User talk:Tilman

Tilman is taking a long wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia when contributing to wikipedia will be fun and respected again.

Welcome!

Hello, Tilman, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Registered users can set their own personal preferences to make their experience here even better. By the way, please be sure to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! , SqueakBox 15:12, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

heh

Are we having fun yet? - David Gerard 11:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure :-) Tilman 17:39, 7 September 2005 (UTC)Tilman[reply]

Of course we are! It's like ARS, but more so. (Sometime I need to get myself updated on what's going on there. I haven't been there since I was a jailbait high school student with an ugly website.) Madame Sosostris 22:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology stub on Tilman Hausherr

Just a heads-up, but AI (talk · contribs), for some reason, seems hell-bent on removing {{scientology-stub}} from Tilman Hausherr. --Calton | Talk 07:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. This AI guy is really weird, and he's currently very angry (see his user page). I like the comment Tilman (...) is an enemy of Scn. I wonder if I could get something more "official" :-) Tilman 07:37, 15 September 2005 (UTC)Tilman[reply]

LOL. Tilman, I am wierd? You're the one that is wierd. You stalk Barbara all over the place with no apparent reason. You obviously want to destroy her credibility and reputation for some reason. Barbara's written reason why you want to do this is probably much closer to the truth then anything you claim. --AI 23:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Scientology stub is innapropriate for Tilman's page. He is not a Scientologist. With Calton's logic we should put Jewish stub on any short Nazi articles. --AI 23:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From the stub template: This Scientology-related article...

Reading: not AI's strong suit. --Calton | Talk 02:31, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Considering how often I see you guys ragging on AI, I'd say he does pretty well.Terryeo 17:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calton, no personal attacks. --AI 02:40, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tilman is a German critic of Scientology, that does not mean he is Scientology-related. --AI 02:40, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But some of my activities in my free time are Scientology-related. Tilman 04:12, 16 September 2005 (UTC)Tilman[reply]

Tut, tut, Tilman! You are being most naughty! Everyone knows you are not Scientology-related! You cannot trace your line of descent back to Xenu! You were not Photoshopped in next to the Man With No Head! You were never French-kissed by Hubbard! Silly person, of course you are not Scientology-related! -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:20, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And some of your activities are psychiatry-related so with your logic one should add the psych stub to your article. --AI 00:55, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, not really. By the way, what happened to you having "indefinitely left Wikipedia"? Is Wikipedia addictive? Does scientology already have a WIKINON in preparation, with the same low success rate (7%) than NARCONON? Tilman 08:36, 17 September 2005 (UTC)Tilman[reply]

In view of your recent edits and arguements, Tilman, which included the phrase, "let's delete this thread", I might suggest that you spend maybe a few minutes reading some of the basic policies and guidelines, getting a feeling for how threads are deleted and not deleted, how WP:PAIN works, and some of the rest of civility. Not than anyone should ever take my advise, but it seems that someone should speak softly to you once in a while. Terryeo 17:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brainwashing and Mind Control

Please take part at the merge vote under Talk:Mind control#Merge vote --Irmgard 16:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AUTO guideline

Please see WP:AUTO in regard of editing an article about yourself, or editing articles that refer to you. Happy editing! ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I didn't know that guideline yet, but I have been aware that I'm on thin ice editing something about myself.--Tilman 19:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Super Power Building

Hi Tilman... I'd like to use one of your images of the Super Power Building (specifically, this one) to illustrate the Super Power Building article. If you don't have the original handy, I can photoshop out the text. Let me know.... thanks, wikipediatrix 02:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, use it. It is here: [1]. However, I'm not releasing it into the public domain, I allow it for Wikipedia (and mirrors/clones, printed versions, or CD/DVDs of Wikipedia) only. --Tilman 08:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded it (it's on Super Power Building and Supernatural abilities in Scientology doctrine now) but I couldn't find a tag for "Wikipedia use only". I asked the Media questions board and someone responded that you can't assign an image "for Wikipedia use only", which makes zero sense to me. Maybe you can make more sense of it than I can - I've always found Wikipedia's image policy to be arbitrary and baffling. wikipediatrix 01:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was possible with another of my images. Sorry, but I'm not willing to release my works into the public domain or into a "creative commons" type of license.

Consider using another photograph (someone did a few that were posted on abs)... the one from me you chose is outdated anyway, since the SP building looks different now (although still unfinished, hahahaha). --Tilman 06:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Belated welcome

Well, well, look what the cat dragged in ... ;-)

Howdy, and welkommen! I think you'll find Wikipedia a more congenial place to work than alt.religion.unification but that the standards of verifiablity and neutrality can be difficult to abide by.

Not for me :) --Tilman 20:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We sure had some fun conversations years ago: do you remember Dan Fefferman? --Uncle Ed 20:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. --Tilman 20:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

discussion of opinion

You made comment about my personal opinion at Talk:R2-45. You stated, But you did give your opinion that R2-45 is a joke. Now suddenly you "lost" your opinion? --Tilman 08:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC) I want you to understand, I am perfectly willing to talk about my opinion and do not mean to preclude such discussion. However, for purposes of article development, one individual's personal opinion only has a certain amount of weight. I don't feel it is appropriate to tie up a lot of the discussion page with why my opinion is better than anyone else's or with why my opinion comes from more education in Scientology than anyone else's. The article's talk page is usually not a useful place to discuss personal opinion. However, I am willing to discuss my personal opinion. Here on your user page or on my user page would be a more appropriate venue to discuss my opinion, to get into communication, to understand what each other means by specific issues that might unduly tie up an article's disucssion page. I see you have migrated from alt.religion.scientology and that Mr. Gerard has talked with you a little. I therefore understand your background in asking if I have lost my opinion. I replied. Is there more you wish to discuss? Terryeo 16:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Also worth noting is the simplicity. "Have you lost your opinion", can be construed to be more that an innocent question. I see you are a new editor on Wikipedia and, perhaps, you have not viewed some of the personal attack policies, such as WP:POINT. Terryeo 17:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep this discussion to where it belongs, which is on the talk page of R2-45, since this is whether "R2-45 is a joke". --Tilman 17:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I may butt in, discussions about whether comments are appropriate don't belong on the talk page where they were made, but are usually discussed on user talk pages. Of course, you're under no obligation to reply here - it's merely the custom at Wikipedia.

I would like you to feel welcome and to be able to fit in at Wikipedia, because despite our disagreements at a.r.u. several years ago, I always felt you had a lot of sense and many important perspectives to impart regarding both my church and Scientology. --Uncle Ed 17:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. --Tilman 17:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And Hello again. I'm perfectly willing to discuss with you,if you choose to discuss. I won't tie up article discussion pages with large amounts of personal opinion. At this point the ball is in your court if you wish to discuss. Terryeo 05:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In accordance with WP:PAIN, please stop your personal attacks

Please stop your personal attacks. At [2]you state: Please stop wasting our time, you have been presented with evidence that "inside the church" is indeed correct. I spell the situation out there and ask you to stop your personal attacks. You are a new editor on Wikipedia, I therefore remind you once again to address your comments toward building articles, rather than attacking individual editors. WP:PAIN spells out my options when attacked and spells out your options as attacker. Please stop your personal attacks, User:Tilman Terryeo 16:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But you were indeed wasting time, since the question has been answered. Now stop wasting my time with personal messages, and post to the appropriate discussion instead. I'll respond there, unless it is something I already responded before. Thank you for your understanding. --Tilman 18:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would hardly call that a personal attack, and did rather seem to be on the topic of building the article. While personal attacks are not nice, one should not be so reactive to such a small semblance of an offense. Also, why do you mention PAIN instead of NPA? Please don't write these notices in such a threatening tone, and AGF. --Philosophus ^T 02:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Tilman, there has been a history of certain problem users who seem to regard other users who disagree with them as editing in bad faith and treat them with incivility. These few users falsely accuse those who disagree with them of personal attacks. I don't think such folks will be tolerated much longer here on the wiki. Just offering my personal opinion.--Fahrenheit451 00:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Potters House?

I'm sure you remember our friend "Nick" with his crusade to make sure his link to an "anonymous organization" calling Rick Ross a homosexual gets into the 'pedia one way or another. It probably isn't a surprise that he's doing it at Potter's House Christian Fellowship, and using "logic" that amounts to "either I get to insert these anonymous smear sites, or I get to remove any URLs to sites that say things about Potter's House that I don't like." Oh, and he also thinks that he doesn't actually need a citation for "Rick Ross calls Potter's House a cult"; he thinks all you need to know is that Rick Ross hates cults and that is all the proof you need that he calls Potter's House one. Would you keep an eye on the article? -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, our good friend "Nick". I'll put it on my watch list :-( --Tilman 05:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you could find the time to drop in at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-07 The Potter's House, I'd appreciate that. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule at Potter's House Christian Fellowship. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

— Matt Crypto 20:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block Log Unblock --Tilman 20:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Is this appropriate?

Barbara_Schwarz#Wikipedia_article - I thought self referencing in WP was to be avoided - does this sit well with you? - Glen 19:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. I was just writing about this. --Tilman 19:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the article talk page? Be there in 5 to give my $0.05 - Glen 19:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comments

I appreciate your efforts in trying to save your article from deletion, but I request that you please don't make the AfD on Tilman Hausherr an edit war. I know you may think his nom for AfD was in bad faith, and it's probably true, but leave that matter to the admins. Just contribute to the discussion at hand, not making accusations.

If you continue to do so, I will seek admin intervention upon on you, and you could possibly get banned from Wikipedia.

Note: I'm not sending this message to you only. I'm sending it to all involved parties.

--Nishkid64 21:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Making one single comment isn't an editwar. An editwar is when people constantly revert each other. --Tilman 05:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about the future. Just leave personal issues out of article AfD's. --Nishkid64 18:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May be of interest

Hello Tilman, this discussion [3] might be of interest to you. Hope you can consider some input there. Orsini 14:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Although I see it's the same arguments as always :-( --Tilman 15:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

You ought to see this. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Barbara_Schwarz

You showed me already, remember? I did participate. HResearcher is trying to "double" the discussion by fighting on two different fields. --Tilman 16:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the link above was wrong, try here. User_talk:Tbeatty#Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons.2FNoticeboard.23Barbara_Schwarz Make that three fields. Orsini 16:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. So he's now trying to "triple" the discussion. What a pain. --Tilman 17:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lousy POV editing

I am surprised you are defending the blatantly poor POV editing that predominates the Quentin Hubbard article. You do not seem to grasp the difference between a fact and an opinion. You also do not apply WP:RS in this case. That smacks of a POV agenda on your part.--Fahrenheit451 14:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep off my personal page about this, it applies to the discussion page of the article. Thank you. --Tilman 16:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ZAK vs. ZAPP

Sorry, mixed that one up. See "ZAK (Politmagazin)" in the German wikipedia [4]. I added ZAPP to the disambiguation page (Zapp). However, I question your indiscriminative reversal of my other edits based on that error. Please review WP:RS#Using online and self-published sources. Cheers. Kosmopolis 11:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep off my personal page about this, it applies to the discussion page of the article. Thank you. --Tilman 17:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norton S. Karno

Do you have any specific suggestions on how to improve the Norton S. Karno article? I deliberately didn't go into any details, simply stating that Karno was "involved" in the IRS debacle, since that much we can safely say without venturing into conspiracy theory and hearsay. Since you raised the issue elsewhere, I'm open to suggestions regarding changes. wikipediatrix 15:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a short WP:WBRK now. --Tilman 17:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Lightwave

I'm interested in getting input from other editors about getting more info about Digital Lightwave assembled and represented on Wikipedia, since the subject is extremely Scientology-related, involving David Miscavige's sister Denise Licciardi, Doug Dohring, Norton S. Karno, Greta Van Susteren, and Scientology attorneys Michael Baum and George W. Murgatroyd. Since you expressed concern recently about the Karno article, I thought I'd fly this by you. The Digital Lightwave story is such a convoluted labyrinth I'm hoping there are other editors who understand it better than I. wikipediatrix 16:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re the Anti-Cult Movement article

Hi Tilman. I don't want to jump headfirst into the Anti-Cult Movement talk page yet, but I think that the article is pretty biased. For example, the statement "In the 1960s and early 1970s, middle-class youths started to follow new religious movements, such as..." is biased because it begs the question of whether "new religious movement" is a valid label or not. It assumes that these groups are NRMs as defined by Barker et al, something which is unverifiable and disputable. Ditto "Opposition to NRMs in the general public grew after the mass suicide...". In fact the constant use of "NRM" without justifying the use of the term seems to me to be extrememly biased. Have you tried fighting this war on that article? It seems like Barker and her like are having their way. What do you think? Tanaats 03:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I haven't worked as much in that article as you might expect from me, if you know me from outside wikipedia :) My time is rather limited, and I am not an english language native writer. So, I have concentrated on removing absolute falsehoods (e.g. "Ted Patrick the founder of CAN"), or on preventing others to remove the truth, and to monitor changes - but not to try complete rewrites. Wikipedia wants people to use neutral language, so I haven't fought the use of "NRM". Although I'd admit, it's kind of weird that "anti-cult movements" uses the "NRM" word, which is a typical "PC" word. --Tilman 03:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, I'm "known" you for a number of years, actually. I am a Transcendental Meditation former member and current critic, but I have been (perhaps morbidly) fascinated by Scientology ever since I discovered ARS (I was active on alt.meditation.transcendental at the time). Then I read "The Road to Xenu". Somewhere along the line I found your website. And yes I can understand how you would be busy on other things.

