User talk:Krelnik/Archive 1

Archive of old discussions on Krelnik's talk page

Variety Playhouse

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks, already done. --Krelnik (talk) 23:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I missed that, too busy spitting out the pips. cygnis insignis 00:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch

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

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Rhys Morgan

I have opened up a review of the Rhys Morgan delete decision as a matter of urgency doktorb wordsdeeds 01:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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 wordsdeeds 18:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll reply over on your talk page so you can see it more easily. Krelnik (talk) 18:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Oh cool, I was just looking at it today and thinking, boy this needs a rewrite. Krelnik (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously people? What are the odds? www.theoddsmustbecrazy.com LOL Sgerbic (talk) 04:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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—

Thanks,

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

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)[reply]

Michael Shermer discussion

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

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)[reply]

Additional edit to test. (ETA: still testing). (ETA: third time's the charm). --Krelnik (talk) 20:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fourth time is the charm. --Krelnik (talk) 21:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Really, fifth. --Krelnik (talk) 21:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Really sixth. --Krelnik (talk) 21:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

Mistaken edit at WP:AE

Hello Krelnik. This edit of yours seems to have been a mistake, since it deleted some posts by others, and brought back a complaint about Nableezy that had already been archived. It seems your changes have been reverted, and AE now has the right material again. Just thought you should be aware. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry about that, I had no idea that happened. Thanks for fixing it! -- Krelnik (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tara Hunt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fast Company. 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) 10:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Deception

I accept your critique of my entry - but would much have preferred your help in improving it rather than a blunt and actually unhelpful complete removal.

Since then I re-entered a much-cropped version using my own words and then I added references. These were then removed as 'copyright ?errors' - I do not understand some of this. Booker has made more effort over recent years about the EU and yet his entry shows no such indication - how do I best make a valid entry. As yet I can find few contrary reviews - I get the feeling that positive reviews are seen merely as puffs and must be ignored. Is this true? Please assist in getting at least some of my entry validated. Joking99a — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joking99a (talk • contribs) 18:35, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Joking99a: Yes, I'm sorry about that - many other editors are very quick to remove text, especially large amounts of text, when it appears without discussion in articles. This is unfortunate, but its a side effect of the huge amount of vandalism we get here. Perhaps a change of strategy... A good next step would be to go to the "talk page" for that article - here: Talk:Christopher_Booker. Click the button that says NEW SECTION at the top, and briefly describe why you think it is important to get this into the article. Tell them you'd like some help wording it properly so it would be accepted. You can have a back and forth with other editors and reach a consensus on how to get some text regarding Great Deception into the article. Be sure to sign what you write by typing four tildes (~) in a row at the end. Good luck! --Krelnik (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hofmann's Iron Law

Hi,

Got your nice note, don't know how to email, so let me just point out that in your note you still misspell

J Anton Hofmann's lastname .

Just fyi and something to know going forward. I trust like me you will try to fix this wherever you see it.

Hofmann --- one 'f', two 'n's.

His father was the famous pianist, yes.

David Moran, drmoran@aol.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.44.245 (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for fixing those cites that linked to Tara Haelle. I don't edit as much as I did a few years ago, and I forgotten more Wikipedia shit than I remember. For example, I kept forgetting to use ref tags around cites. So thanks for cleaning up my errors. Now at least I'll remember the author link. LOL SkepticalRaptor (talk) 19:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! I was glad you created Tara Haelle's article, I had noted she didn't have one so she was kind of on my radar. I've put it on my watchlist. Cheers. --Krelnik (talk) 19:33, 8 May 2016 (UT)
Please clean up anything on the article. I just hate writing BLP's, because they've never been my thing on Wikipedia. I prefer science articles. LOL. But after reading her book, I was surprised there was an article for her co-author but not for her. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 19:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Holzer

See the talk-page, he may have invented his credentials. I know your busy with other articles, but if you have a spare moment perhaps you can help trying to dig up some other sources? I will be looking into this and try and improve this article. Thanks. HealthyGirl (talk) 20:16, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your Mackenberg article and work on Amy Tanner and others. I have left some suggestions on the Joseph Rinn article talk-page, also see John Mulholland - it needs serious work. He is a forgotten skeptic. I will see what I can do. HealthyGirl (talk) 14:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As you seem to do good work on Wikipedia on historical individuals related to magic or skepticism - I have a mini-project I want to complete by June. See my sandbox. It involves mostly forgotten individuals or skeptics that are not as well known. I will try and get those articles up to scratch or at least with improvements. I doubt anyone else would be interested but my time on this website is limited so this will be the last project for me, and I would like to have this completed. But feel free to tick off or add any others to the list in my sandbox if this interests you. HealthyGirl (talk) 17:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I checked out your sandbox and put it on my watchlist. I visited a few of the articles and did some mechanical cleanup of the sort that I've been doing alot of lately - marking up with cite templates, adding authority control, removing PERSONDATA, etc. --Krelnik (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Search engine

Hello, Krelnik! I'm trying to improve disambuguation between Web search engine and Search engine (computing). --NaBUru38 (talk) 13:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@NaBUru38 OK, I'll fix it so it wikilinks to web search engine with the old display text. Thanks for the clarification. I'm in that article cleaning up archive dot is links that are deprecated, so I'll do it now.

Max Headroom Hijacking incident

Request semi-protection of the article. It is probably some sort of malicious prank. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:59, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Britt Marie Hermes

Hi there. I am working on improving the draft on Britt Marie Hermes, since the submission has been declined. One reviewer said the article suffers from being "too soon", while another said the content was too promotional of her advocacy. Since you had thanked me for the initial creation of the AfC, would be willing to help me shape up the article for WP standards? Thank you! Medicalreporter (talk) 06:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. It is admittedly hard to make a BLP pass muster when the person is new to the public scene - not enough time for the press to have taken note of her. But I'll see what I can come up with. --Krelnik (talk) 14:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much! Medicalreporter (talk) 09:30, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, a few new sources have been published on Hermes since the time the AfC was decline, and I added these to the text. I am pretty sure that the article meets WP:BASIC. Would you mind helping me to make the text less promotional, so it does not get declined for this reason? Many thanks ahead of time! Medicalreporter (talk) 08:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Email

I can't respond to your email right now, I'll be able to respond at 3:30 EST. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 14:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]