Talk:Tilman Hausherr/Archive 1

Tilman the German critic

I didn't create my entry, but I added a little bit now that it's there. I'm not angry if admins delete it because they think it's a vanity page :) Tilman 17:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)Tilman

It's not a vanity page. Tilman is a well known critic of Scientology. What is vanity is Tilman's additions. Tilman does not provide proof of his claims regarding employment, etc. There are reports that his position as a software developer is just a cover for his actual occupation. --AI (signature added by Tilman)

There's also a report that the moon is made of cheese.Tilman 06:07, 6 September 2005 (UTC)Tilman

There's also a U.S. State Department report about the German government's religious descrimination of Scientologists. :) --AI (signature added by Tilman)

If it gets deleted, please put some sort of lock to prevent it from being started again, so that it doesn't get used for libel. (see article history) Tilman 20:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)Tilman

The world want to know more about Tilman's involvement with the critics of Scientology and the German government. --AI (signature added by Tilman)

Regarding second name: AI, in Germany it is not mandatory to use the middle name and most people are known only by first and last name. The choice of using the middle name or not is fully up to the person - so if Tilman does not use his middle name, his choice should be respected. -Irmgard 07:55, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

This alleged "middle name" exists only in the phantasy of the RFW site. Irmgard, I've tried to contact you by mail, but couldn't - your address is no longer valid.Tilman 06:07, 6 September 2005 (UTC)Tilman

I don't know which one you used - might well be. But I checked my mail address here, it is ok - just go to User:Irmgard and click on E-mail this user. Irmgard 07:29, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

What's the matter Tilman, don't you like the your middle name Joerg? --AI (signature added by Tilman)

Categorization

"This category is for articles related to Scientology that are stubs." Absolutely no requirement that the subject of the article must -be friendly to Scientology, only related to Scientology -- and although AI claims "Tilman has nothing to do with Scn", he/she immediately contradicts that by adding "and is an enemy of Scn." [1] AI appears to be misunderstanding how categorization works. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:20, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

That is your opinion. It's just a stub anyway. And it's just Tilman. --AI 02:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Whether it's a stub or not doesn't seem to have much relevance, nor can I detect much relevance in your cryptic pronouncement that "it's just Tilman". As for whether it's my opinion that you are misunderstanding how categorization works, yes, it's my opinion, an opinion based on the fact that you seem to be perceiving requirements and exceptions where no one else is perceiving them. You seem to think that "Scientology-related" necessitates "approved of by Scientology", a requirement which appears nowhere in any of the relevant pages or category descriptions and which no one except yourself seems to think is implicit. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:23, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Scientology stub on Tilman Hausherr

(copies from User talk:Tilman)

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)

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

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

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

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

"Tilman is a German critic of Scientology." How does that not sound Scientology-related to you? Are we not to put the stub on ANY critic's page because they're not Scientologists and therefore not Scientology-related? This smacks of hair-splitting - not to mention that if the stub stays gone, it's one step closer to taking him off the list of Scientology critics that shows up as a Wikipedia category. He belongs on that list, and therefore the stub and the category should BOTH remain. 206.114.20.121 18:44, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

"POV" Edits

Here is my reasoning in favor of my version. Where are yours? NB: Nobody provides sources here, so please don't ask me for sources b4 you present any yourself. OK, what did I do? I clipped some redudant information (same link appears twice in the article), kicked out the redudadant "in his spare time" (again: when else:? Nobody claims he does it as part of his job as a software specialist.), applied a health warning to the two weblinks provided and changed "Scientology critic" into "Scientology opponent". For sure, *he* thinks he's a critic. But neither do I nor the average Scientolgist nor the average social scientist. Scientology considers him not a critic, but an enemy, as is evidenced by the Weblink provided. So, this fact is obviously disputed. An opponent can be both an enemy or a critic (and even both for that matter), so I simply applied the most value-neutral label, that would not be disputed by either me, a Scientologist or a anti-cultist. Clearly, anti-cult activists would prefer the more palable "critic" label, as it has an aura of objectivity, but there simply is no evidence that Hausherr is a critic, i.e. weighs advantages and disadvantages in a rational and nuanced fashion. There is some evidence that he is an enemy of Scientology (in that he publishes at times plainly false information related to Scientology), but there is no need to investigate this claim either, if you use the label "opponent", which leaves the question of enemy vs. critic open.--Fossa 21:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

«For sure, *he* thinks he's a critic. But neither do I nor the average Scientolgist nor the average social scientist.»: This article is not about your opinion, neither of what you think is the opinion of the average social scientist. Since you agree that Tilman defines himself as a critic, this one stays.

«but there simply is no evidence that Hausherr is a critic, i.e. weighs advantages and disadvantages»: Look up Critic. Raymond Hill 01:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

So Tilman's opinion of himself is more important than mine or any number of other people's assesment? Interesting. But nevermind. "Self-described critic" is also true, and if that's what you want, you got it.--Fossa 02:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I forgot. Please, no circular references to Wikipedia. It's not a credible source.--Fossa 02:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

PS: If someone believes he's god, are you gonna push for his bio to inclued the sentence "$someone is god"?Fossa 02:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

«So Tilman's opinion of himself is more important than mine or any number of other people's assesment?»: His opinion of himself is not more important than your opinion of him, or your opinion about others' opinion of him. His site contains information that is critical of scientology, thus it is not unreasonable to state that he is a critic of scientology. If I follow your reasoning, anybody offering critical views on a particular subject is actually rather an "opponent"? I fail to see where Hausherr's web site states that Scientology should be forbidden.

«Please, no circular references to Wikipedia. It's not a credible source.»: There are other sources. How about "The Free Online Dictionary": "One who forms and expresses judgments of the merits, faults, value, or truth of a matter.".

