User talk:Wikiwag/Archive 1

Citations and references

Hello! Welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you enjoy your time here and find ways to make valuable contributions to the articles here.

The Waldorf education article (and associated articles) are in a clean-up and arbitration process with special attention being given to ensuring that statements are attributed to verifiable sources, preferably print-published and third-party reviewed. It will help if you ensure that such sources are given for new statements added. Original research is to be avoided; this includes all statements made on the basis of one's individual experience that cannot be supported by objective documentation that meets Wikipedia standards. All of us are learning to work within these constraints; it is, after all, an encyclopedia!

With best wishes! Hgilbert 02:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello WikiWag

I was sidelined yesterday so I especially appreciated seeing your efforts. There have been some restrictions on who can edit the articles because we had a few "visitors" dropping in at times. The restrictions are not intended to keep legitimate editors out. If you're having trouble getting access to edit a particular article, please let me know. I'm sure we can have one of the administrators extend permission to you. Thank you for your efforts! The articles are way too one-sided, as you noted, and your help in bringing them in to line is very appreciated. BTW, please don't be intimidated by the "tweed-jacket" editors who pretend to patiently be explaining the rules to you - they are sometimes confused about what is allowed themselves, and bend the rules in order to push their POV. Happy editing. Pete K 13:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

From TheBee's page

I tried to address the sources issue on TheBee's page, but he has deleted the discussion (I've added it back but he'll delete it again - it's very Waldorfian to try to control communications, wouldn't you agree?) Anyway, here is what I tried to say to you on TheBee's page:

It would be a good idea to actually get the gist of the arbitration agreement directly from the arbitration agreement (and not from TheBee). TheBee is rather confused about what the decision meant regarding reliable sources and polemic sources - and this has already led to edit warring. In the one instance where he brought this conflict to the arbitrators, he was shown to be wrong. Your edits have been fine and other than a couple of sources that are not allowed, waldorfanswer, for example, they are pointing to good sources. I'll be happy to keep an eye on your edits. BTW, I think TheBee thinks you are a former Waldorf parent named Margaret (M.S.?) He's fishing because it's important for him to know who you are in order to disqualify you - and by extension, your edits. Hang in there, and don't get discouraged by the authoritative and aggressive tone of TheBee's response. Best wishes. Pete K 15:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC) Pete K 17:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Pete,

Well if someone's fishing, they're going to be disappointed. I've never edited on Wikipedia before. I have no desire to turn this into a contest. But facts are facts. I've read the arbitration ruling and it is concise and to-the-point about what is allowed and what isn't, as well as what is "self published" and what isn't.

I will write facts and cite them where I can. We shall see if those who disagree have the courage to allow them to stand in the interest of NPOV.

- Wikiwag 07:02, 9-Jan-2007 (UTC)

Thanks Wikiwag. I've been trying to put some reasonable edits in on the Waldorf article today. We'll see how long it takes them to revert everything I've done. I'd love your input on whatever you see that might be a bit too aggressive on my part. I'm trying to put in stuff I know to be true (like, have you ever seen a Waldorf school with a football team?). Pete K 20:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

My Interpretation of the Waldorf Education Arbitration Ruling

Originally posted to Thebee's Talk page:

---

Greetings Thebee!

Well as promised, I thoroughly reviewed all the ground [and the drama! *whew!*] covering this whole group of articles. I think it's important to break down the salient points, beginning with the ruling itself (which might be more accurately referred to as a statement of probation rather than a ruling) and findings of fact. I've included my interpretations in parentheses:

1) Waldorf education, Rudolf Steiner, Anthroposophy and related articles contain large amounts of original research and information gathered from Anthroposophical related sources which are for verification purposes properly considered self-published by the Anthroposophy movement. (It was unanimously agreed by the arbitration panel that material gathered from Anthroposophical related sources is self-published, and therefore unacceptable for verification and/or citation purposes. They must therefore be removed.)

