User talk:Clean Copy/Archive4

Hi, Hgilbert, you might want to add more information to my talk page on this subject. Thanks. --EPadmirateur (talk) 21:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to give you a head's up I posted about PARSIFAL here since I'm sure you would be interested. Cheers a13ean (talk) 22:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. hgilbert (talk) 22:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have forwarded the information you provided at User_talk:Fred_Bauder#Pete_K_on_anthroposophy.2FWaldorf_pages to the Arbitration Committee. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. hgilbert (talk) 20:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This amounts to harassment. Why are you associating me with this person? 76.170.168.122 (talk) 18:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Walks like a duck, talks like a duck. hgilbert (talk) 20:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda also works for Waldorf teachers with a Conflict of Interest problem doesn't it? 76.170.168.122 (talk) 21:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please make a request at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Requests_for_enforcement. User:Fred Bauder Talk 04:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; the user has since been blocked for two weeks. We'll see if it arises again. I very much appreciate knowing the proper recourse if it does. hgilbert (talk) 13:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you happen to find the data this is based on or similar data send it my way and I'll make a pretty one in IGOR Pro. Cheers a13ean (talk) 01:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hgilbert, I think that it is clear that we have differences of opinion on a variety of medical issues. However, I want to thank you for your editing style. It is refreshing. Best wishes, Desoto10 (talk) 04:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; I appreciate working together with others to represent the full picture. Vive la difference! hgilbert (talk) 11:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please address questions about interpretations of past arbitration decisions to the current arbitration committee. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a motion has been passed regarding an Arbitration clarification request which named you as a party. Please view the wording of the motion, feel free to discuss the motion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hgilbert,

I have long had concerns about long-term civil pov-pushing by several editors, including yourself, at Waldorf Education and related topics. I plan to open an ANI thread about this, and just wanted to give you a head's up in case you would like to prepare a statement, or look closely at the actions of myself or any other editors. Thanks, a13ean (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. a13ean (talk) 23:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the Waldorf schools article, you made two reversions regarding material that is controversial; material that is disputed on the talk page. You must self-revert or face sanctions because of the ArbCom final decision in 2006. Please revert:

• this removal of disputed text from the lead section, and
• This removal of the "Pseudoscience" category.

Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 03:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are active discussions about both these topics on the article talk page. We need to find consensus among the editors there.

I don't know if you remember that there was a recent review of the original arbitration proceeding; I think you contributed to this. You might want to have a look at this again. hgilbert (talk) 11:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I filed a request for clarification at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Continued_conflict_of_interest_at_Waldorf_education. Feel free to take part in the discussion there. Binksternet (talk) 15:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I filed an Arbitration Enforcement report about your behavior at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Hgilbert. You are free to make a statement there. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 00:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi H, I opened Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/PARSIFAL after not getting any response on WP:N a while back. Also it appears I managed to lose the source file for the chart, but will recreate it with the new data points when I have a chance. Cheers, a13ean (talk) 19:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on my talk page. Gatoclass (talk) 11:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the concerns raised about your editing in the arbitration enforcement request of 12 March 2013 (including related statements by others), and without prejudice to the definitive disposition of that request, please take note of the following warnings:

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to Waldorf education. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to pseudoscience. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

Thank you for your attention.  Sandstein  18:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hgilbert, this is just to inform you that the AE request involving you has closed with a warning to you; please read the findings of the request carefully in order to avoid possible future sanctions. Since Sandstein has already posted warnings to you above with regard to this request, there is no need for me to add another. Gatoclass (talk) 20:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Salutogenesis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stress (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Just wanted to know if you have anything more to add/respond to Winchester2313's recent comments (15 April 2013) here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Quote_from_book_.22Israel_and_the_Politics_of_Jewish_Identity:_The_Secular-Religious_Impasse.22_regarding_Rabbi_Elazar_Shach

