User talk:Tilman

Welcome!

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

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

heh

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

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

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

Scientology stub on Tilman Hausherr

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brainwashing and Mind Control

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

WP:AUTO guideline

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

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

Super Power Building

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

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

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

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

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

Belated welcome

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

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

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

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

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

discussion of opinion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment

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

Help with Potters House?

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

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

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

3RR

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

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

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

Huh? Is this appropriate?

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

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

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

Regarding your comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

May be of interest

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

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

FYI

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

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

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

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

Lousy POV editing

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

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

ZAK vs. ZAPP

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

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

Norton S. Karno

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

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

Digital Lightwave

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

Re the Anti-Cult Movement article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Anti-cultist"?

Hi again Tilman,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scn section gone from "Opposition..."

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

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

Edit summaries

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

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

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

NWO link at Church of Spiritual Technology

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

Bad Faith

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

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

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

Thanks

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

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

Reversions without discussion

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

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

Mr Tilman,

Wikipedia:Civility states as follows:

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

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

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

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

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