«If someone believes he's god, are you gonna push for his bio to inclued the sentence "$someone is god"?»: No, that wouldn't be reasonable. Raymond Hill 03:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

So, where is the line, then? If "god" is unreasonable, may I call myself "talented singer"? The fact is that the label "critic" has a positive connotation, one, the most important meaning of critic is "one who expresses a reasoned opinion on any matter especially involving a judgment of its value, truth, righteousness, beauty, or technique" (M-W). Tilman does in my view not give reasoned opinion, but he gives his opinion on Scientology, regardless of facts; he even engages in demagogoguery to defame Scientology. That is not a critic. Now, I know that many people outside the academy see this differently, but that does not make your or my judgement a fact. What on earth is wrong with the label opponent? It is not degrading or devaluing in any way, it has just unlike "critic" not the aura of being rational. It merely states the fact that Tilman is an opponenent.Fossa 22:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

«he even engages in demagogoguery to defame Scientology.»: Can you be more specific, I wish to see for myself what you perceive as defamation and demagoguery. Raymond Hill 22:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer, Raymond. Sure, I can, but I think it's first incumbent onto those, who see "critic" as a "description" to support their opinion with empirical evidence. They have presented one quote from an academic journal, I presented two quotes from three distinct persons, who do not share that opinion, in two academic sources. So, it would be first up to them to justify their opinion. If they do, I will support mine with quotes. I also would still like to know, what's wrong with the term "opponnent." PS: If you read German, try [[2]]] Fossa 03:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't read German. As for opponent, you define it yourself as follow: «an opponent can be both an enemy or a critic». I don't agree with characterizing Hausherr as an enemy of Scientology. The Free Online Dictionary, enemy: «hatred toward, intends injury to, or opposes the interests of another; a foe.» From his web site, I can understand his motivation is to expose Scientology for abuses on its members, abuses on the critics, and to counter the Church of Scientology's stance against free speech. At this point, that seems the consensus among editors here. Raymond Hill 03:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, since I am an editor, too, and since some other persons (among them IPs from two different countries) seem to agree with me, we certainly cannot speak of consensus. As for the labe "opponent": It can also mean enemy, but it is by no means necessary to be an enemy. So, if there is a dispute over the question, if Tilman is an enemy or critic, opponnent still fits both opinions: So whats's wrong with it? That there are more persons defending Tilman's idea of being a critic, is no surprise, he is rallying his fellow anti-cult activists to "supervise" my edits [3]--Fossa 18:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Alright let's go over this again:

Here are references where Hausherr is characterized as a critic: [4], [5], [6], [7]. I even found an article at Cersnur.org that presents Tilman as a critic: [8]. Now, you claim the followings: «he publishes at times plainly false information related to Scientology» and «he even engages in demagogoguery to defame Scientology», but you don't provide sources to support these statements. Not convincing. Raymond Hill 23:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

"in his spare time" is important, because some people claim that it is done as part of a job for several (!) german secret services (it isn't), so I'll put it back later. I'm a software developer, this is my profession and this is how I make money. (I actually developed an Encyclopedia software on an IBM CMS system with 3270 terminals, later on Windows 3.1 [9] between 1985 and 1993, nothing of which went into the Wikipedia software)

The reference to the Kent article isn't really about Tilman Hausherr, so I'll delete it later. How about this [10] article? Both author and article are of poor quality, but it's fun anyway. But seriously, an additional source isn't really needed, since the homepage shows it already.

"opponent" vs. "critic" is Fossa's black-and-white view of the world.--Tilman 08:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Please note that in the case of disputes we often write in Wikipedia attributed opinions. We could e.g. write "Hausherr is described by himself, Massimo Introvigne, the president of CESNUR, and the Canadian sociologist Stephen A. Kent as a critic of Scientology. By others, e.g. [name] he is described as an opponent of Scientology" Andries 09:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The above is fine for me (although e.g. Massimo used other words on me). One could put Fossa (Thomas Koenig) in the definition. But Koenig isn't really a similar source, i.e. he hasn't published a journal article mentioning me. Of course, he might do so, in order to mention me as a "scientology opponent" and then get mentioned here :-)

He will publish an article on me and all the other people he doesn't like some day. But this takes time, even in the sort of publications where cult apologists write their theories.

At this time, only about.com[11] has named me as "scientology opponent".--Tilman 16:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow. That's a slur. "Scientology opponent": That's really bad. How much worse could an insult get? "SUV disliker"? "Atlanta Hawks Agnostic"? I take it then that you don't oppose Scientology, but you are oblivious to Scientology? Or even a supporter? That's news to me, but the path of the Lord is strange. Fossa 00:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Fossa, such sarcastic remarks are generally considered not conducive for building an encyclopedia. Please refrain from making them. Thanks. Andries 10:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

In his spare time

Fossa et. al why do you keep reverting this. You have acknowledged yourself that it must be in his spare time so what is the sense in reverting? It is important it is left in for reasons discussed so many times my head's spinning so please just leave it be? Merci! _{§τοʟĿ€ʀγ}^Ť_č 01:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a rather personal thing. He's a big kid. He's angry that - partly because of me - he isn't able to put his opinions into the german scientology-related definitions. So by altering this wikipedia definition he's taking this to a more personal level.--Tilman 10:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

UR kidding me... reeal mature! ;) Crazy... thanks for the heads up Tilman. _{§τοʟĿ€ʀγ}^Ť_č 10:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Tilman, please assume good faith with regards to user:Fossa. Assuming good faith is a Wikipedia guideline. Thanks. Andries 10:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Are we to assume good faith even after a user has openly declared their bad faith? wikipediatrix 14:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Could you please point me to a place, where I have "openly declared my bad faith"? Thanks.--Fossa 14:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, for starters, the sarcastic remarks in the above section, which Andries already called you out on. And then there's your remarks on your own talk page under "Inappriopriate edit summaries", which Andries also already called you out on, and said, quote, "Your edit summary strikes me as if you edit Wikipedia in bad faith.". Time and time again, you are showing the worst faith possible even as you accuse everyone around you of the same. wikipediatrix 15:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, those of us who are always cheerful and uptone and never make brief edit summaries like "rv vandalism" when doing more than that, or those of us who are never sarcastic might be the best ones of us to throw the first stone, don't you think, Wikipediatrix? :) Why don't we work toward a more helpful attitude as WP:CIVIL suggests ? Terryeo 20:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all: I plead guilty on the count of "sarcasm". Moreover: I freely admit that I will be a repeat offender on this count in the future. I like thisrhetorical style and don't see, why it should be banned from discussions. Indeed, one can find good reasons to employ sarcasm for advancing an argument. Not even the warped Wikipedia rules advise against sarcasm, as far as I have read them (and I have read quite a bit).

