- 1 Recognitions
- 2 Archiving Guide
- 3 Saducismus Triumphatus
- 4 Regarding Paranormal navbox
- 5 How to search subpage trees within Wikipedia
- 6 Re:Mr. Denton on Doomsday
- 7 Thanks for the step by step guide!
- 8 How?
- 9 Adminship
- 10 Thanks!
- 11 I was slightly confused...
- 12 Compliment
- 13 Killing Lincoln list
- 14 Alternative
- 15 Disambiguation link notification
- 16 Your opinions
- 17 A cup of coffee for you!
- 18 Archive of Wikipedia Talk pages
- 19 Star Trek Into Darkness
- 20 "Whitewashing"
- 21 Would you please make it clear that you do not intend any legal action or to encourage others to take legal action
- 22 Disambiguation link notification for July 19
- 23 Disambiguation link notification for August 4
|The Working Man's Barnstar|
|Awarded by Anchoress to 5Q5 for an amazing - and critical - effort expanding and referencing Brazilian waxing. Anchoress 18:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)|
|The Paranormal Barnstar|
|I award you this barnstar for your excellent and detailed work on Psychokinesis. WP needs more editors like you. —— ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)|
Thank you so much for the archiving guide. I was feeling a bit confused by the official WP archiving instructions and your step-by-step guide was brilliant! Thanks!! -Sarfa 17:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- This step-by-step archiving instruction is brilliant, i was having difficulty in archiving my messages which i've received on my talk page, but since i've found this instruction manual which is clearer than the WP archiving instructions, i am now able to archive my talk page when ever i want, i've also printed this instruction manual out so if i forget what to do, I'll use this instruction manual in the future. SKYNET X7000 (talk) 18:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
However you guys want to use it on psychokinesis is fine by me, collapsed, uncollapsed, with or without the pic, etc. I'm going to alter the code so you can swap out pics based on a variable here shortly. After I made it, I thought a "ghost" pic might be a little weird on a "UFO" article, so that's already something I planned on doing. I'll also change it to "the Paranormal" instead of "Paranormal Beliefs", per your idea. I avoided using "Paranormal Phenomena" because other editors have complained in the past that phenomena might be point of view since it implies that some event was actually observed. I thought it was picky too, but since I want the nav box to be actually used, I went safe on it. Wherever you guys think it is appropriate on the psychokinesis page is fine by me. It's meant to be useful and since I don't edit there often I'll leave decisions on where it'd be most useful up to you guys. I'll make those changes I mentioned in a moment. --Nealparr (talk to me) 22:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- You should be able to add a picture too, if you can find one that works for PK. See instructions on Template:Paranormal --Nealparr (talk to me) 23:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- The caption doesn't appear below the picture currently. It's just meant to be text that appears when a user mouses over the image. For example paranormal. When you mouse over the image a tooltip pops up that says "Artist's rendition of a ghost on a staircase." There's not enough room to make the text appear below the picture. Does anything appear when you add a caption and mouse over the picture? Awesome pic btw! --Nealparr (talk to me) 18:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
How to search subpage trees within Wikipedia
You may find this section interesting: Template:Google custom/doc#How to search subpage trees within Wikipedia. It tells how to easily make an archive searchable. Perhaps you would consider mentioning it somewhere under User:5Q5#How to Archive a Talk Page by 5Q5. --Teratornis (talk) 18:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, it looks like you found a problem with Google searches on the Talk: namespace that I did not know about. See my comments in User talk:Teratornis#Search VP?. --Teratornis (talk) 08:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the step by step guide!