5) Hgilbert is a teacher in a Waldorf school and a writer regarding the educational theories used at the Waldorf schools. His edits are strongly supportive of the Waldorf schools and their philosophy of education, see an early edit. He has also edited Anthroposophy, Rudolf Steiner and other related articles with a strong positive bias. He has made some edits to Homeopathy and related articles, but very few to other articles outside those related to Rudolf Steiner and the Waldorf schools. (It was unanimously agreed that Hgilbert is biased and in the sub-findings of fact [5.1 and 5.2], was unanimously found to have published original research or inappropriate references as fact.)

Waldorf education and related articles placed on probation 1) 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.

It seems unequivocally clear, that panel's unanimous intent was that the Anthroposophy-related citations be removed, on the grounds that they are unverifiable as self-published and/or original research. Indeed, the matter appears that contrary to your assertion - only the controversial references be removed - Anthroposophical references by their very nature are controversial and must be removed entirely.

You and Hgilbert as two of the named parties in the arbitration, as well as the chief architects of its content, have therefore been specifically charged with this task. Indeed, you personally requested the arbitration. So presumably, you intend to abide by the panel's findings and remedies.

Being the civil person I am, I do not wish to do what you did to my edits before I was properly informed of the conditions applied to this particular article - meaning wipe the slate clean and pare it down the the barest of facts. With that said, I too was wrong for posting what I did - but my excuse was pure ignorance; you unfortunately cannot make the same claim.

However, it may simply be that the named parties in this matter are too close to this issue to see things clearly and perhaps it requires a fresh set of eyes, from someone who is enough of a student of Steiner (I loved the approach first, then grew to question it, then grow to doubt much of the basis behind it) to look at things from a more objective POV.

I can play that role, because I respect the Waldorf movement for much of what I believe it did for my children from a character perspective and preserving their childhood for as long as we could. But academically, as far as my own children's experiences and the experiences of their peers at their former school [both attending and graduated], the approach does not live up to many of the claims made by its practitioners. Moreover, the spiritual pseudo-science behind the method has no more basis in independent third-party research (meaning outside of Steiner/Anthroposophy/Waldorf), than Catholic, Christian, Jewish, Muslim or other independent schools do. Childhood education at Waldorf remains what it always has been in general - experimental.

Therefore challenge is this: that much of the facts and experience both pro- and anti- Waldorf (in particular), is original research, anecdotal, or self-published as defined by both the Wikipedia guidelines and the Arbitration Panel.

Perhaps if the parties involved up until this point were all courageous enough and respectful enough of each other's POV earlier on in the process to allow both PsOV to co-exist in the interest of crafting a well-written, honest and balanced article...matters might be different now. But it seems that we have no alternative but to strip the whole thing down to its most fundamental facts - meaning those that can be verified by independent 3rd-party research and publications. What we and the public will be left with, will utterly fail to inform the people who need it most - those who are considering a Waldorf education for their children.

I look forward to your reply.

Wikiwag 21:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with much of what you write and have put up an analysis of the Arbitration at my talks page, telling on what points I disagree and why. Thebee 00:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikiwag, I hope you haven't let TheBee bully you away from editing here. We need your help in these articles. He has done the same thing to many editors who have tried to help. Please hang in there. I have tried to address the Waldorf Ed article recommendations on the Waldorf Ed talk page. Pete K 17:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Captain Wikivag,

Still here? Thebee 12:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

No worries gentlemen, I'm still here. It takes more than this to deter me. I frankly had to take a breather and focus on other more pressing matters. The first thing I did was restore the arbitration probation tag to the top of the article page. It needs to be there and it should be there. Give me a day or two to get caught up and I'll be participating once again. For my own part, I intended to concede Thebees point about differentiating between controversial and non-controversial matters with respect to anthroposophical references. I did however, find it heartening that my interpretation of the probation statement seems to be firmly in line with the arbitrator's intent - Thebee's assertions to the contrary, not withstanding. See you in the Talk. - Wikiwag 16:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Wikiwag. I'm glad you're back. Pete K 16:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Article probation

Please do not place the article probation tag on the article page. Such tags belong on the talk page only. Also, the generic {{article probation}} template is not appropriate for this article, as the specific probation language in this case does not authorize admins ban disruptive editors, as shown here. Thanks. Thatcher131 19:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Understood. I think then, that this reference needs to be corrected. - Wikiwag 22:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Not a "sock puppet" or "meat puppet" or whatever...

