User talk:Theobald Tiger

Anthony M. Daniels

Thanks for your message. If you have any questions about Wikipedia writing style or guidelines, please ask on my talk page. — goethean ॐ 18:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Theodore Dalrymple

[1] Please see, in case you ever become a Wikipedian again. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 13:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I have given my comment on the talk page of Theodore Dalrymple. Theobald Tiger (talk) 10:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Carel Gerretson

Following our discussions earlier this year I have had another attempt at expanding the Carel Gerretson article. I have restored the bit about his fascist involvement but have also added information about his other reasons for notability e.g. academic career, CHU, poetry, etc. If you can add more please do as I don't read Dutch and therefore was forced to rely on online translators which, as I'm sure you are aware, are hit and miss at best. Certainly there seems to be a lot that can be said about him jump in and add what you can :) Keresaspa (talk) 02:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I will have a look at your edits next week. Theobald Tiger (talk) 10:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Threats made by you

Hello Theobald Tiger, I would hereby like to ask you to remove the threat made by you against me here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JZ85. I feel threatened by you and I ask of you to behave like in an nonthreatening manner towards me. --Faust (talk) 11:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear, dear Faust, There is no threat intended against you. It is far easier, as you ought to know, to consume a watermelon with a knife than without. Actually your request is an insult towards JZ85, as if our colleague is so bad-mannered and uncivilized that he possibly could use the knife for unlawful acts. As JZ85 is a very decent person, I can reassure you that he will use the knife only when preparing food. But one thing is true: you make a fool of yourself by suggesting that JZ85 should resign as a referee on the grounds you mention on his talkpage. Theobald Tiger (talk) 12:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello Theobald Tiger, if I have misjudged you I apologize. However, I do feel threatened by your remark and I ask you again to remove it. A change might be good as well. Even though I am having difficulty with that, I trust in your good intentions. --Faust (talk) 12:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I have written a declaration on JZ85's talkpage to calm you down. I will not remove the knife because the eating of the watermelon is very difficult without it. Of course JZ85 should feel free to use the knife in preparing Lymantria's meat as well. Theobald Tiger (talk) 13:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Theobald, I would, however, like you to specifiy that the knife should be used on the watermelon so as to remove the double meaning you placed into it, wittingly or unwittingly. --Faust (talk) 13:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello Theobald, I hereby ask you for the second time to edit or remove a remark you made by which I feel threatened. You claim that you have made this remark unwittingly, but your refusal to edit it to an, to me, nonthreatening form suggests otherwise. I trust you will edit or remove it now, after all. --Faust (talk) 15:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Faust, I do not claim to have acted 'unwittingly'. I admit that there is a possibility that I have done so. But, alas, about acts performed unwittingly, I cannot say anything sensible. Stop transferring your problems on NL-wiki to EN-Wiki! Theobald Tiger (talk) 16:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello Theobald Tiger, I have never transferred any 'problem' I have had on the nl.wiki to the en.wiki. Here I am asking you to edit or remove a remark that I find threatening. Will you do so or not? --Faust (talk) 16:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

No. - Theobald Tiger (talk) 16:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User: Theobald Tiger. Thank you. Mauler90 _talk 17:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Mauler, I was just about to notify Theobald thereof. --Faust (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Dutch_Wikipedia_turmoil. Thank you. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Trolling?

Hello Theobald, I would like to ask you to stop interfering with the normal process here. You never use your account and now you appear out of nowhere and start support an unholdable position with untruths. Since the positions that you are defending are precisely the same as our conflict on nl.wiki entailed, I think most people would call it trolling. Please stop doing so. --Faust (talk) 14:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Statement was retracted by Faust. —TheDJ (talk • contribs)

I am allowed, as anyone else is, to contribute to talk pages. I use this account irregularly, but I am a serious contributor to the English wikipedia, as my edit history amply testifies. I have not referred to nl-wiki and I will not do so, as the adminstrators here have told me not to do so. I am not trolling. Theobald Tiger (talk) 16:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Kindly stop targeting my edits. --Faust (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

