User talk:Jokestress/2006

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)

Thanks

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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, BanyanTree 07:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

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

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

IRC?

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Nice Work On Anecdotal evidence

Nice job.

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

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)

On the 11th April the user giving the appearance of being registered as The Invisible Anon had and expressed a different opinion of that work. User_talk:Pansophia&diff=prev&oldid=47883947 "the hilarious mess made of Anecdotal evidence". After the posting of RFC:86.10.231.219/Invisible Anon|this RFC, however, User:86.10.231.219 (appearing as though he is the Invisible Anon etc) praised it as a "nice job". You may wish to evaluate the comments for sincerity in the light of the proximate cause and the past history of that article. Midgley 19:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

You just don't like how real I keep it

I tell the truth, and nothing short of it. I'm merely paraphrasing Sailer's words without the political correctness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.170.77.92 (talk • contribs) (in reference to Steve Sailer)

You might be interested in this conversation...

User_talk:Dstanfor#Xeni_Jardin_additions --Kickstart70-T-C 22:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand. I personally don't care for her, but I've made a serious commitment to NPOV and attempting to ensure this and other rather argumentative pages stick to that. For some reason this makes people believe I am a supporter or friend of Xeni's. :^/ --Kickstart70-T-C 23:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The great part about wikipedia is that it looks like you are talking behind someone's back at the same time that you're posting where everyone can see. Perhaps we can keep talk about the xeni page or the xeni talk page ON the xeni talk page? Dstanfor 21:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you are making an accusation or not. Note that I brought someone IN to the conversation, not excluded anyone. Also note that you participated in discussing this OFF the Xeni Jardin page. Sure, let's keep talking on the XJ talk page, but don't assume we have some secret conspiracy against you or other editors. The divisiveness of the whole situation is a real hindrance to editing consensus. --Kickstart70-T-C 22:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Your comments in the Xeni Jardin discussion

Could you please explain why on earth on a discussion page for an article you are telling me not to use the word 'you' when I am directly addressing yourself? --Gerardm 00:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

new articles

Are the two new articles on rising tide studios and silicon alley reporter really necessary? Dstanfor 07:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Xeni Jardin RfC

I have read your comment that you started editing Xeni Jardin in the first place as a non-partisan editor, and have noted some of your edits such as this one that have been helpful towards a NPOV. I would be interested in any points that you might have to help me towards a fuller understanding of the issues, as you've obviously been involved in it, and in particular how you think the article should be framed now, bearing in mind all the heated debate. Tyrenius 02:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me for butting in. I think the main issue we're dealing with is that a set of editors wants to include criticism of Jardin's work on the page, but are having a hard time finding cites for the criticism that another set of editors believes are reliable. Part of this difficulty revolves around the fact that Ms. Jardin is mostly notable for Boing Boing, a blog she co-edits, so most of the criticism appears on other blogs. Xenisucks.com is the focus right now because it's main focus is Jardin parody and criticism. Dstanfor 04:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jokestress. I've replied to Dstanfor on their talk page. However, can I take it that you consider the criticisms as currently included are imbalanced and POV editing? I've suggested they are better dealt with in the Boing Boing article. Tyrenius 05:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Re. notability of Xenasucks - we're not assessing it for its own article, just whether it is relevant as a minor aspect of another article, and that requires a much lower criterion. The fact that Xeni Jardin has (apparently) commented on it, certainly makes it valid for inclusion. My main concerns are whether this article is the right one - as opposed to Boing Boing where criticism is not even mentioned - and also to achieve a balance. See my reply on Dstanfor's talk page. It will be interesting to see what the RfC brings up, if its left to its own devices for a while. Tyrenius 06:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, your reference is what I am going by. As to Jardin's motives for comment, or the wiseness or otherwise of doing so, that is not our business. The fact is that she did. Tyrenius 06:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I've read through all the comments on the mailing list. However, I can't find a clear consensus on some of the problematic points in Xeni Jardin, beyond what is already stated in WP:BLP, which is still open to a degree of interpretation. What struck me from the posts is that the only reliable answer is a consensus from well-intentioned editors, and I think we must strive to bring out the best in all involved editors in order to achieve this.Tyrenius 04:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Obviously there has been some undesirable conflict and an element of PA, but we must seek to draw a line under that and start afresh, so all editors have the chance to base themselves on a "well intentioned" stance. I think that any that do not take this opportunity will be shown up clearly. I don't want to add a link on the Xeni Jardin talk page at the moment to the mailing list for various reasons 1) it starts off addressing negative action, which only brings it up again 2) it doesn't provide a clear consensus which can be directly applied 3) the key interested editors are watching my talk page and can see the link there anyway 4) I want to start a new initiative on a sub page (in preparation) 5) it is an indirect posting from an interested editor, which might be seen as unfair by other interested editors who have refrained from commenting under the suggestion for a 5 day breathing space. I hope you feel this is justified. If it becomes particularly pertinent, then I certainly will post it, and if resolution is not reached, then you can bring it into talk yourself. Tyrenius 05:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