Apparently, Thebee thinks that if someone takes a few days off to actually focus on something called ... uh ... LIFE! [kids, wife, work, family or something apart from Wikipedia] that they're automatically someone else who took issue with him - in a different guise. That's either extreme paranoia, or extreme conceit - and I haven't decided which one.

I've had enough of your personal attacks here (one attack), here (two attacks) here and now here (numerous and at length) that up until now, I've largely let go without comment or retaliation.

So you've finally gone too far and exhausted my civil tone. Therefore, here's what I have to say back: Grow up, pal. And try getting a life yourself, before your own little "meat puppet" becomes your only friend.

- Wikiwag 06:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Maybe the Wikipedia markup was a stretch for you to grasp. But I assure you, that many others (myself included) aren't similarly handicapped.

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education/Review

Pursuant to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education#Waldorf_education_and_related_articles_placed_on_probation I have initiated a review of the behavior of the editors of Waldorf education at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education/Review. This review will consider appropriate editing restrictions on editors of the article. Fred Bauder 02:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Be my guest. You will discover that my editing has been professional, in good faith, civil and in pursuit of the NPOV facts on this issue. - Wikiwag 02:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

He's not talking about you Wikiwag. He's inviting you to give testimony on the other editors - possibly based on my suggestion that current editors should be invited to the arbitration. I'm quite sure you're not being considered for editing restrictions. Pete K 02:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Ok. Was worried that I'd accidentally touched the "third rail." - Wikiwag 20:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Um... that would, apparently, be me... <G>. Pete K 13:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Apology

I'm sorry if I've hurt your feelings with my suspicions that you might be a sock puppet, based on the description of Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Characteristics_of_sock_puppets at Wikipedia, while Durova more seems to have lent towards meat puppetry. Then, who are you, and what made you come to Wikipedia specifically now to edit the Waldorf Ed article with such passion ?-)) Thebee 11:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Addition on your comment above, that I did not see before:

"... here's what I have to say back: Grow up, pal. And try getting a life yourself, before your own little "meat puppet" becomes your only friend."

Hm, Durova would probably suggest that I disregard it... Thebee 12:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

As also this:

"P.S. Maybe the Wikipedia markup was a stretch for you to grasp. But I assure you, that many others (myself included) aren't similarly handicapped."

Thebee 12:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Thebee. I have to admit to being more than a little surprised. Nevertheless, apology accepted - even if it did come with another admonition.

I'll grant you that those two comments of mine were less than civil. Frankly, I was angry and out of patience (I still maintain I had every right to be). But as I've been known to say, you cannot expect behavior from others that you cannot demonstrate yourself.

So with that said, I offer my apologies to you for this singular loss of my good temper. I sincerely hope this is the last time I have to ask for civility and good faith from anyone - most from especially you.

As far as who I am and what brought me here, my user page says all I am prepared to say, as I have my own reasons for maintaining a certain level of anonymity. Moreover considering the atmosphere I've encountered since coming here with an abundance of good faith and civility, it's going to take a lot more demonstration of those qualities by others, before I reveal anything more, should I ever choose to do so. - Wikiwag 21:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFCU

I noticed you mentioned a checkuser request a couple of days ago, but I didn't see anything up on that page. Did you actually file that? I'd support your effort to clear the air. Durova^Charge! 20:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I wasn't ever clear on the actual process. I thought it might be enough to make the request in front of admins. Thanks for your support and thanks for pointing me in the right direction. I'll do it now. - Wikiwag 01:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Durova: I'm afraid I'm still not clear. The only options I see involve drawing links between different users for alleged sock-puppetry. Are you suggesting that I request a CheckUser between me, Diana W and Pete K (as those users Thebee asserts that I actually am)? Thanks again. - Wikiwag 01:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

That would be fine with me, BTW. Pete K 02:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I've opened the request. Check the link above: a clerk should post it shortly. Wikiwag and Pete, I recommend you follow up with posts there to state that you submit to this voluntarily and dig up Diana's old diff where she offered to undergo checkuser. My hands are full with other admin matters. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 21:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I hereby submit to a checkuser voluntarily. Pete K 00:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC) Here is Diana's request. Pete K 00:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Durova: Done. And thanks again. Pete - if you haven't done so already, I think you need to make the statement on the page Durova indicated. - Wikiwag 02:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Pete: Never mind! They've already confirmed what we already knew! :-) - Wikiwag 02:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Retraction of acceptance of apology

Thebee: Be advised that pursuant to this post by you, I now consider this apology to be insincere, made in bad faith and further evidence of your persistent and continuous violations of WP:BITE. I have posted the appropriate evidence on the Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education page. - Wikiwag 21:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

It's nice to see that you like my userpage! The biographical things down the side are called userboxes - you can find them at Wikipedia:Userboxes and User:Rfrisbie/Userboxes (and a handful of other places, but those are good ones to start with); the code for the table is here:

{|style="float: {{{1|right}}}; margin-left: 0.5em; margin-right: 0.5em; margin-top: 0.5em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: #99B3FF solid 1px; clear: right" |- | (a userbox would go here) |- | (here too) |- | (and so on) |- | |}

-- CameoAppearance ^orate 03:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration review

In light of the back-and-forth between you and Thebee I've submitted a shortened statement. I've linked to the checkuser and said that I have no recommendation if you choose not to submit evidence, but if you submit evidence against Bee I would support a schedule of blocks culminating in topic ban for WP:CIVIL and WP:BITE. If you want to submit evidence go here Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Review and create a section for yourself. Durova^Charge! 19:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Durova. - Wikiwag 20:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Durova: I've read your statement and you seem to be familiar with the enduring dynamic between Thebee and myself. I've already documented evidence of his WP:CIVIL and WP:BITE misbehavior towards me in the evidence section. Obviously, I am no longer satisfied with his apology, since he keeps attacking me and I intend to press this issue. My question is: is what I've already posted sufficient, or should I write it into a statement as you have done? Thanks again - Wikiwag 20:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mentorship

Hi Wikiwag, thank you very much for your request, I am obviously flattered that I have made such a good impression.

I think we should wait for the ArbCom review to finish, as it is not yet certain that Pete K will be indefinitely banned. Also I have not made up my mind how I am going to approach the Waldorf Education articles in the future. There are a number of possibilities including leaving it all together or only getting involved directly in the talk page when requested to intervene in a conflict. With either of these two options it may be best if I did not have a mentee involved in the situation.

So though I would normally more than happy to be your mentor, I feel I should postpone any decision for the moment until we the outcome of Pete K and how I want to deal with these articles in the future.

That being said, like for Henitshirk, I am 100% always happy to answer any questions you may have (but short of giving detailed advice on how to approach conflict/discussion on Waldorf Education) or dealing with requests for getting involved in disagreements at the afore mentioned articles.