You are allowed to contribute to those talk pages, just be careful and nice (which you have been so far). Judging your shared history, I advise you to be on point with your comments there, and to try not to make things to personal. Remember that it is all about the article and the encyclopedia and it should not be about your fellow editors. If both editors can keep that in mind even more than normal, then there should be no issue I think. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

@Faust, I am criticizing your edits/proposals because of faulty reasoning and wobbly and untidy wording - of nothing else. You asked me here not to transfer problems from nl.wiki to en.wiki. I repeat once more: I have not done so and I will not do so. My concerns are with the content of en.wiki, and my criticisms were directed at your proposals and contributions. Theobald Tiger (talk) 17:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

@TheDJ, I am not sure who is adressed here, me or the the two of us. But regardless of the answer, I will be careful and remain focused on the subject matter. Theobald Tiger (talk) 17:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I have addressed Faust in a separate statement. BTW, i'm reading this back, and just for clarity, I'm not in any way stating that you have not acted properly so far in this discussion, it's just some cautionary advice, because I want to avoid a conflict here. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Good solution with respect to the retracted statement. Theobald Tiger (talk) 20:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Block request

Hello Theobald, I have request a block for you since I think you are only harassing me. You can find that request here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Theobald_Tiger_the_Troll —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faust (talk • contribs) 20:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Hi, Theobald. Faust's "block request" is now to be found under the heading User:Zaspino and user:Theobald Tiger on WP:ANI. Please comment there if you wish. Or save yourself the trouble, as I don't think you're in the least danger of being blocked in any case. Regards, Bishonen | talk 21:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC).

Hi, Bishonen. Thanks for notifying me. I have left a comment there. Theobald Tiger (talk) 08:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

email

I emailed you re the Van Creveld interview. -DePiep (talk) 11:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I will reply today when I have reinstalled my PC. Theobald Tiger (talk) 07:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

April 2014

Your recent editing history at Heleen Mees shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
You have reverted 3 times, you are one more revert away from a violation. -- Atama頭 15:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Just FYI, also, do not attempt to disclose a person's real-life information, accurate or not, unless they have already voluntarily disclosed it. Repeating that behavior can lead to an immediate block, which may be indefinite. Privacy concerns always outweigh any concerns about conflicts of interest. I've already redacted the information left by yourself and an IP, do not reinsert it. -- Atama頭 15:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I am the only one who has used the talk page and I stopped reverting without warning, just by my own decision. Theobald Tiger (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I promise not to disclose a person's real-life identity again. But then I have a question: how could anyone possibly reveal self-promotion and the advancement of personal interests as disclosing real-life identities is strictly forbidden? And bmwz3hm is certainly not advancing the interests of Wikipedia. She is very clearly and brutally fighting her enemies at the expense of encyclopedic values. Theobald Tiger (talk) 20:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

It's difficult, I will admit that. I've been dealing with conflicts of interest for years, mostly through the COI noticeboard, and balancing the two can be hard, it's definitely a constant struggle at that board. But per our guideline privacy has to take precedence over COI concerns. In this case, I think bmwz3hm's actions may be enough to warrant a block at some point regardless of the person's real life identity or connections, if they continue on the path they've been on.

As to how we can establish COI without outing, it's done all the time. It's very common that a person uses their connection to an article subject in a mistaken attempt to establish some kind of authority, to show their expertise or to win an argument. That usually backfires, but sometimes a cooperative person with a declared COI can be of benefit to Wikipedia. I've worked from both sides, blocking or otherwise censuring disruptive COI editors, and also trying to help COI editors be productive and to avoid harassment from people who oppose them solely for the COI despite their value to the project.

