However the views can be put into the context of the time. For example, Aristotle was in favour of slavery - though in the context of his time this was hardly a surprising view. Were Steiner's vews in line with European views in the 1920s etc?

My two cents. Regards--Golden Wattle ^talk 23:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! I really appreciate them! I will try to answer them later. Just some comments! I've put them temporarily here for the time being. Again thanks for the comments! --Thebee 01:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't link to that site - maybe it is just busy but just in case can you please check the address? Regards Golden Wattle ^talk 11:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I've noted that too. It seems inaccessible since some hours. But ... it seems to just have come online again.

What effects does WE have on the pupils regarding the issue discussed?

According to a recent study of a number of Waldorf pupils in Sweden, (summary of 4/6 parts of it here, original here, none seemingly accessible though the basic domain seems to be), the research showed that the majority of the pupils at both public and Waldorf schools repudiated Nazism and racism. However, the proportion of pupils who suggested anti-Nazi and anti-racist solutions, i.e., solutions that involved counteracting or stopping Nazism and racism was considerably greater among the Waldorf pupils (93%) than among pupils at municipal schools (72%). How much comes from the social backgrounds of the pupils, and how much from the education as such? This is not immediately clear from the study. Best wishes, --Thebee 12:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• (Remove indents) - thanks - read your comments.

You say The culture and time RS lived in and much commented on with regard to all cultural, partly political, and natural scientific aspects of in some 6,000 lectures and several books during the first decades of the 20th century was pervasively racist, and all social thinking took place within a conceptual frame, dominated by race thinking. - I understand that would be the defence. You would have to substantiate that assertion, but I think the point is worth making in the article Rudolf Steiner's views on race and ethnicity. The assertion there at the moment is less than one percent of his lifetime's work output this sounds like an apology and is not useful even if factual.

As I said with Calwell above, of the many many words he spoke, he is remembered for one phrase - that many others in Australia were anti-Chinese does not excuse the phrase, that he did many good things does not excuse it, it may be tough but any article on Calwell has to deal with it. If racism is a matter raised frequently by Steiner's critics, then the main article and the subsidiary one has to deal with the topic.

Under the Neutral point of view policy there are some important points about fairness of tone and undue weight. As an outsider I cannot judge undue weight. If this is a topic frequently raised then it needs to be dealt with. If the comments reported were made in a coffee break and taken down covertly, qualify them as such and distinguish them from his formally published works. Your respons to me at your website makes sense but I see none of those arguments in the article.

Hope this helps. Happy to comment as an ignorant outsider. Iam afraid to confessing that I still don't get it. I am prepared to acept that Steiner thought and wrote a lot and his views have influence even today. I don't see what is diffferent though about his educational approach to the more mainstream approach. As I commented to Longhair when discussing administrator roles in relation to these articles at one stage:

There is a part of one of the local institutions here in Canberra that names itself The Centre for Excellence in XYZ - someone asked whether anybody would ever name themselves the Centre for Mediocrity in XYZ? Some of the stuff in the Waldorf sphere seems to be of the same mentality - you have children, you teach them - who is going to aim to teach the fragmented child? Anybody ever educate without taking into account the developmental stages of children? Anybody try to educate without PE and art to balance academic studies? It just seems waffle - I guess parents pay fees for the waffle - they want to believe but perhaps they are actually buying smaller class sizes, more patient teachers, or like-minded fellow parents rather than their child being treated as a whole child. No school is going to treat 1/2 a child but they may run out of patience.

Is it this last point that is the difference? From reading the article, the only significant difference that I could highlight from the Waldorf Education article as opposed to what might be characterised as the more mainstream education such as my children experience, was the position on textbooks. I think the articles need to be tightened.

