Thanks for noticing uncited material at the Waldorf education article. Usually the first thing to do is to put on a fact tag, {{fact}}, which is really a request to supply a citation. If after a few weeks nothing is done about this, it's probably time to delete the section. I have rewritten the section with citations to the foundation that supports the school; have a look and see what you think (and make any changes you feel are necessary).
I'm wondering why you sometimes change the internal format of articles to fixed line-lengths? Does this work better for your browser? It seems unusual for Wikipedia, but I'm not sure if there is any sort of standard. Hgilbert 20:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hello! thank you for the message, I just edit as best I can after
reading the article and checking it sources. The line lenghs are an accident, its OK to change them if you can improve them. 1garden 13:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello 1garden. Thanks very much for answering the request for comments I put up. There have been many problems with this article over many months and a lot of dispute. I would really appreciate your input. I am preparing a list and explanation of points/changes that I think are necessary and very clear to see. Please dont be influenced negatively towards me personally by me being banned from editing this article. If you read through the Arbitration case with a neutral 'eye' I believe you can see that I had many clear and valid points - and the Arbitration Committee does not really focus on content. I will put a note here when I have prepared the list of points about the current content which I will do very soon. Thanks again for your input. Richardmalter 06:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I have now put a list of necessary changes [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Richardmalter#WHAT_NEEDS_TO_BE_DONE_.28in_the_very_least.29TO_THE_BDORT_ARTICLE here]. Thank you. Richardmalter 10:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
This is more complicated! I am reading about it, Ok. 1garden 04:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
1garden 04:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
If you keep on reverting, this account is likely to be blocked. Please engage with the editors on the talk page and gain consensus for your changes before making them. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 15:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
You're also likely to be blocked if you just try to implement RichardMalter's desired changes as a proxy, which the previous section on this page suggests. -- Philosophus T 20:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
It is clear that you are acting as a proxy for a topic-banned editor in order for him to continue to promote the edits that got him banned. I have blocked you. Guy ( Help!) 12:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
1garden ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
incorrect
Decline reason:
Clearly not incorrect, you were definitely performing edits at the request of RichardMalter. — Yamla 13:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I am so surprised to be blocked?!!! I am not proxy of anybody!! This is very insult. I do not understand because all I do was make request for help and now I am blocked from this!! Other editor also make comments like me and try to edit - why he is not blocked only me!! This is not right, I do not understand why? It is right to dispuite article, no? Is this not correct?! I ask for help from administrators, not be blocked? Also I made no edits, just ask for help about this. This is open forum!!!!
212.29.211.18 12:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for noticing uncited material at the Waldorf education article. Usually the first thing to do is to put on a fact tag, {{fact}}, which is really a request to supply a citation. If after a few weeks nothing is done about this, it's probably time to delete the section. I have rewritten the section with citations to the foundation that supports the school; have a look and see what you think (and make any changes you feel are necessary).
I'm wondering why you sometimes change the internal format of articles to fixed line-lengths? Does this work better for your browser? It seems unusual for Wikipedia, but I'm not sure if there is any sort of standard. Hgilbert 20:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hello! thank you for the message, I just edit as best I can after
reading the article and checking it sources. The line lenghs are an accident, its OK to change them if you can improve them. 1garden 13:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello 1garden. Thanks very much for answering the request for comments I put up. There have been many problems with this article over many months and a lot of dispute. I would really appreciate your input. I am preparing a list and explanation of points/changes that I think are necessary and very clear to see. Please dont be influenced negatively towards me personally by me being banned from editing this article. If you read through the Arbitration case with a neutral 'eye' I believe you can see that I had many clear and valid points - and the Arbitration Committee does not really focus on content. I will put a note here when I have prepared the list of points about the current content which I will do very soon. Thanks again for your input. Richardmalter 06:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I have now put a list of necessary changes [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Richardmalter#WHAT_NEEDS_TO_BE_DONE_.28in_the_very_least.29TO_THE_BDORT_ARTICLE here]. Thank you. Richardmalter 10:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
This is more complicated! I am reading about it, Ok. 1garden 04:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
1garden 04:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
If you keep on reverting, this account is likely to be blocked. Please engage with the editors on the talk page and gain consensus for your changes before making them. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 15:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
You're also likely to be blocked if you just try to implement RichardMalter's desired changes as a proxy, which the previous section on this page suggests. -- Philosophus T 20:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
It is clear that you are acting as a proxy for a topic-banned editor in order for him to continue to promote the edits that got him banned. I have blocked you. Guy ( Help!) 12:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
1garden ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
incorrect
Decline reason:
Clearly not incorrect, you were definitely performing edits at the request of RichardMalter. — Yamla 13:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I am so surprised to be blocked?!!! I am not proxy of anybody!! This is very insult. I do not understand because all I do was make request for help and now I am blocked from this!! Other editor also make comments like me and try to edit - why he is not blocked only me!! This is not right, I do not understand why? It is right to dispuite article, no? Is this not correct?! I ask for help from administrators, not be blocked? Also I made no edits, just ask for help about this. This is open forum!!!!
212.29.211.18 12:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)