User talk:Henitsirk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

HI there,

You need to be aware of the ArbCom ruling on these articles Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education - and you may want to consider that this diff [1] is adding in a disallowed source. Really we need a source here that is non-anthroposophy based as it could be contentious about what type of religion Waldorf schools follow. Cheers Lethaniol 03:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your encouraging message. Arlene Monks wasn't identified as an anthroposophist in the article but was identified as involved in Waldorf schooling. I am now websurfing for sources that do not come from Steiner publishers. At some point it seems off to me to object that those who have ties to Waldorf or Steiners schools can be sources. By definition it would restrict "experts" to people who have no expertise because professional experience disqualifies them as experts. My understanding is that it is the independence of the publisher rather than the authorship's experience which the arbitration decided to limit. Venado 03:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Experts would be educational professionals unaffiliated with Anthroposophy or the Waldorf schools. Fred Bauder 02:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Temperaments

Congratulations on a well-balanced temperaments section! Also, thank you generally for your catalyzing and sensible presence in a sometimes caustic environment. Hgilbert 19:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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 02:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copy editing at Catholicism and Freemasonry

I am very pleased that you have taken this on... the article needs it. One thing to be warry of: This is a very controvercial topic. Some of the convoluted language that is used is the result of a lot of contentious back and forth between editors trying to achieve NPOV. Please review the Talk page before you edit. Thanks and good luck. Blueboar 13:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] League of Copyeditors participation drive!

Dear League member,

We've started a participation drive for the remainder of February. If you can, please help clear the backlog by adopting the following goals each week:

Thanks for your help! BuddingJournalist 01:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Waldorf Education / Eurythmy

Did you remove your comment? My browser refresh isn't showing it anymore:

Jtfine: I checked your source and found the following here: All students participate in Eurythmy classes during each of their four years at the high school. The Eurythmy Performance Group is an elective course set within the music elective program, and an audition is required to qualify for this elective. Henitsirk 01:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

--Jtfine 03:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

nm it's there. --Jtfine 01:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Single Purpose Accounts

Hi Henitsirk,

Let me start by saying that you have little to worry about. WP:SPA is more about cautioning users that SPAs can cause problems as they will be seen to pushing a particular POV e.g. Pete K, TheBee and Hgilbert may be good examples of this, but I have not checked their contributions closely enough to be sure. As far as I have seen your edits have been consensus building and not POV pushing.

That being said you may want to broaden your exposure to Wikipedia - experience with other articles and forums on subjects will give you a better understanding of how Wikipedia works, how policies are implemented, how conflicts are managed etc... The reason I have been relatively successful in helping with Waldorf Education is not because I have loads more experience on Wikipedia, but because my experience has been broader - hence I can not only bring a more balanced understanding of policies but also lots of tricks of the trade that can help in article development. All of these I have learned not from reading about them but by seeing editing/discussions in action.

Furthermore you will get some slight less respect from other Wikipedians if all your edits are in a very narrow sphere of mainspace. This is not too say they are right to do, but that it is likely to occur.

What I strongly recommend you do though is to broaden your experience a bit, say spend 25% of your time on Wikipedia on something other than that related to Anthroposophy. For example you could help out tackling vandalism, answer question from newish users or monitor the creation of new pages (also see WP:CSD for this) - as well as working on other articles. The advantage for you here, is that by building up experience with various projects and administration so you will understand Wikipedia much better, so be better able to work and discuss at Waldorf Education. Remember pick something fun and have a play, you can always try something else if you get bored.

Again back to your question - I think you have little to worry about WP:SPA but if you want to be a better editor and not get sucked into POV pushing in the future then broadening your experiences will benefit you and Wikipedia.

Cheers Lethaniol 16:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I have taken on board what you said and modified my statement regarding single issue editors. My intent was to highlight the issue rather than point the finger at individual editors. However, the editors need to be listed so that the arbitration committee can check the 'user contributions'. As Lethaniol says, you have little reason to fear sanction for concentrating on Steiner-related articles, and I can see, as everyone else can, that you are indeed branching out. That said, I am still making the point that single-issue editing has been a long term problem on the articles in question. Regards--Fergie 11:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ask for a favor: Persian cinema

Since December 2005 I am working on Iranian cinema. You see that the article came a long path. [2]. I was improving it slowly. However the article is not in a good status yet. I want to bring the article to GA status. As you have a good command of English language and you are a member of editor league, you are in principle able to help me improving this article faster. It would be great if you could contribute to this article and help me in copyeditting. There are many useful articles here as well. Any helps will be very much appreciated. Thanks. Sangak 20:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Sangak, it looks like someone is already editing this. Thanks. Henitsirk 14:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedit request

Hello, Henitsirk. I saw you enlisted at the WP:LoCE therefore I wanted to ask if you wouldn't mind to take a look at 2012 Summer Olympics bids (52 kb). Since it is on FAC, it had two complete sweeps by a reviewer, but another one still thinks the prose is not professional enough to support it. I've put a request on the WP:LoCE but I sense it will take a long time before it gets a writing-style review.

I'm asking other WPs to help but I would really appreciate your contribution, but it's OK if for some reason you can't. Cheers! Parutakupiu talk || contribs 04:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kent FAC

Hi. I'm sorry to bother you, but as a LoCE member, I just wondered if you would be willing to have a look through the Kent article. It is currently a Featured Article Candidate and needs a copy-edit for grammar by someone who hasn't yet seen it. Any other ways to improve the article would also be welcome. Thank you very much, if you can. Epbr123 20:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DP userbox

You may be interested in adding {{User distributed proofreaders}} to your user page.

[edit] League of Copyeditors roll call

Greetings from the League of Copyeditors. Your name is listed on our members page, but we are unsure how many of the people listed there are still active contributors to the League's activities. If you are still interested in participating in the work of the League, please follow the instructions at the members page to add your name to the active members list. Once you have done that, you might want to familiarise yourself with the new requests system, which has replaced the old /proofreading subpage. As the old system is now deprecated, the main efforts of the League should be to clear the substantial backlog which still exists there.
The League's services are in as high demand as ever, as evinced by the increasing backlog on our requests pages, both old and new. While FA and GA reviewers regularly praise the League's contributions to reviewed articles, we remain perennially understaffed. Fulfilling requests to polish the prose of Wikipedia's highest-profile articles is a way that editors can make a very noticeable difference to the appearance of the encyclopedia. On behalf of the League, if you do consider yourself to have left, I hope you will consider rejoining; if you consider yourself inactive, I hope you will consider returning to respond to just one request per week, or as many as you can manage. Merry Christmas and happy editing, The League of Copyeditors.

Melon‑Bot (STOP!) 17:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)