User talk:Planktonium

Welcome!

Hello, Planktonium, 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 talk 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 {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Drmies (talk) 04:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You cutie

Great!!

JohannWriteman (talk) 04:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! Planktonium, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Sarah (talk) 00:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John de Ruiter.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the reviewer's talk page

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 02:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John de Ruiter.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the reviewer's talk page

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John de Ruiter

I would like to know why the article was rejected. I only used secondary sources and followed the outline and tone of Eckharte Tolle and Osho entries. Can you be more specific or show me where I can make changes that would make it acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Planktonium (talk • contribs) 21:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Related helpdesk response) I just had a look at the first five references. They were, in order, an article in Dutch magazine that I'd call "New Age" (the link was useless because it didn't point to the article itself), a domain for sale that didn't mention anything, a website offering de Ruiter's works for sale, de Ruiter's book, and a blog. The second obviously useless as references on de Ruiter, the next two are not independent, and the fifth is not reliable. That leaves us with the magazine article, which might be a reliable source - that would depend on whether the magazine has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Many of the other references also looked like primary sources to me - his own books were mentioned rather often. And some of the sources did not actually support the statements they were cited for, which is worse.

Wikipedia content should be based on secondary sources, and I'd expect for someone whose base of operations is Edmonton, sources in English should exist - how about articles in mainstream newspapers? Huon (talk) 23:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hiyas there Planktonium,

I see that Huon already replied the above on the helpdesk, and his comment voices one of my own concerns with the article rather well. In addition to the above, the article is written with a clearly positive bias in mind. Even though the statements in question are referenced, they are still non-neutral and positively biased, especially if man reads the article as a whole.

For example (Among many others)

A website listing spiritual teachers describes De Ruiter as the most profound and "powerful, living and transcendental force of pure truth."
“the most powerful spiritual teacher I’ve ever seen — and I’ve seen a goodly number of them.
nown as an accessible teacher, De Ruiter has been called a modern day Socrates seeking out the ultimate knowledge of the deepest self

These lines really add no information to the article, same with the myriad of quotes from John de Ruiter that were included. Instead these are simply subjective statements by random people, that give the article a spammy and promotional tone.

Kind regards, Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 11:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Planktonium. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 18:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John de Ruiter.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the reviewer's talk page

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Icy // ♫ 02:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Planktonium. You have new messages at IceUnshattered's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

John de Ruiter - comments

Upon closely reviewing your article once more, I have a few comments/suggestions.

The first reference ("Honesty is the best policy (translation)", by Brummelman, contains a dead link. The URL directs to a 404 not found.
In general, it's good for references to be independent of the subject material. I noticed that a good few of your references direct either to either his books/website. While this is okay, it certainly detracts from both the neutrality and how we can verify the subject material.
You have a few repeated references. You can use <ref name=whatever you want to name your reference> to source multiple claims to the same reference, rather than write another citation that links to the same thing (ex. 6. and 15., 13. and 14., 21. and 26., among others)
I'm not sure how reliable [1] is as a reference (you source it as reference 18). Perhaps find an alternative?
I noticed that one of your references (to Atticus Cutter's website) seems to be a personal blog (self-described "Below is a collection of personal blog entries"). We rarely accept personal blogs of this sort (even though this one seems to be quite polished as reliable sources -- see WP:SPS, and perhaps more specific to your case, there is even a page about avoiding self-published sources of this sort in the biographies of living persons. This also goes for de Ruiter's personal website, I think.
I can't help but feel that when reading through your article, it's not that neutral -- it's got plenty of praise for de Ruiter, and really not that much criticism. Even without researching for more sources, you could make more out of sources like this one, which does contain evidence of the writer's wariness of de Ruiter ("Is he an enlightened man or a deluded man?", implications of cult accusations/controversy, criticism of his personal life such as the fact that "His wife Joyce left him after learning that de Ruiter was involved with two sisters", references to the financial circumstances of de Ruiter's work ("No one would tell me the cost. But it's clearly a multimillion-dollar venture."), etc. etc.) And that's just a start.

So perhaps what I'm getting at is clean up the references a tad, less praise and more balanced criticism, and you'll be all set. Good luck. Icy // ♫ 02:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

John de Ruiter, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Yeknom Dnalsli (talk) 07:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:John de Ruiter.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:John de Ruiter.jpg, which you've sourced to http://www.facebook.com/notes/john-de-ruiter/john-de-ruiter-message/80541803862. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

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:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John de Ruiter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Awakening (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 2014

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Amortias (T)(C) 18:30, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism Label

Please do not label edits that violate the policy on biographies of living persons as vandalism. The allegation of vandalism, in a content dispute, can be considered a personal attack. On the one hand, the edits were contrary to policy. On the other hand, the edits do not appear to be vandalism, just improper edits. Also, please discuss content disputes on the article talk page. No one has said anything at Talk:John de Ruiter. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You seemed (in your comment on my talk page) to be unsure about what User:ColinFine said on the other editor's talk page. He was agreeing with you and me that, although we don't know about the article subject (except what is in the article) that the edits were disruptive. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The other editor has been blocked, and the blocking admin did refer to it as vandalism. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 16:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Planktonium. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Please feel free to join the discussion. Bishonen | talk 10:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. Bishonen | talk 10:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]

You have been editing the John de Ruiter article in a tendentious and promotional manner for years. If you persist in doing so, you may be topic banned from editing it at all. Bishonen | talk 10:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Planktonium. 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]