User talk:Lumos3

; Archives
	Sept 2003 – Dec 2005; Jan 2006 – June 2006; ; ;

Thanks for visiting my talk page. If you post here, I will reply here so the conversations don't get dis-jointed. If I have posted to your talk page, feel free to post your replies there...I'll watch.
Please add your message at the bottom, or click here to start a new section. Thanks

Leave a new message.

Rupert Murdoch

I believe this man is evil, you apparently don't. I have a strong arguement for why he is, do you have any reasons to think he is a kind and honest man?

Opinions

On the subject of opinions...imagine what would happen if someone began writing biographical articles about Wikipedia editors quoting all the (unpleasant) things they have been called on talk pages...not a pretty picture...let's have some standards around here (and we do, they're called guidelines...)

Hoping we can come to a harmonious picture of what is reasonable here, Hgilbert 23:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are not talking about just anyones opinion. Opinions make a difference if they are held by a group and if they are acted on in public. The opinon of any group on the public stage is a fact and should be reported. Thats not to say that the opinion itself is a fact. Lumos3 07:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

links to constellations instead of astrological signs

Hi Lumos3,

I see you created some (all?) of the separate articles on the astrological signs, as opposed to the corresponding constellations. That seems like a good idea (though I also see arguments against it), but the result is that there are now countless links that mean the sign but point to the constellation. I've started fixing these, but it's a whole lot of work and I was wondering whether you'd like to help me. If so, we could for instance divide the signs up, say, six each, and systematically go through the "What links here" pages of the articles on the constellations. Joriki 08:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joriki, This sounds like a very good idea. I will give it what time I can this week. I'll do Libra onwards if thats OK. Lumos3 08:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's fine. Coincidentally, as I'm writing this, I'm listening to Nothing's Impossible: "Even the stars look brighter tonight ..." Joriki 18:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Cooke Bourne drawing of Tring Cutting

On the Tring page you included the reference to this, and stated that it is in the National Portrait Gallery. This seems unlikely. These links http://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/results.asp?image=10300712&wwwflag=2&imagepos=3 http://www.nrm.org.uk/exhibitions/bourne/index.asp suggest that it is in the National Railway Museum, - though it doesn't say so explicitly. Do you still think it's in the NPR? DaveRo 12:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind - I found it. There is a picture in the NPL http://www.npg.org.uk/live/search/portrait.asp?LinkID=mp16676&rNo=0&role=art (relating to Stephenson) though it's not actually the 'Horse Runs' picture. There are several pictures in the set. I'll edit the reference. (I assume you'll delete this question.) DaveRo 13:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you look at the PLANS:Talk page

Hi Lumos3, two days ago, I asked you a question regarding the source of a statement you've made at the PLANS page. Can you look at it? Thanks. --Thebee 19:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Waldorf and PLANS

It's hard to overestimate the fall of PLANS' reputation due to the lack of evidence or witnesses for their court case. One of the organization's board members is both a co-founder and former board member of one of the schools PLANS was suing. Imagine being in that situation and having no evidence to present, or witnesses. They had seven years to present a case, a busy web-site and forum through which they could gather supportive evidence, and had nothing at the end of it. It wasn't a case of having some supportive evidence, but not enough to win the trial. They had and have nothing. Their claims are without merit, and that's official. Why should they be included in an encyclopedia article? Hgilbert 11:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They should be included simply because they are bringing this case. They are an organised group who are publicly criticising Waldorf education and, using the courts to do this. This makes them noteworthy. Even if the case had failed completely, and it is under notice of appeal, they would still be noteworthy. Wikipedia NPOV reports everthing that is noteworthy so a reader gets a 360 degree view of a subject including any current legal or political issues. Lumos3 21:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. And that's why and where they are included: in the section on the case. Have you noticed this section of the article yet, titled "US Waldorf charter schools"?Hgilbert 04:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The dabate is about an inclusion of them in the External links section under Critical. PLANS clearly fits this description. Lumos3 18:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel a strong case has been made that PLANS presents a distorted view, is not a published source, has a strong agenda (and may qualify as a hate group) and does not meet various other guidelines for sources and links. I can see including them in the Outside Views section, which allows people to see the range of opinion that's out there and this group as one extreme. I do not feel that including them as a sole "critical views" source is appropriate, however. Add more critical links (and preferably published material!) if you feel that there's so much justified criticism out there!!! Otherwise there's at least the appearance (arguably reflecting the reality) of this group being extremists supported by no evidence. Hgilbert 00:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you have ever visited a Waldorf school? I suggest you do so. You have strongly held views that seem as if they come from reading PLANS' site but from no actual contact with the reality of the education. Visit, ask questions, see the reality for yourself...PLEASE! Hgilbert 00:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