I was reading your comments on the Dean Radin talk page and you used the term "biased" review. I also got the impression that you have concluded a review made by one person, which book reviews usually are, can not be trusted. I am curious. What clues do you use to identify a biased review from one that is neutral? And how did you come to the conclusion "a one person" review cannot be trusted? Sometimes when examining a single historical source such as the Church historian,Eusebius of Caesarea this is a question frequently encountered. Is this author telling the "truth?" And, or, the question "WHEN is he telling the truth?" How do you accomplish this? This would be extremely helpful to me in my study of deception. If I have misunderstood you please clarify. Please reply Kazuba (talk) 01:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- [My reply copied from Kazuba's talk page] On my User_talk:5Q5 page you wrote I was reading your comments on the Dean Radin talk page and you used the term "biased" review." I can see where I wrote "biased website" but I don't see where I said the review was biased. If this is about restoring a criticism section to the Radin article, I also wrote I am not opposed to that, but shouldn't being a biographical article, references for statements that appear to be negative must or should be from neutral sources, not an overtly Skeptics website; otherwise, the article could have a Praise section with references from pro-paranormal book reviewers. 5Q5 (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for clearing things up. Once I went to a CSICOP conference. I did not get the impression there was a lot of geniune curiousity. I went because Martin Gardner was supposed to be there and I wanted to meet him in the flesh. But his wife, Charlotte, was ill. Martin told me over the phone that when he was writing his Urantia book, Charlotte asked,"Why? No body has heard of them." Martin replied, something like,"They are just so strange I HAVE to write about them." There are some strange animals out there. I have been told by Wikipedia I am not allowed to comment on Dean Radin any more any where. When I brought up the University of Las Vegas mess Radin blew his top. I'd sure like to know what that was all about. Radin called it selective history. So it goes. Too bad, he says and does some very odd things. I found this very interesting: A look inside a spoon bending party. I cannot imagine why Radin never brought up the name of Jack Houck, when Radin wrote about his own bent spoon. I cared. Kazuba (talk) 05:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I see you've been an editor here since 2006, and you've made a fair bit of edits, including a great many in the mainspace and article talk page sectors, so I was wondering if you ever though about running for adminship. I'm currently trying out WP:Admin coaching myself, and aside from the fact that my coach has gone AWOL for a great period of time, it appears to be a smooth process that may be effective in some cases. Based on your edits, I don't think you'd have any problem passing, and I think you'd make an outstanding admin. :) GO-PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 02:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I was slightly confused...
I'm not sure if it is just me, since others found your archive instructions to be very clear, but I was confused when I got to the area about deleting the content of my talk page. Don't I need to copy and move it first? I think if the template moves stuff that is a certian age or whatever, maybe a line or two for people who are REALLY slow with code, like me, would help greatly.
On the plus side, your instructions allowed me to create the archive page, which is more than the Wiki instructions did. I just couldn't figure out how to get my stuff to the page. It has since been finished, with much help.
Just wanted to say that your asterisked note at X-Men: First Class was an inspired way of getting all the information in about the dual names in an accurate, neutral way. My compliments to you. That was really sharp editing. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 22:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Killing Lincoln list
I started a dispute resolution about the list here: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Killing_Lincoln_error_list_original_research. Input is welcome. Thanks Mathewignash (talk) 16:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I know you worked hard on your corrections list for Killing Lincoln, and I admire that, even if I don't agree that it's supposed to be on Wikipedia. I do understand that people might want to view this list in researching the book. I might offer an alternative. There is a web site called Wikialpha.org which has much more open guidelines about article subject, no real notability requirements. Perhaps you could start an article called "Inaccuracies in Killing Lincoln" for your list? Mathewignash (talk) 17:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Hilary Swank, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Seal (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.
If you have the time, it would be interesting to get your opinion on this article: Morya (Theosophy), I consider it one of the worst articles on wikipedia, I believe articles should be improved but this article is not worth working on. It is filled with original research from top to bottom, no third party reliable references at all, nothing. Last month or so I submitted it to be deleted, but at the last minute a Theosophist entered the debate and it was two votes to one, so I lost out. This user agreed he would try and help the article but as predicted he has since not logged in. The article is mostly copy and paste from two Theosophist books not notable at all, absolute wild claims and crank talk, it is hard to even understand what the article is saying, you would have to be an experienced Theosophist to understand it all. Most of the articles content is already found on the Ascended Master article, so I do not see why we need the article at all, as it is mostly original research and fringe pushing from the Theosophist crowd and copied material.
