Talk:Tilman Hausherr/Archive 2

message: Source:
 Attack of the Robotic Poets
 Malicious spam threatens to destroy the Internet's original killer app.
 Is it time to call in the Feds?
 
 ZDTV
 6.5.1999 
 
 By Kevin Poulsen
 
 ...
 
 Usenet defenders are countering the assault with automation of their
 own, crafting programs that kill the "sporgeries" -- a term coined by
 ARS's Tilman Hausherr "because it's both spam, and forgery." 
 
 ...
And here's the original posting: 
--Tilman 17:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My filter is blocking it but how about this as source http://www.g4tv.com/techtvvault/features/10675/Attack_of_the_Robotic_Poets_pg2.html --Justanother 17:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Sporgery]] 

message: *Justanother, what do you mean precisely when you refer to "filter" ???  My filter is blocking it but how about this as source  What "filter" is blocking what out?  Smee 00:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question RE: "Filter"

message: The "Debernification Project Force on Wikipedia" has nothing to do with the celebrity FAQ. The DPFoW is about replacing a poor quality source with a good one. The celebrity FAQ is not a source here, except for its own existance. If you read the celebrity FAQ, this is a source of sources. Kindof like NameBase, but for scientology celebrities only and much smaller. And it also mentions celebrities who are out. (And there are many!) --Tilman 16:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that you do not like "Bernie" since he/she/it is quoting some of your juiciest statements. So I guess you do cannot have kids, then? And no history books either. Misou 23:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, I don't make the wikipedia policies. "Bernie" ist just an anonymous person. Keep this for the Anonypedia, where only anonymous research is reliable. --Tilman 06:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Debernifying Tilman

message: Thanks Fubar and Smeelgova for your edits (although it has been vandalized again). Could anyone replace the torymagoo and bernie sources with this one? Attack of the Robotic Poets, ZDNet, by Kevin Poulsen, May 06, 1999 I'd especially appreciate the removal of the "Bernie" website, as part of the Debernification Project Force on Wikipedia, of which I am the "founder" (Replacing links to Bernie with reputable sources). ZDNet is a proper media source, Bernie is just anonymous, and while Tory isn't anonymous, she isn't a journalist and computer crime & security expert like Kevin Poulsen. --Tilman 17:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sporgery (2) 

message: *This is a good bit of material from a reputable secondary source.  Please do not remove it again from the article.  Thank you.  Smee 23:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Scientologists in trademark disputes" 

message: # Please correct "Berlin Dialog" into "Berliner Dialog".
# The magazine isn't "published by Thomas Gandow", this might be an oversimplification. Thomas is the "responsible" person. The "publisher" is the "Dialog Zentrum Berlin e.V.", a non-profit, of which Thomas is (probably) the chairman.   Sure, Thomas is the guy in charge, but there are many other contributors.
# Pinocchio is the correct spelling --Tilman 17:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Somebody has taken care of that. Your friend Thomas seems to be treated as instructed. Misou 04:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As is your friend Kirstie, Misou. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now I get it, Antaeus is Tilman's "night identity"! When is the change of the watch, 9pm? Misou 04:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Misou.  No, seriously, thank you.  Resorting to a cheap and false sockpuppet accusation (a violation of WP:CIVIL, BTW) pretty much exposes your true colors. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I note that you feel attacked by a "sockpuppet accusation" which I have not mentioned and was not referring to. Interesting. It is pretty obvious that "Tilman" needs sleep, so "Antaeus" cannot be a sockpuppet of "Tilman". The different editing times alone would not permit that. So how on earth do you conclude I think you are a sockpuppet of "Tilman"? (BTW, if he works on saturday, he gets up in some minutes). Misou 04:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I note that you are now trying to retreat from your sockpuppet accusation now that you realize that you could already be in serious trouble for it.  Your pretense that you were only trying to imply that Tilman and I have some arrangement to work in shifts is half-ingenious but does not work:  if Watchman A works from 1 pm to 9 pm, and Watchman B works from 9 pm to 5 am, does anyone ever refer to Watchman B as the "night identity" of Watchman A?  Clearly not.  No, the intent of your accusation was very clear, so clear that your attempt to now paint it as paranoia to think you were making accusations about "identity" in the first place only increases your offense. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, I don't know who Antaeus Feldspar is (although I wouldn't be surprised it is someone I have heard about), and we have no agreement on anything. But I've always appreciated his/her edits. --Tilman 19:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: One of you two seems to be lying: "Support. I actually knew about the Scientology Celebrities FAQ long before I ever knew Tilman personally. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Antaeus Feldspar doesn't edit under his real name, unlike me. So maybe we did met as real persons. But I don't know what real person he/she is. --Tilman 07:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Be careful with those personal attacks, Misou, they will get you in trouble sooner or later.  You are jumping to unjustified conclusions and then when your conclusions are proven hasty you turn it into a personal attack asserting that someone lied to you, rather than the truth that you misunderstood what you read.  When I say "before I ever knew Tilman personally", I mean before I became aware of any information about Tilman Hausherr the person, as specifically contrasted by the context (or were you not paying attention to the context?) to simply being aware of the works produced by Tilman Hausherr.  Now if you misunderstood that, if you didn't see a way to reconcile that, you could have asked in a civil manner for an explanation, and that civility would have been to your credit.  Instead you show once again that you choose to assume bad faith in even the smallest things, and it is to your discredit. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: This could be the beginning of a long thread about the word "seem" basically about absolutely nothing but whether you or me are right about some things which have absolutely nothing to do with increasing the quality of Wikipedia articles. This is why I am here, at least. Therefore this will NOT be such a thread. Misou 04:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, thanks to Essjay we will soon get a better picture on the agenda of those editing here. Misou 04:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Berliner Dialog   