User:WAS 4.250 has quoted Jimbo, so I've put up the Mailing list link to give the full context.Tyrenius 18:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Re. Greasemonkey: I think it's relevant to both articles, but more to the point is the attempt to find a middle path between editors. I'll stick with it for now and see what other responses there are. Tyrenius 07:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I need your more information and permission to put related pictures on the article on Deep Stealth Productions

Hi Jokestress, I started the article on the company founded by you and Calpernia Addams, since I live in Asia, I can not find much information regarding it. So I need your help with it and I also need your permission to put the related picutres in the article.

hope to hear from you soon Unitedroad 12:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks alot Jokestress for replying back. I corrected the part about the number of visitors your site gets annually. I need to know whether I should remove the picture which you don't hold the copyright to immediately or should I wait so that you can make a another picture available to me which has a more appropriate license and can be used for this article? I am waiting for you to give me more sources but I will also try to find sources for this article on my own also. Anyway thanks alot again for replying back to me. Unitedroad 17:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jokestress I apologise for taking so long to work on this article again. I have added the relevant information for the article from the links you gave me. I will finally search more information on the net myself to make it more complete.

Please tell me your views on the progress on the article till now. Tell me if I have gone wrong somewhere. I think it no longer needs the stub marking.

Unitedroad 11:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Sprigging

Hello Jokestess, after starting the Sprigging article I came to realize that the term has another meaning which I was not aware of and which you had used and red-linked in the John Astbury article. I've edited that link to point to Sprigging (decorative) and hope that you can find the time to make that link blue and then I'll add a dab note at the top of the Sprigging article. Thanks :-) --hydnjo talk 00:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! Per your request, I wrote an introductory article on the pottery decoration and put disambigs on each. Jokestress 01:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, that was fast! Thank you, hydnjo talk 02:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I want your help

On merging the articles Autogynephilia and Homosexual transsexual. I have created a post merger article on Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory of GID. I intend to redired the former two articles to this third article. Any input you have will be appreciated. Without objections I will execute this plan at this time tommorrow. --Smartgirl62 23:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot

I'm very glad you corrected my mistake. I guess I saw that there were only a couple of names not listed alphabetically and, failing to realize that "verbatim" denoted the list's order in addition to the content of the entries, I assumed they were simply editing errors. In retrospect, my misinterpretation seems a bit foolish. You can rest assured I'll not make the same mistake again and that I'll be more cautious before making such corrections in the future. Once again, thank you for rectifying my oversight. -- Raoul Duke 06:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

ProD warnings

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article ‎Arthur Nixon, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Importance). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree, discuss the issues raised at Talk:‎Arthur Nixon. If you remove the {{dated prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Fram 09:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Harold Nixon, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Importance). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree, discuss the issues raised at Talk:Harold Nixon. If you remove the {{dated prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Fram 09:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I don't see myself as a deletionist, but I do feel that there is too much clutter in Wikipedia. I don't agree with your precedent (the Lincoln artcle is only a few weeks old, and I'll put it for deletion as well: I hadn't seen it before). I'll put the two Nixon articles up for AfD, and then we'll have precedents. People who are not even mentioned on the main page (i.e. Richard Nixon) or only very briefly (Abraham Lincoln), and have no claim to faim except for theor relation to someone famous (as in those cases) ... I see no reason at all why they would have a separate page. I think an article about Richard Nixon's youth or Richard Nixon's family (if not OR) may be better, but the current situation is to me not good.

