User talk:Casey Abell/Archive 1

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:


 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type &#126;&#126;&#126; (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Meelar (talk) 01:28, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

A Small Boy and Others
Please stop removing the pov header unless you actually remove the POV from the article. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I already explained it on the Talk page of your non-logged-in account. You can't say "charming", and you can't tell us he suffered from inferiority complex unless he talks about it, unless you're a psychologist. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Good articles
You restored Capitalism to the Good Articles list with the following edit summary: "restoring Capitalism, article represents a very wide range of viewpoints, from Ayn Rand to Karl Marx, Milton Friedman to Norm [sic] Chomsky". But that is precisely the problem - the Capitalism article gives a great deal of attention to extremist POVs, which are described in great detail, while significantly less room is given to more moderate positions such as Keynesianism. This violates the principles of Neutral point of view, part of which states: "Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views". Friedman, Marx, and Chomsky have received a great deal of academic (and, to some degree, popular) attention, and thus should be described - but at the same time, more temperate views on capitalism, such as those of Keynes and FDR, should also be given much more consideration in the article than they currently are. Rand is a fringe figure who receives far too much space in the article compared to her negligible academic influence. The Internet is not always a representative sample of political ideologies, and it often isn't immediately obvious just how minor these views are in the real world. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 14:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I second that motion --  max rspct  leave a message  23:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Epaminondas
Thanks for the help with Epaminondas. Its looking much more polished, and I'm going to put it up on FAC and see what happens after a couple more changes. --RobthTalk 18:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC

Henry James
Congratulations on the FA! I wanted to give you a heads up to something I just found out a couple of days ago, which is that if you want it to be on the front page you have to make a little box for it and put it on the list here. Great work on the article, and good luck with your next project, whatever it may be. RobthTalk 05:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks, and thanks for helping keep the vandals off while it was on the main page. It got plenty of nonsense edits while it was up, but they all got removed quickly. It also got a lot of good edits, and I'm quite happy with the result as I look at the overall diff from its time up there. A real testiment to the positive effect that you get when a bunch of people make little improvements. RobthTalk 04:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:LambHouseInterior.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:LambHouseInterior.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Nivus  (talk)  10:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Then please change the tag to an appropriate one. I highly recommend "PD-old". Every image should have a copyright tag. -- Nivus  [[User_talk:Nivus|(talk) ]] 04:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:HenryJames1897.jpg

Hi, I have tagged the above image. If you think it is inappropriate then please change it. Thanks!! -- Nivus  (talk) 10:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV and The Beast in the Jungle
You can say "many critics consider..." but you cannot directly express a critical evaluation of the story as to do so violates NPOV, which is non-negotiable Wikipedia policy. Of course that final paragraph is a great achievment but to express any kind of view on the matter is to violate NPOV. Please try to understand this, it isn't very complicated. My objection to matchless is that it seems to me to be an ugly word. Milton was not writing for Wikipedia in 2006, and indeed it's probably the attitude that the English language hasn't changed in almost four hundred years which leads people to write the kind of faux-eloquent stuff I'm complaining about. Wikipedia is meant to take a neutral line. "Beats on" just sounds colloquial and childish, quite apart from being redundant (you might want to consider what the word "on" adds to the sentence "Jim beats on Sam." The word "beat" itself implies the physical contact being made, rendering "on" superfluous). If the reader has reached the last paragraphs of an article, I don't think she/he needs to be persuaded to pay attention. Do you really think Adler's Great Books set is of any significance? The US Constitution is there, for heaven's sake. The sole purpose of that project was to sell the suburban middlebrow the idea of literacy as painful duty, "great books got down to pure", an idea which has plagued the English-speaking world ever since. Ideas are too important to be made mere items on the checklist of a kit inspection, which is what that range did, giving the reader the bare minimum he (and it was clearly intended to be "he") couldn't be seen without. I wouldn't mind if it were titled honestly. "Introduction to The Western Canon" or something would be a truer description of the contents. As it is, the implication is that once you've read the range, you've finished off the western tradition and can go and do something more fun. Not helpful, except if you were in the business of selling it. A phenomenon in interior decoration rather than public education. --Chips Critic 22:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Whether or not you wish to answer me, I must ask that you try not to misrepresent my argument. I expressed no disdain for the US Constitution, my point was that it is not a work of literature or philosophy. Only the most confirmed jingoist would claim that it deserves to be included in a list of great books. Great legal documents, absolutely. Great books, no.
 * Has it not occurred to you that my objection to Adler's set is not an objection to the books included? How could it be? Those are among the greatest books ever written. My objection, as I'd have thought would have been obvious, is to the project itself, and to the ideas behind it.
 * Just because something is found in the dictionary doesn't mean it is acceptable in modern prose. Most dictionaries contain a large stock of archaic words. My problem with "matchless", however, has nothing to do with its age.
 * Here's a direct quote from your reply to me: "Similarly, your dislike of "beats on" is somewhat charming in a crankish way but unconvincing to anybody not already convinced". This is a meaningless statement. In saying that my dislike is unconvincing, what you really mean is, of course, that my argument is unconvincing, but that isn't the real problem: the real problem is that I don't believe you took a poll of people who were "not already convinced", and we've already established that you think it's a good phrase, so your statement that my "dislike" is "unconvincing to anybody not already convinced" becomes, to put it charitably, a supposition. It's the kind of statement which people interested in accuracy don't make, and my advice would be to get out of the habit of making such statements if you want to be taken seriously.
 * Once again, and for the last time, my objection to "matchless" and "beats on" is purely aesthetic. As is my objection to your use of the term "museum piece" in your last reply.
 * "NPOV means that a consensus of opinion among those best qualified to judge should be respected, which the article on The Beast in the Jungle does." No, it does not. The article makes the unqualified statement that "The last paragraph is matchless in its intensity and rhetorical impact", and this is just one of many unqualified statements which pepper the article.
 * "Finally, NPOV is not intended to forbid any expression of opinion" - Yes, that's exactly what it is intended to forbid. You can indicate the opinions of others, but you must not express your own. --Chips Critic 06:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