Wikipedia:The perfect article has some guidance - specifically what I was thinking could be improved was is precise and explicit; it is free of vague generalities and half-truths that may arise from an imperfect grasp of the subject. I am not inferring that editors have an imperfect grasp of the subject, but staying away from generalities night help the reader understand the essence of Waldorf Education as distinct from the more general topic of Education. Regards Golden Wattle ^talk 23:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Oops on Waldorf

Oops! I stand thoroughly corrected. For the Waldorf project, I have actually sought out the opinions of one admin, one unbiased Wikipedian, and one involved, yet highly experienced and demonstrated-to-be-fair Wikipedian.

Cormaggio has made an excellent point: several of the ongoing editors of the Waldorf page have chosen not to take part in this project. It may be that mediation is a better choice. I am happy to spearhead a project, but just as happy to turn it over to mediators. Considering the conflict you have witnessed in the past month, which do you recommend? Personally, I would just like for the edit wars to stop and for the page to be just a bit more stable. Wonderactivist 20:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi WonderActivist,

I have chosen not to participate in the project as I fully trust that most of those involved in the article so far - until some WC's entered the stage - are fully competent to do a good job, I have a lot of other things to do, and as much as possible don't want to get sucked in to discussions with WCs, if not absolutely necessary.

With regard to the edit wars, I personally would not suggest turning the issues over to mediator as I have a feeling they in the main will come to an end in a short time. HGilbert is good at finding diplomatic consensus solutions. Best wishes, --Thebee 20:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Question regarding BOLD typeface in articles

What is the standard for using BOLD typeface in articles, for example with regard to stressing one point in a described article, that supports one's view, but that is not stressed in the original article described? Thanks, --Thebee 06:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• The short answer is no, bold typeface should not be used this way. Wikipedia:Manual of Style is the guide. At Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Article titles it states when and how bolding is always used in articles - ie to draw attention to the article title in the lead paragraph. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (bold) states Avoid using bold for emphasis. Use italics instead. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (emphasis) reiterates The use of bold is discouraged for emphasis since it is reserved for headings, subheadings, and article names. In general, I would discourage emphasis that was not in the original quote. If emphasis is necessary or appropriate though, it should be italics as per the MoS. Regards--Golden Wattle ^talk 23:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! My question referred to the use of bold by user P.K. in an article about a group he supports. You may have noted. After I asked, it seems to have been corrected, via a change to CAPITAL for another part of the sentence, now changed by someone else to normal text ... --Thebee 09:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Example. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to formal mediation, and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you, [signature]

Hgilbert 02:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

are you being honest?

hey thebee, i just looked at your very first edit [[4]], some people check out the place first, but you launched right into a controversial topic, made a controversial edit (changing 'us-based parent group' into 'anti waldorf lobby-group that some describe as a hate group'), quote your own website as a reference and give the whole thing a unconspiscuous edit summary. wow. i did not follow the rest but is that your general style. i find pete k. edit style highly disruptive but if you are complaining about his abuse (it is killing you, you say), is it maybe that he rightly criticises you but does it in his noisy, impolite, way over the top manner. it seems like with your first edit you managed to abuse so many wikiguidelines or just good manners, that there should be an antibarnstar for it. or am i getting this all wrong. please enlighten me.trueblood 18:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, now imagine your 13 year old daughter pops in and sees that according to Wikipedia, Daddy participates on a hate group discussion list. I know I sound "over-the-top" but this kind of editing is what puts me there. Pete K 20:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Stalking me here at my own personal talks page

Only 90 minutes after Trueblood writes a personal question here to me - not you PeteK - at my personal talks page, you PeteK appear here and address his question, before I do. Aren't you the one who has accused me of stalking you, because I had noted a number of personal attacks by you on me as personally, not someone else, and I made a list of them, after I got tired of them.

Some very few of your personal attacks on me are, just to mention two:

• the clear libel, "... Sune Nordwall, once voted one of the 250 craziest people on the internet, is known among critics for his dishonest portrayal of Waldorf education...",
• "... you have a fanatical viewpoint. Someone who washes their hands a hundred times a day may be an expert in hand-washing, but they may also have serious mental problems."

So, you have my talks page on your watchlist, and I shall expect you to come here and address all questions to me here before I do? Should I take this to be "non-stalking"?