As for the Zorglub article: while I think it is a pity that people who know something about Belgian comics make a page for a major character, when so many artists and comics dont have an article yet, I don't feel that he should not be in Wikipedia. He is the title hero of three Spirou et Fantasio comics, and played a role in different other ones. He is for European comics what Professor Moriarty is for detective stories: the main villain in a defining series, created by a grandmaster. I have 487,000 Google hits for "Zorglub", and 793 for Arthur Nixon (and 9 for Arthur Burdg Nixon). Fram 12:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Salutations!

Hey, Jokestress!
Saw your name come up on my watchlist for editing Frank Nixon. Haven't talked to you in a while. How are you? What else besides Mr. Nixon have you been working on? PedanticallySpeaking 15:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Edward Lincoln

• Thanks for the heads up.--YankeeDoodle14 04:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Your help requested

Hello Jokestress. I am contacting you because you have had success in helping deal with contentious subject matter on Wikipedia, and have a positive track record in defusing heated debates. If you would not mind, please review the ongoing discussion at Talk:Armando (blogger) as well as the related deletion debate. Thank you for your consideration, Silensor 20:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Bill Dedman

I ran across the article Bill Dedman, which is being deleted. You expanded it but the material was removed. do you know if it's a legitimate article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.52.167.156 (talk • contribs)

Armando (blogger)

I'm on wikibreak till the 5th as of this note-- didn't want you to think I was blowing you off. Vacation beckons! Jokestress 06:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I hope that you enjoyed your wikibreak (celebrating Independence Day?) The Armando case has since moved to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation, please see Talk:Daily Kos as well. A neutral third party to all this would be quite refreshing. Silensor 17:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome back! Now that the issue is in RFM, I'm not sure what my input would be. However, I have seen quite a few of these kinds of vindictive articles, especially on highly volatile issues, notably partican politics. The attempts to cause Armando problems by publishing this information seems similar to the tactics favored by some Wikipedia critics (outing Brian Chase, SlimVirgin, Katefan0, etc.). As long as the info appears in a notable, verifiable publication (not a blog or something like that), it seems that it should be included. As I learned from the Xeni Jardin article controversy, one thing with bloggers is that they think that all blogs are equally notable, especially when they are criticizing a blogger. The blogosphere is this weird overheated subculture with a lot of people who think it's way more important than it is... kinda like a certain online encyclopedia. ;) So, I haven't checked the sources, but if the name has appeared in something like the New York Times, then

yes, it should be included. If not, then no. Those are my thoughts as a completely disinterested (and uninterested) party. Jokestress 00:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

That is my concern. Several reliable sources have published this persons name; outlets such as National Public Radio, The Majority Report, and later Talking Points Memo. As strange as it sounds, Armando has been referred to by his full name on several occassions by the press as far back as late 2005, but now that it is on Wikipedia, all the sudden it becomes a problem and something we can't talk about. Weird. Anyhow, thank you for your dis/uninterested advice, I promise not to trouble you with this headache any longer.  ;-) Silensor 01:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Adding references

Sorry if I have added advertising material. I have some articles on some of these subjects and would like to suggest adding references. How do I suggest a suitable reference? Does it matter if these references point to articles in German and French?

For example this reference and site does not sell anything.

http://www.nutranews.org/eng/index.php?articleid=2282

This is a more recent French page

http://www.nutranews.org/fra/index.php?page=about

Thanks and sorry

Nick — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Taylor1 (talk • contribs)

Jokestress new questions

Hi Jokestress Thanks for your comments. Found the style manual a little daunting but when I went through it, it all made sense. I thought Nutranews was good because it had many references and it was also in several different languages. By the way I have published 56 books (under Krish Bhaskar, K N Bhaskar) but have become interested in alternative medicine and natural nutritional supplements. I am still experimenting so I made lots of changes and then edited them all out as I couldn’t get the links to work yesterday and then found out that I could today.

