User talk:Slightlyright

Lisa
Thanks. Did you see the addition I made to my user page re "heavy lifting"? Not that the Lisa bit was especially heavy but that if want this stuff corrected we just have to correct it in accordance with wikipedia policy and stop complaining about it so much (cause vs. effect). --Justanother 16:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I read it and agree with it. I got slapped pretty hard my first couple of edits so decided to confine myself to the talk pages for a while. I think I will follow a three step policy 1) Post proposed changes to the talk pages. 2) Let them sit for one or two days, and then 3) Make the changes. This seems to work reasonably well. ---Slightlyright 16:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean, I probably got slapped harder including a 24-hour block followed by an improper page ban that I got Jimbo involved in. But it was mostly my own "youthful enthusiasm" which is why I decided to write up a hat. You method is fine but wikipedia prefers that you be WP:BOLD but it is easier to be bold once you get a feel for it. --Justanother 16:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

KRC
For your article on KRC (Scientology), could you help clean up the references section. The references may be proper, but the style is not in wikified. thanks for the help Imasleepviking 20:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for the tip. Slightlyright 21:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

DYK
Hi, I've nominated an article you worked on, KRC (Scientology)‎, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook for the article at Template talk:Did you know where you can improve it if you see fit. Thanks, Justanother 19:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Scn Symbol Components 1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Scn Symbol Components 1.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Smee 19:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, you created it? Then it should be OK. I thought you had copied it from elsewhere. --Justanother 20:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope. It is my work. Smee pointed out correctly though that I cannot really release into the public domain as it contains an RTC servicemark. So I changed the license to 'Non-free symbol' and did all the Fair use rationale work. Included rationale for inclusion in ARC (Scientology) and Scientology too; though it doesn't yet occur there. ---Slightlyright 20:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice job then. I am no expert but I imagine that is fine and may not even need a fair use disclaimer. You can ask someone more experienced over at a copyright board. --Justanother 00:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of KRC (Scientology)
KRC (Scientology), an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that KRC (Scientology) satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/KRC (Scientology) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of KRC (Scientology) during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 00:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Scientology
Hi Slightlyright, re my Scientology revert, I'm really sorry to have reverted what I believe were your first edits to that article in a long while. The reason has to do with wanting to keep the sourcing to as high a standard as possible (making preferential use of the copious scholarly material available. This applies both to information that might be construed as "positive" and to criticism of Scientology. Editors found that if both sides of the Scientology debate use primary sources (or self-published sources like Scientology and anti-Scientology websites), the result is a poor article. For further background, please see  or have a word with user:Justallofthem, who was part of that agreement. (I'll be most likely away from WP for a few days.) Best wishes,  Jayen 466 08:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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, 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 (talk) 17:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:KRC Circle 2.jpg


The file File:KRC Circle 2.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 5 July 2019 (UTC)