Krelnik

DYK for Robert A. Baker

On 7 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Robert A. Baker, 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.

DYKBot (talk) 22:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Variety Playhouse

Wow. Thanks for your contributions here. Much appreciated! Mattbrundage (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've always enjoyed attending shows at this venue, and knew a little about the history of it when it was the Ellis, so I decided to go to the local library and do a little digging. It's my largest effort for Wikipedia so far. --Krelnik (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Georgia Institute of Technology Featured Article Nomination

User:Lamenta3 and I have nominated Georgia Institute of Technology for Featured Article status. Please improve the article and contribute to the discussion. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 16:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Hyman

Hi Timothy. You may want to expand on the fact I added to the article, lest anyone be confused about what his 'beliefs' are. cygnis insignis 23:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, already done. --Krelnik (talk) 23:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I missed that, too busy spitting out the pips. cygnis insignis 00:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Good catch

Hey, sorry for the Twitter template fiasco! Thanks for catching it!--The lorax (talk) 06:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Roger Ebert

Hi. Just because Ebert does not accept creationism or astrology does not necessarily mean that he considers himself a skeptic in all relevant areas. If you were to listen to Bill Maher's opinions on religion, you might assume he's a skeptic, but if you then heard his opinions on ghosts or his opinions on the existence of germs, vaccinations or the pharmaceutical industry, you'd realize that he's not. Just because someone has a stated belief against one form of pseudoscience means that they're dismissive of all of them, like James Randi or Michael Shermer. Nightscream (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

"one form of pseudoscience"? Did you read the article by Ebert which I cited in my edit? He mentions crystal healing, psychics, astrology, reincarnation, tarot, i-ching, sooth-saying, palmistry, phrenology and spirit guides. That's a pretty strong list of skeptic topics. There's no such thing as a "perfect skeptic" that toes the party line across 100% of skeptic categories. For instance, many skeptics criticise Michael Shermer's support of Libertarianism as being non-rational. Many skeptics believe atheism is a logical conclusion of skepticism, yet Martin Gardner and Hal Bidlack are deists. There are other examples. You are setting a bar that is impossible to meet. --Krelnik (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Van Praagh

Hi Tim. I've never used a talk page before and as I am still terrified of doing the wrong thing on Wiki I thought I would try sending you a message using talk. I edited Van Praagh's page and noticed there is a group working to improve Wiki from the skeptical viewpoint. I'm way to new to join that, but noticed your name. Ok, here is something else that's new, I'm going to try to sign my post SGerbic (talk) 01:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the WP:SKEPTIC WikiProject is dedicated to skeptic stuff. There's some good folks in there, but the group as a whole seems a little disorganized. Perhaps you and I should try to rile them up? --Krelnik (talk) 07:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Greetings!

Hello Krelnik, Wilhelmina Will has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Greetings, Krelnik! I hope you have a good day! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 20:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Robert S. Lancaster

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for George Hrab

TheDYKUpdateBot 18:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Mark Edward

Hi Krelnik, I just wanted to let you know that there are some issues that have to be addressed at Template talk:Did you know#Mark Edward before it can be used. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Karen Stollznow

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Rhys Morgan

I have opened up a review of the Rhys Morgan delete decision as a matter of urgency doktorb _words^deeds 01:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Response I am obviously very disappointed by this decision. The assertion that I did not read the article is highly misleading, not to mention offensive. I have been a Wikipedia editor for many, many years, and have followed the rules and regulations throughout these years. To suggest that I did not follow the regulations is complete bunkum. Using the evidence present in the article, I made a choice based on what I thought was a fairly obvious case - it STILL breaks our rules on blogs, recentism, notability, and bias. The "keep" votes are from people who have an immense level of conflict of interest, and therefore skew the vote something rotten. I am very disappointed that this entire episode has been carried out at my expense, rather than at the article itself. This response will be copied to as many concerned editors in this matter. doktorb _words^deeds 18:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll reply over on your talk page so you can see it more easily. Krelnik (talk) 18:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Greetings from another skeptic

Hi Krelnik, I've edited Adam Savage a few times this year, and I recently saw your name on the edit history. I thought, "That's not THE Krelnik, of 'What's the harm?'", but I was wrong! Just wanted to leave a note of "hello!" from a fellow skeptic. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 14:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Yup, that's me! I've blogged a bunch about how important Wikipedia is to skepticism over on my Skeptools blog, check it out. Cheers. Krelnik (talk) 15:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Amazing Meeting

Hi Krelnik! I am working on a rewrite of the Amazing Meeting and would appreciate it if you would check out my sandbox and offer suggestions, particularly for beefing up the lede. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Allecher/sandbox Allecher (talk) 20:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh cool, I was just looking at it today and thinking, boy this needs a rewrite. Krelnik (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Seriously people? What are the odds? www.theoddsmustbecrazy.com LOL Sgerbic (talk) 04:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Buckhead Theatre

I don't have a source, sorry. Go for it and good luck finding sources! (try Google Books too? for mentions of those names in papers/music periodicals? you could perhaps establish ranges and mention those)

