User talk:Dick stevens

Feel free to comment!

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

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

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

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)[reply]

Explained on relevant discussion page. Dick Stevens 21:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered,

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)[reply]