I just consider myself really lucky that I "only" have TM to oppose, rather than having Scientology to oppose. I really respect those who stand up to the CoS.

I didn't realize that anti-cult types were using the term "NRM"! I consider it to be an extremely loaded word. To me it is an implicit negation of the whole idea that "destructive cults" even exist. The term was invented by people who consider me a "hater" because of my stance on TM (sorry can't find the link now, but it was in a TM page found on an NRMist website). Oh well.

Anyway, if the use of "NRM" is common to both sides of the "cult debate" I guess I shouldn't try to fight it. Tanaats 06:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you misunderstood me. When I said it's kind of weird that "anti-cult movements" uses the "NRM" word, I meant it's kind of weird that the definition "anti-cult movements" uses the "NRM" word. Cult critics don't use the NRM word, as far as I know. And cult critics usually dispute the existance of an "anti-cult movement" for the reason given in the definition: there isn't a uniform movement. --Tilman 08:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining. Maybe I'll pitch a bitch about the use of "NRM" in such contexts when I get more time and see what happens. Tanaats 16:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Anti-cultist"?

Hi again Tilman,

I notice that the cult-oriented articles are rife with the term "anti-cultist", which I deem to be a pejorative.

I like this quote "The use of terminology such as “Anti-Cult Movement” (ACM) and “Pro-Cult Movement” (PCM), “anti-cultist” and “pro-cultist” or “cult apologist” are examples of divisive labels that are hardly conducive to encouraging dialogue or discernment. Such labels often function, to use Dr. Robert Lifton’s terminology, as “thought-terminating clichés.” We tag the label on somebody who disagrees with us and delude ourselves into thinking that by so doing we have demonstrated an understanding of an issue. My criticism of these kinds of labels does not mean that I oppose all use of labels. Labels are categories, and categories are essential to thought. What is important is how we use the labels."[5].

I may take a shot at objecting to the term. I'm thinking of proposing "cult critic" (which I found in the above article) as a replacement. What do you think? And do you think I have a chance? Tanaats 01:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I already cleaned this up in "Anti-Cult Movement" (see the history). I left a few mentions, where they applied (e.g. the segment with the dispute "cult apologists" vs. "anti-cultists"). --Tilman 05:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would not think that anti-cultist would be a pejorative. I would think it would be a term you would like. After all, don't you think some groups are cults (in the pejorative sense) and aren't you opposed to them? I see it as analogous to "druggie" vs. "anti-drug"; "criminal" vs. "anti-crime". It is the person or group that is, in their eyes, mislabeled as "druggie", "criminal", or "cult" that dislikes the label, not usually the anti-whatever doing the (dare I say it) mislabeling. Sorry, couldn't resist that one. But my point still stands. Merry Christmas --Justanother 22:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is. Like it would be to call cops "anti-criminals", or using the word "anti-druggists". Shupe, who testified that the "old CAN" itself was a cult, uses the word. [6] --Tilman 06:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get what you are saying. IMO, people against crime like to be called "anti-crime" and people against drugs like to be called "anti-drug", so I would imagine that people against what they think are cults would similarly like to be called "anti-cult". You aren't letting your opinion of your group's terminology or terms related to your group to be shaped by the statement of a detractor, are you? That is the Dark Side (actually it is more the Wimp Side). Am I missing an important point here? --Justanother 14:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read every letter. "anti-cult" is ok, but "anti-cultist" is not. "anti-crime" is ok, "anti-criminal" is not. And "anti-cult movement" is not, since there is no such "movement", --Tilman 18:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. OK, I see your point. I didn't make that association. Yes, I see how you would consider it condescending. Fair enough, cult critics it is then (though I have myself never used either term as I tend to think there are more general established terms that do just fine when describing people like Ross). Have a nice holiday. --Justanother 18:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, "anti-crime" would translate to "anti-crime(ist)", as criminal(ist) is a completely different word. What is offensive about "anti-cult activist"? That would simply indicate one who is actively "anti-cult" .. or simply "one who actively pursues, targets, identifies and actively seeks to notify, inform and educate the world". see: Activism. Your objection to "anti-cult activist" is no different than an objection to "cult apologist". What is your view on "cult apologist"?

Although "cult apologist" is a bit more directed and harsh than "anti-cult activst". Activism has no biased meaning, whereas apologist means "one who apologizes for". Unless someone is actually apologizing for a cult, that term could not be appropriate to use, yet it is often used inappropriately, making it pejorative by definition.

I submit that its how the terms are used, not the terms themselves. -Peace in God. Lsi john 18:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scn section gone from "Opposition..."

Hi. In case you're not watching Opposition to cults and new religious movements I thought you might like to know that the Scn section is gone. I tried to put it back but got rv'd by Jossi. I certainly think that it belongs in the article. Tanaats 23:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been somewhat busy, couldn't check all definitions... it is usually best to have a watch on Fossa's edits, he prefers to delete. Although he does this mostly in the german wikipedia, where 3RR does not apply. --Tilman 06:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Regarding this Please be careful with what you write on edit summaries, in particular on biographies of living people. Consider this a first BLP warning. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And your exact argument is...? --Tilman 06:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not use edit summaries to display your opinion of a LP. You may do that in talk page, knowing that if it violates WP:BLP it could be refactored as per policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NWO link at Church of Spiritual Technology

Just thought you should know -- Unless I'm very much mistaken, the "Michael Snoeck" whose pages Jpierreg keeps trying to add as external links to Church of Spiritual Technology is actually Olberon (talk · contribs) who frequently added those external links himself. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Faith

Hi. Please do not accuse me of bad faith. It is not my job to pick and choose through a heap of consecutive edits made by someone that was ignoring link policy to pick out the good bits. (This is not even to mention the OR and unsourced nature of his remarks which is reason enough to pull them, i.e. there were no good bits, but I am not fighting that war there . . . yet.) It was his edit - he can do it. I invited him to come back and do it right. The fact that you were willing to do the work for him (although you repeated the same errors of OR and unsourced) is admirable but it does make not my action "bad faith". --Justanother 06:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have another expression that I should use to characterize your behaviour in reverting a useful edit instead of correcting the minor newbie flaws? You could have deleted the YOUTube links only. You could have kept the useful material instead of just deleting it ("Hold on to the good" - 1 Thessalonians 5:21). It cost me less than a minute to do this. It cost you more time to unload your "upset" in this discussion space, and cost me time to answer it. So should we really take the time to discuss all this, instead of working on the project? Why bother with my comment? I'm not an admin. Just try to be more careful next time. --Tilman 16:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above - there was nothing there that was not unsourced. There was no good to hold on to (Justanother 06:41). So to replace it is to repeat the error. But I am not fighting that battle right now so go ahead and add unsourced material if that is what you care to do. And when you make a deprecating remark to another editor in the edit summary you really have no grounds to complain if they respond. You are the one that wasted the time of us both with that comment, not me. Later. --Justanother 16:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Tilman, thanks for your prompt reversions of scn article edits done without discussion.--Fahrenheit451 20:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:-) --Tilman 20:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reversions without discussion

Please do not revert perfectly reasonable edits that have been made--mostly to make the text conform to the sources--without discussing your reasons for the reversions on the appropriate talk page. BabyDweezil 17:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was discussed. --17:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Mr Tilman,

Wikipedia:Civility states as follows:

"Prevent edit wars and conflict between individuals (constraints on editing are set by the project — essentially a community answer) "

"Force delays between answers to give time to editors to calm down and recover and to avoid further escalation of a conflict (protecting pages) "

Read it - Jpierreg 18:30, 9 February 2007 (GMT)

So, what exactly are you suggesting me to do? Should I wait longer before I answer? --Tilman 18:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you can get a conceptual understanding of those WP suggestions, or the policy in general, without me having to suggest anything - Jpierreg 19:40, 9 February 2007 (GMT)

So all you've done, is sortof taking my head and sticking it into the policy. That is not very helpful. I suspect that the policy above is rather to prevent incivility from others as an admin. Obviously, I can't force delays between answers, nor can I prevent edit wars. --Tilman 13:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BLP John Travolta and Kelly Preston

Please do not insert wording such as "There has been widespread speculation" into biographies of living people. That phrase is classic weasel wording, as it manages to imply much and state nothing. Please don't reinsert it until you enumerate exactly who is doing the speculating, and what their credentials are to speculate. FCYTravis 08:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I will attribute it to journalist Mark Ebner of HI. I'm a bit surprised that you removed not just the word "speculation" (which I understand why, now) but parts of the theory as well and the sources (which I don't understand). Anyway, I'll try to reword it and then reinsert parts, but not all. I see that the Xenu source isn't really needed, too. --Tilman 09:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The parts which are there are properly sourced - i.e., "Hollywood, Interrupted has asserted X, Y and Z." We know who said it, and it's clear that it's their opinion. Readers can decide whether they want to believe it or not - so, as far as I'm concerned it's OK. FCYTravis 09:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the part with the "triggers" might qualify as original research, so I won't add that one. The NY Daily News article "must" go back in, it is a source, and also a source for the Joey part. Plus, it shows that this isn't just a blogger story, but a blogger story taken up by the mainstream media. --Tilman 09:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Putting rumors, gossip, opinions purely out of speculation isn't justified by saying who it's from. It's still putting your opinion in there so stop it. 24.69.67.173 01:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is more than just gossip - which I wouldn't put in. I spoke against putting the "Messiah" story in the David Miscavige article, although some scientology critics favored it.

The autism story makes a lot of sense. And the silence by the Travoltas says a lot. Their problem is that in their scientology world, mental illnesses don't exist. --Tilman 08:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Potters House Christian Fellowship

I just recently read the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potters_House_Christian_Fellowship in the section criticism of the church there are several errors that do not represent the actual facts, in paragraph 2. Namely- "Further, supporters of the Potter's House allege that some critics have ulterior motives and have engaged in deceptive tactics to inflate their apparent numbers on the internet".

This statement has a bias in that it does NOT demonstrate or show the objections to the church are FROM former members including pastors. It also carries with it the assumption the critics are liars or deceivers which is slander and is not true and has not be proven. I think the fact that the majority of the objections are from eye witnesses themselves not the cult awareness groups, even Rick Ross interviews ex-members and gets the information directly from the people themselves. This is very relevant and should be placed within the section "critics of the church" to demonstrate the "neutrality" of the acticle. Furthermore links should be provided to a site I have looked over called the firstplumbline, which contains extensive "current up-to-date" information and resources including video and audio clips from the potters house preahers themselves. I also ask that lnks to discussion groups be added as further resoures the crackpots and escape from the fellowship. Please explain how come user [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Potters_house potters house is permitted to provide links to HIS OWN sites as references and resources and I not provide links to sites that are run by neutral parties.

