User talk:Stefan Kruithof

Welcome!

Welcome! (We can't say that loud/big enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page.

We're so glad you're here! If you need help or just want to say hello, click here and leave a message! [1] -- Phgao 09:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Reuvens.jpg[edit]

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Reuvens.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 10:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 10:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV[edit]

Hi, Stephan. Please read WP:NPOV and understand why we shouldn't call someone "prominent" in Wikipedia not event when this person has a written for "numerous high-profile blogs" (whatever that may be). --Damiens.rf 06:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're making a straw man argument. I never said Steven Novella was prominent merely because he wrote numerous high-profile blogs. Here is what I actually wrote:

Hosting one of the world's most popular science podcasts, speaking at TAM, writing for numerous high-profile skeptical blogs etc. makes you a prominent member of the skeptical movement. No POV there.

In other words, what we are talking about is a prominent member specifically of the skeptical movement. Novella clearly is prominent, since he is the host of the The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe podcast. This was my first point. Then I mentioned his speaking at the skeptical meeting, TAM. Finally I mentioned that Novella writes for several high-profile skeptical blogs. You are arguing as if that is my main point!

To sum up, there are two major flaws in what you posted: (1) You imply that I called Steven Novella prominent, without specifying that I called him prominent within the skeptical movement, and (2) You only mention my third point proving that he is prominent within this movement, not the first two. Stefan Kruithof (talk) 16:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now onto another issue. You edited the Steven Novella article twice, producing a sentence that isn't even correct English. Twice you wrote the following:

Novella is best known for being a outspoken self-proclaimed skeptical.

The correct sentence would have ran "...for being an outspoken skeptic." (No idea what the 'self-proclaimed' does there). There is no such thing as a "skeptical". That's an adjective, not a noun. You can't complain about edits being reverted if your edits contain silly mistakes like that. Stefan Kruithof (talk) 16:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, in your edits of the Steven Novella article you have twice claimed that there is no skeptical movement. Why are you editing articles about subjects which you are clearly clueless about? Editing Novella's article, while basically claiming he's not prominent in the skeptical movement and that there isn't even such a movement, is comparable to editing the article on Richard Feynman and claiming that he's not a prominent physicist and that physics doesn't even exist anyway.

If there is no skeptical movement, then who are the members of all the skeptical organizations out there? See List of skeptics and skeptical organizations. What people run the James Randi Educational Foundation, and The Skeptics Society? Who writes and who reads magazines such as Skeptic? Who produces, and who listens to podcasts such as The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe and Skepticality? The answer to all these questions is of course skeptics. Stefan Kruithof (talk) 16:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When the article about Feynman states his a physicist, it uses a link to the Physicist article. When the article about Mr. Novella states his a "prominent member of the skeptical movement", it links to the article on Scientific skepticism.

Is there an organized "movement" of skepticism? I will only believe when I see it--Damiens.rf 18:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You imply that a movement needs a central headquarters directing its operations. That is clearly not the case. Consider for example feminism. Scientific skepticism has a large number of organizations promoting it, with magazines, blogs, podcasts and television shows. It is clearly a movement, and your repeated denial of its existence is simply absurd. Stefan Kruithof (talk) 01:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, isn't it interesting the Mr. Feynman apparently is not a prominent Physicist? --Damiens.rf 18:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is beyond retarded. Are you trying to argue that Feynman is not a prominent physicist? He won the Nobel Prize! Stefan Kruithof (talk) 01:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And of course, thanks for helping me with the British language. Hopefully you could still understand what I wrote despite those three extra letters. Don't feel ashamed to correct me in the future. --Damiens.rf 18:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that in the future when you edit articles and see your edits reverted, you'll actually take the time to look at why they are reverted. You changed the lead sentence in an article from a perfectly fine one into an incoherent one, twice. Also, you misspelled my name. Stefan Kruithof (talk) 01:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

indent reset You didn't got it. My point is that the Richard Feynman article doesn't needs to describe him as "prominent physicist" exactly because the reader can conclude that from reading the article. The article about Mr. Novella needs to explicitly state this POV because one can't make the case for the reader... --Damiens.rf 03:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the WP:NPOV rules clearly state that prominence of a source must be taken in to account it is a safe bet that prominence is considered by that article to be something real and detectable. It would be foolish to use a resource that relies on prominence to do away with all mentions of prominence. --Brendan White (talk) 22:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Krijn[edit]

On June 23, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Krijn, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 20:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spotlight[edit]

Hi there. I noticed that you've edited Marco Polo in the past, and that article is being worked on via IRC, as the current spotlight project. Please come to the IRC channel and help us to improve it, if you can. You can connect using this. Cheers! Chzz ► 22:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs[edit]

Hello Stefan Kruithof! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 941 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Hans Joachim Störig - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 06:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Stefan Kruithof. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Stefan Kruithof. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Stefan Kruithof.jpg[edit]

The file File:Stefan Kruithof.jpg has been proposed for deletion 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 {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} 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) 01:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]