Yonoson3 (talk) 02:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've given my thoughts on the subject. I have no more to say. hgilbert (talk) 11:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You recently reversed a deletion on Waldorf education because it gave no reason. I noticed that the reason is on the talk page. I'm not speaking for or against the reason, I simply noticed that a reason was given on the talk page. Throughme (talk) 02:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After I reverted the seemingly groundless removal, I left a message on the user's talk page encouraging him/her to justify the deletion on the talk page if s/he felt it was viable. That user now has done so, and I am interested to see what s/he has to say! hgilbert (talk) 02:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, nicely done. Throughme (talk) 10:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised that you did not propose to move Constructivism (philosophy of education) to Constructivist epistemology. Why discriminate against Constructivism when you feel so strongly about Behaviorism, Cognitivism, and Humanism?Stmullin (talk) 15:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Constructivism seems to be more consciously employed within the philosophy of education. I prefer to err on the side of leaving material if there might be a basis for doing so. (In addition, there is an extant article on this with considerable substance.)

There are many schools which strive to provide a humanistic education, and an article could be written about this if there are sufficient sources. This would probably be a little different than an article on humanism as a philosophy of education. Why (I ask rhetorically)? Isn't it less a coherent philosophy of education, than a coherent philosophy, which some have tried to apply in an educational context?

Behaviorism in the philosophy of education, could perhaps be a helpful section of the behaviorism article, but it doesn't seem to justify an article in its own right. hgilbert (talk) 05:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I write in historical context about what has already happened in education not about what might be or could be, which leads me to suggest that your viewpoint is not one of an educator. As an educator, philosophies of learning and philosophies of instruction are distinct and that distinction is very important. The descriptive and the perscriptive are frequently confused in Wikipedia articles. Unraveling that confusion is a monumental task. the vocabulary used by Philosophy majors and Psychology majors overlaps with the work of Education majors but one does not exempt the other . . . and where there are differences, the differences are significant. Please exercise care in exempting the work of other disciplines . . . it does not lead to cooperation. Stmullin (talk) 13:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Civility Barnstar
		Thanks for your help with the Philosophy of education article!Stmullin (talk) 03:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to review the ArbCom findings once again. It doesn't seem you've learned from all that's been discussed on the matters in general, or the specific concerns pertaining to you. --Ronz (talk) 21:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There were specific concerns raised in that ArbCom about skeptics pushing their viewpoint. Placing an NPOV template on an article that uses exclusively mainstream sources because "the topic is by definition pseudoscientific" is a classic example of the latter. I still have seen no justification for the template on the talk page that addresses the actual framework of the article. For example, which sources would you add, use less, or remove? hgilbert (talk) 13:20, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like you're setting yourself up for further ArbCom actions, and are sticking to a battleground mentality. Good luck with that. --Ronz (talk) 16:04, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really interested in sorting out the article, not battling. Please indicate what concrete issues there are on the talk page. Perhaps we can find some productive way of actually improving the article. (That would be nice.) hgilbert (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The approach has "a holistic interpretation of the inter-relationship between soil, plants and animals as a self-nourishing system"^[1]

Hi fellow editor, could you do me a favour and read over the Sikh section to see if it makes sense? Thanks SH 13:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've compressed it considerably. I hope not too much, but only a brief overview is needed here. Sikhism should provide further details. hgilbert (talk) 03:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No that's good. Sometimes like me when you are close to the subject (i.e. I lecture in it), it's difficult to just write the most pertinent information. Thanks SH 15:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hgilbert, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Information about STiki, including: Using STiki and its hotkeys Comparison with other tools Information about vandalism on Wikipedia Here are some pages which are a little more fun: The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users! Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes! We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and -- t numbermaniac c 05:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Waldorf education, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 11:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you are talking about -- diffs would be helpful -- as I haven't added any content to this article for at least 3 months. My most recent edit just moved text to an area directly relating to it, and the citations were in the text that immediately followed what I moved. HGilbert (talk) 14:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. The user that required warning was Greenwichpatient. I have stricken out my comment above.

Again, sorry for any trouble caused. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 17:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's all right, glad it could be cleared up. HGilbert (talk) 21:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]