I request that you allow me to keep te additions I have made to the acticle. I will also contact Nick whom I know and have been talking with for 5 months on the yahoo discussion group. I also ask in good faith and in your integrity that you give good reasons why the section should NOT be edited. Thank you Darren Smith.

This was discussed months ago... the current text is a sort of settlement to stop the "war". I am a cult critic myself, but I can live with the current situation. Some of the links could not be added, because these are just personal pages. The same applied to the anti-Rick Ross pages. So a lot was removed. (Read the old discussion) Plus, people who are really interested in the criticism, they'll find the links after reading Rick Ross site. --Tilman 09:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I am a new to the debate because I've just joined wikipedia. I protest because the issue is not satisfactory the way it stands. Rick Ross's site does not provide links to the firstplumbline site. People reading the criticism section have not been appropriately informed as to the current status of the objections to the church. Also hinting that critics of the church have some kind of hidden motive or agenda is not truthful as the claim that they are deceptive have not been backed up with any proof and should not be stated, also it is many of the critics themselves that object because they have been abused and hurt by the church. The other cult groups are not activitely reporting on the potters house with new information as it happens so readers cannot follow the objections to a reasonable conclusion. I restate that downplaying the "headship" doctrine of the church is a miscommunication of the facts and using other "softer" terminology conveys the wrong meaning for example saying "that of itself is not wrong" or "they are not used to" in regard to the militancy of the pastors or church. The section is "critics of the church", that does not mean what does the CHURCH think of "THEM" but what are the critics saying about the church. Please reconsider your position given this new information. Thank you Darren Smith 9:15 17 February 2007

If you are new, I suggest you first observe, and make your arguments on the discussion pages, and make only minor edits (in other articles), and learn about the policies. About the link, please read WP:EL and see if your link fits in. If it is about using it as a source, read WP:RS. And of course, read WP:NPOV too.

And sign your texts in discussions with --~~~~

About changing the texts: see if your theory is backed by cult experts, or by journalists, or by academics.

About the allegation that "critics have some kind of hidden motive": while itself, this isn't NPOV, it serves as a balance to what was said before (the criticism itself). The idea is that a reader should look at both sides, and then make his opinion. --Tilman 12:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again

As was stated in the mediation between Tilman, Antaeus Felspar and Potters house, the links provided are poor quality links which was agreed too by all parties. This person is only concerned with slandering the church as anyone can plainly see by his contributions. I held back from several "poor" quality anti Rick Ross links on the condition that the poor quality links made by Neil Taylor (both the anti Rick Ross site and the Cracked Pots sites were made by him) was also removed. If these links are allowed then I will be forced to make a high quality webpage at http://www.newsau.com which deals with Ross and other slanderers of the church. Obviously this person has no desire to further knowledge on Wikipedia out of good will, but desires to slander the church and myself. If this continues I will be forced to mediate again.

He also has these links on his page Darrenss which is obviously there to link to these pages. In accordance with Wikipedia policies and the guidelines we have set up concerning the poor quality links, these links should be banned and he should not be put on the user’s page. As was discussed during the mediation, Ken Haining, who runs the link escape from the fellowship also runs a group defaming me claiming that I am a homosexual and have left the church. It is very tiring to see the same issues brought up on Wikipedia, and if continued I will be forced pursue this matter legally which will require all parties involved to give statements. I am sure that you agree that it is much better to stick to the former agreements. Thanks. Potters house 14:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my response to him in the segment above. --Tilman 14:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Rick Ross has nothing to do with any of these links I've provided. The crackpots is a discussion group NOT a website with slanderous material. The firstplumbline is an independant cult awareness site that has extensively researched the potters house and has current information from new stories to potters house own sermon clips which people can benifit from. Does Rick Ross have exclusive rights given by the potters house or does the freedom of information allow for other informed current sites to be displayed?? The user will not permit it to be said that objections have come over the last 30 years from ex-members themselves (who have actually been hurt and abused from the group), a fact the user refuses to let the public know about in a responsible manner. Please note that Ken Haining has nothing to do with the fistplumbline and is only the moderator of the escape from the fellowship group and the user Potters House is the one who has slandered Ken who was a Potters House pastor for 20 years. Please be factual with your remarks thank you. user:darrenss 14:50 February 2007

Much more is being said here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Xiahou Thanks. Potters house 04:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chinmoy

Hi. I have left that article long ago, now that I have checked it, to my surprise (don't know if I am really surprised), Chimoy followers are once more using it as their server. Something must be done about that. Fad (ix) 00:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a source for what you added. However this should be in a criticism section.

I don't really have time to handle this - the article is a hagiography, maybe 75% should be deleted. However I'm not a "delete first, talk later" guy. So all I care for is the little link to Rick Ross' collection of articles. --Tilman 06:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Gale

Tilman, I am out of 3RR on that one and it will need to go up for RfC anyway as I am sure that you can find some others to back you up on the "suicide suggestion" from non-RS source. But riddle me this please. Why would you put this back? That is a shameful non-RS, POV, mockery unless you think that Gale actually wrote that. What would make you thnk that?

Scientology-Kills.org - 'Hello, and welcome to Philip Gale's personal web site. I was a Bona Fide Scientologist® during my life.'

--Justanother 05:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take it to the discussion page of that article. I don't understand half of your text anyway. The other one... maybe this parody link is indeed not really the best idea. --Tilman 05:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did not write that very clearly. You took care of the one I was concerned about. Thanks. Later then, Tilman. --Justanother 05:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Schwarz on the BLPN

If you have time, would you mind giving your perspective on User:BabyDweezil and his/her treatment of you on the Schwarz page? Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Barbara Schwarz. Thanks Anynobody 06:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

will do --Tilman 06:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Analyzing motives, again, Anynobody? Why don't we just discuss the issues in the article in reference to the policies instead of trying to make some case that your motives are holier than mine or Dweezil's? That is kinda weirding me out. --Justanother 06:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't really much to discuss in the article. It was all settled before User:BabyDweezil started to disrupt an article he knew nothing about. --Tilman 06:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe. But it ain't like there is a lot to learn. It ain't string theory. ps If I occasionally use slang (like gar-n-ass-tee-u) that you are not familiar with, I apologize. --Justanother 07:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to have to take matters off the Barbar Schwarz talk page, User:BabyDweezil forced my hand so to speak by setting up a complaint on WP:BLPN. The observations I've made on the BLPN are observations I've held to myself and would have continued to do so until matters went to a WP board. Again sorry, this wasn't my idea. Anynobody 08:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Tilman. Unless Justanother has more to say feel free to nix this section.Anynobody 08:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Anynobody, one final thought. Just remember that "assume good faith" means "expend effort to do so", IMO. If you need to, if it is not coming easily. It means take all those niggling doubts about people's motives and make the effort to set them aside and make the effort to assume good faith. Make the effort to assume that when someone says they will help another with seeing that if the article can go away, they mean that they will put it up for the community to decide if it belongs here, not interfere with the process, and abide by the decision of the community. Make the effort to assume that when someone says Tilman has a conflict of interest, that they believe that Tilman's fighting and ridiculing this person for years on usenet means that he should leave it to neutral editors since he clearly is not neutral on her. And when I say we don't have any proof she was the president of the Church, please make the effort to assume I simply mean that we do this encyclopedia a disservice to rely on usenet rumor that someone with the same common name is the person that filed those FOIA requests. If you read WP:BLP, that is what we are supposed to do, insist on good sources! High quality sources and we have none. Yet some would put in the encyclopedia that the FOIA person was past president, just based on usenet. Maybe she was, I don't know and I don't care (really), it is just we don't have a source. Assume good faith takes work, sometimes, my friend. But it is work worth doing. Otherwise you find yourself going out on limbs attacking people's motives (see WP:NAM, really, read that one all the way through) and avoiding that is the least of the benefits of AGF. The real benefit is a spiritual one but that is a matter of personal belief. I even AGF Tilman that his activities, that I feel are repressive of religious freedom in his own country, are based on his heartfelt beliefs of the "dangers" of these groups and while I think he is as misguided as he no doubt thinks I am, I think we each AGF on the part of the other (though he doesn't like me ribbing him, smile). If we can, I imagine that you should be able to. --Justanother 12:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to move this discussion over to the WP:BLPN, since this conversation seems more appropriate there than on Tilman's talk page. Anynobody 03:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Boo hoo hoo, that Nazi Tilman"

Tilman, didn't you have a page at one point that kept track of all the people on the Internet who've called you a Nazi? It almost seems as though a new corollary to Godwin's Law needs to be added for you: "If a participant in a Usenet discussion lives in Germany, he will be called a Nazi at the first sign of any disagreement whatsoever." I'm having a little trouble finding this page, however; could you provide the URL? --Modemac 15:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Throwing the term "Nazi" around carelessly dilutes it and it should be reserved for only the most extreme of opinions (as in "Final Solutions"). Personally, as far as Tilman is concerned, I do not know him well enough to think him a "bigot", let alone a "Nazi". He has never said anything here that I have seen that would lead me to call him a bigot either, as opposed to another editor that clearly "showed his ass" as us rednecks like to say. Perhaps if Tilman were to tell us what he thinks of Scientologists as a whole, I could classify him (laff). --Justanother 16:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is here: [7]. It ends 1999. After that, the black propaganda moved to the web, on RFW and alarmgermany.org. --Tilman 17:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MedCab case

Hi Tilman. I'm currently mediating a case into which you're involved.

Please take a look of the case here.

For a successful mediation, I need to hear every position and its arguments, including yours, of course ;-).

So, please voice your opinion on the case's talk page.

I'm at your disposal for every question.

Happy editing,

Snowolf^(talk)_CON^COI - 18:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xenu's Link Sleuth

Would it be possible for you to upload an image for free-use as a graphic in the article Xenu's Link Sleuth, perhaps from [8] ? Smee 07:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for your additions :-) No, I can't upload these images, since I don't have the copyrights. Maybe a screenshot? --Tilman 07:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to do a screenshot, but that could work, or an image of the software at work itself, or you could even create your own proprietary image to put up on the site, and then here, that you would own and then release as free - whichever you think is best... Smee 07:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Also, what about all those little "Xenu's Link Sleuth" icons on the page (like the guy in the fedora hat), and other pictures marked "TM"? Wouldn't those be your ownership? Smee 08:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Actually, I think those little colourful icons would be fair use under Wikipedia:Logos anyway, but it would be nicer if they were released publicly... Smee 08:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I prefer not, this could be misused.