Phoenix Lights

Thank you for your comments. I've submitted a conflict of interest entry at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Phoenix_Lights — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sblonder (talk • contribs) 03:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Rollback

I have granted rollback rights to your account. Given you clearly know what you are doing on the anti-vandalism front (as demonstrated here), I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. Rollback lets your revert vandalism quicker and to use anti-vandalism software like Huggle. If you do not want rollback, just let me know and I will remove it. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I, Sarah, hereby award Krelnik, with The Original Barnstar for your excellent work about skeptics. I came across a number of your articles via a recent blog and was happy to see the work you've been doing. Thank you for all you do for Wikipedia and free knowledge. SarahStierch (talk) 21:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Narendra Dabholkar may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• '''Narendra Dabholkar''' ([[Marathi language|Marathi]]: नरेंद्र दाभोळकर; (1 November 1945<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

RE: reference format experiment on user page

Greets Krelnik. Hope all is well with you and in the ATL. Lived there for quite some time myself, like your contribs. Just looking at your user page from a link somewhere else on the web and saw your experiment with ref format. (BTW big fan, die hard skeptic) First you have a sandbox and can make multiple sandboxes. I use several and one is constantly open whenever I am on WP. Second might I be so bold as to suggest the Template:Cite episode as follows.

McCarthy, Robynn; Colanduno, Derek; (hosts) (January 16, 2007). "Interview: Michael A. Stackpole" (podcast). Skepticality. Episode 44. Skeptic Magazine. Retrieved 2009-01-15.

{{cite episode |title= Interview: Michael A. Stackpole |series= Skepticality |format= podcast |number= 44 |publisher= [[Skeptic (U.S. magazine)|Skeptic Magazine]] |date= January 16, 2007 |accessdate= 2009-01-15 |last= McCarthy |first= Robynn |last2= Colanduno |first2= Derek |last3= (hosts) |authorlink= Robynn McCarthy |author2-link= Derek Colanduno |url= http://skepticality.org/sn_Ep44.html}}

You might notice I used publisher which is not listed as a parameter for cite episode, any parameter from citation can be used. Also last3 as hosts. I also included format. Just thought I might be of some use. I am a reference nut and have a template fetish. Best wishes. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. Yes, I've used multiple sandboxes for a while, I often have full articles going in there. But I haven't been doing alot of full-article writing lately. On the citations - thanks I don't think I knew about "cite episode". I wish there were some better and simpler guidance on citations and references, every time I go down in that part of the help I get lost in a bewildering array of different articles. I often find it's easier to Google my way to the template definition rather than navigate through Wiki's own help. It's also often not clear (to me anyway) which templates are recommended for use and which ones are just someone's wild idea. --Krelnik (talk) 16:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Loves Libraries 2013

You're invited! Please sign up at Wikipedia:Meetup/Atlanta/Atlanta 7. To unsubscribe from these alerts, please remove your name from this page. — Ganeshk (talk) 01:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

AR Notification

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Battleground Off of Rupert Sheldrake and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,

You are referenced tangentially. The Cap'n (talk) 00:36, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration request declined

The arbitration request involving you (Rupert Sheldrake) has been declined by the Arbitration Committee

The comments made by arbitrators may be helpful in proceeding further. In particular, several arbitrators noted that the article is subject to Discretionary sanctions, so issues should be handled at WP:AE For the Arbitration Committee,--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Michael Shermer discussion

Hi. Can you offer your opinion in this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 17:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Just a test edit

Just a test edit to see how this works — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.43.25.119 (talk) 19:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Additional edit to test. (ETA: still testing). (ETA: third time's the charm). --Krelnik (talk) 20:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Fourth time is the charm. --Krelnik (talk) 21:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Really, fifth. --Krelnik (talk) 21:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Really sixth. --Krelnik (talk) 21:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion of Kobus Van Rensburg

Hi Krelnik, just as an FYI I have started a WP:PROD for Kobus Van Rensburg and noticed you had posted on the pages' talk page, regarding the fact that it was unsourced, and that reliable sources seemed to not be present. I've PROD'd it under the fact that it doesn't even meet WP:BASIC. Just thought you might want to jump-in on the discussion. Thanks! Bped1985 (talk) 20:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Please help with the Christ myth theory article

I am contacting you because you are a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Participants. Could you help us to modify a WP page to bring it to a more fair and balanced state? The "Christ myth theory" article has been hopelessly controlled by Christians who seem desperate to bring skepticism about the historicity of Jesus down to the level of a childish cult or something - they have even tagged the article with categories. " I made a number of copy edits, and added some authors to the Books section, and user User:TMDrew reverted every last one under the excuse "The authors mentioned are not respected scholars in this field" - clearly a violation of WP guidelines. I reverted, then user User:Bill the Cat 7 reverted my edit. I reverted his, he reverted with rationale "Then put them back in without that part. Also, it is a FACT that there is almost universal consensus."
Anyway, your help would be greatly appreciated in combatting obstinate contributors like that who do not follow guidelines - please help.14:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)