But what has sarcasm, a rhetorical device, to do with "bad faith"? You can use all sorts of rhetorical devices in either "good faith" or "bad faith". Where's the connection?

Finally, you claimed I had openly declared my bad faith. Now you quote a suspicion by another user that I was acting in bad faith. In fact, I rebutted that suspicion to Andries's satisfaction; he then changed his critique to use of sarcasm in meta text. I plea guilty to this again, and I will most likely restrict my sarcasm to the Talk pages in the future.--Fossa 15:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Fossa, I do not think that sarcasm in talk pages on sensitive subjects, such as this one, is appropriate. You will certainly make yourself unpopular among contributors. Andries 15:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think that Wikipedia was a popularity contest, nor do I think it should be. Undoubtly, you will usually not become popular among those, whose statements are ridiculed (YMMV, some people like myself like sarcasm in all circumstances), because it renders flaws in the argument apparent. And debates on WP should be about arguments, not about networking.--Fossa 16:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Like in all communities, disputes in Wikipedia are not only won by people who have the best argumenents, but often by people who have the most friends. Andries 01:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't dispute that at all, quite to the contrary, that's the reason, why I am disenchanted with Wikipedia. We are wandering a bit off here, but in I think in general you are empirically correct, but the ideological argument is that the better argument should win. Pigheaded as I am, I'm gonna follow that norm. On the bright side, this stub has become quite reasonable by now (the quotes about Tilman's labe are quite ridicolous, I still think that "opponnent" would have been more to the point, but OK. I gladly give Tilman his redudant "in the spare time". Let's see, how the CoS article will develop.--Fossa 01:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Andries, do you think that is right and you support such circumstances or are you just stated a unfortunate fact. --UNK 06:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I refrain to answer this question, because I still believe my guru was right when he said that the distinction right/good versus bad has only meaning when making choices, not for facts that you cannot change. Andries 19:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

To the original question, which I overlooked: I already said, why I deleted "in his spare" time, because it is unreasonable to assume that his employer would pay him to disseminate his views on Scientology. Thus, it is redudant information. You could mind as well write that he creates his web pages, while his eyes are open. Tilman's argument, that it needs to be there, because some Scientology-related website makes wild speculations (not even assertions) about him, with respect to his connections to the German government is flawed, because this is not a widely-held belief, definitely not outside Scintology and possibly not even inside Scientlogy. This cannot be the place to detail and rebut all sorts of allegations made for or against Hausherr. --Fossa 15:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Fossa that this was a redundant statement. Andries 15:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it is such a minor detail that why bother taking issue with it? I mean who really gives a flying f#@k? We have the privilege of actually having the subject of the article here in person to comment and correct inaccuracies that we should (at the very least) honor their wishes over such a minor detail - I suspect that if Tilman was a critic of anything other than the cult of $cientology then we wouldn't be having this discussion... get over it and move on for God's sake! The integrity nor accuracy of the article has not been compromised why even care?! _{§τοĿĿ€Ŗγ}^Ť_č 15:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to "assume good faith" when Fossa deletes a detail, which, when deleted, supports the many weird allegations that exist about me. I have been very often been accused of working for BND, OPC, Caberta, Gandow, or having my day job as a "legend".--Tilman 16:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

As I said, what a few Scientologist allege, and what virtually nobody believes, should not be a matter for this article. Suppose, a few Scientologists would allege that they saw that Dubya has a "666" birthmark on his buttocks. Should the Wikipedia article then state: "Oh and by the way, George Bush would like to clarify that he's not the devil"?--Fossa 16:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

You shouldn't take any allegation of Barbara Schwarz (in this case: my alleged employer) at face value.--Tilman 15:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't and that's why I wrote, "as I understand it". I have not seen you denying you that alleged fact (and you usually do rebut factual claims made about you, if untrue), nor would I find it particularly defaming. It fitted your own description "a company that offers software services to medium and large-sized clients", that's why I found this likely, but I would not have considered it a fact. I take it then you work for a different employer. Fossa 16:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It is my policy to neither confirm not deny these allegations - doing so would encourage future harassment. Keep guessing or believing whatever you want.--Tilman 16:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Fossa, please do not divulge the name of the employers of critics of cults, nowhere in Wikipedia. See here for an example why this is wrong. [12] The antagonism and even harassment between apostates and cult members is not confined to Scientology. Andries 01:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I don't know, where Tilman works, nor am I particluarly interested in it. I don't think it's important to know, where he works.

Having said that I find it a bit rich from someone to be sensitve about one's employment, if that someone condones and even advocates "Scientology questionaires" like those that have been (illegally) distributed by Caberta's Agency and who maintains webpages such as: http://home.snafu.de/tilman/berlin1995/index.html

Fossa 03:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for mentioning this page. One of my early works. I notice that the footer ("1997") is wrong, I have to correct that.

Caberta has never distributed a "Scientology questionaire". You probably mean a declaration, that does not even mention scientology by name, only its founder. The person declares that it does not use the "technology of L. Ron Hubbard". This declaration is legal unless the city of Hamburg (for which Caberta works) distributes it as a response to specific questions. And of course, it is legal to distribute for everyone else, including me.

