User talk:LarsJanZeeuwRules
Welcome!
Hello, LarsJanZeeuwRules, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Arnoutf (talk) 12:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
License tagging for File:Foto 176.jpg
[edit]Thanks for uploading File:Foto 176.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.
For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 15:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Italic titles
[edit]The policy regarding italic title use is still under discussion, so stop making mass edits to that effect.— Dædαlus Contribs 23:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- As I said, the policy regarding such is still under discussion. Check the template page of the template you keep adding, and two wrongs don't make a right; you can't argue that because 'other people are doing it', you should do it too. The template page will link to the policy page, which will link to an active discussion regarding italic titles.— Dædαlus Contribs 01:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
While I agree that filling in a "religion" slot with "atheism" is a stretch, atheism does have a number of characteristics in common with religion, and can be thought of as a type of religion. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- You disagree that atheism has some characteristics in common with religion? How about the way atheists often ridicule and put down religions, the very same way that members of a given religion will ridicule and put down other religions? Atheists can be every bit as arrogant and narrow-minded as strict adherents to the world's religions. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Religion relies on faith, as does science. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Your latest comment fairly much supports my theory. You can't convince me that you're right, so you just get angry and label me the ignorant one (as religionsts often do when they can't convince someone of the "truth" of their faith). I consider myself "agnostic", in the sense that I don't think the existence (or not) of God is "knowable". Atheists insist that there is no God, despite all faith and apparent evidence to the contrary. That's atheistic dogma. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- The core of the atheism argument is that religion has no value. The faith of billions is evidence to me that religion indeed has value. I know people who believe in God and feel that God is there somehow. The fact that I don't feel that, does not prove me right or them wrong. Atheism fails in its narrow-minded approach to things. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- The various items you listed should be investigated further, not dismissed outright. If a scientist cannot detect something, there are two possibilities: (1) it doesn't exist; or (2) his detection method is insufficient. Too many skeptics are ready to jump on the first option, since they have "faith" that they know what they're doing can't possibly be wrong. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- The core of the atheism argument is that religion has no value. The faith of billions is evidence to me that religion indeed has value. I know people who believe in God and feel that God is there somehow. The fact that I don't feel that, does not prove me right or them wrong. Atheism fails in its narrow-minded approach to things. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Your latest comment fairly much supports my theory. You can't convince me that you're right, so you just get angry and label me the ignorant one (as religionsts often do when they can't convince someone of the "truth" of their faith). I consider myself "agnostic", in the sense that I don't think the existence (or not) of God is "knowable". Atheists insist that there is no God, despite all faith and apparent evidence to the contrary. That's atheistic dogma. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Religion relies on faith, as does science. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Leuke Pagina
[edit]Hee Lars!
Wat een leuke pagina heb je hier!
Nog veel sucsess met je wikipedia troep :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jan Zeeuw (talk • contribs) 18:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
File:Picture of Lars Jan Zeeuw.jpeg listed for deletion
[edit]A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Picture of Lars Jan Zeeuw.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 15:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Category:Pseudohistorians
[edit]Category:Pseudohistorians, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
File:Another picture of my cat Panter..JPG listed for discussion
[edit]
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Another picture of my cat Panter..JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly hi! 16:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