that whole POV thing

You messaged my IP about removing content, which I'm assuming reffered to my editing of the New Age page. I removed a so-called "New Agers response to criticism" which was a blatant attempt to dicredit any critcism of the movement through weasel words. I could have posted a template telling someone to remove them or do it myself; I saved someone else the time. Wikipedia is not the place to defend your "spirituality" against legitimate criticism, one might assume that a faith based in some semblance of reason (as New Age purports to) would stand on it's own merits, rather than responding to every critique with ".....well those damn Catholics do it too!". If this type of response, thinly veiled by "some people say" is Wikipedia-acceptable, than it is closer to a failed exercise than I might have hoped. Also, the removal of the passage which contained the phrase "we should make special reference" is in accordance with Wikipedia's non-encylcopediac style guidelines, and the list of New Age beliefs is in an unclear format which does not clearly represent these claims as such, but rather as fact. As I did not have time and effort to restructure it myself, I left a template so someone else might. Listing me as a vandal because of your own ignorance of wikipedia policies reflects more upon that ignorance rather than my malignance. I apologize for not making the reasons obvious on the talk pagem, but I assumed that they would be clearly recognized as routine editing.

I reverted your edit because it was from an anonymouse IP address and blanked content without giving a reason either in the edit summary or the discussion page. Lumos3 08:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme POV additions

You are adding extreme points of view to articles, especially to the PLANS article now (see list of topics taken from Dan Dugan), with hate-filled or extremely negative implications about other organizations or movements. This is beginning to seem like a pattern; when extreme points of view are not in conflict with your own, you lose your editorial judgment. Please pretend that you are an objective editor, considering the appropriateness of an addition including the factors:

Is it just someone blabbing on the web? There are millions of comments out there on every subject; published material is clearly preferred.
Is it hate-filled, prejudicial or simply obviously subjective?

Wikipedia's established guidelines, to which I have repeatedly referred you on various talk pages, clearly establish criteria that help avoid the kind of extremism in tone and content you seem to be promulgating with a vengeance these days. Hgilbert 14:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. The name calling of PLANS as a hate site comes only from within Anthroposophy and is part of a campaign to discredit legitimate criticism of some aspects of Anthroposophy. PLANS is a genuine site and should be brought to the attention of anyone researching Steiner’s work. I can testify that the reasoning behind Waldorf educational practise is not discussed in an open way in schools I have encountered. Your edits seem to perpetuate this tendency to obscure and hide Steiner’s teachings. I have a lot of respect for many aspects the Waldorf system but wish it would face up to its occult and irrational basis. Lumos3 11:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about this: "Real science and medicine vs. Anthroposophical quack science and medicine. Sharing of Waldorf horror stories." That sounds like a campaign to discredit anthroposophy and Waldorf, but you added it to the PLANS web-site. I have repeatedly referred you to the criteria for use of organizations' own web-sites as sources of material, which include the requirement that this be for self-descriptions, and not belittlement (or praise) of third-parties. Dan Dugan's descriptions of his own work may be cited, but not in a way that comments on third-parties. I asked, "Is it hate-filled, prejudicial or simply obviously subjective?" Please consider Wikipedia guidelines and not just your own prejudices. Hgilbert 12:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not add these words to the PLANS website. I have no contact with PLANS. PLANS is a skeptic site and the language you quote is strong but not offensive to a most people. PLANS is cited as evidence of a balancing point of view, Very little of its content is present in the Wikipedia article.Lumos3 23:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orthomolecular medicine