I have made a screenshot here: [9]. I'll see if I can put it in the article. --Tilman 17:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note, you did not provide a licensing tag for your image page when you uploaded it. Might want to see if there is some way for you to license it in depiction of the software only, or something like that... I'll look through the licensing tags for images... Smee 18:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Tilman. please provide another screenshot showing your software being used to link-check a non-controversial site. Otherwise I will have to challenge the screenshot provided. For example, try this one, http://www.calraisins.org/ Thanks. --Justanother 18:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The software is being used to check his own site. This goes to the history of the software itself, and its name, and is highly relevant. As well, the pictures are formatted in a small size, so nothing can be viewed in particular when viewing the article. This is really too much nitpicking. Smee 19:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Please, Smee, don't pick a fight with me and don't fan the fires between other users. Tilman knows what I am talking about and I imagine that he will provide another iumage if the real purpose of the screenshot is to show the software. --Justanother 19:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on content, not contributors. This is not an accusation of anything, simply a request to comment on content, not contributors. Smee 19:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

But you accused me of nitpicking. You should start by practicing what you preach. Smee, I asked Tilman something simple to save us all the trouble of the RfC on it etc, etc,. What a big waste of time. Just chose another, non-Scientology-slamming, site. Sheesh and double-sheesh. --Justanother 19:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Good point. But even so, I did not mention anyone's name in any edit summary or on the talk page in so doing, and the "This" referred to the discussion itself, not to any individual. Comment on content, not contributors. Thanks. Smee 19:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Sigh Sigh on content, not contributors. --Justanother 19:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By jove, I think he's got it! Smee 19:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

This is a joke, right? It doesn't matter what site I check. The links displayed are not clickable. --Tilman 19:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use of img

Tilman, as a separate issue, it would help if you released the screenshot image itself freely as "public domain", though the web-fair-use screenshot tag works fine on Wikipedia as well... Smee 19:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I'd prefer something that that still lets me keep some sort of control and attribution... --Tilman 19:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Then you should probably note something to that effect on the image's main page, so that there is no confusion and no one else grabs the image for other things by mistake... Smee 19:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Might I suggest - using this tag: {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat|restrictions}} ? You could put your text in there from the image page, like so:

{{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat|This screenshot image of [[Xenu's Link Sleuth]] (which I created myself today) can be used freely anywhere ("fair use") for illustration of [[Xenu's Link Sleuth]], but it should be properly attributed to me [ [[Tilman Hausherr]] ]. --[[User:Tilman|Tilman]] 19:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)}}

Which would yield:

{{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat|This screenshot image of [[Xenu's Link Sleuth]] (which I created myself today) can be used freely anywhere ("fair use") for illustration of [[Xenu's Link Sleuth]], but it should be properly attributed to me[ [[Tilman Hausherr]] ]. --[[User:Tilman|Tilman]] 19:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)}} Smee 20:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks, done. --Tilman 20:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. Looks good. Smee 20:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

New article

Newly created article - Scieno Sitter - highly sourced, was discussed on the A & E program Investigative Reports and in the movie The Bridge (film). Check it out and let me know what you think on the article's talk page. Thanks for your time. Smee 07:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Well done as usual. The formatting of the quotes could be improved (see Psychiatry: An Industry of Death). There's also a quote of a danish OSA person which I will try to find. --Tilman 16:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged the talk page of the article Scieno Sitter with "reqphoto". I was wondering if it were possible to include a screenshot from the movie The Bridge (film)? If you have a copy of the film, check out the screenshot displayed at 12:17 into the film, and let me know what you think. Just technically, I don't know how to to a screencapture like that. (Posted this question to Glen as well...) Yours, Smee 16:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I made two, but they're not very good: [10][11] --Tilman 17:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine. Are you going to upload? Also, If you want to format the quotes on the article yourself, that's cool - I'm not exactly sure on what you meant.. Smee 17:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Please upload it yourself and do what you think is best. This is a screenshot of a movie, so it shouldn't matter who made it. --Tilman 17:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. No worries, thanks for providing it. Smee 17:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

WikiProject updates

I have done some updating to the WP:SCN, added some new articles, added a "to do" list to the top of the project, and fixed up some categories and assessment stuff. I suggest we should all pick one article at a time, or at most two, to work on bringing up to Featured Article status. You could give input on the project's talk page... Smee 20:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Also, a Userbox for project members, {{User Scientology project}} Smee 20:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Informal mediation

I have taken on the mediation case involving Steven Hassan. I am contacting all involved parties. If there is someone else who has been involved in the disagreement, please let me know so I can invite them to participate. Please indicate if you accept my assistance on the case page. I also have posted a question about compromise. Cheers!! Vassyana 13:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe EmmDee and Smeelgova. But my feeling is that everyone is just tired of it. --Tilman 14:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~It seems like this case has resolved itself. If this changes, please do not hesitate to contact me on my talk page so we can mediate to avoid dispute.~~ Vassyana 07:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John196920022001 (talk · contribs) has indicated mediation is still needed, so I have reopened the case. Please join us on the case page for discussion. Smee has indicated interest in participating. EmmDee has not responded to an invitation. Vassyana 12:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on a small wikibreak (too much work) now and will return in a few days. --Tilman 07:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I quite understand life can tie us up. Smee has become involved in the mediation, so your side of the dispute is represented. I will keep you informed of any changes in the mediation. I hope this finds you well. Vassyana 12:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, I've created subpages so each side can draft what they are looking for in the article. Go ahead and check out the case page and participate as you have time. If you have any concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. Vassyana 18:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back, and I don't have an own sandbox text. I accept the current text. Of course I prefer it without the Shupe/Cesnur segment. But seriously, although I consider these to be dubious sources, they don't do much harm, and this way, John at least has something. I wish he'd understand that this is my 1 inch compromise move towards him. --Tilman 20:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tilman, this is the last time I will ask you to please stop making personal attacks and questioning my ethics. Content can be discussed without attacking personalities. I know that personal attacks are your MO, as seen from your web page. DO NOT ATTACK ME AGAIN, OR QUESTION MY ETHICS AGAIN! John196920022001 16:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not see how anyone has been personally attacked here, at least on this talk page? Strange. As far as mediation, I for one agree with the initial compromise. Smee 16:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Dude, what do you think Tilman's telling me I am lying by omission is? Um...a personal attack! Secondly, why are you always answering for Tilman. This is my issue with him. Please stay out of it. John196920022001 17:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I again ask that you all take a break from this and be cool. Escalating the issue by trading barbs will help no one. Please take a break and get frosty. Vassyana 17:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I do not see how my text is a personal attack. --Tilman 19:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have your own sandbox to work with now. Sign off as Done if you're satisfied with the current state of the section. See case page. Vassyana 17:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John196920022001 has declined to continue mediation. I have asked him to be sure he wishes to end informal mediation. If he still chooses to withdraw, would you object to the case being closed since you support the current version, along with the other participant? Please let me know. I apologize this mediation might not be resolved acceptably to all parties. Take care. Vassyana 05:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support the closing. Thank you for your patience. --Tilman 05:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A truce has been proposed to keep mediation going and on track. Please review the truce and comment, accept or reject as appropriate. Vassyana 03:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for signing on to the truce. I hope it allows us to move forward and build good faith. I've asked John to review his draft, so we can move forward from where we left off. Thanks again for you patience and cooperation. Take care. Vassyana 13:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The commentary of EmmDee was very helpful, so yes, lets move on. Thank you for your patience with this. --Tilman 16:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regrettable rewarming

Hi Tilman, my apologies for discussing the ridiculous COI allegations levied against you on Talk:Barbara Schwarz. The matter of the call for a disruptive editor's blocking has caused considerable debate, and I have been (correctly) cited [12] for making incorrect presumptions about what an uninvolved editor meant when he mentioned it. So I wish to be absolutely clear about the presumption I have made regarding the reasons for your call in some discussions for blocking this notoriously disruptive editor. My presumption is you called for this editor to be blocked based upon that editor's pattern of disruptive behavior over a period of time, and not to silence an opposing viewpoint due to a call for an AfD. Would this presumption be correct?

If I presumed your intentions correctly, this is why I supported your call for his blocking here. [13]

I also note your edit to refute another disruptive editor here [14] was removed inappropriately by the disruptive editor at issue and it was not restored; I immediately recognize the source data of your edit being the 90-plus autobiography on the Usenet. The only reason I can see this distasteful and false CoI accusation being levied against you is because you gave the pro-scientology POV pushers answers to their questions with WP:RS citations in Talk:Barbara Schwarz, and this is why they invented a CoI issue which would apply to all of Wikipedia and most of the Usenet, if they had valid grounds. Would you agree?

Also, do you know of a WP:RS source for the HCO Policy Letter of 15 August 1960? Best wishes, Orsini 22:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion AT THAT TIME for a block (which was more rhetorically, since I did not write this in an admin board) was because he had suggested an AfD despite so many unsuccessful AfDs before. This is wasting time, by "forcing" editors to reargue something that has been argued before. Clearly, he wants to produce "Dev-T."

The other thing (where a discussion comment was removed) was of course also disruptive, and yes, my comment was based on her series. I didn't argue much about that at that time - I think I was busy, and didn't really care much.

Yes, "Justanother" is sortof annoying. I notice that his tactic is to "jump on the train" when there is a more annoying editor, as I observed when BabyDweezil was active. So he took up the CoI argument, which came from BD first.

The HCOPL is itself the reliable source for its own existance. Unless someone claims that this text doesn't exist, then one will have to bring up the appropriate OEC volume. --Tilman 23:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Tilman for your reply. I did wish to confirm with you that the AfD discussion was seen by you as testing your patience with a pattern of disruption which was ongoing over some time. I'd like to ask more, but it may be in a few days as I am pushed for time right now with a business matter. Kind regards, Orsini 13:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which portion of that HCOPL? -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note on your Talk page about it. Kind regards, Orsini 13:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation for your comments

Hello Tilman, with the AfD on Barbara Schwarz over I've decided to try to start up another WP:RfC on Justanother. Since I have only edited with him on one page, I was hoping you'd be willing to share your experiences on other pages with him. Orsini had suggested you as a second for this when the AfD was still going on, and I was still trying to get it going then. Since that time I decided to postpone the RfC, Orsini and Smee changed their minds and decided to partcipate, and Justanother continues to be Justanother (which I think is why Orsini and Smee changed their minds). I'd still like to take Orsini's advice and include you as well. I think it would help paint a clearer picture of Justanother's behavior as seen by several editors. Thanks, Anynobody 04:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe its because I just woke up, but where is the link where I can comment? Two things come to mind immediately: the 4th AFD on Barbara with no new argument, and his support of the Tilman Hausherr merge suggestion, i.e. supporting another persons disruption. --Tilman 04:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it actually hasn't been created it yet as a formal RfC. I've created a section on my talk page to get ideas together. I didn't include this link User_talk:Anynobody#Justanother_RfC_v2.0.a_talk in the invitation, because I felt it would be presumptuous to assume you'd be interested. Also, I feel I should "warn" you that Justanother has found it already. Anynobody 05:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most wikipedia users, good or "bad", quickly learn similar patterns of behavior, which is to monitor the edits and the discussion pages of those who THEY consider as troublemakers :-) --Tilman 21:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on Justanother?

The WP:RFC may be on soon check this out Justanothers abuse of Wikipedia Backfires.

I self nominated on WP:RFA and he turned up and did me the favor of being himself. When he tried to make an issue out of something on my user page, they suggested a WP:RFC. Are you still interested? Anynobody 08:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand this (I'm mostly clueless about the many US wikipedia RFs), and I don't have much time currently :-( --Tilman 18:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok, thanks anyway. Anynobody 02:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article up for 3rd AFD

I changed my mind, I agree with you that this merge idea is a revenge/harassment tactic and is highly inappropriate. In order to garner more feedback, I have listed the article Tilman Hausherr for a 3rd AFD. Smee 07:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- The AFD is here, you may wish to specify what you meant by revenge/harassment, with some DIFFs. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tilman Hausherr (3rd nomination). Yours, Smee 07:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Regarding edits to Brain-Washing (book)

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Tilman! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule \bfreewebs\.com\/.+, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 17:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Curious

I have witnessed elsewhere in another wikipedia that such attacks result in counter attacks, and at the end, some discussion spaces become a hell where everyone is just frustrated. - What other Wikipedia are you referring to? Smee 20:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The german one. Not really nasty, libel-type attacks, but still attacks. The whole thing has been a bad experience to me for the last few months and has taken all the fun away from contributing knowledge to the community. It also resulted in me answering the same way, being wikistalked, wikistalking myself, trying to create a new identity (to get heard on arguments only instead of being attacked as "anti-cult-fanatic"), getting blocked for sockpuppetteering (I used the wrong browser and got caught :-)), getting another block for making a personal attack and bypassing the block to write on my talk page, antagonizing many admins forever, etc.

However at the same time, a few admins seem to have understood the problem and have created a NPA complaint board that is just taking off (it resulted in my second block :-)).

Another group of admins think its a stupid idea ("wikipedia is not a catholic girl school" type of argument) so this complaint board might be deleted soon.

