User talk:Fergie

Welcome to the Wikipedia

Here are some links I thought useful:

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. The Wikipedia:Village pump is also a good place to go for quick answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be Bold!

[[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 12:40, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Scottish Wikipedians' notice board

Since joining Wikipedia recently I have learnt an awful lot, and one of those things is the value of teamwork. It has become increasingly apparent to me that there are absolutely tons of people out there devoted to editing the Scottish articles, but we communicate only haphazardly. To begin to attempt to remedy this, I have initiated a notice board for all Scoto-fans!

You can find it using this shortcut: WP:SCOWNB (yes, I know that it ain't very "short", but our nordic neighbours had first call on WP:SWNB).

Please sign up and post notices, or at least Watch the page.--Mais oui! 15:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes to Sport utility vehicle

I'm not sure I agree with all your removals from the sport utility vehicle article. While you're correct in that the techologies you removed are not unique to SUVs, many of them have found especially high application in SUVs - I'm thinking particularly stability control - in order to respond to safety concerns with the SUV type specifically. I am going to re-add some of the info in different form, focussing specifically on their application to the SUV. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 20:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't intend to revert your changes (to the 'SUVs in remote areas' section). I think the system messed up; I started editing after your edit to the 'recent improvements' section and only changed that area. I should have got an edit conflict warning when I tried to save, but did not. I have no idea why not. My apologies for the inadvertent revert; your changes to that other section seem fine. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 11:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Added a link from the Consumer's Union site about SUV stability control improvements to the talk page. I'll see what else I can dig up about it specifically. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 11:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom questions

Thanks for your questions. I have now answered them. David | Talk 23:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join a Project

Dear Fergie, 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 16:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fergie, I have seen yor ongoing work as a positive on the page and understand your concerns. With the project I hope to move the fighting off of the Wiki page, and with the help of administrators and "invitations to comment" I hope to foinally resolve this to being a fair, balanced, Wikipage. I still would welcome you if you should change your mind about the project. Thanks for writing and for your valuable input. Lucie Wonderactivist 14:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Fergie, I know you weren't necessarily interested, but I just want to again invite you to join the project - just in case. 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 02:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Waldorf Project Update

Dear Fergie, Thanks SO much for your help so far on the Waldorf project. I am sending each project member a copy of the note I am sending to the administrators 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 - 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)

Your editor input

I have been giving a lot of thought to your input about one Waldorf problem being that most of the editors are editing only Steiner-related pages and are not true Wikipedians. I other words working for self-interest instead of to improve Wiki. I have seen elsewhere on Wiki as a restriction for adding links, that an editor must have worked on three non-related articles and been a Wikipedian for a few months...or something like that. It may be that upon completion of the project, and with consensus from project members, we would set up a similar restriction for editing Waldorf. I have no idea how doable that is. Just appreciate your insight. Wonderactivist 05:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really only mentioned it as something to keep in mind. My experience has been that single issue editors eventually lose interest and move on. If a particular rule is valid for Wikipedia, then it is valid for the Waldorf Education page. I advocate that everybody involved aquaints themselves with the rules and enforces them as much as possible. Although this can seem like a hopeless task, it does work in the long run.--Fergie 12:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Links

The links to trial transcripts that happen to reside on the Waldorf Answers site are unproblematic; the material is relevant, accurate and too long to include in Wikipedia itself (see WP:External links#What_should_be_linked_to). What is your problem with this???—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hgilbert (talk • contribs) earlier.

You need to review this section: WP:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, points 1, 2 and 3. In any case, it seems that the files in question should be uploaded to wikisource or linked to in their 'natural habitat'.--Fergie 20:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Waldorf education

Hi Fergie. Thanks for your message. I've been asked to keep an eye on the Waldorf article by concerned editors, and have been doing so as my spare time allows. Other administrators have been asked also and are helping out as required.

I can only act in accordance with Wikipedia policies, and I trust to date I've been doing so. Edit warring is never good for any article, which is why Waldorf education was protected earlier today by myself. Article protection forces discussion to talk pages and brings an immediate stop to edit warring, but it's not a permanent solution. The solution requires a consensus to be reached on the content of the article, as I trust you already know.

I'm happy to receive any reports of behaviour you consider unconstructive or against policy - all I ask is that you provide this information by way of a diff so I can clearly see the edit(s) concerned without having to wade through a ton of information.

I don't want to enter the content debate and wish to remain entirely neutral. That said, I will "get tough" as you say on editors who edit in a fashion which causes disruption to other serious editors attempting to do some good work. Blocks have been handed out at that article before and will continue if disruption occurs. I'm keeping an eye on things as time allows, and your message does help to clear things up and help sort through this mess (for the want of a better word). If there's any way I can help the article progress, please let me know. -- Longhair 09:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Sportsklubben rye logo.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Sportsklubben rye logo.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Waldorf project organization

Dear Longhair,Cormaggio, and Fergie, I know there's already been so much controversy surrounding it, but plan to proceed with the Waldorf project. Thank you all so much for your help so far.