message: What is the policy  on Primary Sources? I thought it would be fair to post a comment from the actual group that Tilman is criticizing to get both sides of the story. I think that a group that is being criticized deserves to have their side heard.
:Hmmm, I think that such POV material should appear in RS first but if you want to research the rules and post a question to BLPN, you should get a good answer. Best of luck. --Justanother 05:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Justanother, considering you claim to be a Scientology-sympathetic, that was a very unbiased thing to do with my inclusion. It certainly does not reflect what some Scientology critics claims about Scientology. I think that Scientology's side of the issue should be included. What would be a good way to approach this issue? John196920022001 05:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a hate-group website that should not be linked to from anywhere on Wikipedia.  Period.  Smee 05:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please refrain from personal attacks and labels. Let's discuss how to improve this article's content, and not attack personalities and groupsJohn196920022001 06:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, let's.  The only hate-group I am attacking is the website itself, not anyone allegedly associated with it.  This type of website has not place in an encyclopedia.  None.  Thanks.  Smee 06:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now, Smee if I could just get you to apply the same good logic to sites like scientomogy.com. Hmmmm? --Justanother 06:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  Well, you referred to it as a "hate group web site." Because of this I would just rather not discuss personal attacks of this sort John196920022001 06:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (EC, speak of the . . . ) John, "hate-group" is highly POV. But that is OK. Smee has a POV. As we all do. The RFW site is not so much about hate as it is about exposing the hate of bigots. My main objection to it is that it also blows every little foible a person has way out of proportion. I do not think that is an effective way to deal with your critics. Now, it is not anywhere near as bad as Tilman's site, for instance, which just tries to blacklist normal everyday Scientologists. But that is Tilman's little contribution to the big hate pie. --Justanother 06:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am well aware of the quality of Timan's Site, but I would much rather discuss how to improve the quality of this article. I will make a point that is that Scientology is a non-RS, then Timan's site is also a non-RS. This has nothing to do with Tilman, but I have been on his site John196920022001 06:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tilman, as the subject of the article, is entitled to one EL to his site, no matter how bigoted it might be. At least, that is my feeling. And my feelings somehow strangely usually seem to mirror wikipedia policy. If I could just persuade other(s) on that point it would save a lot of wasted time (laff). --Justanother 06:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: You have the burden of proof to show that this site is a reliable source. --Tilman 06:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Tilman please do not start an argument here. Let's discuss how to improve the articleJohn196920022001 06:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't  know about labeling groups as hate-groups. I recommend members interested in the subject buy Prisoners of Hate by Aaron T. Beck, M.D.. Beck is one of the creaters of The Cognitive Theory of Personality. Beck discuss the process that leads a person or group to develop into a hate-person or hate-group. Decribing hate as a process rather than a label cetainly changed my perspective John196920022001 06:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I'll look into reading it at some point.  Smee 06:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does come in paper back. I think Beck intended it for lay-people and not other academics and professionals. I have bought some of Beck's other books because of my university education, and they are not light reading John196920022001 07:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Primary Sources