Now the new question is .... solved it. Thanks

Nick Nick Taylor1 08:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Hoodia

I to award this barnstar to you in appreciation of the great cleanup you have done to hoodia, in addition to your many other fine contributions. --Ed (Edgar181) 18:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Spam links

Re: bus advertising and wrap advertising - I will keep my eye on these as well. --... discospinster _talk 18:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Notability

The guidelines state:

"The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself."

It's pretty plain English to me. So when multiple articles have been cited, why do you arbitrarily discount them?

Either follow-up the guidelines or don't quote them to people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azure123 (talk • contribs)

LOL - you have plenty of excuses. But I'm glad that you are a self-proclaimed expert on whose notable in our industry. You should add it to your list of expertise along with film, literature, and hair removal. (And my comment, which you took out of context, was in reference to 3M, which is a supplier, not a vendor or competitor of ours.)

Sprint Nextel has an entire page to themselves, yet they meet none of the criteria that you have asked for. They're not first in anything. They're not the biggest in anything. They're not first in anything. And they're not the only ones to do anything. So obviously you editors are a joke making stuff up as you go along.

Amazing - you changed the criteria yet again. First it was independent articles (which is in the WP guidelines). Then you made up the first, best or only rule. Now finally, you cite sales revenues and google entries. I haven't heard such a circular BS arguement in a long time. I guess that they don't have very high standards in editor selection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azure123 (talk • contribs)

Intersexuality

yeah well the usenet post came from different sources and it was a quote which meant i was not stating it as the main point but as a non-neutral stated opinion... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxsta (talk • contribs) (moved from my user page)

DYK

On July 16, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Roy Smeck, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Cactus.man ✍ 16:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Pioneer Fund

Thanks for your diligent edits to Pioneer Fund and related topics. It's a dry subject, so editor involvement is always encouraged. Especially when the contributions are as good as yours. Cheers, -Will Beback 09:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, as it happens, I do live in an undiscloded location somewhere near Griffith Park. :0 Regarding the user: someone else caught him first. Feel free to give a holler if you need any administrative tasks handled. Cheers, -Will Beback 05:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Barrett Talk Page Reversions

I understand. But it ought somehow to be obvious to newcomers that Levine, who is still quite active on the talk page of the article at least, plays fast & loose with factual material & standard honest citation practice, including the unsavory fact of plagiarism. RubyQ 23:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Xeni Sucks redivivus

Re. link, I've left a note on 71.39.78.68's talk page. Tyrenius 05:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Lee Pace

Thought you'd want to see. Might need some work, but I hope I did him justice...-Bri 17:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for hrlp with the refrencing. I was a bit iffy on that. -Bri 19:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Die, Mommie, Die!

Andrea, would you please take a look at the article when you get a chance? You have a better eye for 'Wiki-detail' and it feels like I'm missing something... Plus, I thought you might like to know that Die, Mommie, Die! is now on Wikipedia! -- I couldn;t believe it wasn't!-Bri 20:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Gottfredson

Hey Jokestress, I don't see online information on Gottfredson's marriage. Can I ask the source?--Nectar 05:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Congrats (and thanks) for getting all those links blue at MSoI :) --Nectar 13:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

in re: J. Michael Bailey

I do not agree with the 'Negative POV' remarks on the above article and have added my thought on that subject to the articles's talk page. But I am not that 'wiki'-savvy. How do you go about having the dispute rectified and that box 'formally' removed? Thank you CyntWorkStuff 19:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

John Ogbu

thought you might be interested in writing a John Ogbu article. [4] --Rikurzhen 21:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

classifying biographies

fyi: i'm adding wikiproject biography tags to the msoi and i:nau biographies. --Rikurzhen 03:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

lancen bass

saw it on TV Nsync:Driven on VH1

comment?