I have organized the pages better, centering on the page Longhair set up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Waldorf Project and have a proposal on the table for how to proceed in a very focused, organized fashion. I truly believe that this is the only way the project can progress. I would like to invite your ideas and comments on the organizational structure, and the proposals, and anything else! Wonderactivist 17:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 20:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal at Waldorf Project

With advice from an admin, I have taken the next step in the Waldorf project and invite your opinions or alternative suggestions for a first formal proposal. In the face of the ongoing conflict it will be necessary to work especially hard toward NPOV and to establish groundrules before we can begin our real editing work. I invite you to be part of that process at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Waldorf_Project_Proposals Wonderactivist 14:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Waldorf Project Team Members

I just wanted to let you know that two proposals have passed on the Waldorf project and two more - one based on Fergie's starting place - have been set out for discussion here. Feedback has been given that the project has been going slow. I apologize as I had hand surgery a week ago, but truly nothing should wait for one person. If we each check in once or twice a week, we should be able to get through the article in a month or two. I would appreciate your valuable insights on the proposals and timing. Wonderactivist 12:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I note that you have replaced the "advert" tag on the Waldorf education page. Two questions: 1) What specifically is not cited or presented from a one-sided point of view 2) Comparing this with the Montessori page, for example ("A Montessori classroom is quiet, bright, clean, well-maintained and attractive"), there is much more care in language on the Waldorf page; words like "generally", "aims to", and so on make clear what are goals and what common elements not necessarily universally found. What more are you really seeking here? Hgilbert 18:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please give specifics!!! Note that much information about daily practice of the schools and some quotes are there because 'critics' insisted that they be so that people know the reality of Waldorf education and Steiner's philosophy, not because 'promoters' are seeking to fill the article with this. Hgilbert 13:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rudolf Steiner, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rudolf Steiner.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 12:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC).

Dear Fergie,

I'm looking for people who have developed effective methods of working on Wikipedia. I've created a Virtual classroom for Wikipedians to learn, teach, and share advanced wiki-skills. I was wondering if you would like to stop by and take a look. Right now the participants are engaged in a show and tell of their user interfaces (the tools we use to navigate and work on Wikipedia, including programs, extensions, scripts, settings, etc.). I hope you'll drop in to share and compare. Interiot, Rich Farmbrough, and CBDunkerson have been kind enough to help get things started by describing the interfaces they use. User:Interiot has even completed a new Firefox extension to make navigating Wikipedia easier. It is available in the announcements section on the Virtual classroom page. The Transhumanist 12:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 01:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 01:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education

The above entitled arbitration case has closed, and the final decision has been issued at the above link. Waldorf education, Rudolf Steiner, Anthroposophy and the extended family of related articles such as Social Threefolding are placed on article probation. Editors of these articles are expected to remove all original research and other unverifiable information, including all controversial information sourced in Anthroposophy related publications. It is anticipated that this process may result in deletion or merger of some articles due to failure of verification by third party peer reviewed sources. If it is found, upon review by the Arbitration Committee, that any of the principals in this arbitration continue to edit in an inappropriate and disruptive way editing restrictions may be imposed. Review may be at the initiative of any member of the Arbitration Committee on their own motion or upon petition by any user to them.

For the arbitration committee, Thatcher131 23:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reopening of arbitration

I have reopened the arbitration case concerning this article for review Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Review. Fred Bauder 15:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish Study

Please do not revert my revert to Waldorf Education see my comment [1] - if you disagree please raise the issue on the talk page. Cheers Lethaniol 17:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but the Swedish Study is a section that has had a lot of work done to it and should not just be removed. - Moved maybe but not removed - please do not remove again - I have started a discussion on the talk page about this please put your comments there and reach CONSENSUS before any many and controversial changes to the article. Further reverting will be likely be considered and treated as vandalism is you do not discuss first. Cheers Lethaniol 19:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could launch into an extended rant about the impressive tally of wikipedia tenets that you are breaking here, but it should suffice to point you in the direction of WP:OWN and leave it at that. I, for my part, will continue to be bold ciao--Fergie 19:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lethaniol, I think Fergie's point is well taken. If the section is labeled "Criticism", then that should be what's contained in it. Maybe a better place for the Swedish study could be found. Pete K 20:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fergie, I've been working on the Waldorf Ed. article for the last few months. We've been working extremely hard to develop a process which includes consensus before major changes are made. This has come as a result of continuing edit wars, which as you are aware may possibly result in Pete K's being blocked from the article. Please don't disrupt our consensus-making process! I'm assuming good faith that you have been away from this article for a while and may not have had the time to read the talk page discussions about this.