message: *Smee, explain why you removed an external link that I added. Thanks. It was just an external link John196920022001 07:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  First of all WP:BEANS is not policy. As for WP:POINT I will seek clarification on that point. I have to say I am very uncomfortable with the insinuation that I am up to something. I would like you to please explain what is the difference between the the Non-link you deleted, and the non-RS link to Tilman's homepage. That is technically a non-RS link too. Responding to my statement with a threatening remark to stay clear of some sort of behavior does not work toward consensus, but will only create an argument, and I refuse to argue John196920022001 07:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually Justanother said: "Tilman, as the subject of the article, is entitled to one EL to his site." That is all he said. Perhaps you should look at the policy on external links. John196920022001 08:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi Smee, I think there is a conflict of interest issue here with this external link deletion. You stated earlier that the external link "... is a hate-group website that should not be linked to from anywhere on Wikipedia. Period." I am not trying to be rude or anything. I have checked other articles like the Jehovah's Witness Wikipedia, and there are non-RS eternal links in that section in that particular article. Based on the guidelines for external links and on what I have seen in other Wikipedia articles, it seemed OK to me. I am going to seek a third opinion and consider their advice. John196920022001 08:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links

message: It has been suggested and seconded that we merge Tilman Hausherr to Opposition to cults and new religious movements. His only notability, and there is not much RS to support it, is that he is a critic of Scientology. As far as software, authors of minor (and most major) software are not notable simply for that and are not included here. While "this one doesn't have an article" arguments are not really valid, it has been mentioned already that Irfan Skiljan, author of IrfanView, one of the most popular Windows freeware programs ever developed, does not have a bio here. Please discuss at Talk:Opposition to cults and new religious movements#Tilman Hausherr merge, not here! --Justanother 14:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to discuss at your proposed location.  Tilman is known in more than one field and there is no reason why this article should not exist on its own.  I find Justanother's behaviour as well as John's to be disruptive.  Both characters consistently edit articles to whitewash the numerous abuses of Scientology, now they come to this article to try to completely erase one of their critics.  Vivaldi (talk) 10:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since another person brought it up I think we should discuss it John196920022001 15:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Tilman Hausherr]] merge 

message: John196920022001, edits like these  make it hard to WP:AGF. Such edits seem to be rather motivated by "revenge" for something (likely, my activities in Steven Hassan related to your CESNUR article etc) and less by the intention to improve articles. You inserted data from an obvious smear site, and did this several times - despite that even a scientologist here has agreed that this site is not useful. Then you came up with the "idea" to merge the article into another, despite that reading the article shows that my activities are in several fields.
Obviously I have a CoI here, so this isn't a formal complaint, more a comment and a polite rant.
I suggest that you just "get over it". I've had many links to the research on my website removed from wikipedia per WP:RS, and I've accepted it. I even "got over" having my "spare time" quote removed from this article. I just don't care anymore. And I "got over" constantly seeing several people inserting smear links or poorly sourced data in this article and me not really being allowed to do anything about it, except complaining in the discussion page. (Luckily, some "wikifriends" are helpful :-)). 
Such "targeted" activities are usually unsuccessful; that, in turn, could also result in more bitterness on your side. Think about it. Relax. Keep the caffeine level low. --Tilman 20:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, don't accuse me of AGF issues. In the Steve Hassan article you accused me of using propaganda and lying by omission. That is not AGF either. The statement "you inserted data from an obvious smear site, and did this several times - despite that even a scientologist here has agreed that this site is not useful" is not exactly true. A Scientologist did correct me on that issue. My reply was "considering you claim to be a Scientology-sympathetic, that was a very unbiased thing to do with my inclusion. It certainly does not reflect what some Scientology critics claims about Scientology." I did not do it "despite that even a scientologist here has agreed that this site is not useful." That statement is incorrect. Lastly, the discussion section is for discussing content and not personalities. This was the wrong place to rant John196920022001 15:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Annoying edits 

message: *I have listed the article for a 3rd AFD, in order to solve this "Merge" debate.  Please see:  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tilman Hausherr (3rd nomination).  Thanks.  Smee 07:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Listed for 3rd AFD, to solve "Merge" debate. 

