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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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)

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

• 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]

• 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:

Template:CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat 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]

• 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]

• 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]

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 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]