I think it's reasonable to state both the "pro" and "con" side in the same section, as we did in the Concerns over Immunizations section. I'd be open to adding wording stating something along the lines of "critics say X," "defenders say Y," in order to make it more clear why the Swedish study was included.

Also, Lethaniol has been an invaluable objective voice in the contentious atmosphere of the talk page, and has never been previously accused of WP:OWN. Thanks, Henitsirk 20:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit Conflict) Fine then discuss at Talk:Waldorf Education#Swedish Study - I have zero problems with it being moved, I have many problems with it being deleted. Of course we could have a separate section on Anti-Racism, put the Swedish study top, and then all the Racism stuff second - either way IMHO the Anti-racism / racism info needs to be close so that the flow is kept- which at the moment it is. Also I do not see the reason for moving/deleting something that already fits well into an article, based on a proposed guideline only. Be bold means also we as editors at Waldorf Education should do what is best for the article even if it seems to be against a guideline (note this argument is less likely to hold water with policies). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lethaniol (talk • contribs) 20:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

First Fergie, I want to say "welcome back." I'm sure you've read the reopened arbitration and all the unpleasantness surrounding it - not the least of which is Thebee's mistreatment of me since my arrival. If you read my story, I suspect you and I have a common purpose in wanting to achieve balance. With that said, I respect Lethaniol and Durova follow their counsel - in turn I've earned their respect. Please remember that there is a fine line between being bold and being reckless. Thanks for your contributions towards balance and consensus and again - welcome back! - Wikiwag 20:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain Biking on Mount Tamalpais

Hello, An article that I created as a part of Wikiproject Cycling called Mountain Biking on Mount Tamalpais and linked to the Mount Tamalpais article, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mountain Biking on Mount Tamalpais. Thank you, Bob in Las Vegas - uriel8 (talk) 11:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TheBee

I left this on TheBee's page for you, but there is little doubt he will delete it as soon as he sees it.

Fergie, it wouldn't be a bad idea to bring this activity to the attention of the ArbCom as TheBee, once again, has refused to take your request seriously. He is notorious for defamation of persons, so I would advise you not to divulge ANY personal information where he can view it (it sounds like you already realize this). It's clear by his statement above that he has already been trying to find out details about you. I agree with you, this is creepy considering who is doing the fishing. Pete K 19:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some slander. Thebee 19:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definetely not slander. PeteK is right on all points, so you are lucky that I have better things to do than get involved in this sort of nonsense--Fergie 14:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Norge

Hei! Jeg skriver dette her fordi du er lista opp på Category:Wikipedians in Norway, men ikke har norsk som morsmål, og det derfor er mindre sannsynlig at du vil se beskjeden i sitenotice på Wikipedia på bokmål. Det er for tiden snakk om en lokalavdeling av Wikimedia Foundation i Norge, Wikimedia Norge; din input i denne saken er meget velkommen. Jon Harald Søby 16:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence in the Waldorf Education open arbitration

Fergie, I have to say I find your evidentiary statement upsetting. As Venado also stated, I think it would have been better for you to back up your claims of single-issue editing and POV pushing with concrete examples.

I can only speak for myself here. I am NOT single-purpose at Wikipedia. True, I have spent a lot of time on anthroposophy articles, because that is an area in which I have interest. However I have also been involved with numerous random articles as a member of the League of Copyeditors (I assume that's what you meant by the "to be fair" comment by my name). There is nothing wrong with contributing to articles in areas of interest, as you do with cycling. And I question what you would know about my activities in any other web forums.

I take the ethos of Wikipedia very seriously. I feel that calling me "not wikipedian" and a "manipulator" of articles is insulting. I have gone out of my way to work for consensus, and have made specific efforts to work cooperatively with editors whose opinions I do not always share.

While I understand that you may have wanted to point out that there is a group of editors who may have difficulties with objectivity and bias, I wish you would have used a less aggressive tone and kept more to factual statements.

Henitsirk 01:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problems at the Waldorf Education page have dragged on and on, mainly due to single issue editors using wikipedia as the latest platform to push POV. Whilst I agree that it is unfair to tar you with the same brush as the likes of Pete_K and Thebee, I nonetheless think that the article would benefit if everybody, including yourself, spent more time elsewhere. I will modify my statement to make it clear(er) that not all of the editors mentioned have dark manipulative intent, but all of them do, in my opinion, spend too high of a proportion of wiki-time on Steiner-related artices. If I have upset you I apologise--Fergie 07:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Review

The reviewing of the case has finished. You may view the decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Review.