message: The reference in Salon seems to denote notability and informative value.  Rather than requiring that everyone follow the link and read the huge FAQ, I propose that Hausherr's most general claims be concisely represented in this article, plus any response from Scientology concerning the FAQ.  ClaudeReigns 11:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I finally did manage to find the somewhat small FAQ amidst the usual sea of anti-Scientology tripe. Last updated in 2001; a minor FAQ associated with Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,soc.culture.german. Hardly notable, it got an incidental mention in one RS? Hardly something that we would highlight here. However, there is a need on this project for an article, Religion discrimination in Germany, that would include US State Department and UN Human Rights Commission's discussions of the problems over there. This article would include discussion of the Sect Commissioners, especially Lutheran Sect Commissions, that are active in promoting discrimination and religious intolerance in Germany. Perhaps Tilman's FAQ can be useful there, not so much for inclusion, but as an aid to locating resources for the article. --Justanother 13:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: An interesting "back-door" method to "assume bad faith" that little bit, no? "I am not saying that you beat your wife but if I were to say that then I guess I would say that you beat her after you get drunk each Friday night at the White Horse Tavern on Wilson Street". Laff. --Justanother 14:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am rather obviously "laffing" at your back-door presumption of bad faith. Re the size of his FAQ (though they do say that size doesn't matter), I can only assume that you are not familiar with Usenet FAQs. Here is one for comparison. Not to imply that religious discrimination in Germany could possibly hold a candle to an open-source operating system as far as importance but simply to point out that FAQs run large. Or video cards; here is Part 1 of 4. I do not object to good articles. I like them in fact. I do object to using this project for advocacy by inclusion of non-notable material in this extremely notable forum (wikipedia). See WP:NOT a soapbox. So do I think that content from Hausherr's FAQ belongs in his article? No, the FAQ is not about him nor his efforts. It is about Scientology in Germany. So start an article on that. And even there I do not think that the FAQ is worth more than a mention though it may serve us editors as a guide to research. But so could an e-mail from me to you. Doesn't make my e-mail to you notable nor appropriate for inclusion here. Re your wife, the boilermakers at the Horse are on me this Friday. --Justanother 17:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Come on guys, let not argue with each other and work on creating good Wikipedia articles John196920022001 08:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose to represent "FAQ: Scientology in Germany" (2001) claims 

message: It's so hard to make the assertion without a (reliable) source.  Is Tilman's middle name Joerg?  Can we just ask him?  LOL  ClaudeReigns 18:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: [removed attempts to reveal personal information] Gotta run, be back next week. Misou 19:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Antaeus Feldspar for removing the alleged "personal information". This stalking is really annoying. Misou should keep this to RFW and the usenet, where it belongs. --Tilman 17:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Flight delay... lucky you. Not to forget the permanent misinterpretation of WP in regards to this article which is nowhere else the same. Misou 15:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Scientology sponsored site "Religious Freedom Watch" has responded to criticism by Hausherr with various unsupported claims including statements that Hausherr spends "the vast majority of his time vilifying the practices of minority religions", that Tilman practices threatening by posting the personal information of opponents [ironic, isn't it?], that Hausherr is a supporter of Eugenics, Ursula Caberta, James Randi, and Thomas Gandow, that he "defends psychiatrists who have been convicted of such crimes as sexually molesting their patients", that he maligns "a variety of spiritual beliefs including transcendental meditation and different branches of East Indian religions", and that he may possibly work for the German government.
Obviously this is a source which doesn't demonstrate a balance, as the Hausherr FAQ on German Scientology does demonstrate by including a reference to "InSects" as an example of opposition to Scientology going too far.  The statement by Scientology could be modified to remove "unsupported" if various primary sources are found to support each of the accusations.  The summary of these criticisms, however, would be removed if the source was found to be at all libelous.
I'm not sure that we've represented Tilman Hausherr's specific criticisms of Scientology, and so it would be odd to post an ad hominem refutation of those criticisms just yet.  But if we do represent Hausherr's criticism (and I think this forceful reaction on the part of Scientology necessitates that we do indeed explore it), they should not be posted without this response by Scientology, which seems to be their official line on Hausherr.  ClaudeReigns 16:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Middle Name

message: This series of edits, removing Tilman from a computer specialist category, and adding a "Trivia" section, were inappropriate.  I restored the previous version, as permitted under biographies of living persons, WP:BLP.  Smee 06:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Smee, actually the article looks pretty good now; neutral and well-written. --Justanother 10:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You will notice that I haven't complained there. My experience with that board is that that is often makes things even worse, sometimes doing activities not even supported by wikipedia rules. So I call them only in really bad cases of libel. What happened here is more an attempt to put a slightly negative slant (portraying me on the border of criminality), and remove positive facts. --Tilman 10:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish one of you would post a question on BLPN. There is nothing negative in this article; it is neutral and well-written as opposed to what it was before, which was neither of those. I do not know Tilman and, while I object personally to his trying to make trouble for people, regular public Scientologists like myself, that he does not even know simply because he does not like their spiritual beliefs, I, unlike others, have no plans to misuse this project to further my personal opinions or to ride my hobby horse. --Justanother 11:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate edits