I hope you understand Wikiwag - I think you have brought some good stuff to the articles and I hope you continue to do so. Cheers Lethaniol 17:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

No need to apologize Lethaniol. I respect your approach as much as I do Durova's and I know she has her hands full [and she has greater issues of appropriateness], or I would've asked her too. I agree, but wanted to express my interest in your tutelage. Thanks too, for your praise of my work. Cheers! - Wikiwag 17:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Guys... even if I'm not banned, I will be leaving anyway for all intents and purposes. And Diana W (also a Lethaniol mentee) is no longer here - so please don't let my presence here block the way for Wikiwag. That said, I also understand Lethaniol's ethical position as far as wanting to edit the Waldorf articles while mentoring another editor who is active in the same set of articles. Pete K 20:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

WE

Am sorry to hear that you are leaving Waldorf Education behind - but hey you are meant to enjoy Wikipedia, not stress over it. Maybe you can pop back occasionally and give a few opinions on how things are going.

On what else to concentrate on? - do you want to edit articles/content or do more housekeeping stuff? For the former WP:Wikiprojects is a good place to start for the latter see Wikipedia:Community_Portal and the Help Out section. If you have some specific interests or talents, tell me and I may be able to find something to get your teeth into. Cheers Lethaniol 21:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey Wikiwag, I'm very sorry to hear that you are fed up with the WE discussion. I think we very much need dissenting views, though I can see how it might be too time-consuming for little return. I tried to establish some specifics how the group would reach consensus, but at this point there are so few editors that I think people (in this case HGilbert) are just taking initiative based on brief discussions. I wish you would reconsider!! Henitsirk 02:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey Wikiwag - I read where you've disassociated yourself from the Waldorf stuff and I didn't know if you would get my answer to you that I posted on my talk page. I can see the Waldorf article has slipped back into a brochure - all the wording that was so hard-fought has been deleted. It's incredible (literally). I've got an idea that I'll email you about over the weekend, BTW. In the mean time, I want to join others in thanking you for your hard work here. It's impossible to make headway here - as you've noticed. For me, I was always tempted to try - so topic-banning was like going to rehab for me. The good news is that every independent report says the same thing - the article reads like a brochure - so I expect most readers will come away with the same opinion and realize that this is a slanted article and that will encourage them to look elsewhere for an honest viewpoint. So let TheBee and HGilbert do their best - it hurts them in the long run and makes it obvious that there's something fishy going on. I'll email you. Pete K 05:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey Pete!: Back at you on the rehab. I was really hoping that things would change after the ArbCom decision. To be fair, there has been some positive change, but the fact that you got topic banned and they got no sanction whatsoever seems only to have emboldened their position and approach. I ultimately concluded that the only way for NPOV to prevail on this article is to let them burn themselves out. Perhaps then they will ponder the notion that the single-issue editors are stuck on a plateau that they have no hope of rising beyond until they are prepared to listen to the opposition - or the independents coming for the RfC for that matter. And I don't believe for one second that Venado has no experience with Waldorf as he claims - he edits absolutely nothing else. In the meantime, there's a lot more fun work to do in my other areas of interest that doesn't come with the conflict. I'll happily look for your email. Cheers! - Wikiwag 22:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, with the foxes guarding the henhouse - it's really interesting to watch the action here. I've started a list on my talk page of what's being misrepresented in the article since the arbitration - and already I'm getting people showing up to try to run some guilt trip on me - like how could I do this to Waldorf. I agree with you - Venado is connected, probably one of Sune's squad. Anyway, I've sent you the email. The articles here are already too far gone to revive and unless something happens to get TheBee and HGilbert removed, there will be no way to get an honest view of Waldorf represented here. More in email. Pete K 21:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Your image

Wikipedia cannot accept material that is declared to be "non-commercial use only" or "only for use on Wikipedia". Whilst it may seem reasonable to restrict material that way, Wikipedia content is syndicated around the world on the internet and in print, frequently for commercial purposes. Non-commercial or Wikipedia-only content is therefore useless to us. For that reason, such content is marked for speedy deletion automatically and deleted shortly after. For more information, you can visit this page.  REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  07:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Lao Tsu

I appreciate the quotation from Lao Tsu on your user page! Hgilbert 15:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Hgilbert. It serves as a good reminder when one (as my father used to say) gets "too big for one's breeches."