Hey Jokestress, want to weigh in? Talk:Race_and_intelligence#Request_for_Comment:_Journals_in_the_field --Nectar 21:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I already have asked them and recieved their reply

They peg me as an HSTS. Based mostly on my physical appearance. They can look at me and see that I have not masculinized. They can see my size and shape and see that I have trouble passing for a male. I have talked to two of them in various forums. (plus I pass the Karen_A test. If Karen_A likes you then you must be raging AGP who could care less about passing. if she doesn't like you then no conclusion :-) ). But know this even if they did peg me as an AGP I would still argue that their point of view is just as valid as anyones and deserves to be heard. Even if I disagree with some of their more strident opinions. I feel they need to be heard. Theirs is a voice that has been missing from most of the discourse on this matter. Just as I tell them that I feel you have a valid opinoin that deserves to be heard and presented not suppressed. So take a deep breath and relax.--Hfarmer 01:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Ha I thought so, about karen_A being rahter antisocial. For a while I thought it was just me. But I have came across someone who fits the description of one of the transkids in another forum. One devoted solely to Generation x and Y transitioners. I dont know. I take things said on the internet as a whole as worth the weight of a flea anyway. Perhaps I will see you around town. :-) In particular if you are aroung UIC. --Hfarmer 03:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)edited--Hfarmer 05:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC).

Mahalo!

Hey Jokestress, thanks for the barnstar! It's been a bit over a year since I started, and sometimes I still feel like a n00b, but I've learned a lot and hope to keep learning more. Your kind note is greatly appreciated! --JereKrischel 15:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Loan/Lend

I apologize then. LaszloWalrus 17:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Something I want you to realize in the way some of your writings read.

Jokestress, Ms. James I can feel where you are comming from in many of your edits of things on this topic. But I cannot sympathize with the intent apparent in some of your writing. For example in this very article I believe you write

Transsexual people exhibit the full range of possible sexual orientations and interests. Some maintain a consistent orientation throughout their lives, in some cases even remaining with the same partner through transition. In other cases, their choices in sexual partners may change after transition.

Further if you did not write it you certainly do not object to it's POV or requier that it be quoted from some other source.

This all seems to be geared to massage the ego of a certain audience. An audience of other transsexuals that transition quite late in life and really always felt under assult as if their Dysphoria was not genuine because they like women. I have noticed said slant in everything you write on the matter. Every article becomes a rail against the taxonomy. Every article becomes a essay on the virtue of those transsexuals brave enough to wait until 40 to being HRT. Every article becomes a back handed slap in the face of those who are none of that.

Perhaps you have never heard this in the non-confrontational way I am trying to say this right now. Many things you write on TS-ism come off as an attack on the young. I even recall your website on which you sell your matterials once said something like (below a picture of a young TS woman) "Passing, passing, passing, then she speaks." This was, I recall, once on the page where you sell your voice course matterials. Such may have been truthful but why do that? Why cast aspersions on such a person in such a public way?

It is like sometimes, you write things which deprecate and discount the experience of the younger classical transsexual in favor of the new fangled older transsexual which has been made possible by modern medicine. --Hfarmer 14:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the long reply.

Your reply shows you have taken me for the most part just as intended and as I am. It is very possible that I misremembered what was on your web page for it would have been a while ago. I am very very sorry. The very fact this is written communication makes it all sound so harsh. Further when I wrote the above it was late here. I plead insomnia and bad memory..

Also apologies for the length of this reply as I have spent much time trying to shorten it. I cannot leave out anything without compounding the misunderstanding so here it all is.

You discussed my motivations for using the BBL binary. Here are my honest reasons for feeling as I do about it. :-| My feelings on this BBL theory are rooted in my religious views and my fear of Borderline personality disorder which I was diagnosed with while in a psych hospital.

I am a Muslim. I have basically been into Islam since the Million Man March. I looked at other religions but eventually settled on Islam. (Racist events in 2001 and 2002 precipitated that which were in respose to 9/11/01). Islamic law has a certain point of view on transsexualism. It also says there are two types. A transsexual in whom femininity is not put on it is innate and cannot be successfully suppressed, and one who puts on femininity for immoral purposes. Though even if it seems innate he should at least try to suppress it thus proving it to be so irrepressible if he fails. (See Mukhannathun) If I rate HSTS I must transition and have SRS or I go to hell if I do not. If I rate autogynehpile I must not and if I do i go to hell. If I lie or deceive in this determination then I really believe I would burn in hellfire. A great psychological incentive to not lie or deceive.

I found out about that, and for my own reasons, felt it was necessary to do some real soul searching. I also discounted my memory and searched for hard evidence of my being HSTS or AGP. I found much more hard evidence for my being HSTS than AGP. Consider the predictors you have sourced recently. Being of non-white race, childhood behavior problems, preference for men, evidence of an early feminine gender identity, First hormones at 13, final legal transition right at 25 (changed driver license from male to female doable in IL with only a letter from a doctor saying you will eventually have SRS) ,even the reaction of my endocrine system to estrogens all cited in the article “Homosexual transsexual” are qualities I exhibit, and can prove with documents, video , and pictures were noticed by others a long time ago. The only things that do not fit are that I am a scientist by training and that I gave sex with women a try. (I cannot find evidence that I had sex with either of the women I think I did btw. One denies it, the other is out of contact but I am sure I did. Why trust my memory for this point more than for points towards my being HSTS? :-/). As a male I was as homosexual as Elton John. Therefore as a transsexual I must be a homosexual transsexual. Given equal weight what is seen on my very web page “bio” many points to two in favor of me being a HSTS, Classic, primary, (whatever the psychs decide to call it this year) transsexual. {sarcasm}Whoo who! I am better suited to prostitution and thievery! {/sarcasm}

I will admit this. I also would not like being put in the same group that John Mark Karr would have to be in if he were in fact a transsexual. Mr. Karr with his weird fantasies, pedophilia , long marriage and ability to live happily as a male with no whiff of homosexuality would be the poster child for autogynephilia. I even feel bad about putting the typical harmless Barney Rubble in a dress type in that group but so many have placed themselves there by their own admission.  :-( The range of people that are autogyehphiles would have to be as wide as the grand canyon to fit good decent people in the same box as that weirdo. A good argument in itself for creating a third category for people like Mr. Karr call them “messed up bastard transsexuals”. So yes there is an element of not wanting to be like such people in any way.

There was that possibility that perhaps I was fooling myself. I was so autogynephilic and obsessed that I was distorting immensely and even unknowingly forged Polaroids of myself as a child. Or more of a concern that I had been diagnosed with Borderline personality disorder once. So I could be fooling myself about being Ts period. So I went to the Howard Brown health center again and asked my psychologist to diagnose me as agp or hsts or neither and to be honest with whatever the outcome was because I needed to know for sure. I was given a big long test over about five weeks. If I was systematically distorting I must have been a real jhonny memonic to recall how I answered this or that form of such and such a question and give a consistent answer and do so without any slight hesitation. Because if one hesitates to think of all that the answer is disregarded. So I just gave my honest spontaneous answers. Then scored as a HSTS would.

Finally this is in accordance with the determination I got from the Howard Brown Health center which is and was {hint} associated with Northwestern Universities psychology dept.{/hint} when I went there for treatment in summer of 2000 19 going on 20 years old. That time it was based on my psych records from my behavior observed in a mental hospital, and my psych records from 3rd throuh 12th grades. It would be odd for the passage of time to change ones basic sexual character in that way.

In a communication much earlier you brought up my keeping my given name as a sign of autogynephilia. As though it were masculine. This is what my name means according to the urban dictionary. “ hontas: A womans vag. Also known as an axe wound, beaver, cooter, clam, box, muff, slit, snatch, or many other terms. Did you see that sexy indian girl? God I wanna poke some hontas.

Interesting in light of how I have been introducting myself all this time. “My name is Hontas said as in poca-hontas” Coming out of a womans mouth it is the ultimate come on. Almost as good as being named Pussy Galore. :-)

I hope this exchange has helped us to understand eachother better and work better together.

One would think more of the concerned parties would care about the disposition of the wikipedia on this matter. As it is the top hit if one Googles any of this. Before anyweb page by anyone anywhere. :-?

(oops forgot to sign)--Hfarmer 22:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Kudos on 9/11

Hey Andy!

