User talk:Dick stevens

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Feel free to comment!

Enya[edit]

Wow. How did we all miss that one, lol. Good catch! musti 11:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, things happen :-) Dick Stevens 13:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh Yes :) Best. musti 13:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Wiki:Suppressive person[edit]

You removed ALL of my additions and changes on page Suppressive Person.

23:13, 30 April 2006 Olberon (→External links - Added link)
12:41, 1 May 2006 Olberon m (→Misuse of S.P. label within the Church of Scientology - Fixed indentation.)
12:43, 1 May 2006 Olberon m (Changed S.P. to SP)
17:31, 21 May 2006 Olberon (Moved 2 inpropriate source refs (personal opinions on 2 personal websites) as external länk at bottom of page. Declaring Fair Game via EOs is something from the past, valid referencing provided for.)

You moved out my indentation, the valid link that I added etcetera with no other reason than a generality!

12:09, 24 May 2006 Dick stevens (Reverted changes by Olberon (for the same reason as all previous attempts of Scientologists to change this article were reverted). Other Olberon's changes also reverted, they are just distractions.)

You also do not join the discussions on that page. I look forward to see your substantiated arguments! --Olberon 13:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Explained on relevant discussion page. Dick Stevens 21:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
This is about you, not that page.
You wrote: "A little too late, but clarification for my edit today (in response to Olberon's comment at my user page): I was enforcing multiple earlier reverts by wikipediatrix. Other edits reverted were: irrelevant external link, wrong indentation (quotes should not be indented) Dick Stevens 21:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)"
You discarded of my editing because they were "distractions"? Are they distractions? Distractions for what? For my changes made 20 whole days later? You don't clarify!
External link added was totally valid and relevant. http://www.algonet.se/~tourtel/interests/hubbard_policy-letter_history.html deals with Suppressive Persons. Are you claiming that it does not?? Is this editing of mine here a distraction?
Fixed indentation. Why did you not un-indentate the first quotation on that relevant page (suppressive person definition)?
Changed S.P. to SP. It is in use as SP not as S.P.
You still also completely failed to explain what was wrong with: Moved 2 inpropriate source refs (personal opinions on 2 personal websites) as external länk at bottom of page. Declaring Fair Game via EOs is something from the past, valid referencing provided for.! --Olberon 07:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
O.K., here it is:
External link - the fact that that page deals with SPs is not enough to justify it's inclusion.
Indentation - good notice, I will fix that in other quotation too.
S.P. to SP - I agree, I shouldn't have reverted that change. Sorry!
2 inpropriate source refs - both are perfectly appropriate and from respected sources (respected by everyone outside CoS obviously).
Dick Stevens 10:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
External link It does as all the other external linking is in favour of YOUR opinion of the matter and are biased. The one I offer is not biased in your favour. You oppose NPOV by rejecting it. That link deals in particular with HCO PL 23 Dec 65 which is the MAIN reference about SPs. It is also USED for declaring people! Are you querying all this?
Indentation So, it is proper to indentate. I disagree.
"Respected sources"? They are highly biased and base an conclusion on ignoring HCO PL 21 July 1968. You may have them as external links if you wish. But using it as an official reference source is seriously violating NPOV. --Olberon 12:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
So using source biased in your favour is O.K. for NPOV, and using source (you claim is) biased in my favour is violation of NPOV? H-m-m...
In any case I read your source, and it is not saying anything new. As for xenu.net it is found to be respectable in Wikipedia arbitration.
About Indentation - see Wikipedia guideline for Harvard referencing.
Dick Stevens 14:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

"So using source biased in your favour is O.K. for NPOV, and using source (you claim is) biased in my favour is violation of NPOV?" These are your words, I said nothing of the kind, read again. That Xenu.net and the other link link goes to a page with opinion that ignores existing HCO PLs turning things in the favour of Scientology opponents. That's POV. By far not all on xenu.net is valid referencing. These 2 are not. You are also free to tell me where you find similar data as found on the source that I provided. Please do! --Olberon 18:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
MSDN Academic Alliance
Yet Another Setup Tool
Kylix programming tool
The Futureheads
Live.com
Hawthorne Heights
CSharpBuilder
Visual Studio 2005 Express
Lady Sovereign
Microsoft Campus Agreement
Microsoft Money
Visual InterDev
Object Windows Library
Microsoft Passport Network
DataSnap
Borland Together
Gwenview
Microsoft Developer Network
Big & Rich
Cleanup
Extension (computing)
CALS
Microsoft InfoPath
Merge
Code folding
Windows Update
List of bitmap graphics editors
Add Sources
Loretta Lynn
Mall goth
Cohen the Barbarian
Wikify
Sybase ASA
CATIA
Bad Animals Studio
Expand
Microsoft Japan
Comparison of web servers
History of the Republic of Ireland

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 05:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:FuturixImager.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:FuturixImager.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 22:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


Fair use rationale for Image:FuturixImager 588.png[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:FuturixImager 588.png. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:FuturixImager 5.9 beta3.png)[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:FuturixImager 5.9 beta3.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 07:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)