I, too, had harassment at work due to my cult criticism. By "individual" scientologists, one moonie, and by a german private investigator. The last one resulted in me filing a lawsuit, which I won by default and also collected attorney fees.--Tilman 20:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Tilman say "You shouldn't take any allegation of Barbara Schwarz (in this case: my alleged employer) at face value." But Wikipedia editors (including Tilman) thinks Barbara Schwarz is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. How can this be?? --UNK 06:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

So?! Pardon my French but "Whoopededo!" Following your **ahem** "logic" (meant in the broadest sense possible) Jack the Ripper has an article too so we should trust everything he's ever said? C'mon... _{ĢĿ€Ñ §τοĿĿ€Ŗγ}^Ť_č 11:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Now I believe that there were WMDs in Iraq: George W. Bush said it, and because he has a Wikipedia entry, he is to be trusted. --Tilman 18:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth I think "in his spare time" sounds kind of odd. I don't question that it is true but it might sound more natural if you said something like "In addition to his work he is well-known as a critic of Scientology."Steve Dufour 20:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Please don't raise this issue all over again. It sounds fine, and see the discussion above. --Tilman 20:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I have nothing against saying that, it just sounds odd to a native English speaker. I don't think you will find many Wikipedia bios saying that. Wishing you well.Steve Dufour 01:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC) p.s. You could check out the article on J.R.R. Tolkien. I'd be very surprised if it said he wrote The Lord of the Rings in his spare time, although he did.  :-)

You could say "...for which he does not get paid."Steve Dufour 16:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but that sounds weird. The "in his spare time" expression is fine, I have read it in the newspaper. That was about a cop who did anti-cult work in his spare time. The expression made clear that this wasn't an "official" work. --Tilman 19:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I am a native speaker of English. The sentence as it stands sounds really stupid, IMO. How about: "He is well known for his outspoken criticism of Scientology, which he does strictly as an amateur."? I think that makes you sound more interesting.Steve Dufour 04:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The expression is used. [13] Is this issue very important to you? Should we open a mediation case, or maybe an international conference to discuss this further? --Tilman 06:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a slang expression. Fine for a newspaper but not for an encyclopedia, IMO.Steve Dufour 06:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree it reads odd. I don't think the reader would be thinking that you are paid for your activism against Scientology abuses if this detail was removed, and that is exactly why it reads odd. Note that the wiki entries on David S. Touretzky and Andreas Heldal-Lund don't explicitly mention that their activism against the Church of Scientology's abuses is in their spare time, it is implicit. If you really think that the detail is important because false information was circulated about this, than it may be a good idea to add a sentence, example: "It has been often falsely suggested that Tilman Hausherr was paid for his criticism of Scientology", or something similar (someone could propose a better syntax.) --Raymond Hill 06:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I could agree with that too... it has been claimed (anonymously) that I work for one or several (!) german intelligence services, and that my software job is just a cover.

I see. It is kind of hard to disprove that you are a secret agent. I will not bother you about the spare time thing any more. All the best.Steve Dufour 14:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

But the expression is used:

"I can't really tell you how, but I know without a shadow of a doubt, he has been calling them several times since they've been at the hotel," said Mark Roggeman, a Denver police officer who monitors the doomsday sect Concerned Christians in his spare time.

"It's hard to second-guess Kim Miller, but I think he wants them out of this country," said Mark Roggeman, a Denver police officer who tracks the group in his spare time.

Mark Roggeman, a Denver police officer who has tracked the doomsday sect in his spare time, said members have settled into the Greek capital for an indefinite stay.

All these excerpts from the Rocky Mountain News in 1999, about the "Concerned Christians" cult. --Tilman 06:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

"in his spare time" is definitely an acceptable English expression. I've used it many times myself in conversation and I've read it in many places as well. Perhaps it isn't the best way to say what it is you do, but it isn't like the phrase is unheard of or unduly awkward. Vivaldi (talk) 23:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

"Hausherr has never advocated violent or illegal actions"

Thanks Steve, but then you should also add any other bad thing I have not done. I've also never done drugs, kiddie porn, farted in an elevator, or programmed malware. And I have no record in the Flensburg database of traffic violators. --Tilman 18:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you are a good example in many ways. 22:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC) (-Steve Dufour, my name didn't show up when I typed in the 4 ~'s for some reason.)

Thanks, but an information about what somebody did not is usually irrelevant in Wikipedia. Of course I didn't advocate something illegal. Hey, that would be illegal. --Tilman 05:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone might be thinking about doing something bad and then if they see that about you, a leading critic of Scientology, they might change their mind. Steve Dufour 05:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Weird logic. If they think about something bad, and don't find it here, then it simply isn't here. --Tilman 07:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I did not express my idea well. What I meant to say was that a person who didn't like Scientology might be thinking about doing something violent against them. If that person happens to visit Wikipedia and reads your article the fact that you are against violence and illegal acts might make a difference in what that person decides to do. Steve Dufour 13:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

As the South Park kids said to the Chickenlover, "Uh....that....doesn't make a lot of sense, dude." If you added info to the article for the reasons you just gave, then it's totally POV/OR. wikipediatrix 14:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Tilman's non-advocacy of violent and illegal acts seems to be a fact. I believe it to be. I also don't see anything wrong with my reason for adding this fact to the article. Steve Dufour 15:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I will not put it back in the article if I am the only one who thinks it is worthwhile. But please see fellow Scientology critic Andreas Heldal-Lund's article to see how something similar was handled there. Would it be ok to put in that you respect people's rights to believe in Scientology if they want, as Andreas's article does? Steve Dufour 16:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Would it be ok to say "He respects the rights of individuals to believe in Scientology or any religion."? This is what Andreas's article says. Steve Dufour 07:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, unless the subject has in some concrete, well-sourced way either been accused of instigating or condoning violence (or, per the latest formulation above, of specifically not respecting the rights of individuals) or prominently discussed his opposition to same, bringing it up at all seems leading. The difference between this subject and the one you cite is that, as far as is currently sourced, only the latter has "pointed many times" his position. Robertissimo 13:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant, redundant, and insinuating