I must admit that your work on contributing (in whatever way) to the 9/11 article should be commended. We've just watched United 93 here in Kenya, Africa (...the beautiful land of safari!) It'sa thrilling and moving movie and it just inspires me to know more from my favorite reseach tool - Wikipedia. Having also been attacked here in Nairobi, 1998 where over 200 innocent Kenyans died, I say kudos for helping to fight this war online. Hey, anytime you feel like a safari, hola! ...I'll host you Wikipedia style. OmnInfo 17:30, 8 September 2006

Deep Throat article

Please see the response to your comments at Atom_Talk Atom 04:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Toby Meltzer Afd

An FYI. It is a newly created article that has been tagged for deletion. I don't suspect a bad faith nom, but I do think the article needs a little work to make clear his notability. A casual glance does make it seem like he is just another run of the mill doctor. Agne 18:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Stephen Barrett, Quackwatch, and NCAHF article

I have started three separate proposals to merge these three articles. The discussion for each amalgamiton of the merge begins here. I would appreciate you taking the time to give your thoughts for each proposal. Thanks. Levine2112 00:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Paula Barresi

I noticed you were really the one to answer Jimbo's call when he asked for users to rebuild this article with really strong citations. Lately, a small IP range has been editing the article, "cleaning it up", if you know what I mean. I believe the person editing under this IP may be Mr Barresi. Since this article has already been under scrutiny for BLP problems, I'm hesitant to change what the IP has "adjusted". Would you mind looking at it, and in the meanwhile, I'll look at the sources to see if I can discuss specific changes more intelligently. Basically, I'm scared, and you already know the article, so would you please help? Thanks, Mak (talk) 20:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Coccinelle-ep.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Coccinelle-ep.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support!

I did finally track down the info on warning this user, glad to know my contributions were appreciated. Marrilpet 21:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

link to British

Hello, when you want to link to the article about something British, please do not link to British, as that is a disambiguation page (which nothing should be linked to). Instead link to the one of the options found on that page such as United Kingdom, Great Britain or British English by writing out [[United Kingdom|British]] or [[Great Britain|British]]. Regards, Jeff3000 00:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Check the link

on that quote about Heckle Man's response. That is how it is stated in the Washingtonpost.com article. I am fully aware Wikipedia doesn't censor. BabuBhatt 21:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI: You forgot subst: when warning User talk:72.84.195.236

When using certain template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. Will (Talk - contribs) 04:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

David Hermance

Hi Andrea,

I appreciate your adding your "Bio-expertise" to my attempted article today. I have not created very many articles, so it was a wonderful learning experience for me. I'll try to follow your very successful style in future.

Best-

Lmcelhiney 21:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, thanks! I do understand your suggestions and appreciate the reasons.

Take care... Lmcelhiney 00:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply

If the person has an NYT obit. and isn't notable, like he was, than I'll stick with the Speedy. John Reaves 07:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I hope I am using this correctly. Thank you for your notes to me. I certainly do enjoy using Wikipedia. Thank you for the welcome. Thank you for the "heads up" about "no original research." I'm getting the hang of it. Bus stop 17:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Bus StopBus stop 17:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Newbie question

Thanks for welcoming me! I already have a question ... in the article on David Hermance, I added a quote of his related to global warming. Should I make it a link to the topic "global warming" ? Or, is it the case that this term is now part of common parlance, so that no link is necessary?

Thanks for all you do!

SAugustine 23:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Question regarding pronoun use on a transgender person's page

Hello, Jokestress. Does Wikipedia have a specific policy or consensus to deal with pronoun issues on a transgender person's page? I ask this because while editing Caroline Cossey, a user stated, "it's bad wikiquette to base an article on that person's opinions. Legally and genetically, Cossey is a male and thusly this should be reflected in the article." I'm certain it's not bad "wikiquette" at all. In fact, it sounds like referring to transgender people by their birth gender could qualify as slander. (Sounds to me like this person is trying to bring up some fake policy or standard to justify transphobia.) It also seems like a lack of consensus opens up the door for disruptive edits to other transgender pages on Wikipedia.

So, is it a "wikistandard" to refer to all transgender people by their chosen gender, and would edits like such as the one described above be considered vandalism? Elcda0 01:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Spurious AfD

Your input is urgently needed on a spurious AfD [5]. -- Fyslee 22:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Troy Garity

The sunshine DNa info was taken down, but I have an email from the writer of the blog confirming the info — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scriptgirl (talk • contribs)

What you think of this/ your input.

