User talk:Jokestress

Talk archive

2004 talk archives
2005 talk archives
You may email me directly via my Andrea James site.
Please use the little + option at the top of the page for adding comments, and give your comment a title. Thanks!

Thanks

Just wanted to drop you a random thanks for working on those My Lai biographies since Thompson's death was announced, they're somewhat pet articles in my mind, so I'm glad to see others working on them - and you seem to be doing quite a bit to improve them. My firstborn child of course, for a photograph of Andreotta, I've scoured far too many unit sites looking :( Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 20:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your kind and supportive remarks on Talk:JT_LeRoy--DieWeibeRose ^(talk)07:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aloha Andrea! I wanted to thank you belatedly for involving yourself in the JT LeRoy article as a cooler and wiser head. After noting back in October that I know Mr LeRoy personally, I became subject to various attacks, for instance accusations that I was a sock puppet of Ms Albert or of Grilledcheese. (In another arena, I was attacked by another user as trying to push an agenda re that topic.) Accordingly I thought it best simply to recuse myself from Wikipedia entirely for awhile. Despite all WP's good-conduct policies, some editors approach their chosen subjects with unusual personal venom—your participation helps restore my faith that such things can be contained, and I hope to be returning soon. IslandGyrl 02:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Porter

It's fine that you wanted to make David Porter a disambig page. I've already fixed the redirect mess David Porter (naval officer) was redirectingn to David Porter, which was unhelpful. In any case, how about fixing the redirects now? Jinian 13:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you appear to have perpetuated a mistake. Commodore Porter was not named "David Dixon". His son, Admiral David Dixon Porter, is not "Jr." See [1] and [2] for a fairly authoritative source. And the Marine you mention was a Major General, rather than a Colonel [3]. *sigh* Don't worry. I'll fix it. Jinian 19:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I realize you were acting in good faith. I also realize that this area isn't your forte. Hence my willingness to correct the problem. However, it's important to check more than one web site when making encyclopedic changes, particularly in an area which you are not an authority. Enjoy. Jinian 19:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

subst

Hi Jokestress, Thanks for warning the vandals of the current FA. Please also try to write "subst:" before the test, such as {{subst:test}}, in order to reduce the collective load on the servers. See Wikipedia:Template substitution for more. Thanks again, Banyan Tree 07:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thanks for creating the article on Juan Soriano! Happy editing. -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 15:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just Saying "Hi"

Andrea,

I happened to run across your user page and thought I would say that I am a big fan of your work, especially in the TG community. You and Calpernia set a great example for us all. I loved "TransAmerica" and hope that there will be even more films like it in the years to come. I am Amanda, a CD/TG in Yuma, AZ. My website: http://mandi.g.tripod.com/index.html

Athena2006 05:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feltch-o-meter

Dear Jokestress, I'd like to inform you about the recent changes made to the feltch page that you made. It is infact a common term in and around London, England that a beer funnel is known as a feltch-o-meter. It is also true for one funneling a beer to be said to be feltching it. I was wondering why these changes were infact made and would also like to inform you that I am myself from around the London reigon and know this to be true. Thanks for your time, Mr Cox — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.32.8 (talk • contribs)

Jokestress

Dear Jokestress, thank you very much for you immediate reply to my message. I would like to question why evidence is needed of a term when it is in deffinition 'slang'. I completely understand the amount of vandalism subjected to this site. I also understand that terms used in youth culture are subject to change all the time and that suggesting that lack of evidence is enough for a factual 'slang' term to be dismissed denies the true deffinition of 'slang'. Thank you again for your time, Mr Cox — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.32.8 (talk • contribs)

Good catch!

Looks like you beat me to the Terri O'Connell/J.T. Hayes merge/redirect by about 10 minutes. Great minds think alike and all that. :) At the time, though, I was creating a new article about a person you may have heard of. Which brings up an interesting question: if you're notable enough to have a Wikipedia article about yourself, is it considered bad form to edit that article? Hmmm...

Keep up the good work!

Wwagner 04:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Dictionary of Slang and Euphemism" and Spoo

Can I get a specific reference to footnote, especially for the UCLA paper? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please recuse yourself from editing my bio

You hijacked an obsolete image that I had removed from my site. Then you posted it at a free photo hosting site. Then you linked to it prominently from two Wikipedia articles. Have you ever thought that I might have good reasons for pulling that image? I complained to the free hosting site, and they took it down within a matter of hours. They know a bit more about copyright law than you do, it would seem. Your antics have earned you a place on wikipedia watch. Please stop harassing me. Daniel Brandt 20:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meetup invite

Hi Jokestress,

This is a much nicer note than the one above, I promise. We're having a meetup in Santa Barbara on Saturday at noon. I realize it's short notice, but hey, I'd love to see you there! Angela is in town for a conference. I'm leaving this note for people who went to the last LA meetup and who have recent edits, i.e. haven't gotten burned out on the project yet. Hope you can come! :-) Antandrus (talk) 00:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Fensterwald