I have reverted three recent additions because: (1) he is notable for his criticism of Scientology, not because he does it "in his spare time;" (2) "sociologists of religion" seems redundant - the links cited can demonstrate amply who said what about him; and (3) indicating that he hasn't advocated violence has a distinct air of "When did you stop beating your wife?" about it. Whether or not the subject has discussed these matters on this page doesn't necessariliy mean that content related to them must be added to the article. Robertissimo 15:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

About the non-violence issue. Some people who dislike a group of people do advocate violent or illegal acts. The fact that Tilman does not is worth mentioning, IMO. Steve Dufour 15:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Besides violent and illegal acts will only hurt the cause of Scientology criticism, as some Scientologists' have hurt their cause. Steve Dufour 15:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

On the possibility of re-addition, were an otherwise unsourced lack of incitement to violence to be notable, I fear it would open other articles up to additions such as "Although Roger Ebert sharply criticized the acting of Paris Hilton in her film debut, he has not as yet actually advocated shooting her at close range." In short - such content seems neither necessary nor NPOV. Robertissimo 15:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

If violent acts against bad actors were common, as violent acts against members of unpopular religions are--not in Germany today but in many parts of the world, then I would recommend adding that comment to Mr. Ebert's article. Steve Dufour 16:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, of course :-) Let me also state on the record that I have never supported anyone to buy a CD by that heiress, Paris Hilton. --Tilman 18:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I never would.  :-) BTW Tilman am I right in thinking that you are not a member of any organized anti-Scientology group? I am trying to put back the "spare time" point. Steve Dufour 12:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

While I have supported one organisations with small donations and others with information, I'm not a member of any. I'm not a "membership" type of guy. --Tilman 15:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, her first single isn't bad. But, to get back on point, I remain puzzled as to the relevance of when the subject carries out his work. Would that mean that, when discussing Trollope, who principally wrote his novels before heading off to the office, it is necessary to say that he was "one of the most successful, prolific and respected English novelists of the Victorian era in his spare time"? Either one is notable for something (criticism of scientology, in this case), or not, and to indicate, however indirectly, that it is in fact some sort of hobby seems both dismissive and to carry a strong weight of POV. Robertissimo 13:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I used the example of J.R.R. Tolkien who wrote The Lord of the Rings and other books in his "spare time" from his day job as a professor at Oxford University. (He must have had an amazing time organization system since he also had a large family to spend time with and all accounts say he was a good husband and father.) But getting back to Tilman....The reason the "spare time" thing was put in is that certain people have accused him of being a paid agent of the German government, or if not that of some secret anti-Scientology conspiracy. My objection to the phrase "spare time" was that it is an informal slang expression, not that it isn't true. the real Steve Dufour 01:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I looked at Trollope and it is mentioned that he had a day job. --Tilman 15:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I will try to write a sentence that makes everyone happy. Steve Dufour 01:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Your recent addition goes against WP:NOR. Your only source is that you asked me in Wikipedia (WP:ASR !!). Plus, it is another "negative" type of information, i.e. that I do not do something. Please remove it. Alternatively, please do also add that I did not buy or download the latest Paris Hilton album, and that I do also not consider Paris Hilton to be a cult leader. --Tilman 15:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know a better source of information on a person than the person himself. Steve Dufour 01:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the most recent go at an "in his spare time" variant. "Certain people" may have accused the subject of any number of things, but vague, unsourced responses to unmentioned accusations creates text that teeters between original research and treating the article like a crystal ball. Robertissimo 20:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Could there be a summery of the anti-Tilman article on Religious Freedom Watch and then Tilman's denial of that? Steve Dufour 21:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

No. Why should I respond to such crap? --Tilman 22:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

They are making public accusations against you, but whatever you want to do. Steve Dufour 23:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

So what? I hope you know the quote about wrestling with pigs. You get dirty, and the pig has fun. Per WP:BLP the link shouldn't be there at all, since it is "Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material". --Tilman 09:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Would you like me to take it out? If so I think the reference to it in the article should be taken out as well. Steve Dufour 11:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

alarmgermany

alarmgermany.org is a smear site by scientologist Gerhard Waterkamp. The "company" that runs the site is suspended [14]. --Tilman 17:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it worse than Religious Freedom Watch? Steve Dufour 23:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Similar. These are all black propaganda sites, per scientology policy. --Tilman 04:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

But you want to include one and not the other in your article? Steve Dufour 15:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Preferably, none of them. --Tilman 15:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Should I take out the reference to Religious Freedom Watch then? BTW did you really send out 24,000 messages and webpages? Steve Dufour 16:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia policy, smear cites are not reputable sources.

I don't keep statistics. I certainly don't have 24000 web pages. 24000 usenet messages in 10 years mean less than 10 messages a day. --Tilman 20:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

In that case your consistancy is notable.  :-) Steve Dufour 01:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

When can we expect a scientology site branding certain wikipedia editors? yandman 06:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Who Sponsors Religious Freedom Watch?

Right now it says that it is "Scientology-sponsored". Is it the Church of Scientology itself or individual Scientologists who sponsor it? Steve Dufour 22:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC) p.s. Is it staffed as well as sponsored by Scientologists? If so that could be mentioned as well.

The Church of Scientology supplies files, photographs and members under the banner "Scientology Parishioners Committee", and has used that name during other actions such as picketing critics' homes and leafleting their neighborhoods. Staffing of the site isn't possible to know, since no one is owning up to the source of the content short of a libel lawsuit—which would either discover Joel Phillips without seizable assets or a full legal team from the Church of Scientology, Religious Technology Centre or some other Scientology incorporation, ready to drag the case out for many years—so that hasn't happened yet. AndroidCat 06:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I just think the expression "Scientology-sponsored" is really vague. Steve Dufour 06:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

It is perfect as it is. You don't have to change it. --Tilman 07:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

If you think it's perfect Tilman then I will drop the subject. It is your article after all. Wishing you a happy 2007. The real Steve Dufour 16:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree; there seems nothing vague to me about "Scientology-sponsored". In this context, in which the website is only tangential to the subject, further detail seems extraneous. See the related conversation here. Robertissimo 07:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

It does sound a little conspiracy like. Steve Dufour 03:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

I removed the "proposed deletion" tag because, as it said, I "otherwise object to deletion of the article for any reason".