However I am more than ever persuaded that Wikiquette is important in a "closed" environment where it is impossible to "plonk" someone. --Tilman 21:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And for many of those reasons above, I am beginning to think that my time might be better spent adding more material to Wikisource and WikiCommons, as well as creating new articles here, as opposed to those that are contentious, and perchance lacking WP:RS... Suffice it to say, it will be interesting to see what some of these articles look like 10 or more years from now... Smee 21:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Compared to the german wikipedia, the english one is pretty nice and still a good place to work in. --Tilman 05:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thought

I have witnessed elsewhere in another wikipedia that such attacks result in counter attacks, and at the end, some discussion spaces become a hell where everyone is just frustrated.

Misou's remarks were out of line.

And I'll make the same suggestion to you that I made to Smee... Perhaps you are not the best person to point out that an attack on you was inappropriate. That takes the battle to the other person, and as the quote above suggests, serves to escalate the situation.

It is always better to assume that the attack, however inappropriate, was out of frustration and not out of malice.

If your goal is truly a civilized outcome, sometimes its better to allow another party to defend you.

If you are ever in need of such assistance, you are welcome to ask. I do not believe personal attacks are appropriate and I will say so, no matter who does it.

-Peace in God Lsi john 20:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its mentioned in some policy, that an attempt must be made first to warn the perpetrator. So I do this to create a record that he has been pointed to his behaviour.

Obviously, WP:AGF doesn't apply to personal attacks, since this would excuse any personal attack. --Tilman 20:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it depends on what your intention is. If the intention is toward truly conflict resolution and cooperation, then allowing an unofficial third party to point out the infraction, would seem to be a more productive path. If the intention is simply to be right and to document it for what you know will be an upcoming war, then you are demonstrating the quote above by escalation. And the impending war will be self-fulfilling.

A voluntary change in behavior will almost certainly result in a more cooperative atmosphere than an enforced one.

And, again here, I am not suggesting that anyone lay down and take it. If the unofficial third party cannot successfully make the point, then certainly a warning would be warranted. I'm just not convince that jumping straight to a warning is a producive road to peace.

Not being familiar with your past history with Misou, perhaps its too late for resolution. Only you can decide that.

Lsi john 21:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can look at the previous warnings on this page.

I'm not seeking to "prove" something. The rule is that he has to be warned, so I do it.

Policies only make sense if they are enforced. It's the same as with laws - people only respect them if they know that they'll get in trouble when breaking them. I know a user on the german wikipedia (where WP:NPA and WP:WQ wasn't enforced until a few days) who is very proud that he isn't polite to users with a different POV. But because Wikiquette is enforced in the english wikipedia, this user makes almost no edits in the english wikipedia. --Tilman 21:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About "resolution" - scientologists and scientology critics will never like each other. The only thing that can be done is to stay polite, so they will at least be able to coexist in this platform. That is all I ask for. --Tilman 21:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I choose to believe it is always possible to find a balance, as I have with Smee. I am neither a Scientologist nor a critic. Perhaps you have more of an ally in me than you give credit. -Peace in God Lsi john 21:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just repeat the source

Hi Tilman,

I’m a skeptic too. In fact I and another skeptic debunked the The Bélmez case.

I have noticed that in you edit summary you wrote “rv, citations are in Quentin Hubbard” about the sentence “Quentin attempted suicide in 1974 and then died in 1976 under mysterious circumstances that might have been a suicide or a murder” in the Hubbard article.

I just want to call you attention that per WP policies we have to repeat the source in another article. In other words, ironically other WP articles are not considered reliable sources. (I learnt this from a Feldaspar edit in the antipsychiatry article.)

P.S. And maybe we don't need </ blockquote> signs when using those big quotation marks.

Cheers! :)

—Cesar Tort 17:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the closing block quote because the article looked weird, there was an indentation. Alternatively, one might remove the opening and the closing blockquote.

About Quentin Hubbard: yeah, I know that wikipedia is not a source for wikipedia. I never interpreted this so that I have to repeat the sources. Will do :) --Tilman 18:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

WP:ANI, Misou (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log), related to warnings you had posted on the user's talk page. Smee 17:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you. --Tilman 17:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting valid links

Pages: Golden Age of Tech & Patter drill. Reverting valid links is vandalism. Your reason given was "(rv link to NWO conspiracy page)". There is no NWO conspiracy anywhere found at given link!!! You may be should check out more carefully the data found at some link, before you discard of it. The link provided for is fully valid.--Olberon 23:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Olberon, it isn't vandalism. It's an edit that you disagree with. See Wikipedia:Vandalism, "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." I doubt that reverting your addition of your web page can be called that. In fact, I think that you're in serious violation of Wikipedia:Civility. AndroidCat 00:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If a given link is proven valid by the data which is found at it, then it falls under "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." as data is willfully being withheld from the readers. If reverting is repeated I will instantly report to an administrator (Chris O for example if he is still around), I am not into these games played here. You assume "my webpage", you don't know that, and it is not relevant either.--Olberon 01:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to have a web page with "new world order" theories. Plus, how exactly is this page "worthy"? Who is behind it? Is this person an expert on scientology? --Tilman 05:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No NWO theories are found anywhere on this page. Your reasons are therefore entirely invalid. I have reported this matter for the time being to ChrisO.--Olberon 10:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then why are the words "new world order" in this page?

And have you found out how exactly this page is "worthy"? Who is behind it? Is this person an expert on scientology? --Tilman 11:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is duly noted that you completely avoid to address my query! Where are your noted "new world order" theories at this page linked to found? New World Order is NOT DISCUSSED ANYWHERE AT THIS LINK!!!!

Wikipedia ia about verifiability. The page linked to represents a study fo these matters and it is extensively documented with referencing.--Olberon 19:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For reasons already explained to you, it doesn't matter whether Tilman is right or wrong about the NWO issue. WP:EL spells out link criteria in order to keep every crank with a webpage from turning Wikipedia into their own personal linkfarm, and so far the consensus seems to be that Snoeck's amateurish personal sites don't pass muster. wikipediatrix 19:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have had my share of disputes about external links that I wanted to bring in. In all cases, I was able to make arguments why the page is useful, why the author is an authority, how the author worked, etc. You, Olberon, have not even made an attempt to make an argument. --Tilman 21:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The data found at the page linked to should be able to defend itself. You ignore the referencing that is found at that page. Also noted that you removed a link on page Rundown (Scientology). This time again you note at the history page there: "removed link to "new world order" page". Consulting that page reveals that you are entirely delusional about that. Either way I have no interest to battle this kind of foolish illiteracy. Time can be spend in much better ways.--Olberon 12:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep picking the easy battles? Yes, yes, yes, Tilman misspoke about the NWO issue, but for the umpteenth time, it doesn't frickin' matter anyway because the links to Snoeck's cheesy homemade personal pages are still unnecessary, unhelpful and unprofessional. I don't care whether the pages have anything to do with the NWO or not, they're still crap and unfit as per WP:EL. wikipediatrix 13:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see the words "new world order" on the page, THAT is enough to put this in a fringe corner. Plus, I don't know who this Michel Snoek is and why he is an expert or if he even exists, and the content of the page don't really make sense to me. It reminds me of that ars poster "starchaser" or "spacetraveler" or whatever, his texts also didn't really make an argument. And finally, saying "the page linked to should be able to defend itself" isn't really enough when someone (me) asks for an argument. --Tilman 17:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, there is a link that mentions the words "new world order", let's get the whole page out of there. My friend, that is delusional! No one is asking you for an argument, Wiki rules decide. Read them (see respons to Wikipediatrix here below for quotation).--Olberon 18:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. These Snoeck pages should be pulled from other articles' link sections as well. As I recall, User:Jpierreg went on a spree several months ago inserting them. wikipediatrix 17:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know there's a script for this somewhere. I want to run for the "Debernification Project Force" (getting rid of links to the anonymous "Bernie" page) --Tilman 18:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here we have 2, conspiring to sabotage the flow of information existing on Wikipedia. From the external links rules page: "When assessing external links you need to simply ask yourself the question: Why is the link not used as a source for the article? If the answer is "because it is not a reliable source," then don't link. If the answer is, "that link is a great resource that complies with the verifiability policy,", then you can link and hopefully someone else would add material from the source to the article."--Olberon 18:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But this still doesn't explain why you think Snoeck's amateurish homepage is a verifiable source for anything. I agree with everything you just quoted from WP:EL, and that's exactly why Snoeck's personal pages are unfit for being used as references or external links. They're clearly bloggish personal pages to feature the childish, boorish and poorly-written opinionated personal rants of this Snoeck person. Here's some examples of this literary genius' babblings:

"Some will understand what I talk about here, others will not or choose to be in denial. Sure, you need some courage and make some little effort to do this, and many will try to explain-away it. Some persons I notice have interpreted this querying as something that may turn into some time craving menace of some sort that will continue to occupy their time and bother them in the coming future."

"What is the price of freedom? The reality is that one also has to be considerate towards others if one is aiming for freedom for oneself. If an error has been made, then one has an obligation to correct the incorrectness. If not, others will be judged also by it! And do not think for a moment that it will not affect you the receiver of the Order. I am afraid that it certainly will."

"Of course, be it that the declare Order is actually correct! Well, then forget all what I said in the above, as it will not be for you!"

Anyone with the reading comprehension of a Reese's Cup can see that these are the personal blog/diary-like meanderings of this Scientology-obsessed nut's random thoughts and opinions, and none of it is verifiable or useful information for anything.... unless we specifically create an article called The Really Deep Thoughts of Michael Snoeck. (The above quotes, by the way, came from a Snoeck rant I just noticed linked on the Scientology controversy article, and by the time you read this, I will have removed that one too.) wikipediatrix 19:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you fixate on paragraphs that may support your claim. But how much information is actually found on that page? In fact you have just picked these paragraphs and purposely left out the text in between them! With other words you present out of context and then try to win an argument. Furthermore the data on that page is foremost for persons that are familiar with the subject. I have opposed you in the past, and even reported you for using sockpuppets at one time or another. Now I am here, and you do whatever you can to provoke me. These links you are removing have been there for ages. Why removing them now. Our discussion is hereby closed.--Olberon 20:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the above quotes had nothing to do with whatever Snoeck's point was, so whether they're out of context or not is meaningless. The purpose was to prove that his is a personal site devoted to his blogly expression of personal opinion ("what I talk about", "I notice have interpreted", "forget all what I said in the above"), and a poorly written one to boot. Odd that you seem to be taking this so personally. Insulting Snoeck's crappy webpages shouldn't offend you, now should it, hmmmm? wikipediatrix 21:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously you don't know the meaning of the word 'study'. You twist and turn. Your reasoning and approach is silly. You focus entirely on a few sentences. If amateurs like you and those that run personal vendetta's are allowed on Wikipedia, then it has no future. I will however report the matter to the Wikipedia board. You and Tilman will be named. You are entirely unable to provoke me and your blind invalidations stay with you. The only effect your offences (I see you do admit that this is what you are doing!), all they accomplish is that I report it to the proper instances on Wikipedia. I oppose those that attempt to manipulate the flow of available information.--Olberon 07:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Olberon, while Tilman does appear to be a POV pusher who deletes cited material he doesnt like and inserts off-topic propoganda, your charges against wikipediatrix are hysterical. She may be a Scientology-critic, but she seems to me to be one of the most fair minded and NPOV editors on wikipedia. I've watched her, time and again, remove drivel from articles that was added by pov-pushers like Tilman. I suspect that the reason you are having issues with her, is because you and Tilman seem to be opposite sides of the same coin. Perhaps you are so busy making sure that COS is well represented you have lost sight of what we do here. Article subjects are not supposed to be well represented, they are supposed to be fairly represented. The facts are what they are. The COS is not without any skeletons in its closet. Those facts are allowed to be (and should be) represented on wiki. I suggest you stop trying to get so much good in and just focus on getting the propaganda and rhetoric out. Lsi john 20:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are in error here. Wikipediatrix and Tilman ARE into propaganda! The FACT is that both object to objective information, and use silly unsupported arguments to get rid of that which does not support their ideal scene. Are you blind? You forwarded not a single argument supporting your claim other than your personal views on the matter.--Olberon 09:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Hassan

Is informal mediation still needed for Steven Hassan? What has been going on with the article lately, in your view? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vassyana (talk • contribs) 22:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I don't know... not much has happened with the article, and no disputes. --Tilman 06:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rv - WP:EL is the policy that applies

WP:EL requires WP:RS. Lsi john 04:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What article are you talking about? --Tilman 06:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The rules for WP:EL are not article specific. In order to satisfy WP:EL for external links, the link must also satisfy WP:RS. Lsi john 13:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Must is incorrect. The guideline WP:EL connects to the policy WP:RS via two much less than absolute conditions. AndroidCat 14:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But why are you writing this here? Or are you just enjoying any conversation with me so much? :-) --Tilman 15:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do enjoy good engaging conversation, yes. As to which article in particular that referred to, I don't recall. I remember posting it here to avoid distracting the conversation in the discussion, but unfortunately I do not recall which article. I believe you either reverted an item in or out and said that WP:EL applied and I was pointing out that WP:RS also applies to WP:EL. I believe the other editor was challenging the WP:RS of the link. It isn't really that important. Lsi john 16:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review of sock-block

FYI Through checkuser COFS/CSI LA were determined to be operating from the same IP. There is a review of the block being discussed here: User talk:Coelacan#COFS and CSI LA, since you have experience with them I was hoping you'd comment if you have time. Anynobody 03:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant and cited material

Please do not repeatedly [remove] relevant and cited material from this article. This material is relevant to the article and speaks directly to the credibility of the person making the unfounded and unsubstantiated charges. It is not libelous, the material is cited and is true and correct.Lsi john 20:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not relevant to the article or to this discussion page; it is based on a propaganda source, and it is also false. It is not about YHRI, nor about scientology and human rights; it is about a criminal case dismissed 5 years before.