On another completey different topic, as you seem to know about psychokinesis you might be interested in a book by John L. Randall titled Psychokinesis: a study of paranormal forces through the ages, it is the only book on a complete history of psychokinesis :) GreenUniverse (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
A cup of coffee for you!
|Thanks for the "How to Archive a Talk Page".Sir, how much time it takes to delete the content after archiving the page. enjoy! Zeeyanketu (talk) 19:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)|
Archive of Wikipedia Talk pages
Do you know of any archive that includes a possibly extensive recording of Talk-pages discussion? In an ideal world.., these would be recordings of possibly long/extensive discussion, centered around a relatively small subset of Wikipedia articles: 10k-100k. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 15:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- For active articles with talk pages, you can access the history log by clicking on the link at the top of each talk page. I don't know why the decision was made on the following two deleted-article archive sites not to include the talk pages. Maybe to save space storage space. Nostalgia Wikipedia and Deletionpedia I think if there was a deleted talk page archive site it would be included as a See also link on Help:Archiving a talk page. If you ever find a link for a deleted talk page archive, place it there. 5Q5 (talk) 18:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Star Trek Into Darkness
Regarding Star Trek Into Darkness, you said you read reviews for the film. (I'm avoiding them myself.) Were there any that talked about Cumberbatch being Khan? I was not sure if his character was explicitly identified as such or if the similarity was just about overt? I just rejected a change at the article to identify Cumberbatch as Khan but wanted to know if there are any reliable sources that could be used to clarify the matter. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, just saw your message now. I'm assuming you know already the Khan issue has been further discussed on the STID talk page with confirming sources. Thanks 5Q5 (talk) 12:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
This topic is closed.
The following is an uninvited carry-over discussion from Talk:Star_Trek_Into_Darkness#Khan_Noonien_Singh_Whitewashed_-_Articles_You_May_Wish_to_Include., which discussed placing in the article a sourced mention of the controversy of the filmmakers' changing the previous non-white character of Kahn to a white character in the 2013 film.
As promised, here I am. There is a pretty good reason that white folks don't mind when characters that were previously white are changed to be non-white. There has never been a shortage of on-screen roles for white actors, white people have never been excluded or marginalized by Hollywood, and white characters have never been systematically subjected to racist portrayals in Hollywood films. In short, the white experience in Hollywood is so vastly different from that of non-whites, that it is ludicrous to consider changing characters from non-white to white as at all similar to changing them from white to non-white. I'm sure there are some fringe white supremacist groups who care about it, but thats about it. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 16:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I never asked a question or invited discussion on my talk page of this non-Wikipedia topic.
On the Star Trek Into Darkness talk page between April 28, 2013 and May 20, 2013 (23 days), there were edits from 10 separate IP addresses, all having the same ISP: Bell Aliant, and all from Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada:
Either that is quite a coincidence or a possible violation of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Another editor on the Into Darkness talk page also noticed this. As unregistered editors, however, they seem to know a lot more about how Wikipedia works than newbies with a small numer of beginning edits, suggesting possibly a banned editor with greater experience. I do not have the time to engage in lengthy pointless discussions with unregistered editors. This section is being collapsed. This topic is closed. 5Q5 (talk) 17:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Would you please make it clear that you do not intend any legal action or to encourage others to take legal action
- Any Admin can detect rev/del'd and Oversighted deletions. As there are none either on the talk page or your contributions (during this time frame) it appears that you never actually managed to save your edit. That has happened to me far too often for my liking. You are welcome to ask other Administrators. Dougweller (talk) 15:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Scanners, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rue Morgue. 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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Crush, Texas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cowboys & Indians. 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.
- Fixed, I've repaired the link to go to Cowboys & Indians (magazine).