The reason that I object is because Hausherr is not "every critic of Scientology." He is a highly notable critic. Tanaats 05:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be a misuse of the pfd tag since it's only to be used for "uncontroversial deletion candidates". (i.e. an article that can be tagged and no one will simply remove the tag within 5 days.) Note: "If this template is removed, it should not be replaced.". Misou has also added the article to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 February 15. AndroidCat 05:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't find it there, Cat. I searched for both "Tilman" and "Hausherr". Tanaats 05:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It's already been removed. AndroidCat 05:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

For what reason? By whom? Misou 02:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This guy isn't notable at all. Seems this article is just a promotion piece for yet another unremarkable anti scn critic (and there are gobs of them) If he had been a former scientologist of a reasonable level or had ANYTHING else to recommend him as a credible critic it would be fine. This one happened to put Xenu in the name of a software package: sooooooooo what? Since he has apparently put Xenu in the name of his software in order to increase the reach of his anti religious positions (as it says in the entry for his (not notable!) software package)), and since Wikipedia is not meant to be a megaphone for trivial hate speech or utterly unremarkable dime-a-dozen software packages, I move we AfD it again. Anyone care to second the motion? ---Slightlyright 06:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Did you use that software, that you call "unremarkable dime-a-dozen"? --Tilman 08:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I tested your software and it works fine, just as some hundreds of other freeware programs I tested in the past years. So what. Not even Irfan Skiljan has his own page and his software Irfanview has at least no propaganda connotation. I also read your personal page on Scientology and your ever repeated statement that no one pays you for that. Tilman, I would understand if you would feel flattered about having your own bio article (even though a stub), but either it is being expanded to something which can be called a bio (how about birthdate, occupation, spouse(s), kids and maybe at least some achievements, media mentions, books you published, movies you produced, songs you wrote etc) or it should be deleted. My unfamiliarity with the Wikipedia deletion process has given this a false start. Sorry about that. I'll give it another try. Misou 02:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Some archievements are already there: a software I created, a word I invented. --Tilman 06:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

A propaganda instrument you created is all I can see. Anyway, how about adding some bio details then? Are you married? Misou 23:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Our Usenet celebrity is very stingy on his own "0private" data, so supposedly that's a "secret". Fossa_?! 18:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

A lot about me could be sourced. For example, that I wrote for Berliner Dialog could be properly sourced - but you'd need to do some google research. RFW is not a reliable source, obviously. Nor is Barbara Schwarz, or Gerhard Waterkamp. Nor is Renate Hartwig, whom I successfully sued for libel.

But there's much public info about me. Where I studied, what I studied, and what my thesis was about. (Hint: it has something to do with Wikipedia, but actually hasn't) :-) --Tilman 22:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

An orderly bio should include DOB, wife, kids etc. Since you seem to be interested to have a "good" article about yourself (rather than a neutral one) you might as well provide some data about yourself. Please name the Wikipedia policy if you disagree. Hartwig is reportedly one of the most vocal and relevant critics of Scientology in Germany (that is where your fame is coming from, right?) and she is writing about you much more extensively than just about your work with Priest Gandow. Did you sue her for that? Might be a story. Misou 04:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

See WP:BLP and WP:RS.

A person whom I successfully sued for libel is hardly a reliable source about me. Besides, you didn't even mention the page, of this book, which was published by her husband. Nor did you even attempt to explain WHAT she wrote in that book. I wonder if you even read it.

Hartwig is not "one of the most vocal and relevant critics of Scientology in Germany". (Neither am I)

I am again reverting what you added, since it is unsourced. You did not provide an actual source that I worked with Thomas, or that I wrote for Berliner Dialog. --Tilman 06:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah-ha! Unsourced, ok that was fixed. What's wrong with working with Priest Gandow or being quoted by Hartwig? Misou 02:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with working with Reverend (several years theology study) Thomas Gandow. Although "working with" is kind of overblown. He is not my professional collegue. We're just friends who meet from time to time on common issues.

I see you did again add unsourced material. Don't do it.

I already responded about Hartwig. I see you haven't been able to provide a page. Seems you just wanted to include this weird book.

Feel free to add sourced material. Maybe propose it here. Yes, I did write for Berliner Dialog, a magazine published by the Berliner Dialog Zentrum e.V., which is an independent non-profit organisation. --Tilman 06:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I do not think either that there is something wrong that you work/worked with Gandow. Your articles in Berliner Dialog are on the net. Sorry that "Antaeus Feldspar" and "Fossa" vandalized your bio page (WP:VANDAL, "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." and "Intentionally making non-constructive edits to Wikipedia will result in a block or permanent ban.". Then WP:BLP, "The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable third party sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves."). "He" took out simple things like sourced material, marriage status etc. I tried to look at this in good faith but all I can see is pure lust for destruction, so this is not that easy.

You yourself confirm that you wrote for Berliner Dialog and so there is no reason why that should miss. The responsible editor for Berliner Dialog is the Lutheran Priest Thomas Gandow. That might not fully mean that you wrote "for him" but "for his magazine", right? Now, on that book of Renate Hartwig: You are mentioned in there as working with Priest Gandow, so that was the first source for that. You might notice that it is not in there anymore. I have not read the book fully (it is in German) but if there is some other mention of yourself I would put it up with full quotation. After all it is just another reference published for years and still on the market (you can buy it through the big online book stores as I did).

The statement on your wife Ilse needs more WP:RS material, even though I kind of wonder why being married needs super-reliable source material. On your age there are actually various figures coming out of Google and you might want to fill in on that yourself. A change I would propose is to take out the sentence about the celebrities FAQ because it is wrong that you would "maintain" this one (it is way outdated and I doubt that all of these are Scientologists). Misou 23:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The only source for this is Barbara Schwarz. She also says that I am developing WMDs.