In any case, bmwz3hm is now on my radar, I have that article on my watchlist, and if they continue to be a problem we can handle it without having to voice our suspicions about their real identity. By the way, I commend you for going to the talk page of the article, which was exactly the right thing to do. I left a 3RR notice partially to remind you that you were one revert away from a bright-line block (so that you don't go too far), and partially so that I could be fair in giving warnings. I'm sure you agree that if bmwz3hm continues to revert on that page that they should be blocked (especially if they refuse to discuss matters on the talk page). -- Atama頭 21:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your clear answer. I will be cautious but I am determined not to let bmwz3hm (or her opponent) misuse Wikipedia for the advancement of her (or his) personal interests. Theobald Tiger (talk) 16:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

A small request

I've filled in a lot of references at Heleen Mees but I don't speak Dutch. Would you be able to translate the titles of the Dutch references and add the English translations to the |trans_title= fields in the article please? --AussieLegend (✉) 02:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

No problem, I will do that today. Theobald Tiger (talk) 07:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Kurt Tucholsky

Dag Theobald Tiger, bent U familie van Kurt Tucholsky, Kaspar Hauser, Peter Panter, Theobald Tiger en Ignaz Wrobel...? Lotje (talk) 14:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

See my userpage on nl.wiki. I prefer communicating in English on this talk page. Theobald Tiger (talk) 20:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Heleen Mees may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Professor of Public Administration]", ''Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service]'', New York University. Archived from [http://wagner.nyu.edu/Mees the original] on 26 February

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:35, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done - Square bracket removed - Theobald Tiger (talk) 07:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

You know who, you know where....

Given recent actions I quite understand why the judge insisted on the person attending therapy sessions. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:34, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I think she lives in fear of lawsuits. [S]he makes a pit, digging it out, and falls into the hole that [s]he has made. Being headstrong is a trait of character, perhaps, but being impudent and bold has quite possibly become a habit after all those years of shouting down and offending others, faking to be coy, creating alliances, putting on airs, being flirtatious to win the argument, and mixing up personal affairs with matters intellectual. It is a sad spectacle to look at, but alas, this time we cannot pass over it in total silence. Theobald Tiger (talk) 13:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Great translating

		The Rosetta Barnstar
		Thank you for your translation efforts on the Heleen Mees article! --TheCockroach (talk) 04:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Translating is something I like to do. However, translating from English to Dutch comes more natural to me. Here is my translation of Shakespeares Sonnet 18 in Dutch:

Sonnet 18

Shakespeare

Lijk jij soms op een mooie dag in mei?

Je bent bekoorlijker en hebt meer tederheid.

Een rukwind schudt wat uitbot ruw opzij,

Kort duurt des zomers toegemeten tijd.

Het hemeloog verzengt het groene loof.

Zijn gulden gloed is van beperkte duur.

Zijn schittering wordt kortelings gedoofd,

Ontregeld door een speling der natuur.

Jouw zomers aureool blijft eeuwig reisgenoot;

Jouw schoonheid heeft een duurzaam coloriet;

Jij dwaalt niet in de schaduw van een fiere dood,

Wanneer jij blijvend voortleeft in een lied.

Zolang het mensdom oog en adem heeft,

Zolang zorgt dit gedicht dat jij nog leeft.

(Translation 2014 Theobald Tiger)

Kind regards, Theobald Tiger (talk) 21:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Heleen Mees lead

Hi. I'm a bit confused by your edit summary when reverting my addition - "no consensus as could have been well-known". Could you explain what you meant there? I don't see any major problems with what I added, so I'm not sure where your concern lies. - Bilby (talk) 08:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I have made my concerns crystal clear on the talk page of Heleen Mees, as should have been known to the personal adminstrator of Her Majesty (link). A job that lasted for 10 months should not be mentioned in the lead. She is called a member of Das ökonomische Quartett, but as yet, Mees has not written any column for Capital. Theobald Tiger (talk) 19:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I was hoping that we were past this, but can I just ask that you stop referring to Bmwz3hm as "Her Majesty"? I you have good reason for being angry, and agree that anger justified as Bmwz3hm was an extremely difficult editor, but personal attacks are a problem whether in regard to an editor that is blocked or otherwise. - Bilby (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

As long as you fight as a lion to get non-encyclopedic and ill-informed edits accepted without answering adequately the criticisms directed at you, I will let you know that you are wrong, either by referring to Her Majesty or otherwise. Theobald Tiger (talk) 14:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I have no problems with you disagreeing with any proposed edits, or reverting what you disagree with. But it doesn't help your case to include personal attacks against others, no matter how you may feel about them, or how you feel about their actions. - Bilby (talk) 14:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

You're right about that. But why carry on with edits that cannot be justified by encyclopedic standards? Theobald Tiger (talk) 14:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

We have a difference of opinion as to what would be appropriate for the article. My understanding of the role of a lead appears to be different from yours. But that's fair enough - we hit these conflicts from time to time, and generally they work out in the long run. - Bilby (talk) 14:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

This is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. It is not only "a different understanding of the role of the lead". You have been supporting Bmwz3hm and her sockpuppeteers from the very start, to a large extent stubbornly ignoring her lies, her haughtiness, her offences, her insults. Theobald Tiger (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, I disagree with your interpretation of how I've been editing. My understanding of what you've been saying is that the lead is used to highlight significant points. My understanding is that the lead is used to summarise the article. Normally when writing a lead I go through each paragraph or section (for larger articles) and try to include (in some way) a reference to each, so that reading the lead will give an overview of the article content. - Bilby (talk) 22:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)::::::::Just to clarify, I certainly respect your position, and I have no problem with you disagreeing with my perspective. Disagreements on how to write articles are common, and it is part of the process of collaboration - generally, I find that different perspectives make for much better articles, so long as collaboration and consensus building works. Hopefully discussion will result in a better article. :) - Bilby (talk) 22:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Your interpretation of my position with respect to the lead is correct. The lead should contain an opening sentence that gives a definition (or a concise description) of the subject, followed by a concise outline of the subjects notability. In my view it is rarely possible (and, if possible, not desirable) to give a meticulous summary of a persons life in the lead. A biography of some merit nearly always contains background information and personal information that does not belong in the lead, but that is relevant for the biography. In the article under consideration, Mees' economist activities are as yet marginal to her notability (she has got her doctorate in 2012). She has chosen to change direction (opinion writer, mainly on women's issues, to economist in academia). Then the court case came and put her back. But how much we admire or respect or envy or reject her choices, it is for now simply unbalanced to leave the court case out and to suggest that she is an economist of some standing. Perhaps, she will be in the future, but let things take their course. If Mees had decided to be a beekeeper or electrochemist in 2012, that would not have warranted mention in the lead either. I share the hope expressed in your closing sentence. Theobald Tiger (talk) 09:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Heleen Mees, television host?

Do you know if it is true that, in 2009, Mees was a TV host on VARA and that she was a regular guest on the panel of economists on BNR Newsradio? If these two points are true, do you think they should be added to Heleen Mees? Is she well-known in the Netherlands because of her TV hosting/appearance on BNR Newsradio? --TheCockroach (talk) 09:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

When we call Heleen Mees a television host, I think we overrate her a little. From May until December 2009 she has been a member of a panel of five women who were talking once a week for half an hour about current affairs in a Dutch television programme called Vrouw en Paard [Woman and Horse], broadcasted by the VARA. The panel's composition varied, and Mees was sometimes not present. She has also been for a period of time a member of the economenpanel [Economist Panel] of BNR Radio (I don't know exactly for how long). It is part of her glamorous outlook. If the activities merit a new section in the article, I am not sure. If it were not original research, I would say that the circles of the rich and famous and powerful ("Mees has always been fascinated by power") have always been her intended habitat. In the course of her lifetime, selfpromotion (the sickness of our times) might very well turn out to be her real métier. So, yes, with due reservations, at some future time inclusion might be justly deserved, when at long last her glorious biography has been written, and the television episode has been unshakeably established as the stepping stone to Mees' immortality. Theobald Tiger (talk) 13:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Removal

Post by User:Waaakhond removed (trolling). Theobald Tiger (talk) 20:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

block request

Theobald, ik heb helaas een blokverzoek tegen jou lopen. (Personal attack removed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theobold Tiger (talk • contribs) 13:03, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what you did to provoke this reaction, but I've blocked the Theobold Tiger account already (impersonation and harassment), and I'm looking into the one above. —C.Fred (talk) 13:25, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't see anything obvious, but let me know if I'm missing something or there's anything else I can help with. —C.Fred (talk) 13:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I just happened to notice this block in the logs. Theobald Tiger: Since they have accounts on numerous wikis, you might want to request a global lock for the account at m:SRG to prevent impersonation elsewhere. I ran a check on the account and determined that it is a sockpuppet of this account. Best ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:44, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and now that I see the section above: The impersonator, Waakhondstante, and Waaakhond are all the same. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you all for your efforts to stop the harassment. The person behind the blocked accounts is pursuing me wherever I go (nl.wiki, en.wiki or de.wiki). The first conflicts arose on nl.wiki. See: this checklist (with a short explanation in English). Theobald Tiger (talk) 09:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