July 2008

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as in talk:CAFETY, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. Beeblbrox (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

My bad. It's been awhile. - Wikiwag 20:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of CAFETY

A tag has been placed on CAFETY, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Beeblbrox (talk) 20:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Good Lord! I have NEVER seen an article get pounced on, tagged and wiped away so fast, without even an ample opportunity to rebut the claim. When did you guys become so aggressive? - Wikiwag 21:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Beeblbrox already said about all there was to say. The article was without references, and seemed like just another vanity insert about a non-notable organization. (Testimony before Congress is non-notable; everybody on K Street does it on a regular basis without making their clients notable.) --Orange Mike | Talk 21:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you say so. I was actually putting in the references in mid-edit when you deleted it, less than 15 minutes after the tag was added in the first place. It seems to me though, that grass-roots legislation that protects kids from abusive practices or death is at least as notable as say...Paris Hilton or Spongebob Square Pants or details of the cult following of Ok Soda or the near-pornographic Sex Positions article. I could of course go on and on and on about the hundreds (perhaps thousands) of equally banal articles on Wikipedia, but if it's going to mean arguing with an admin over it, it's just not that important to me. You win. But I submit that Wikipedia and its readers lose. Cheers! - Wikiwag 21:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Please don't misunderstand me; if there is evidence that the organization is notable, please recreate the article with references and we'll all be fine! (And admins are just the folks with the mops and buckets; we can be argued with quite successfully, especially when you're right and we're wrong!)--Orange Mike | Talk 13:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

In fact, to prove goodwill, Community Alliance For the Ethical Treatment of Youth has been recreated, with a Proposed Deletion notice on it. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks Mike. What do you think of what I put in place there? Does it meet the test? If not, what needs to happen to make it appropriate? - Wikiwag 14:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

See the various tags I've added to it. The YouTube video should probably go. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Orange Mike: On your last edit, you removed the reference to the Congressional Committee page for the legislation on the grounds that the reference did not support the claim. WP:VERIFY specifically states "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Moreover, the previously posted reference listed and detailed the consensus of the parties involved per the Reliable Sources/Claims of consensus guideline. Kindly explain how a U.S. Congress website listing the parties involved in the legislation does not meet that definition or that guideline. Thanks in advance for clearing this up. - Wikiwag 20:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The cite provided just listed the parties who'd had input; that doesn't back up your claims of a major role for CAFETY. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikiwag, FYI, this article has clearly met notability and verifiability reqs and I will take it on now. Let me know if you'd like my assistance on anything in particular; otherwise, consider it "safe." See the talk page for my explanation. I would suggest that you don't engage in any further conversation with the above editor on your talk page; instead, keep it all on the article talk page so that everyone can read that editor's concerted and aggressive responses to your inquiries. Have a great Wikiday! • Freechild'sup? 14:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks, Freechild! - Wikiwag 14:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Hey, I agree the article is much better now and it is unlikely to be subject to further deletion requests, good work. I would add that as far as I can see, Orangemike and myself have been trying to work with you in good faith to improve the article, and to help you understand how Wikipedia works, and although the talk page of the article is the best place to conduct content conversations, I think Freechild might be being just a little paranoid. Anyway, the article looks good and I hope you decide to stick around and make more contributions to the project. If you haven't already read it, I have found that this page is the best, most concise guide to what Wikipedia is and how it works, as it briefly outlines the core concepts othat the project is based on. Good Luck! Beeblbrox (talk) 18:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Family Foundation School