You claim that this book by Hartwig (whom I successfully sued for libel before) mentions me. But for some reason, you're unable to come up with a page or with a quote.

So the only thing that has a reliable source is that I wrote for Berliner Dialog.

How is the celebrity FAQ out of date? Note that I only put real celebrities, i.e. people actually remembered. There are many people in CELBRITY magazines who are not really celebrities at all, i.e. who only worked as extras, e.g. that guy who is always said to be "from Apollo 13". --Tilman 07:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I have been away over the weekend (Try doing an offline weekend, it is very relaxing). Really remarkable how much energy was put in this page in just some hours. Tilman, great that the Gandow/Lutheran Church etc complex is settled. That stirred up quite some noise and nonsense. One thing I don't get is this: what you are referring to with "the only source for this is Barbara Schwarz"? Help me on that. Source for what? Who your girlfriend/wife is? You have that on your own website. What I also do not get is your irritation on Renate Hartwig but per what I remember from the book I doubt that you will give me an answer on that. I read the one court judgment you have on her here which was about something private about you and your girlfriend/wife Ilse Hruby-Plechl that Hartwig published in a newsgroup and was prohibited to repeat, as I understand because it was some intimate thing about you (Males, stop drooling, I have no more details than that). Well, maybe she tried to hit you under the belt or something but that is no reason to totally discard her 15 or more years as a Scientology expert for the German Government, political parties etc. I trust her to know what she is talking about and you have yet to give me a reason not to. On the Celebrity FAQ, it is outdated because you did not update it since about two years. Misou 22:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

About the celebrity FAQ: look again. Plus, the dates mentioned in the initial segment relate to major additions only, not to updates about people already there.

Gandow: no, the matter is not settled.

Myself: what you wrote is "not exactly" what the court decision says. You got most of it wrong. Which is amazing, considering that the court decision is quite clear, and you still manage to twist it into something different.

About the Hartwig book: you haven't answered that one. What page, specifically, is a source for your edit? --Tilman 23:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Good Morning, Tilman! Have a coffee, relax, and then look at my post again. Got it on the FAQ. Priest Gandow, what's not settled then? Yourself: there was some private data about you she is not supposed to spread (again). The remainder of the judgment on your page is "censored", to avoid repetition of the prohibited statement. I understand that, also that you do not want to repeat the statements. Hartwig book: As you figured I do not have the book available right now (I am on travel) but will put up the quote with page number by the end of the week. Might be Friday or so. Is there something about Hartwig I should know? Misou 00:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this review: [15] --Tilman 06:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Lutheran Sect Commissioner

I think it is important to spell out just what these guys are about and the 2004 US report does that adequately. This bit from the 2003 report[16] is great too but I think that adding it is a bit much, especially as it doesn't specifically mention the Lutheran Sect Commissioner until later in the piece when it has the same info as the 2004.

However, the state governments of Bavaria and Hamburg have proposed new measures to limit Scientologists' activities, and the Lutheran Church has continued its information campaign against Scientology and other alleged "cults." These actions contributed to persistent negative public attitudes toward members of minority religions.

--Justanother 00:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is pretty much in the 2004 report too and makes a good statement of what the net effect is. --Justanother 01:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I checked these reports, and they don't mention me. --Tilman 07:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, well, I have checked every CDC or FDA report on "infant botulism" and they do not mention Scientology, so what? (actually just checked a few but I love to see one that did.) --Justanother 17:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It is quite one-sided to add the state department report only to characterize Gandow. In Germany, he is very respected and often quoted by the media. Of course, the US sees this differently, since they have to promote their american "religious" corporations (e.g. scientology, Moon, "Greater Grace", etc) abroad in the name of "religious freedom". (Never mind that the US recently killed hundreds of cultists in Iraq) --Tilman 07:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

"(Never mind that the US recently killed hundreds of cultists in Iraq)" Now there is a "trollish" comment if ever I saw one (smile). We can talk later, Tilster (is it OK if I call you Tilster? It is not an insult). I am likely going to start an article on "Sect Commissioners in Germany" and will be needing your help to provide the main, non-controversial, part. Can you find anything in English that is descriptive? Is there any article on the German wikipedia? Thanks, --Justanother 14:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no such article. Nor is there a need, since this would be nothing more than a dictionary entry.

And no, you may not call me "Tilster". This is offensive. You can call me "Tilman" or "Mr. Hausherr". --Tilman 15:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Re the first point. Ha ha ha. Dictionaries don't include State Department and United Nations claims of fostering bigotry. No, if you get an article then certainly the Sect Commissioner deserves one. Unless you consider yourself more notability than them? Do you?

OK, Mr. Hausherr, I just thought that I could call you Tilster and you could call me J-man or something. No problem, I will stick to Tilman, then. --Justanother 16:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

As I pointed out to Justanother on WP:BLPN (several of you know, because you showed up there) if an entire paragraph on Lutheran Sect Commissioners is appropriate in Tilman Hausherr, because Hausherr has at some point written things that showed up in Thomas Gandow's magazine and Thomas Gandow is a Lutheran Sect Commissioner, then by equal logic I may safely add well-referenced material to Kirstie Alley that is solely about and unflattering to Narconon as she spent over ten years as its International Spokesperson, which is far more solid of a connection than the tenuous one about "Tilman's writings appeared in Gandow's magazine therefore any vague charges made about Gandow's vocation automatically reflect on Hausherr". -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This citation does not mention Hausherr... and does not mention anything about writing for Berlin Dialog - therefore this information was removed as tangential at best. Smee 01:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Cutting it down

Fossa, if you want to put this page up for AfD again, I will support that. Otherwise, let's assume it belongs here and try to make something of it. Thanks --Justanother 01:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Fossa went so far as to delete material sourced on academic sources. --Tilman 07:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I cut that, because this type of labeling based en some en passant remarks in some article is bordering on the ridiculous. "cult critic", "anti-cult activist", blablabla: It says in the first paragraph that you are known for your opposition to Scientology. That should be enough, no need to introduce a host of labels. Fossa_?! 13:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

That is called "sourcing". "Your" version ("... but he is best known for his criticism of Scientology") was unsourced. Your behaviour is not just vandalism, it is clearly bad faith and also harassment, and - the real problem! - this results in waste of time for other editors who clean up after you. Please keep your destructive activities to the german wikipedia only, where this goes mostly unsanctioned. Additionally, there's still usenet, irc and your blog.