For you trueblood: thanks for your question! I started to write an answer to you, but don't want to post it here, after P.K. has started stalking me here on my own personal Talks page. Will try to see if I can find another way to do it. Just a first small comment: the edit you link to was not my first comment here on Wikipedia. I made some 50 ones before that for about three weeks before writing it and I then came to an agreement with the other "critic" on a reformulation of it. If you look at my 'Contrib' page, you'll see that they start on 6 July, three weeks before the one you mention. For an overview of what is found at the WC site, see here. For an overview of the third part of the argumentation, published at the site of the WC, see here. The second description is based on 10 years of experience of the WC. Greetings, --Thebee 21:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep, you bet you're talk page is on my watchlist. Did you think this was a private email? And your expectations of me are your own. I really can't help what you think. Do you think what you have cited me as saying comes anywhere close to the "hate group" label you tried to throw around? Actually, I don't really care what you think. And, sure, I don't blame you for trying to keep your personal vendetta out of the public view and dragging editors and administrators aside to give them your point of view out of earshot of those who could show it for what it really is - bullshit. If I was dishonest, I might do the same thing. Pete K 21:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

What I have written regarding the WC site and list refers to the WC-site and list, not to what you have written, though you seem to feel attacked by what I have written about the WC. The answer I started to write to Trueblood had nothing to do with any personal vendetta against you, as you hint. As for what you write as "I don't blame you for [...] If I was dishonest, I might do the same thing.": That's another personal attack according to Wikipedia:NPA. Just keeping track ... ;-( --Thebee 22:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You smear me by association when you smear that group of people because even though I don't belong to their group, lots of Anthroposophists around the internet have tried to suggest that I do. I don't believe you weren't going to attack me personally, but I think you know you lost any chance at appearing credible to me a long time ago. Keep track of all these comments, none of which are personal attacks except by your own standards. BTW, you continually accuse me of slander. That is slanderous in and of itself. You should go back and re-read what I wrote that you keep trying to refer to - it is not slanderous at all. Watch what you say Sune, I'm keeping my eye on you. Pete K 22:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

On "Keep track of all these comments, none of which are personal attacks except by your own standards." Check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Examples_of_personal_attacks For some examples of them, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Thebee/WikiViolationsByPK On 9 october, you added another five to the list, except for all those preceding them. And these don't start to include what the Wiki:NPA refers to as "religious [...] epithets directed against another contributor. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual preference, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse."

On "You smear me by association when you smear that group of people because even though I don't belong to their group, lots of Anthroposophists around the internet have tried to suggest that I do." If you don't feel associated with them, why did you start spamming the article on Waldorf education with repeated and duplicate links to them the first thing you did the first three days after you arrived here at Wikipedia on 20 August 2006?

After you got your first warning by Arktos on 1 Sept, at least two other people have requested that you stop your personal attacks. Just a week ago a DogNewTricks required that you stop them:

"Pete K, you are being incredibly aggressive. Please stop attacking editors. Disagreements are normal. Accusing someone of playing naive to do harm is, in my opinion, very inappropriate and demeaning. I cannot comment on the article because I know very little about it. But I can say that you are way out of line regarding Wikipedia’s policies in handling disputes." (To this, you answered "Kiss my ass! (Just kidding)")

At some time, you'll be banned for them, and you seem to continue to work at it. --Thebee 00:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I'm agressive. I don't apologize. Waldorf hurts children every single day. It destroys families every single day. Parents and children and teachers are psychologically abused, sometimes physically abused, always emotionally abused by Waldorf schools around the world. I'm agressive towards people who defend these activities, who cover them up, and who lie about the people like me who expose them. Did what Trueblood wrote above even sink in Sune? Re-read what he wrote. You are the issue here, not me. You are the one with poisonous edits that are intent on spreading hate, not me. You are the one defending the most horrible practices and producing a smear campaign against the whistle-blowers, not me. Do you think I feel bad about being agressive toward people who do this? People who hurt children? Believe me, I don't. Pete K 01:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)