User talk:Erdanion

Archives

Category reverted in both articles (?)[edit]

Hi! Why did you revert the subcat in both articles? What do you mean with Not really a correct category? I assume i donnot need to recall Rudolf Steiner's words and published works related to the 'Rose Cross'. Please feel free to share your point of view. Thank you. --Lusitanian 18:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lusitanian! It is a "category", that's not the same thing than "relate". Anthroposophy and Rose Cross are different movements, neither one belonging to the other. Erdanion 18:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Understood your point; however in this amazing "tool" here called Wikipedia the way we relate subjects is not only through direct textual sentences and references but also through internal links, see also's, categories ... i am aware that Anthroposophy, as created by its founder Rudolf Steiner, has its own formal expressions and tools in our society; but can't we agree that the Rose Cross Christianity shown in Steiners' works deeply influenced Steiners' spiritual views expressed in the Anthroposophy school teaching and action? --Lusitanian 18:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make an internal link, you could try "See also" part. Categories should be correct, if we have two different movements, it isn't right to categorize one inside the other. Erdanion 18:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, i will not insist; anyway, initially i was not sure whether it should be included or not, so let's keep it as it is for the time being. Thank you for your attention, regards. --Lusitanian 19:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV @ Waldorf[edit]

Hello Erdanion. On Fergie's talk page we were discussing who might be a neutral party in regards to the Waldorf page. Our intention is to have the article looked over by a neutral party and have that individual remove the NPOV tag if the article is determined neutral. Obviously, you would be disqualified if you are an Anthroposophist, but since you make bipartisan edits I thought that's probably not the case. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 17:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an anthroposophist and I don't have memberships in any association which would relate to anthroposophy. I have some interest towards Steiner and spiritual matters. I don't know whether a non-anthroposophist can be neutral either, but Lkleinjans has seemed quite neutral. Erdanion 19:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]