And don't use misleading edit summaries. --Tilman 20:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which edit summary was misleading? The one where you commented on reverting IN sourced material, while also deleting sourced material? I assumed good faith, and concluded from your edit summary that your deletion was an accident.
It is just as relevant as the anti-CoS propaganda about Germany's (and europe's) opinion of Scientology, which you continue to re-include.

Peace in God. Lsi john 20:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence is often allowed into court cases in order to refute the credibility of a witness.

Your portion of the material is an 'accusation' with no substance, no charge, no evidence and no conviction.
It is a conversation/interview not an official complaint or formal charge.
Your portion of the material appears to be from a German online tabloid.
Your portion of the material is in German not English and a translation of the page does not reveal the use of the term "Front Group".
Therefore your citation is a misuse and is inaccurate.

Based on the above, it is more than reasonable to allow a rebuttal citation which speaks to the credibility of the charge.

The rebuttal information speaks directly to motive and character.
Just because the charges didn't get filed until 5 years later, does not mean that her credibility isn't in question at the time she made the statement you claim she did.

If including one unsubstantiated allegation is legitimate, so is including a character rebuttal.

As I stated in my 3O comments, I personally feel neither are relevant.

You are simply trying to create controversy around YHRI where none exists. If controversy really exists, go find cited material which establishes YHRI in wrong doing. Stop including smoke filled speculation and allegation, rumor and innuendo.

Lsi john 21:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has been debated before already. The only new allegation "Your portion of the material is from a German online tabloid" is false. See Die Welt. I suggest you abstain from making such untrue accusations in the future. --Tilman 21:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, you are the only one allowed to do that, eh? :) Ich spreche kein Deutsch. or however its spelled. The website was in german, but, based on the interview, it hardly looked like a professional website for a highly reputable news agency. Tabloid was my impression and still is. And I could very well be wrong. If I am, then you may express my apologies to Die Welt.

It has been debated, indeed. And yet you continue to ignore the facts, and bring in rhetoric and irrelevant citations. Why do you have such a hardon for CoS? For heaven's sake, my friend. Why can't you simply fine real information about real offenses? Why do you keep trying to create controversy where none exists? Go find citations which NAME the YHRI in documented violations. I'm not pro-CoS, but I certainly can't support you when you bring in unrelated trivia just because you know the YHRI is bad. Get some real evidence. Get some real facts. Then nobody can question it. I certainly wouldn't stand in the way. Lsi john 21:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3R

By the way, technically you are 4R on that article. I started to report it and changed my mind. It would have been reporting out of revenge and I choose not to go there.

I'd rather show good faith and hope for the same in return.

Peace in God. Lsi john 19:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but I think I'm not, since I didn't revert the same segments. --Tilman 19:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither did I. 3RR applies to reverting any segments within the article in a 24 hour period. Its about edit-warring, not about the specific reverts. Trust me, you're 4R. And I'd rather work with you, than shove it back in your face and have you blocked and increase the friction between us. I really am about peaceful resolution. I just also have the ability to be forceful. Lsi john 19:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From my observation, 3RR is about the same segments.

Anyway, you may see that I reconstructed one (useful) changes.

I'll check if there's anything else that I deleted prematurely. --Tilman 19:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually yes. you re-added material that I had moved. I really did try to work on NPOV in that article and you came in and just SWATTED it gone. you reacted, rather than read. Some of the material had been worked into the opening paragraph. I appreciate that you're willing to go back and look again and reconsider. Lsi john 19:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI:

An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time.

Lsi john 19:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, I was not aware that my first edit counted as a revert. And I was a bit suprised that my Block came 24 hours after the reverting, which was punitive, not preventive. But c'est la vie. Lsi john 19:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just cleaned up something else that I apparently messed up, a segment was double. --Tilman 19:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, see this diff [15] - now the differences between "your" last version and "mine" are no longer that big. --Tilman 20:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Dohring

Hi Tillman, I am making two changes on the Doug Dohring site. Before this gets into "revert wars" I would like to ask you about these. (I made these changes before and you quickly reverted them. These were marked as anonymous because at the time I was having trouble logging in (I'm on Hughes Net which has log in problems. I just got help on this yesterday).

I am deleting "Previously, he was the owner of Digital Lightwave, the troubled Clearwater, Florida maker of fiber-optic testing equipment. The company was later accused of numerous financial misdealings. [1][2] ". Doug Dohring was never an owner of Digital Lightwave. He was an executive employee who resigned before any of these financial misdealings were even alleged to have taken place. The first reference you give makes no reference to Doug Dohring's being involved at all. The second reference you give is a blank page.

I am also deleting "an organization linked with spamvertising." You give no reference to this currently, but when you have a reference up on this before it was a link to a journal entry, which is not a credible source. The entry was a girl who was annoyed at opening her browser and seeing "another ad from Speedyclick". While I grant she may have been annoyed, this is not "spamvertising" per Wikipedia's own definition, "Spamvertising is the practice of sending E-mail spam, advertising a website. In this case, it is a portmanteau of the words "spam" and "advertising". It also refers to vandalizing wikis, blogs and online forums with hyperlinks in order to get a higher search engine ranking for the vandal's website." There is no evidence anywhere that Speedyclick was involved in these activities.

I am also deleting "later deemed worthless[6]" regarding the sale of the Speedyclick stock, becaues the reference you give makes no mention at all of Speedyclick or the value of its stock. It is about companies being delisted. As important, I don't know what relevance this has to a person's bio. You don't say when the stock was "deemed worthless", and we really don't know if he could have sold his stock before that point, if the entire company could have changed hands before that point, etc. This just has nothing to do with the individual you are doing the bio on.

Thanks for reviewing this.

TashiD 18:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You say that he was an "executive employee". From my memory, he was a shareholder, this should be found at "Edgar". The best would be to mention this on the discussion page, and then find the evidence for whatever. The digl-watch page is indeed blank now (because of a scientologist domain grabber, but the data is easily found in archive.org). The speedyclick thing is described in that article. The worthless stock thing seems to be missing indeed. --Tilman 20:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And after just a few minutes of research, I found the missing link: the stock was renamed. --Tilman 20:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, may I point you to WP:COI? Just in case this applies to you :-) --Tilman 21:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Dohring

ok this belongs more appropiately on the discussion page for the site so I'll move it over there. Not sure what you mean by a conflict of interest, but not important. I don't work for him, if that's what you mean. TashiD 05:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism warning

Stop deleting references as you did here. Come one, you know better than that. COFS 18:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "satanist" thing was wrong. Feel free to put back the rest. I'm not sure if "freewebtown" qualifies as a reliable source. It would be helpful to find a secondary source that quotes from that "affidavit", and mention the outcome of the court case. Having affidavits but not court decision is sortof weird and makes me doubt. --Tilman 06:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, please read the ref, it does not say "reincarnation of Satan", but "direct pipeline of communication and power" with Satan, which is as much junior's private dreams as anything else in there but from the viewpoint of correct citing, well, your change was uncalled for. COFS 20:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it also said "He thought he was Satan", and not that he was a satanist. That is what the dispute is about. And now please try to find a secondary source about the affidavit, and the outcome of the court case. --Tilman 21:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You got something wrong. It is not possible to have a dispute with you, Tilman. COFS 21:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What word do you not understand in this quote of Elron Jr? Also, you've got to realize that my father did not worship Satan. He thought he was Satan. That is what he said. And now please try to find a secondary source about the affidavit, and the outcome of the court case instead of trying to get away from that issue. --Tilman 05:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guard your tongue/fingers and stop using slander words for what you know is the founder of my religion. If you feel a certain compulsion go visit some appropriate websites but not Wikipedia. I am not interested in a propagandistic approach to this encyclopedia. Your above quote is intentionally out of context and gives hint as to what your agenda is. You are painfully predictable, Tilman, which makes any such "conversation" useless. Bye. COFS 20:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You started this "conversation". I did not use any slander words towards the person whom you consider founder of your religion. Fact is that Elron Jr. did make these allegations in an Penthouse interview. If you're unhappy with it, get some sources for the opposite, and with the context, please. --Tilman 20:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:COFS actions

Tilman, COFS (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)has reported me to WP:ANI. You may wish to comment. Thank you for your time. Yours, Smee 02:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I see its already too late :-(

I disagree with the strategy, to take articles off the watchlist. In the worst case, it results in a loss of quality in articles. --Tilman 06:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it will result in a loss of quality in articles. But if other Administrators are not concerned with Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS and do not see the similarities to User:MyWikiBiz, at this point it is best for me to move on, and instead focus on new article creation. Smee 07:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Andre Tabayoyon

I have expanded this article a bit, utilizing some information from an additional (6) reputable sourced citations. However, if you could contribute anything more to the article to expand it further, that would of course be most appreciated. Particularly if you know of other sourced citations to add to the article. Yours, Smee 03:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

done :) --Tilman 09:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may be able to expand the article from some of the existing citations as well if you wish, particularly those with hyperlinked articles online... Smee 09:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Interesting spin attempts on the article as of late. You may have noticed that I included the names of the various books utlized, in the article itself. I thought this was a good way to show representation an academic analysis of the affidavit information, in various secondary sources. If you feel like it, it might be interesting to restore that info, and then place it in its own subsection, like "analyzed in secondary sources", or something like that - as I did after all provide the relevant page numbers for all of the reputable secondary sourced citations. But, do what you wish with this article - I am going to take a step back from it - it shall be interesting to see what develops. Smee 18:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Actually, it is quite interesting to see the number and variety of sources that do refer to and analyze this affidavit and the shocking information it includes, and all of the secondary sources. It seems that quite separate from this project, that information has already become relatively pervasive. Smee 18:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

unbelievable

Please do not add unhelpful and unconstructive content to Wikipedia, as you did to Church of Scientology. Also your edits at Stephen A. Kent appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

Are you still the same Tilman there? COFS 01:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add black PR to wikipedia. Thank you. --Tilman 06:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete well sourced content from wikipedia. Thank you. --Tilman 06:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look

