Talk:Tilman Hausherr/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: I think you are a good example in many ways.  22:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Hausherr has never advocated violent or illegal actions" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  I looked at Trollope and it is mentioned that he had a day job. --Tilman 15:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will try to write a sentence that makes everyone happy.  Steve Dufour 01:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I don't know a better source of information on a person than the person himself.  Steve Dufour 01:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: No. Why should I respond to such crap? --Tilman 22:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are making public accusations against you, but whatever you want to do.  Steve Dufour 23:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Irrelevant, redundant, and insinuating

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I just think the expression "Scientology-sponsored" is really vague.  Steve Dufour 06:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is perfect as it is. You don't have to change it. --Tilman 07:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: It does sound a little conspiracy like. Steve Dufour 03:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Who Sponsors Religious Freedom Watch?

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard]] 

message: Substituted at 20:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment