User talk:Wonderactivist

Welcome!

Hello, Wonderactivist, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• 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:Where to ask a question, 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 | Talk 19:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Would you mind checking my fist move?

Hi Wonderactivist. Your first page move worked ok from my quick check. A useful tool is the linked pages feature of every article. Assuming you're using the default theme, look at the bottom left, you'll see 'What links here', and by clicking that, you'll see what other articles link to the article you're working on, including redirects (which are created when articles are moved). I hope this helps. -- Longhair | Talk 05:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Invitation to join Waldorf Wikiproject

Thank you for suggesting this. I didn't realize that wikiprojects could be effective at this kind of dispute resolution. Won't those who don't agree to cooperate just continue as they have been? What's the process involved, and how is it different from working for consensus with editors on the article's talk page? Professor marginalia 18:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I have responded on the Professor's talk page. To be brief, I believe that a project will move the disputes off of the Wiki page, allow us to come to some sort of consensus with the help of administrators such as Longhair below and Invitations for general Wiki comment. We CAN make this a Wiki page and not an ongoing fight. Wonderactivist 14:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation! ;-) The Waldorf Education page has always been a little unstable, mainly because a high proportion of its editors edit only this page and none others and are therefore unfamiliar with Wikipedia:Etiquette. For reasons that are a little too long to go into here, the page also seems to attract a large amount of 'nutters'. As a long time, occasional contributer to the page, I have seen a few attempts by level headed individuals such as yourself to rally the editors into bringing some sense to the article. None have really been that successful, however, I view it as my duty to support these individuals wherever time permits. I think that the quality of the page would be greatly improved if some agnostic editors who are active in other parts of wikipedia could be drafted into service. So in other words- I admire your initiative, and I will support it by continuing to do what I have been doing all ready.--Fergie 14:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Wonderactivist and Fergie. I, too, am interested in a fair, consise page that describes Waldorf education, not from a Waldorf brochure point of view, but from a balanced point of view. The Waldorf page is currently problematic and people on both sides of the issue have considerable investment in making their point (myself included). I would be concerned about this effort being undertaken by people unfamilar with the subject of Waldorf education. How will they know what is factual? We've run into disagreements (not here) where quotes directly from Rudolf Steiner are posted somewhere, and then the translation is questioned, or the context is questioned, even the content is questioned. It's really a challenge to put a sensible article together that doesn't offend somebody. The article, as it is today, is replete with errors and more importantly, omissions that really need to be discussed. I tried adding to the Eurythmy section today, but I'm sure it will be heavily edited by tomorrow. I'm concerned about the science section too. My kids, for example, were taught in Waldorf school that, of all the races on the planet, Europeans are the most advanced. It's hard not to sound critical of Waldorf and still present this fact - or facts like these.

So, what to do about the immediate problem? I would suggest, for the time being, that no single person should make more than two edits per day. That seems reasonable and would certainly cut down the number of edits - and calm the notion that this article requires babysitting. If there is some mechanism in Wikipedia that can do this, I think it would help. I like the idea of a discussion on the discussion page 24 hours before an edit is made. This will help too. I think people should keep their hands off of links that are not their own. And I think approval for moving large chunks of information off the article should be by some type of consensus on the discussion page. I think the ultimate goal here is a balanced view of Waldorf and a reliable, honest article that shows Waldorf's strengths and shortcomings. Thanks! --Pete K 16:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The mechanisms for fair and effective editing on wikipedia are well-established. We cannot create 'special' rules for any one page. Also, edits do not need to be 'factual' in fact The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. So this is why I believe an over haul by more experienced, agnostic editors in combination with the many Waldorf-specific editors would improve the content of this article.--Fergie 09:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd be delighted to help with this project. I have 15 years of Waldorf school experience with three kids - including one who started in pre-school and just graduated high school. My two other kids attend Waldorf school and my ex wife is currently a Waldorf teacher and Anthroposophist. I have studied Steiner for 13 years. I am a published author (you can google my name for credits). I have been a Waldorf activist and reformist for many years. I am well respected in my Waldorf community despite broaching difficult topics from time to time. My position is that whatever information goes on this page must be truthful, accurate and unbiased. Please let me know if I can be of service. Pete Karaiskos --Pete K 03:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Wonderactivist,

I have tried to see how to create a sublibrary to the main article on WE, to put sub sections of the article, but not found out how to do it yet. HGilbert probably knows how to do this, and he has written most of the article. I'd support any moving by him of sections to sub pages of the main page.

Thanks,

--Thebee 18:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think this is a bad idea. Sune, Thebee, is attempting to make Wikipedia an extension of his own highly controversial website, WaldorfAnswers. Posting his own material here would only lead to more unwanted controversy. I'm sure Wikipedia wouldn't be interested in hosting a sub-library of PLANS articles. Let's just work to produce an unbiased article about Waldorf and provide links to the fringe sites. There's no need to reproduce sub-pages of controversial material here.--Pete K 15:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Waldorf Education; this area for admin and unbiased Wikipedian comment only

Hello Wonderactivist. Good to hear from you again. I'll give the article a read over sometime later today. At present my wiki time is reduced to brief periods of time but I'm free this afternoon when I return from several pre-planned meetings I have booked. I'll do my best then to ensure an outcome is suitable to all if possible. The cleanup taskforce is open to anyone, not just administrators, and there's always Requests for comment if it appears the content dispute is going nowhere fast. Hope that helps for now. I'll be back later with more time to spend on this article shortly. -- Longhair 00:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment on my talk page. Unfortunately I don't have significant understanding of the topic to do much beyond comment on the wiki-side issues. I hope my contribution leads to an improvement in the article. From what is presented it certainly appears to be a significant and worthwhile topic. Garrie 21:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)