Tilman, please take a look at this Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eugene_Martin_Ingram.--Fahrenheit451 23:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh heh, that was fast. I see its already finished with "keep" :-) I wish it would also "keep" people from making frivolous AfDs in the future. --Tilman 06:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to take a break from the article Eugene Martin Ingram. However, you may wish to take a look, it looks like whole swathes of the article are now being removed left and right... Smee 15:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Sigh. This guy is a real pain. Instead of just accepting that his AfD didn't get through, he's now slashing through the article with a machete. --Tilman 15:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting assessment, however he did next add another citation. I did bring up a question about this on the talk page of the article, but at this point I feel like taking a break from this article (save if someone tries to get it deleted, again, please notify me). Feel free to keep me posted... Later, Smee 15:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Found a link to The New York Times article that focused primarily on Eugene Martin Ingram :
Staff (March 9, 1997). "An Ultra-Aggressive Use of Investigators and the Courts". The New York Times. The New York Times Company. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
- Quote: -- "In 1986 the Federal Court of Appeals in Boston said evidence in an extortion case indicated that Scientology investigators had induced witnesses to lie. It identified one investigator as Eugene M. Ingram. Eight years later, Mr. Ingram was charged with impersonating a police officer in seeking information about a sheriff in Tampa, Fla., while working as a church investigator. He and a Scientology employee flashed badges and told a woman that they were police detectives before questioning her about possible links between a county sheriff and what was said to be a prostitution ring, police records say."
So it appears that the information from the United States Court of Appeals that was removed from the article, actually was reported on in a highly reputable secondary source.
Cheers. Smee 18:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

And until it gets properly added to the article, it must be considered unsourced. Shame on whoever wrote that part in the article without putting in the source. Lsi john 18:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added this info back into the article, now that we know it was also discussed in a reputable secondary source. And as the primary source, an opinion of the United States Court of Appeals, is highly reputable, and discussed in The New York Times, this should remain in the article. Smee 18:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Found yet another couple of secondary sourced citations, and added those as well to the article. Smee 18:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Okay, after attempting to add some factual material from even more secondary sourced citations, and having that removed, and having info removed as well from citations from The New York Times - I am taking an extended break from this article, as well. Keep me posted if you feel like it, or not. But do let me know if the article goes up for AfD again. Thank you. Yours, Smee 19:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I've put some of it back, although I expect it to be vandalized again, with new theories that claim to be Wikipedia policy but aren't.

I do know that in one article or book, it was written that after the Tamimi affair, Ingram had to leave the US for some time until things would get quiet. Sadly I haven't found it yet. --Tilman 09:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, do you know whether this Mangojuice person is an admin? I ask because admins can interpret wikipedia policies or allege even new ad-hoc "rules" as they like (and disagreement is strategically a bad idea), but ordinary users can't. --Tilman 11:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am an admin, easily verified from my user page. I am reverting all of the edits you made, as they are poorly sourced and continue to pile on attack after attack against this individual, and you have made it very clear that you have a POV to push here. I will be deleting the article in a week if someone does not make it clear by then what exactly this person is supposed to be known for. As Thatcher said on the ANI thread, it's one thing to write an article about Scientology's use of aggressive investigation tactics. That is perfectly fine, if it can be done in a way compliant with NPOV and WP:V. But this article is an attack article against a single investigator who has never attracted biographical attention in reliable sources. He is tangentially connected to a fair number of individual events in the news, but the only stuff that's been written with him, the person, as the subject has been the 1981 articles about his trouble as a police officer. As for you, you're on thin ice with this. Read over WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Consider this a warning that your behavior is unacceptable. Mango juice^talk 12:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. Since you're invoking admin powerz, its useless to try to argue with sourced facts. Feel free to delete whatever you wish, including the article itself. Never mind that your own AfD went nowhere; apply WP:IAR. I'm now deleting the article from my watch list. --Tilman 13:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As have I. Smee 15:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

hint

If you really wanted it to stop, you'd stop posting too. Lsi john 16:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For legal reasons, I must dispute the libel if I am aware of it. If I wouldn't dispute it, he could argue in court that it is "undisputed", and even spread it around more, because he "trusted that it was true". So I must do damage control, although I am of course aware that he mostly wants attention. I'm creating a record, not only of his libel, but also that he is absolutely aware that it is libel. --Tilman 17:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technically you're creating a record that you consider it to be libel, not that it actually is libel. The only way to establish that it actually is libel, is through the courts. But thats simply a technicality, and I understand your situation. I think you've been pretty clear so far that its 'disputed'. At least sufficient enough that if I were on a jury he couldn't claim 'undisputed'. Peace. Lsi john 17:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to David Miscavige. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. COFS 18:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not so. As you know through the edit summary, I reverted some of the work from Su Jada. He had shuffled stuff around, and also made subtle changes not discovered by other editors, which included pure fiction, e.g. that the GO was independent etc. --Tilman 19:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology

Hey Tilman, your recent edit over at Scientology expressed concern over the direction the article was/is taking. Shoot me a message on my talk page or join in on the article talk. Personally, I have been thinking the last couple days seem to have been going very well and some ussually difficult issues seem to have reached fair consensus. (RookZERO 05:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I noticed the edit by that Homer guy, who deleted the whole Barley segment, which was properly sourced. I always thought that there would be enough english language critics on the main article, so my contribution isn't really needed and I concentrate on the minor articles. --Tilman 16:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Interesting article:[16] --Fahrenheit451 23:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. What a waste of taxpayer money. At the same time, many german states force children (or rather, their parents) to pay for their school books. --Tilman 05:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to mention you in an arbcom case

The reason I'm posting is that I've become involved in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS, and want to cite as evidence the time a couple of months ago when you were compared to Hitler's mouthpiece by CSI LA on the Talk:L. Ron Hubbard page:

CSI LA to Tilman

Anynobody 05:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go ahead. I am aware of the arbcom case, but don't have the time to participate. A look on his discussion page should show several examples of personal attacks / incivility; several users, including me, have complained on the talk pages in order to 1) create a record 2) make the user aware that it's a no-no, in the hope that he would improve his behaviour. Not! --Tilman 18:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Church of Scientology

I am really sick of ur language skills... --Homer Landskirty 09:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your theory that I am influencing your health is not in the spirit of WP:CIVIL. Please refrain from doing this in the future. You can do this on the usenet, or in the german wikipedia. --Tilman 18:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Etwas satt haben"??? "Gesundheit"??? Kofferklau??? Bahnhof??? Ich werd zwar langsam ein kleines Pummelchen, aber zuviel ist zuviel... Ich frage mich immer häufiger, ob wirklich dieser Tilman Hausherr hinter diesem Account (und diesem Account: de:User:THausherr) steckt (auf seiner WWW Seite xenu.de steht nämlich nix davon), und ob der Urheber der ganzen Verlautbarungen das wirklich so meint... Sich über meine Asperger-haften Symptome lustig zu machen, ist sicherlich nicht im Sinne von WP:CIVIL... (translation (possibly the etiquette wants it in english): "to be sick of sth"??? "health"??? "suitcase theft"??? "train station"??? I am getting a little dumpling, but too much is too much... I ask myself with increasing frequency, if really Tilman Hausherr is behind this account (and this account: de:User:THausherr) (on his WWW page xenu.de is no such hint), and if all those statements r meant like it looks.... Making fun of my Asperger-related symptoms would be surely not in the spirit of WP:CIVIL...). TubbyByeBye --Homer Landskirty 20:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Btw.: It is not possible to force a member country to comply to the opinion of the judges of ECHR... Turkey seems to be an example... Psychiatry is another example of slightly different quality (here neither the opinion of the judges nor the member countries comply to the relevant conventions and protocols)... But I dont care anymore in this point... I simply refuse to take any responsibility for the corresponding actions and their consequences... TubbyByeBye--Homer Landskirty 20:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link that youself provided DOES show that it is somewhat possible to force the countries to abide by the decisions (which is usually a $$ amount to the plaintiff). About your psychiatry theories - discuss this in the psychiatry articles. Please do also understand WP:NOR - quote whats in reliable sources, not your observation or opinion. --Tilman 13:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote several times: There is no way implemented to force a member country to comply to the opinion of the ECHR judges.. As u wrote urself: There is a committee, that can invite some politicians of the member country in order to _talk_, but no COE-encashment-officer and no detention for bad politicians... So just talking and talking and talking and nothing more... Now I will lookup "judgements waiting for the member country to comply"... Will be back... --Homer Landskirty 16:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While you research, please do also buy a few "y", "o" and other characters. This isn't a teen chatroom. --Tilman 17:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BINGO! --Homer Landskirty 18:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The difficulties of the "enforcement by sound waves" policies r covered under a big pile of decisions. I found some decisions from 2000, that r still subject to meetings of that Committee in 2007... --Homer Landskirty 16:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A useful special page

This might come in handy: External links *.digl-watch.com AndroidCat 17:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! 1) that's what I was searching for some months ago Re: "Debernification Project Force" (thus [17]), 2) several articles that I didn't even know that they existed. Thanks! --Tilman 19:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snoek is next: [18] --Tilman 05:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello (found this on your user page)

(Anynobody 05:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Hello, can you explain why you insist on stating that "out of 3000 lectures only 40 have been released?" Ever since 1986, when the PDC was first released on cassette, that was already 62 lectures. Hundreds of lectures were released on cassette before the church started to release them on CD starting in 2002 with a release of the PDC (76 lectures). By July 2007, I counted more than 500 lectures released on CD. Adding that to the ones released on cassette ans subtracting the duplicates, the number probably exceeds 1000. And please do not tell me there is no source. You can pick the Bridge or New Era catalogs or even the Materaisl Guide Chart. If I sound upset, it's because I spent 10 years on my life translating these 500 lectures. I don't take well to people reducing that to zero. --Leocomix 22:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was not trying to put you down and I am sorry that you feel bad. I just reverted something unsourced, and noticed that the previous version was also unsourced. [19] If you mention the source, then I won't touch it if the source is good. However I or others might want to have a look at it. --Tilman 17:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR

Give me a good reason why not to block you as well for 3RR violation as I did with User:Su-Jada. You are an experienced editor and should know better than editwar. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, because I haven't violated 3RR. (At least, I think so. If I'm wrong, then I'll face the music). Second, because I really did try to discuss the matter with him. He simply deleted something that was well sourced, three sources in the article, and two other sources in the discussion. Third, because I've listened to him and made some changes that made the segment more NPOV. If you read the sources about the "mission holder" thing, you will see that the wikipedia article is very tame. --Tilman 17:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another admin is taking a look. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freezone article

Re 'Freezone survivors' website: please read the discussion page, this has been disputed before and should be discussed not used for yet another revert war. Messages also sent to others involved and discussion section opened. --Hartley Patterson 21:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COI

Hi. I am adding yours and Vivaldi's WP:COI in having anything to do with Barb's article to the current COI arbitration at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS. --Justanother 14:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of possible interest to you

Please see this, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Scientology_Justice--Fahrenheit451 21:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of possible interest to you

Hi Tillman, wanna get together for some Berliner Weisse? You that guy with the glasses (link deleted by Misou after he was put on personal attack warning)? Misou 22:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misou has been put on a block warning [20] from an admin for the above violation of WP:NPA which you can find here [21]. Please notify an admin if he ever does it again.--Fahrenheit451 00:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obfuscatory remarks

Exactly, that bad guy who is trying to invite Tilman for a beer. Get him! Misou 02:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Berliner Weisse mit Schuß oder ohne Schuß? --Justanother 17:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mit Schuß, ohne is langweilig, hicks! Misou 18:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the woods for you, Herr Waldmeister. --Justanother 19:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipediatrix edit-warring your talk page

