User talk:5minutes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I've trimmed my talk page. Enjoy the archives.

Roxx Productions[edit]

Hi, I've checked my logs but didn't find any article by that name deleted by me. Roxx Productions has never existed, do you have the original URL? Bjelleklang - talk 19:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. User:5minutes/Rowe_Productions. Bjelleklang - talk 22:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Editors Barnstar Hires.png The Editor's Barnstar
I am a huge fan of Ted Kirkpatrick. I know that from time to time he sells autographed CDs and such, but what would it take to actually be able to meet him or at least talk to him? If that's out of the question, do you think you can give him a message from me?

You see, his music was a huge help to me as a new convert. Music has always been a big part of my life (metal), and when I got saved, it was Ted's music that worked as a substitution. I always heard that as a Christian, when you give something up that's negative, it's good to substitute it with the things of God. And Ted's music allowed me to do just that. I bought every one of his albums, and Vanishing Lessons was by far my favorite. I even liked Crawl to China (even though some of my friends didn't).

I would like to thank him for his many, many contributions to my spiritual relationship with Jesus Christ, and let him know just what a difference he made. Samuel Rosenbalm (talk) 14:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


Steven Crowder[edit]

There are major problems with the article, information repeating, etc. I did as you asked, proposed changes on the page you created hoping to reach "consensus". I still don't understand why others can correct obvious mistakes on their own but I am to seek consensus, but am following your advice. How long should I leave the broken entry up until I correct obvious errors and typos? I honestly don't know...24 hours? That's why before I just fixed it and went on...to leave obvious problems up needlessly doesn't seem user-friendly or logical. But I certainly would rather have a consensus than have my corrections repeatedly reverted JUST because *I* made them, as in the past. Thanks, I sincerely respect your approach and obvious attempt to be fair and factual. JohnKAndersen (talk) 23:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)JohnDAndersen


  • Thank you for your most recent version of the Crowder entry. I did have two minor points that I added on the talk page you set up for it. I appreciate your patience and striving for balance. I hope to find a free-license photo (I've asked which one(s) can be used) to flesh out the page even more. Not sure how to add a pic, but I will figure it out as I go along as I have everything else. :)

I don't know if there is a way to add "kudos" to your account (I've seen others that have been "discipliend") but would like to do so. Now that this issue is nearly resolved, I look forward to looking at many of the articles you've written! Very interesting topics that I wouldn't have come across unless we'd met over editing this subject. Thanks again, JohnKAndersen (talk) 23:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen

  • I feel our disagreements on the Crowder page are going nowhere and becoming personal. I have agreed to eliminate the quote completely as you and Maximusveritas have suggested. Can we please consider that a consensus and resolve this minor issue, rather than it becoming a battle of the wills? I'm sure we both would like to move on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnKAndersen (talkcontribs) 05:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • It's not personal. I'm just trying to help you understand the way things work at WP. Consensus is not a once-and-done thing. 5minutes (talk) 13:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • You asked for a RS newspaper article where Dunnings' dealings with the unions were brought into question. Here is just one with a quick google, even union members who had already pleaded GUILTY had their legal, filed pleadings reversed and charges dropped. Opinion?

http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/article/20130321/NEWS04/303210067/No-charges-against-3-arrested-right-work-protest-Dec-11 and someone else posted a 2nd source on the NPOV page.JohnKAndersen (talk) 08:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen


  • You've repeatedly said you agree with me regarding Dunnings' and his probably motivation for releasing charges on all the union members, and went through it in detail a couple of times (actually making the connection in detail that I never did). Although you described it to others as "conspiracy fodder". Curious. In any case, don't you think that the above sources make the connection? And also, I believe it was you that identified Dunnings as a Democrat, are you going to stand on your principles of what is fair?JohnKAndersen (talk) 11:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen


Nomination of Steven Crowder for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Steven Crowder is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Crowder until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.Rogerthat94 (talk) 09:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


Steven Crowder[edit]

I am, in good faith, approaching you to ask to please retain the consensus page that we worked so hard on together and you vigorously defended in the deletion debates. RogerThat94 has not commented nor participated in any discussions nor defended any of his changes to the article. Obviously edits can be made, but I'm sure you can see the overwhelmingly negative tone of his article using only anti-conservative sources and quotes, destroying any neutrality that we had so carefully honed. It was clearly created only because he lost those deletion debates with you (which is violation of BLP; creating a page with the sole intent of disparaging the subject). Why would he create a whole page for someone he has multiple times argued doesn't DESERVE an article? So he can then nominate his own article for deletion? As an outspoken conservative and Christian, Crowder is bound to be a target. I don't know what RogerThat94's obsession is with either deleting his article (or trashing him when that didn't work) but it clearly is horribly biased, even if nicely formatted. I'm not opposed to edits of course, only feel that the procedure we established to avoid edit wars should be followed. Just want to be fair, neutral, and accurate, as we had done in our consensus. Thanks,JohnKAndersen (talk) 03:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen

  • So much for attempting civil discussion as advised by an admin. We HAD worked and achieved as close to an NPOV article as possible, until this VERY skewed version was written. You obviously have no inention of "backing away" and I will not be bullied by you, (why don't YOU back away?) as I allowed myself in the past while TRYING to achieve a consensus, which I CLEARLY understand is not a "one and done" thing as I have said repeatedly. Only that changes should be DISCUSSED, as YOU dictated during the process. (Talk about page ownership; you drove this from day one and I gave EVERY concession.) So you suddenly are on the side of the biased person who you battled to keep the page. Curious. Oh well. I tried in good faith and was insulted and dismissed out of hand "by someone who understands Wiki policies and standards". Yeah. Okay. Great example.JohnKAndersen (talk) 01:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen

Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request[edit]

Greetings. Because you participated in the August 2013 move request regarding this subject, you may be interested in participating in the current discussion. This notice is provided pursuant to Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Notability of Ted Kirkpatrick[edit]

I've started a discussion at Talk:Ted Kirkpatrick#Notability; your input is welcome. (See also WP:BRD – the absence of consensus on its own is a poor reason to revert an edit.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

June 2014[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Epeefleche. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Ted Kirkpatrick, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Per wp:burden, please feel free to restore challenged uncited material, but only if you provide the requisite inline RS ref. Thanks. Epeefleche (talk) 23:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
Good for you being a Christian! Godisgood737 (talk) 13:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)