Here's a sample:
Going from Bad to WorseHaving reviewed the latest edits, this article is going from bad to worse. Even some of the language we agreed to remove is re-entering the article by means of the same people who agreed to remove it. Can we have an official word that the Waldorf Project is not doing anything at this point? I'm inclined to reverse all of HGilbert's edits today but don't want to begin an edit war again. If nobody is willing to look at the brochure language here, I will go through the entire article and make a very coarse and thorough edit. It will bring the article down to size, I'm certain, and will remove the brochure talk. I would much rather a more "neutral" person perform this task as people perceive me to be opinionated in one direction - just as HGilbert is opinionated in the other direction - but in the absense of any interest by another reasonable reviewer, I'll go to the trouble of doing this. Pete K 14:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- You have been asked not to "simply revert"; please respect this. We are trying to make the article conform to Wikipedia standards, for example by removing ambiguous language and vague phrases. What is problematic in these last edits???? Please discuss and come to agreements here.
- I believe that the project has come to a standstill because of your (and Diana's) refusal to enter mediation; I at least, and apparently a number of others, find it impossible to work with users who refuse to compromise and refuse to mediate. Hgilbert 13:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- , I'll be making corrections to the article directly. If you can add all this stuff in without discussion, you should expect to have it edited without discussion. If, instead, you choose to work with others to make valid edits by consensus on a controversial topic such as this one, then there is a greater likelyhood that your edits will stand. BTW, you should be ashamed of yourself for suggesting the mediation process was derailed by Diana and myself. You saw, for six days, our diligent discussions about the problematic wording of the mediation request and did nothing to "compromise". Please don't try to pin the failed mediation on Diana or me. The Waldorf project was problematic from the beginning - all WALDORF people made up the project group. The chances of a non-biased article coming out of that group were nil. And what in the world do the Waldorf project and the failed mediation have to do with each other. Were you expecting to reprimand me into working on the project? If you find it impossible to work with me, you should, perhaps, let this article go. You have been unable to produce an unbiased version of this or several other articles - so why not just relax for a few days and let others give it a shot. Pete K 15:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- OK, , I see you are busy adding back the brochure language I took out last night - so I'll let you have this evening and remove it again in the morning. Hope you are enjoying yourself. Pete K 04:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
The relevant reference of the two is to the article by Detlef Hardorp; I have moved the other reference to a more appropriate location. The article was originally published in a standard multi-volume reference work on education, published by a mainstream publisher; I have added the reference to this source as well. (You cannot discriminate against an author due to his/her affiliations (see Wikipedia standards)). The citation is adequate unless you can find evidence that speaks against this statement. Hgilbert 22:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Again, a reference in German by an Anthroposophist supporting an unbelievable claim. What a surprise. You will hopefully understand, then, why the advert tag is going to stay on the article until the brochure speech is removed. Why don't you guys at least TRY to make an attempt at a NPOV article - instead of pushing this silliness? Pete K 00:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)