And thank you Smeelgova and Antaeus Feldspar for keeping an eye on this article while I sleep or while I work :-) --Tilman 17:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

There were already two AfDs. So you guys should come up with a new reason. --Tilman 07:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't push it too hard. Smee does not like to be the lackey for anyone. Misou 22:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Since User:Antaeus Feldspar apparently did not see fit to, let me alert everyone that said User:Antaeus Feldspar has posted this article to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard with some accompanying claims of "collusion" (my phrase for what he describes) and various other misbehaviour on my part. Feel free to fill the discussion over there with similar off-topic speculation and responses to same. That is a joke, I am not advising anyone to abuse that board more than it has already been abused --Justanother 04:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Tilman editing here: what would Jimbo do?

Hey Tilman, has this issue ever been addressed with you? That your editing here is "frowned upon", and you "shouldn't do it" according to Jimbo:

Following this incident, Wales apologized for editing his own biography, which is a practice generally frowned upon at Wikipedia. Wales said in the Wired interview, "People shouldn't do it, including me. I wish I hadn't done it."

--Justanother 17:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

While I have edited here a few months ago, this time I've only reverted non-sourced material. I am aware of WP:AUTO, but also of WP:BLP. Misou has introduced rumors, falsehoods, gossip by Barbara Schwarz and a book unrelated to me. --Tilman 18:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Mmmm, OK. But it might be better if you brought your concerns up here and let someone else do it for you. I was going to pull the "Religious Freedom Watch" stuff myself before I went 3RR and may well do that once we get going again over here. --Justanother 18:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, you didn't revert Misou's changes. I had to. He's been inserting this crazy stuff while I slept. And Fossa has been deleting well sourced material at the same time. There must be some sort of defense. And I will certainly not trust YOU in correcting it.

While the RFW site is crap, I don't really mind it too much, because it is pretty obvious that it is libel and black propaganda from outside Germany, to avoid a lawsuit :-) --Tilman 19:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

When I got here the article did not look bad and I cannot speak to what happened before that as I had not been watching it. I watch enough stuff, most of it non-Scn related and I don't add more unless something catches my eye. I do not think RFW is based "outside Germany" for your stated reason. Um, it is more likely because it is run by Americans. And is an English-language site. Do ya think? And we allow lawsuits here for libel too so I think your smear of the site is unjustified. The only problem with the site is that it is not RS and that is why I may make it go way. I never said "trust me" (though you can, you know) just that you might should post concerns here rather than edit directly. --Justanother 20:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Tilman, no personal attacks here, this is rude. I have not "introduced rumors, falsehoods, gossip by Barbara Schwarz and a book unrelated to" you and you fail to give even an example. The "rumor" that you wrote in Berlin Dialog has been confirmed by you and is online on the Berlin Dialog mag website. The Lutheran Sect Commissioner Thomas Gandow is a friend of yours and you were picketing together. Lutheran Sect Commissioners (in Berlin) are mentioned in several US State Dept reports. What makes this a "rumor"? The "rumor" that Hartwig spread intimate data about you on the Internet - which had been originally written by your girlfriend/wife Ilse Hruby-Piechl - and got prevented to do so, is in a legal document on your own website. Your reaction on this book of Hartwig is strange. It is "unrelated" to you, in a sense, because you might not have written it. You are mentioned in there however. Your complete ignorance of your marital status is strange, too, but any such emotional stuff is none of my business. Originally I thought we should scratch this bio page since you are not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Now I think there might be a lot of things about you Wikipedians should know about (Anyone reading this: feel free to send me more information, but please heed WP:RS, especially controversial stuff needs better sources). Tilman, you are not obliged to answer questions or provide any information about yourself. Actually you might consider to stop contributing to this page. It is not your User page but a talk page about a Wikipedia article after all. Misou 03:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You are once again putting a rumor in the discussion page.

First, you have still not explained how this book (which was called a "conspiracy theory" by a newspaper, and which contains several proven falsehoods [17]) is relevant. You claim that I am mentioned in it, yet you are unable to tell how.

Second, you are still spreading rumors about my private life. And I'm not speaking about the contents of the court decision.

Third, I do not wish to discuss my private life further than whats on the net with reliable sources. Yet, you continue to do so.

Fourth, I already explained that I don't mind to be mentioned with Gandow. However, use reliable sources. Hartwig or RFW aren't. --Tilman 07:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Tilman. Open up, please. The Hartwig book is not mentioned in your bio and I personally took it out because of a better RS saying the same, i.e. the actual website of the Berlin Dialog. I won't be able to say anything more about Hartwig or the book until the weekend, as I will have to get it from my storage. On "rumors of your private life", I can only guess, because you simply do not say what you are referring to. The court judgment says what it says (and you introduced it in the discussion, so I went to look it up). Even though I might have trouble decoding legal language with 100% certainty, I think I got most of what is in there. RFW is not my source and has never been in this whole discussion. I wish those guys would post documents there which would make it much easier to see if this is a RS or not (I understand though that you do not like their page on you). Something completely different: Your "sporgery' source seems to be an interesting character (Kevin Poulsen). Do you know him personally? Misou 02:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You know very well what I mean, and I do not wish to discuss it. I am not talking about Berliner Dialog, nor about what is in that judgement. Hint: look at what you inserted that was reverted.

Plus, I would ask you to use only verifiable sources, i.e. sources that you did actually consult.

I don't know Kevin Poulsen personally. But I am aware of his past. --Tilman 04:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Tilman Hausherr/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

*13 citations, 1 image, of Xenu's Link Sleuth. Smee 04:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

Last edited at 04:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)