The talk page shows why the POV tag is necessary. The article needs a lot of work. I've started that process. -- 70.232.110.230 19:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, you've been listed as an involved party at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-09 Orthomolecular medicine and related pages. My advice: ignore the case until it affects you personally, or you are asked for direct involvement. linas 14:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps more than common colds & viruses for respiratory disease

Red hair

Nice work with this picture. It's beautiful.

chocolateboy 15:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was stunned too when I found it on Google images. Lumos3 19:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bah. The monograph seems to be a bit hard to track down. I considered myself to be quite the expert on this period, but had never heard of Godward. Mucho gracias for introducing me to him.

chocolateboy 16:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List is not good practise

On English people you claim that a list does not conform to good practice, and yet you just reverted one style of list to another. All I had done was change the format to a vertical from a horizontal list, but both are lists. I have removed the list, it is a duplication of material from the List of English people article, but I am rather bemused as to your comment. A list is a list, and you had not removed the list at all, you had merely changes the style of the list. Alun 06:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Embedded list. I have no objection to a list of the most prominent and influential English people who by their contribution have made a world wide impact and I think this adds to the article. However Wikipedia Style is to avoid the use of bulleted lists in an article ( except those in articles which are soley lists). Articles should try to describe their subject using prose and where a list is beneficial , use the Serial Comma method. Lumos3 12:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Freiburg Kaufhaus.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Freiburg Kaufhaus.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I have added a GDFL license Lumos3 22:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i did not edit any article whatsoever!

Mediation

This user page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.
If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you might try contacting the user in question or seeking broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/OpenNote is deprecated. Please see User:MediationBot/Opened message instead.

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Example. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to formal mediation, and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you, [signature]

Since you haven't yet replied, might I ask if you are willing to sign on here? Or do you wish to strike your name from the list of involved participants to allow mediation to go forward? Hgilbert 01:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

me, my career

hi , i just want to ask u why i have to struggle so in life , nothing comes handy i always have to struggle very to achieve something. i want to about my career how is going to shape up , please guide me. thank you.

Energy flows

This is with reference to your recent edit changing "said yo flow" to "flows". I personally do not like the verb flows in the context of energy, iy gives me a feeling that energy is some kind of fluid, which it isn't.

Charlie 19:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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: 12:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC).

Himalaya

Hello Lumos3 took your advice and actioned the request. I don't think it was a positive experience though, I wrote in detail what I researched and could add quickly to the discusion, it seems there are people who live for the argument only, unfortunately I got into it as well (not very proud of it and probably diminished the point), so I've stopped. The Survery looks as though its not going anywhere. I think somebody like yourself whos done a lot of work, could possibly strip out all the points made, contrast that with the data and What Wikipedia requires and present it. I think a neutral party should get involved, I guess I can live with "Himalayas" I just won't use it in articles. I'm sure this issue will rear its head again. (Gowron 11:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC))

Erik Möller

I've restored the Erik Moller article; I agree there should be one now he's a Wikimedia board member. Please let me know via my talk page if there is any dispute over my action... Dan100 (Talk) 16:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sea-buckthorn

Hi Lumos3 - "and sometimes up to 600mg per 100g" - have you got a reference for that, please? - thanks, MPF 23:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See http://www.itmonline.org/arts/seabuckthorn.htm

also http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/ncnu02/v5-393.html Lumos3 09:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I'll add one to the article - MPF 09:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]