DUDE
I like the fact you had the courage to let my revisions be. I believe they improve what was already there. This site isn't for posting your own stuff and then slapping people's hands whenever they revise what you wrote. We can't have pompous stuff like "ho ho, the biography was, amusingly enough, eponymous, ho ho ho how droll" taking up server space when there's a whole world of writers out there who have to be included. My Henry James edit was hotheaded, I admit, but the other edits had to be made. Good to see you were man enough to accept this. If I ever post any pompous bullshit, feel free to blitz the shit out of it.

Herbert Pratt
Dear Casey, Thank you very much for expanding the reference to Herbert Pratt - I remembered the information from Leon Edel's biography, and was wondering whether Herbert Pratt was related to Charles Pratt (the Standard Oil tycoon)? I happen to know the latter's great-grandson, the rock singer Andy Pratt but haven't had a chance to ask him. Best wishes, and hats off, or chapeau! as the Master would have it. Raja Tuban 10:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. I really don't know anything about Herbert Pratt beyond his acquaintance with James and his possible influence on Gabriel Nash. The article Charles Pratt lists Herbert as a relation, but doesn't give details. Now that I think about it, I'll wikify the link to Henry James in that article.


 * A quick look at Google didn't turn up anything else, but maybe a more careful search would find something. Again, thanks for the note. Casey Abell 14:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * By the way, Google did clear up one thing. The Herbert L. Pratt listed in the Charles Pratt article as one of his sons can't be the Herbert Pratt that James met. Herbert L. Pratt was born in 1871, according to this ancient Time story. That would make Herbert L. Pratt much too young to have met James before 1881, when the novelist wrote about Herbert Pratt in his Notebooks. Oh, Andy Pratt is also mentioned in the Charles Pratt article. Casey Abell 15:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Harry Gordon
Thanks Casey for expanding the article. I should have done it but I'm too lazy... you did a grand job. Thanks, Caroline Joeygirl 10:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind note. Have to admit, I had never heard of Mr. Gordon before I saw his article on the wikify list. I rummage around there all the time, because it's a good way to find out new stuff. Anyway, the wikify tag sent me through Google and other searches to come up with more material, and I put it in the article. Thanks again for your note. Casey Abell 11:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Admins
Hey, we aren't that bad! I promise you that no admin is going to have a go at you for making a mistake, or a misunderstanding of policy. If one ever does, please let me know so I can have a quiet word. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, that's cool :-) I totally understand. Keep up the good work! Just don't stress too much about fair use images, add the fair use criteria and that's enough good faith for any admin (even if the image does go to fair use review, nobody is going to have a go at you). - Ta bu shi da yu 01:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The Beast in the Jungle revisited
In view of the adjustments you've made to The Beast in the Jungle (which is now, I think, an excellent article), I'm going to remove the comments I made about the earlier version from my userpage. --Chips Critic 03:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, I certainly don't mind your retaining talk page comments, indeed I do the same thing. The discussion on the previous version will remain on my talk page, I just removed my (no longer applicable) initial comments from my main userpage. Thanks for your reply. --Chips Critic 15:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Henry James
I've added a comment to the HJ Talk page.

Engleham 24 July 2006

Thanks for the typo pickup. I may change the Talk observation pointers if I find they work against me, as you kindly suggest, but shall retain them for the present because I do wish to provide a properly balanced entry. And being personally acquainted with one of the most tippy-top Editors, who is shudder material in every aspect of thought, deed, and flesh, I considered it a fetching model of modest restraint.