not noticed

Sorry, didn't notice that there was a hidden edit. Bibilili (talk) 08:41, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean? This edit is not hidden, and neither is the previous one. Theobald Tiger (talk) 07:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration clarification

There is a request for clarification in which you are named here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Landmark_Worldwide.2FR6_Additional_eyes_invited DaveApter (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I have made a short statement here. Theobald Tiger (here]) 19:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Retirement

I realize that being "treated" to DaveApter's irrational paranoia about anyone who doesn't immediately fall in love with Landmark is probably not the best way to become active in a topic here, but I sincerely hope that you reconsider. So far as I can tell, there is no apparent intention to in any way sanction you, and your input would be more than welcome in developing content which needs as many editors as it can reasonably get. The request for clarification and amendment will probably be resolved within a week at longest, and it may be that editors whose conduct is disruptive may be subject to discretionary sanctions as a result. But I have seen absolutely nothing from your edit history to indicate that you as an individual might be among those ever likely to face such a problem. If I actually spoke Dutch, I would probably also contact you in that language, but I am an "ugly American" and only know some German and a very little Latin. John Carter (talk) 21:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Dear John Carter, Thanks for your message. I appreciate your friendly words and your attempt to calm me down. But my disappointment is too real. To leave one limbo, just to step in the next, is more than I can bear. I wish you all the best. I hope I will not upset any American if I confess that I believe in the power of negative thinking: "The sadness will last forever." Cheers! Upon the death of my enemies, for all my friends are gone. Theobald Tiger (talk) 22:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I can understand that, but also think that losing someone like you, who previously said you were the wikimedian-in-residence to several Dutch GLAM organizations, would be a very serious loss indeed. Not that many of us here speak Dutch, and someone associated with GLAM organizations would be particularly valuable. But, having said that, I can also understand your reasoning for at least wanting to leave the English language wikipedia, at least for a short time. But if you ever want to reconsider becoming active here, I don't think the ridiculous allegations made at the ARCA are likely to ever arise again, considering the accuser said he got the information wrong. Best of luck in any event. John Carter (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Theobald Tiger (talk) 15:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Vindication

Thought you might be interested in seeing Josq's comments at the WP:ARCA page, which basically indicate that you were actually doing good and welcome productive work on the Landmark content. If you have any interest in returning at any time, I hope you know that, basically, your name has been cleared in this matter. John Carter (talk) 16:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• And I saw on the Dutch wiki you were unblocked by good old Wikiklaas. Drmies (talk) 19:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your interferences. Theobald Tiger (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration clarification request closed

This is a courtesy message to inform you that an arbitration clarification request in which you were listed as a party has been closed and archived with a motion being enacted which authorises standard discretionary sanctions for the topic of Landmark Worldwide, broadly construed. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. Theobald Tiger (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

January 2015

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at List of new religious movement and cult researchers, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Tgeairn (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

As the criticisms are striking, POV-pushers become aggressive. You know nothing of NRMs and cults, you do not even know what primary sources really are, your objections to encyclopedic content are based upon prejudice and self-interest. Your means are wikilawyering, taking the moral high ground, lying, insinuating, bullying and denying the obvious. Theobald Tiger (talk) 09:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration request for enforcement

You are involved in a recently-filed request for enforcement from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Theobald_Tiger and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Tgeairn (talk) 00:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Just another bureaucratic attempt to hide your COI. As early as 1982 Tipton characterized the predecessor of Landmark Forum as based on a kind of Rule-Egoism. The participant is teached to ruthlessly follow the bureaucratic rules in order to realize his or her self-interest, self-expression and self-fulfillment. Theobald Tiger (talk) 14:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)