For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 18:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:pnc nominated for deletion

See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:pnc for the discussion, which will certainly spill over into larger issues. Your thoughts would be appreciated. --Kevin Murray 23:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:AlexNewArtBot

Hi Fergie, as a WikiProject Scotland participant, please check out this this thread and consider adding the bot results page to your watchlist so we can manually update the New Articles page. There are some false results for the first batch, but I'm sure we can collectively tune the rules to improve the output.

If we get enough people watching the results page, we'll be cooking with gas as they say :) This looks like a great helper in finding new Scotland related material. Cheers. --Cactus.man ✍ 22:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV at Waldorf education

You seem to be the foremost proponent of keeping the NPOV tag. Please, could you respond to the request for concrete steps towards making the article more neutral? Your previous list was both vague (no specific sections, sources or topics were mentioned) and contested (no citations of the sites you mention as problematic actually appear in the article; as far as I can tell, the sources you recommend have been excluded by arbitration proceedings).

Clearly delineated descriptions of what you see as wanting in the current version would be helpful; let's make some progress here. Hgilbert 17:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about some honesty? Just a thought... --Pete K 17:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have for the most part only drawn attention to wikipedian points-of-order: I have not and will not take sides in a fruitless conflict. My advice- get an rfc.--Fergie 07:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You do what you write that you will not do: Take part in a conflict regarding whether the article on WE is essentially NPOV or not, by stating that you do not think it is NPOV.

On the other hand, you do not do what you should do to support your position (as you also did not do during the WE arbitration, and also did not do during the reopened arbitration) - provide any evidence in support of your views, also not now when () specifically asks you to be give more substantial evidence in support of your view.

On the first point your statement is confusing, on the second point you state your view without supporting it in any way. None of them is very helpful to editing and discussing the editing of an encyclopedia. Thebee 22:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all Thebee, for the umpteenth time, please assume good faith and try to be a bit more civil. The problems with the article are well documented and do not need to be rehashed here. My comments have always been well-grounded and to-the-point. Long story short: if an NPOV tag is to be removed, then it should really be removed by a neutral user (ie not Thebee or HGilbert). Neutral users can be consulted on this issue via an rfc--Fergie 09:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good job of intimidation Sune. --Pete K 01:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eradion seems neutral enough. Has anyone asked him? |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 01:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, he's not neutral "enough" or neutral at all. --Pete K 02:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See, Pete, this is exactly the kind of thing that gets you accused of slander. Do you have any evidence to support your stance that Erdanion is not a neutral editor? If you don't, be a man and retract it. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 03:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fergie: What category does "education" fall under for an RfC? It is not clear from the choices. Hgilbert 10:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bellowed, a neutral editor would be... um... one who HASN'T been working on the article. --Pete K 13:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's ridiculous. Anyone who hasn't been working on the article may go to the article and form their opinion. Further, one needs some background in order to make an educated decision as to the neutrality. In Erdanion's case, he's been working on the article for some time, so he's educated about Waldorf, and has proven his neutrality by his two-sided edits. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 14:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, what you are claiming is nonsense. HGilbert has made two-sided edits too. That doesn't make him neutral by any means. How about, if you insist on someone who understands the content a bit, asking Lethaniol to have a peek at it. He hasn't edited it in a long time... and he's neutral. --Pete K 17:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't consider Lethaniol, your former advisor, a neutral editor, though he has taken different sides at different times. Thebee 20:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So more reason to find someone neutral who has no experience with the article or the subject matter and stop trying to get Anthroposophists to do this evaluation. --Pete K 14:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone asked Erdanion if he's an Anthroposophist? I take it that he's a student and just interested in philosophy in general. There was also someone else who is a neutral party, who happened to remove the NPOV tag at Anthroposophy. Lkleinjans I think? I'll message Lkleinjans and Erdanion. I agree that if Erdanion is an Anthroposophist he's out, even though he makes edits from both sides.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 16:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I looked at Lkleinjans's edit history and couldn't determine much regarding neutrality. What does everyone else think? Also, I just messaged Erdanion, but said that he's out if he's an Anthroposophist, so we'll see. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 17:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Sportsklubben rye logo.gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Sportsklubben rye logo.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimania 2010 could be coming to Stockholm!

I'm leaving you a note as you may be interested in this opportunity.

People from all six Nordic Wiki-communities (sv, no, nn, fi, da and is) are coordinating a bid for Wikimania 2010 in Stockholm. I'm sending you a message to let you know that this is occurring, and over the next few months we're looking for community support to make sure this happens! See the bid page on meta and if you like such an idea, please sign the "supporters" list at the bottom. Tack (or takk), and have a wonderful day! Mike H. Fierce! 07:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]