Tilman, I reverted some attempted historical revisionism by User:Wikipediatrix today.--Fahrenheit451 20:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what, pray tell, was that? You're rearranging statements made by other editors on Tilman's talk page to suit your own whims. Of course, since you and Tilman are pals, I'm sure he won't care, but it's the principle of the thing. Oh, and by the way, how does my one single edit count as "edit-warring"? wikipediatrix 20:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipediatrix, if Tilman and I are pals as you state, then you should not have any problem with my ensuring that he is not attacked and harassed by cofs-directed editors like User:Misou and his pals. Are you one of those?--Fahrenheit451 20:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tilman's an adult. Why don't you let him worry about his own talk page? Don't you have anything better to do than play netcop? wikipediatrix 20:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipediatrix, stop playing games. I watch pages for vandalism and other violations of Wikipedia policy. I see that you did nothing to report you pal User:Misou's personal attack on Tilman. Have a good day.--Fahrenheit451 20:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I had a quick look. I don't mind edits like this [22] by Fahrenheit451. Misou made a personal attack which has no place on my talk page. The best would probably be to delete all sections related to Misou's attack, including the attack, including the discussion about Wikipediatrix activities here. And I would ask Wikipediatrix to stay away from my talk page unless it is really needed. --Tilman 21:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's really not about your talk page. It's about F451 creating a header over another editor's post, creating the illusion that they created that header. As I indicated earlier, I knew you wouldn't object to F451's little redecoration makeover of your page, but the integrity of your talk page wasn't the issue of contention to me and never was. wikipediatrix 00:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipediatrix, another violation of WP:AGF from you again: "It's about F451 creating a header over another editor's post creating the illusion that they created that header" and "I knew you wouldn't object to F451's little redecoration makeover of your page,". Did not Tilman just instruct you to stay away from his talk page? Are you paying attention?--Fahrenheit451 01:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure that Tilman has a right to tell people not to post on his talk page, especially when he makes reference to me here. You're only encouraging me to post here by speaking directly to me here yourself when you know perfectly well you could have just as easily posted your question on my talk page. wikipediatrix 02:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right, then this thread is hereby terminated. Please respect Tilman's wishes.--Fahrenheit451 02:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MEDCAB case involving you

The Mediation Cabal: Request for case participation

Dear Tilman: Hello, my name is Arknascar44; I'm a mediator from the Mediation Cabal, an informal mediation initiative here on Wikipedia. You've recently been named as a dispute participant in a mediation request here:

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-08-31 David Miscavige

I'd like to invite you to join this mediation to try to get this dispute resolved, if you wish to do so; note, however, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate, and if you don't wish to take part in it that's perfectly alright. Please read the above request and, if you do feel that you'd like to take part, please make a note of this on the mediation request page. If you have any questions or queries relating to this or any other dispute, please do let me know; I'll try my best to help you out. Thank you very much. Best regards, Arky ^¡Hablar! 21:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Leipzig_Award_2003.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Leipzig_Award_2003.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Schwarz and Scientology

Hello there, I realize you're on an extended hiatus but on the off chance you check in every so often I have a question. Being someone of experience related to both subjects I was wondering if you ever recall any discussion related to a specific aspect of Schwarz's behavior in German sources. That being the tenets of Scientology related to psychiatrists, and her belief in them, has essentially locked her into mental illness. Thanks. Anynobody 08:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a short text in a state attorney document [23] that a former top Munich scientology official became seriously mentally ill while in the USA and Denmark, and that it is proven that the state worsened because of the scientology "help". Ingo Heinemann, who is an attorney and a scientology expert, tells that this is Barbara Schwarz. [24] --Tilman (talk) 11:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'm sure the person Heinemann is referring to has to be Schwarz, but unfortunately doubt it's strong enough to do what I was hoping for. (How frustrating, perhaps the most relevant issue about her and Scientology is the fact that it tells her to avoid the cure as though the plague. Someday I'm hoping another paper will do a Scientology series like the LA Times did or something, which mentions her sad predicament and just how much the "tech" has helped her adjust.) Anynobody 05:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You omit that she got deprogrammed and that Keltsch (that is the state attorney in the doc) put her in psychiatric "care" when she moved from Denmark to Germany. After those two incidents she turned nuts, ducked for cover in Utah and so on. Trying to fake history, aren't you... Why am I not surprised. Misou (talk) 03:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You omit that the deprogramming was long after all this. Plus, you are confusing cause and effect. First she was in scientology. Then she got mentally ill. Then scientology tried to handle it in LA and in Danemark. Then she went into psychiatric care. Then she got out (it is unclear why, but people aren't kept locked in if they behave "nutty", only if they are a danger to themselves or others). Her mother tried involuntary deprogramming (with the help of scientology PI Douglas Reynolds!) in 1987. The document is from 1986 and describes events from the past. But hey, don't let facts interfering in your own reality. But in the future, please keep obvious lies out of my space here. --Tilman (talk) 10:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel compelled to correct your assertion. I'm actually describing the current situation and predicting the future. She clearly has sanity issues which the COS has not corrected (don't forget, she still calls herself a Scientologist and says she was kicked out), moreover because it tells her that psychiatry is murder she's never going to get any better. Anynobody 04:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There are a number of WP:BLP violations in this thread. Please consider removing any discussions of her mental condition not backed up by high-quality sourcing. And AN, the bio is gone and it ain't coming back and neither is some sort of WP:POVFORK article or mention so you may want to consider moving on. Happy New Year to all. --JustaHulk (talk) 14:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was premature as "some sort of WP:POVFORK article or mention" is exactly what you have been up to. I have addressed this elsewhere as I mention on your talk page. --JustaHulk (talk) 15:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JustanotherHulk, Consider that perhaps it would be better if you had posted your concerns on WP:BLPN if you believe that the arbcom decision is worthy of being followed and there are really egregious BLP violations occurring here. Anynobody 01:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tilman we all know the order of events, but consider looking at this as Misou described it. If that were correct, and Scientology really cared about people (and worked), why aren't they trying to get a hold of her so she can get "help"? While I personally think it's not really a WP:BLP issue, you might consider removing the detailed description which doesn't appear in any articles here (for now, things do change). Anynobody 01:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of Information Act (United States)#Barbara Schwarz

Like I've always said, I find her use of gov't resources in pursuit of nothing to be way more interesting than her Scientology saga. (Obviously they are both related though :) Anyway I got a hold of a civil case that brings together a lot of information, 98-2406 (HHK) Anynobody 05:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks re: Ford Greene

You're very welcome, and thank you too. I believe the article has been added to further since your post. The court decision yesterday will have a ripple effect; I expect additional developments soon. Jusdafax (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology arbitration

Per the request of arbitrator Roger Davies (talk), this notice is to inform you of the current arbitration case concerning Scientology, which can be viewed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology. You are receiving this notification because you were one of the users listed in the new evidence presented by Jayen466.

For Roger Davies and the Arbitration Committee
Daniel (talk) 12:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology arbitration

This is to notify you that you have been added as a involved party to the Scientology arbitration case; this is either because you have been mentioned in the /Evidence, the /Workshop or their talk pages, or because you are closely connected with it.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, KnightLago (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't think I can help much. I haven't really been active here for almost a year now. I'm somewhat disillusioned with wikipedia, mostly with the german flavour - the EN wikipedia was mostly ok, and I know that the scientology critics are playing fair. --Tilman (talk) 17:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following editors are subjected to bans/topic-bans/restrictions as listed below :

Banned : John254 (talk · contribs) (Community Ban), Justallofthem (talk · contribs)
Topic-banned : CSI LA (talk · contribs), Grrrilla (talk · contribs), Makoshack (talk · contribs), Proximodiz (talk · contribs), Su-Jada (talk · contribs), TaborG (talk · contribs), Jack Russell Terrier (talk · contribs), Jpierreg (talk · contribs), Maureen D (talk · contribs), OngoingHow (talk · contribs), Seelltey (talk · contribs), Tturrisi (talk · contribs), Voxpopulis (talk · contribs), AndroidCat (talk · contribs), Antaeus Feldspar (talk · contribs), Anynobody (talk · contribs), Derflipper (talk · contribs), Fahrenheit451 (talk · contribs), Misou (talk · contribs), Orsini (talk · contribs), Shrampes (talk · contribs), Shutterbug (talk · contribs), Steve Dufour (talk · contribs), Tilman (talk · contribs), The Legendary Shadow! (talk · contribs), Touretzky (talk · contribs)
To contact the Committee : Arnielerma*, Karin Spaink*, StephenAKent*, Timbowles*, Tory Christman*, Hkhenson*, Rick Alan Ross (talk · contribs)
Other restrictions :
- Jossi (talk · contribs) gave up his status as an administrator in the face of controversy concerning his administrator actions during an arbitration case, he may not be automatically re-granted adminship. However, he is free to seek readminship, should he choose to do so, at any time by a request for adminship at Requests for adminship.
- ChrisO (talk · contribs) is to abide to a binding voluntary restriction that within the Scientology topic (i) he limits his edits to directly improving articles to meet GA and FA criteria, using reliable sources; (ii) he makes no edits of whatever nature to biographies of living people; and (iii) he refrains from sysop action of whatever nature.
- Jayen466 (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles about Rick Ross, broadly defined.

#Editors marked in * have since contacted the Committee.

Any editor who is subject to remedies in this proceeding, or who wishes to edit from an open proxy, is restricted to a single current or future account to edit Scientology-related topics and may not contribute to the topic as anonymous IP editors. Editors topic banned by remedies in this proceeding are prohibited (i) from editing articles related to Scientology or Scientologists, broadly defined, as well as the respective article talk pages and (ii) from participating in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles. Editors topic banned above may apply to have the topic ban lifted after demonstrating their commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and their ability to work constructively with other editors. Applications will be considered no earlier than six months after the close of this case, and additional reviews will be done no more frequently than every six months thereafter.

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, ban any editor from editing within the Scientology topic. Prior to topic banning the editor, the administrator will leave a message on the editor's talk page, linking to this paragraph, warning the editor that a topic ban is contemplated and outlining the behaviours for which it is contemplated. If the editor fails to heed the warning, the editor may be topic banned, initially, for three months, then with additional topic bans increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Any editor who, in the judgment of an uninvolved administrator, is (i) focused primarily on Scientology or Scientologists and (ii) clearly engaged in promoting an identifiable agenda may be topic-banned for up to one year.

All IP addresses owned or operated by the Church of Scientology and its associates, broadly interpreted, are to be blocked as if they were open proxies. Any current or future editor who, after this decision is announced, makes substantial edits to any Scientology-related articles or discussions on any page is directed to edit on these from only a single user account, which shall be the user's sole or main account, unless the user has previously sought and obtained permission from the Arbitration Committee to operate a legitimate second account. They shall edit in accordance to Wikipedia policies and refrain from advocacy, to disclose on the relevant talk pages any circumstances (but not including personal identifying information) that constitute or may reasonably be perceived as constituting a conflict of interest with respect to that page, and not through a proxy configuration.

- For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 01:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification archived

Hello, Tilman. A recent request for clarification which you were a part of, "Scientology (3)", has been archived and can be found at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Scientology. If you still have questions about this case, please feel free to post another clarification request, contact a Clerk, or the Committee. For the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FECRIS

FECRIS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

[25] - Could you please provide some more information to this cite, to better satisfy WP:V? Cirt (talk) 21:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the time I added it, the source link showed that they have NGO status at the UN. Now the UN website seems to be broken. [26] says: 23 September, 2009 - Certain parts of the NGO Branch website will be down today for maintenance. Thank you for your understanding and we apologize for any inconvenience this may cause. --Tilman (talk) 06:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now it works, although it seems to be unreliable. The first time I was told to login. But then I was able to get the expected result by entering FECRIS into the search box at [27], and now the original link works again. --Tilman (talk) 15:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks. Cirt (talk) 19:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mind Control

Hi. A new section has been added to the mind control article's talk page disputing the article's POV. I notice you made some contributions to the talk page before; I think your perspective could be useful again. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 03:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't do much on wikipedia anymore. I'm also not using wikipedia as a source for information, knowing how editing has been done for years. (Recent, but absolutely common example: [28]) --06:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Xenu screenshot.png

Thanks for uploading File:Xenu screenshot.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... Of course I did create this file. And of course I did give permission. The problem with wikipedia / wikimedia / wiki commons / whatever is that the rules are changed every few months. --Tilman (talk) 22:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Tilman. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Tilman. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Tilman. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for Bennetta Slaughter

An article that you have been involved in editing—Bennetta Slaughter—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Matuko (talk) 23:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]