Wikiwag, while I understand you wish articles to remain neutral, the edits being done to "correct" edits we have made are making the article biased on the side of FFS. While I can understand taking out some statements, I feel as if leaving in the "response" by FFS directly towards me, while leaving my response to them out is also biased, as is calling those who have suffered abuse "survivors" rather than the survivors they are. Likewise, Betton House has been proven, through communications with the officials at said colleges, to have NO affiliation with these colleges....hence the edit on the page. This is the sole reason the colleges names were taken off of the BH website prior to it being "terminated"...Again, I'll accept some edits in the fairness of neutrality, but keep it neutral, not biased please.--djjone5ny —Preceding unsigned comment added by DJJONE5NY (talk • contribs) 15:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

djjone5ny: If you can find a WP:Reliable_Source that supports your claim, then I'm happy to let it stay. Blog posts and original research do not meet the test. - Wikiwag 15:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

wikiwag: I'm sorry, but the "response" given by FFS is just as "reliable" as any letter that myself or cafety has written in response to FFS. It is not a blog post, but rather an official statement by myself as a board member of CAFETY. The letter issued by FFS to StrugglingTeens is just as unreliable, as it is issued to a website that promotes these programs, and has never been sent to either a news outlet, government office, nor even myself personally who the response is truly directed at.--djjone5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by DJJONE5NY (talk • contribs) 15:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

djjone5ny: All you have to do is demonstrate where your response was published by an independent party (e.g. NOT the CAFETY website). The response was published on an independent website of a trade journal that meets journalistic standards. Your response does not. Moreover, reverting previously reverted edits that were made on legitimate grounds is considered edit warring. Per Wikipedia Policy:

• Deliberate engagement in edit warring instead of discussion is considered a breach of Wikiquette and may cause a user to be blocked from editing.

Please find reliable sources to support your claims. Remember, the test is verifiability, not one person's view of the truth.

Further editwarring will be reported to AfC.

Finally, kindly sign your posts with four tildes - Wikiwag 15:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

wikiwag I appreciate your attempt at discussion as well as fighting for cafety's inclusion on wiki. My only concern with the response article is that it is a site that is unwilling to accept a response from others, as well as simply pays/takes payment from Family School. Off to work, but again thanks. I just don't want parents thinking the bias would legitimize the place, as it is dangerous...having lived through itDJJONE5NY (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)djjone5ny

This addition to the faculty portion of the Family Foundation School wiki "Mr. Cheripko is also the only staff member in the history of the Family School to have a student commit suicide under his watch. In 2004, a student who had already indicated suicidal tendencies plummeted to his death under Jan's studious, watchful eye. http://www.strugglingteens.com/news/familyschoolsuicide.html" is 100% accurate and founded. Please do not remove it again.CoreEpic (talk) 21:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)Emil

File:Familyfoundationschool.jpg

Hi. File:Familyfoundationschool.jpg, which you state is your own work, looks to be the same photo that is used on the school's website at [1]. Are you, personally, the photographer who took this photo with your own camera? If you, for example, worked for the school and took the photo in accordance with your official duties, the school, not you, would own the photograph. If you are the copyright holder, could you describe the circumstances by which the school is displaying your photo on their website? Thanks. --B (talk) 05:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The answer to this question may be very important indeed. This user is a major contributor to a rather contentious article about the school.sinneed (talk) 14:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi guys: In July 2008, I disclosed to the editors on this article here, that "while I have a somewhat more than passing familiarity with the school, I am not an employee. I have however, seen first-hand the positive, long-term impact of the school's program since [other editors'] involvement. This is what prompted me to write the article in the first place." You are correct, that this is the same photo that as it happens, appears on their website. You however, are incorrect in the possible explanation of it's coincidental appearance on both their website and in Wikimedia Commons.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that Wikipedia users are entitled to a degree of anonymity with respect to their identities - e.g. I do not need to reveal my offline identity. I unfortunately cannot be more specific about the origins of this photograph without revealing more about myself than I am comfortable doing. I will therefore confine myself to saying that the photograph is used as allowed by the license holder, and ask that you take that statement on the assumption of good faith. If you reject that assumption, then it is your right to delete the photograph from the Wikimedia Commons, but you will be doing so under a false premise. In the interest of maintaining my anonymity however, I will not contest the action, should you choose to take it. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 20:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