Regarding the bio you created for Bernard Fensterwald, it currently states that he attended the "Georgetown University School of Advanced International Studies." There's no such thing, though - SAIS is a graduate institution affiliated with Johns Hopkins, and GU has an undergraduate/graduate school called the School of Foreign Service. Do you know which school he attended? --DMG413 23:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove that Google Groups link to my essay

You installed a new link to a ten-year-old autobiographical essay I wrote. You did this knowing full well that I got the previous link taken down by the library site that posted it illegally. Now I've put in a formal request to Google Groups to remove that essay on privacy grounds. If Google honors my request, you're going to look rather silly. That will make Google, the biggest privacy invader on the planet, not even as invasive as you and Wikipedia. It will also provide an occasion for an extra paragraph, and some snickers from readers, at Wikipedia-Watch. Please take down that link. --Daniel Brandt 68.91.89.75 22:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google has honored my request. This is a warning: one more edit by you on my bio page, regardless of the nature of the edit, and your picture and name, along with Gamaliel's picture and name, will adorn a special box on Google-Watch.org. As you probably know, Gamaliel was the one who dug up this reference in the first place, and I've had a lot of trouble with him invading my privacy. The idea of this new box will be that Google, the worst privacy invader in history, has more respect for my privacy than you two do. Google-Watch gets approximately 50 times as much traffic as the Hivemind page, which the only place on my sites where your names and pictures currently exist. --Daniel Brandt 68.90.179.76 22:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect...

I have to disagree with your notion that my nominations for Google Watch and Public Information Research are in bad faith. They aren't. I was one of those saying that Wikipedia Watch was just as much notable as Brandt's other work to merit its own article. However, since it has been merged into the Daniel Brandt, I felt that now would be the best time to attempt to get Brandt absolutely limited space on Wikipedia, ie: ONE article on him, period. An article that would cover the "relevant" stuff, things such as his work with the 6 (now 7, thanks for reminding me of Scroogle) websites, and not anything regarding his personal information. To therefore suggest I was making a bad faith nomination for them to be deleted on the grounds of notability is therefore absurd. Can you please assume good faith that my intentions are honourable? Jonathan 666 18:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship is bad

Wikipedia Review has been receiving greater notoriety of late due to Wikipedia's censorship of it. It hasn't been fully slashdotted, but its been appearing more regularly. Your attempts to censor it out of places where it belongs only makes matters worse, and will serve as advertising. Consider your actions as the equivalent of slapping a "Warning: Parental Advisory: Explicit Lyrics" on a record. It is only going to encourage it to be used more. And I think we are already at the stage where the site is sufficiently notable for its own article. Using censorship to change fact, in falsely calling Brandt a privacy activist, and falsely claiming that he first posted it on his web site is just stupid. For reference, it went in this order:

1) Posted on Wikipedia Review 2) Reported it to the press, and USA today published it 3) Posted it on Wikipedia Watch

So even if we ignore the Wikipedia Review reference, you've got it in the wrong order anyway. And yes, you can prove that he posted it on WR first. Its very obviously true, and he'll admit that.

De-notorising a notable forum is a bad idea. It only makes it more notable, and it only makes Wikipedia look sillier. You are doing a disservice to Wikipedia in censoring like this. 203.122.195.111 19:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IRC?

Do you know how to come to irc?--Jimbo Wales 04:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I sent you an email, please let me know if you got it. :) --Jimbo Wales 04:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to talk to Jimbo on IRC, you can reach him right now via this link. Let me know if this doesn't work. Ral315 (talk) 04:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Ebner

Yes, because it requires deleting the copyvio'd text it requires an admin, so I've gone ahead and taken care of it. Thanks for the heads up and let me know if you need any more help. --W.marsh 13:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Hasselhoff

Thank you for reverting the stupid David Hasselhoff vandalism by User:wsgweg. How did you do it so fast? How do we wheel in a moderator to template 5 or ban User:WsgWeg?? Or is there no point? - Kittybrewster 18:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How did you do it so fast? Presumably I can't see who has been warned on vandalism of which page and when ? - Kittybrewster 18:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice Work On Anecdotal evidence

Nice job.

^Talk - The Invisible Anon 00:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not pop in to RFC:86.10.231.219/Invisible Anon and say how pleased you are that your work has finally been recognised as good, for whatever reason. YOu have been mentioned there, in connection with that article. Midgley 01:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for Visiting

Nice to get a kind word back. Anecdotal evidence was a subject that had defeated many others over more than 12 months.

Ref "Why not pop in ..." (above) - a complicated RfC on me - it will take a while to respond to by the look of it.

^Talk - The Invisible Anon 02:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]