Hello Andrea and Merry Christmas/ happy Hannuka/ Kwanza! (yeah that covers all bases.) I am looking for your opinion on this rewrite of this article. Any constructive criticism will be appreciated. I felt this measure was needed as the existing article is to long, convoluted, and just plain messy. Plus the old article goes into details about things already covered by other articles. --Hfarmer 15:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou. I will take your advice. The current article is already too long. Instead of adding to it what could be done is to point to the already existing articles which cover most of what is there. No need to cover the same things twice. --Hfarmer 22:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Michael Richards

I would actually say that's a pretty subdued comment considering the other user has several times now accused me of being a sock puppet, and have in fact followed me to other pages just to revert my edits out of some personal vendetta/spite. So no WP:AGF issues here. As for WP:NPA, I have little patience to waste time with filibustering games--best approach is to expose them succinctly through edit comments; though I do agree perhaps it can be done in a more restrained way. Tendancer 05:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

NCAH (the Quackwatch org)

Hi! I used "ire" because it was more colorful, than the overused "criticized". I also don't think it is POV when Barrett has indeed expressed ire at quacks like Hulda Clark (that is one I looked up. She is a menace). After awhile, one gets tired or reading "criticized" in every other sentence. What do you think?

Also, I could use some help on an edit I just made. I consolidated two redundant paragraphs on "qualifcations" into one, deleting much of the criticism by individuals nobody has heard of. I am not a particular fan or critic of Barrett, but I fear that this edit will indeed incur the ire of the critics. Also, I could use your writing skill. I do not claim to be a writer. Jance 15:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Google Scholar

I bookmarked your link to this - I never knew about this search engine. Any other gems are most appreciated.Jance 15:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Vincenzo Tommasini

I'm afraid I don't know anything about Medea, and really know little about the man. David Ewen doesn't even mention such a work in his encyclopedia biography, and I've never heard of him anywhere else. Hell, I'd never even heard his music until the local classical station did Le donne di buon umore a few days ago. I can look later in my father's more comprehensive biographical dictionary of composers...perhaps that will provide some answers.

Truth be told, I'd been sorta-kinda-whenever thinking about putting Tommasini's bio up anyhow, since I've been trying to transfer material from Ewen's encyclopedias on classical music and opera onto Wikipedia; thanks for saving me the trouble. :) --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 23:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Timon

Thanks for your correction. While I think there might be something to Timon of Philius influencing Shakespeare's Timon of Athens, I questioned the statement on the Timon of Philius page that he was the basis of that play when I noticed that his dates did not overlap those of Apemantus, but I never saw an entry for Timon of Athens the person until you made the change.

P.S.: You're pretty. --Scottandrewhutchins 07:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Blatant theft of your brilliant work!

I've linked the Wikipedia and Wiktionary entries on "cock tease" to each other. Also, the Wiktionary entry had nothing for the metaphorical usage. Hoping you and DGG won't object, I've added that usage, citing both of your examples and references. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 03:04, 25 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Mike/Michael Evans moves

Hi, sorry if you're new but I don't think moving those pages is the correct way to go about disambiguating. For example, the Mike Evans (basketball) article was not ambiguous in any way, and it had (basketball) to distinguish it from other Mike Evans (unless there is another Mike Evans basketball figure you're aware of?). Nevertheless I have made a page move request to move it back, as I do not agree Mike Evans should be referenced here as Michael Leeroyall Evans, as his notoriety has been accorded with the name Mike Evans. Cheers. --Downwards 01:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

No

I don't think I will continue editing Wikipedia. It is a waste of time, and I would have to be a masochist, given what I have experienced here.. Today has been particularly outrageous, including an editor abusing his power by opening an An/I to block me (for past alleged misdeeds) after one was already closed. Meanwhile, nothing has been done to stop the abusiveness and reversions by Curtis at NCAHF. If Curtis actually "asked" Dr. Barrett and Barrett agreed with him, I have lost all respect for Barrett, too. Maybe he is as abusive as some claim. No editors (even those that supported Barrett) agreed with Curtis' edits which were excessively long - he basically transposed Barrett's webpage here. Maybe that is what Barrett wants. If this is how Barrett operates, then maybe I will do pro-bono for the poor slobs he tries to destroy .Jance 20:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)