You are correct as I understand it.
And this is one of the reasons one should avoid editing articles too-closely related to one's "real life self". It is easy to damage that anonymity.
Another big reason is that it damages one's ability to keep an NPoV, as some ex-students of FFS show.
I was just concerned about the level of involvement, and seeing the pic mentioned as the same as on the web site made me flinch. If I had spent all that work on a carefully-constructed advertisement I was going to be quite sad.sinneed (talk) 03:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Understood, and no worries. You have not, as you put it, spent a lot of work on "a carefully-constructed advertisement." It's important to have a balanced article and I very much get and support that. That's why I was the one who worked on the congressional testimony and the CAFETY article. Though, I've always been a little confused by the arguably schizophrenic proposition that you should write about what you know about, but don't know too much, or else you risk being biased. It's very hard to balance the two. Thanks for your help. I'll see you on the article's talk page. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 21:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Quite. Thus: one of the big objections to Wikipedia.--sinneed (talk) 03:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

On the use of this image:

I, the author and uploader of the image Familyfoundationschool.jpg, and known on Wikipedia under the pseudonym Wikiwag, hereby state that at this time, I have not granted any entity a waiver to use this image without attribution, as required by the Wikipedia Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 License, under which this image is made available for reuse. Moreover, as allowed under the non-copyright restrictions afforded me by the terms of said license, as it applies to reusing content outside Wikimedia, I hereby assert the "moral rights" afforded to me under said license, to specifically and forever disallow the use of this work for any derogatory treatment of this work, distortion or mutilation of this work, and/or the derogatory treatment, distortion or mutilation of the Family Foundation School.

File: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Familyfoundationschool.jpg

License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Definition of Moral Rights: wiki.creativecommons.org

Signed: - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 22:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

User:167.230.38.115

Hi there. Just wanted to bring this user to your attention, as you have given them an absolute final warning over a week ago, and they persist on adding "information" about a suicide event at a school to Family Foundation School that is only supported by one source, and not acknowledged by the media or the institution itself.

Using Huggle, the user was auto-warned for introducing factually incorrect/unreferenced content, and continues to do so. Their edits were reverted twice by me, and they have since performed an undo on my last reversion.

I'll leave this in your hands :)

Chrisch^Talk 15:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

... Sorry - after that, I meant User:CoreEpic... I was responding to an IP message at the same time! ... This user has however been blocked, but their controversial edit with only one reference remains, and I've already reverted them twice.

Chrisch^Talk 15:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks, Chrisch. Happy New Year! - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 01:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

MMS idea

One more, you might drop over to the MMS article, and see if you can help the editor there. I learned quite a bit watching that article be disassembled and reassembled. It was really rather amazing. I think the ELs you listed are applicable to both articles. You might talk about it there, and see what that heavily experienced editor says. You might even be able to work there without being bludgeoned by edit warriors. But maybe not.sinneed (talk) 06:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion Sinneed. I'll give it a look over and contribute where I feel I can. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 15:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

not so fast!

I stopped entering my edit on the FFS wiki because I saw that it was getting me nowhere, not because I had come to consensus. Given the veracity of the information and given the neutrality of my most recent edit, I strongly believe it my responsibility to make sure that it is included on the page. please re-open the mediation request, if I cant talk reason into the talk page or enter the npov information quietly, then I would like my opportunity to have it mediated. please reopen the mediation CoreEpic (talk) 13:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic

I am satisfied with how the article is being handled by the more experienced editors and admins that have answered the call. Speaking as the person who made the mediation request in the first place, it's my prerogative to withdraw the request if I see fit to do so. As to your request that I reopen it...frankly, considering your personal attacks and the general unruliness with which you've approached your editing relationship with Wikipedia and the other editors here (myself included), you are hardly in a position to make such a request of me. If you still want mediation, then you'll have to make the request yourself, and consider being less abusive and more constructive going forward. If you can demonstrate that you are willing to abide by the rules, then you might find your fellow editors more receptive to cooperation (myself included). - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 15:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)