Engleham 24 July 2006

Apologies for the failed reversion edit on this article. I will pay more attention next time and try to get the correct edit made. Streltzer 21:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: I write stuff but I don't know if they would want it
Your comments suggest to me that you've got some of the requisite skill, so I'd welcome any efforts if you feel like giving it a try. Collaborative editing can always improve things if, heaven forbid, you don't produce a finished product on the first draft, and in any case I appreciate the input you've given already. Obviously the Signpost itself can't be too irreverent, but trying to balance wit and objectivity helps make for more interesting reading. I do enjoy checking out what you came up with for each story. --Michael Snow 16:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's okay, your priorities are in the right place. Even what I'm doing is intended to help the community function a little more smoothly so more people can spend more time on the encyclopedia. --Michael Snow 20:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The Whole *^*&%^ Family
I'd just like to thank you for all you've done for The Whole Family, an article I initially cobbled together without too much thought, and then forgot about completely. Since you have performed something like thirty consecutive edits on it, I believe I and the Wikipedia owe you a great thanks. Thanks! -Litefantastic 00:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Wagenknecht
I included mention of Spike Lee becase of numerous citations to Wagenknecht in Reid's monogrpah on Do the Right Thing. It wasn't meant to be a joke, and I'm not "getting" it as one, either. Scottandrewhutchins 15:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

AfD Nomination: Wikinfo
Hello. This is to inform you that I have nominated an article you have contributed to, Wikinfo, for deletion a second time, at Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (2nd nomination). Best regards, Sandstein 20:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Casey Candaele
Casey Candaele said that you "Rock!", but that he wants his good name back and that he wants you to stop messing around in revert wars with people. Wikipedia does not need more weirdos who spend 18 hours a day doing edits. Perhaps we should nominate you for an "Uber-Wiki Nerd" award? Oh, and Bob Watson says to go &%*^ off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EdRooney (talk • contribs)

Request for a vote
Hi Casey,

I saw that you made some comments over on the John Podhoretz page some time back, so you might be interested in voting going on now and tomorrow on whether to keep the category "American conservatives" that the Podhoretz article and about 220 others link to. The voting is tied at the moment. I think it's an important article to keep, but whatever you think, I hope you'll consider going to the category page and clicking on the link at the box up top and voting. I think there's only today and tomorrow left. Then, if there are more votes in favor, I think the article can be axed.Noroton 23:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Joseph Leslie Broadbent
Although I know that Charles Kingston claimed to be successor of Broadbent at some point after his death, as far as I have been able to find from journals and publications written around the time of Broadbent's death it would seem that most Fundamentalists were unaware of Kingston's claims. I would appreciate any references or documentation you have on this. BTW, it is also definately John YEATES Barlow. --Tobey 17:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The official LDS Church records say Yeats see this |page.
 * His middle name is after his mother whose maiden name was Yeates, see this |page.
 * --Tobey 20:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for a look and your opinion
Hi again Casey, Thanks for your vote to keep the American conservatives category -- the vote was eventually 2:1 in favor. I don't know if you would have an interest in a new article I created Pre-Iraq War opinions on Saddam, but if you do, I'd like to know what you think. I'm struggling with it a bit. It's poorly named (something I want to change) but as it stands now, it's essentially statements made about how dangerous Saddam's regime was considered before the war. I think an article full mostly of statements, like a list article, is OK, and it might change with time. The article is being proposed for deletion, but I of course think it's useful. I'd be interested to know what you think and whatever suggestions you may have, but only if you have an interest in looking it over.Noroton 01:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Human Waste Project
I've responded to your concerns about one of my deletions at my talk page. Feel free to take it to deletion review, and sorry for the late reply. theProject 03:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Alabama State Routes
Hello. I just created the sub-templates to allow template:infobox road to work with Alabama, and converted Alabama State Route 22 to use it. I also added text links to the routes listed as junctions, since clicking on the shield does not take you to the article about the route. I recommend choosing some of the more major junctions and giving locations; see Virginia State Route 20 for an example.

I also reverted your change of "State Route 22" to "Alabama State Route 22"; please read WP:USSH. Thank you. --NE2 14:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Since the name of the road is "State Route 22", that should be used in text. See for instance Montgomery, Alabama, where only Montgomery is used. --NE2 15:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Citizendium
Hi, and thanks for bring that to my attention. I'm kinda proud that you think I'm a reliable source. :)

If you'd prefer to use my real name, David Still, feel free to do so; on the other hand, you should consider corroborating what I had to say using some other sources as well. Have you tried emailing Larry, by the way? He's fairly open in my experience, and maintains quite a useful blog on Citizendium here.

Cheerio, --Daveydw ee b ( chat/review! ) 23:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, that's very good to hear. The site recently reduced their minimum requirements for authorship, so if you have the time (which I don't often, these days) to sign up for an account at CZ, you'd very likely be accepted into the pilot. Although, that's bordering on WP:OR... Daveydw ee b ( chat/review! ) 23:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Deal or no Deal
Hi, I noticed that you said you would save the Deal or No Deal Episode Guides on your hard drive. I saved Season #1 on my computer, but I was too late to save Season #2. It's gone now. If you have it, would you be willing to email it to me, please? My email address is whatever7174@yahoo.com. Deal? User101010 13:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Beautiful User Page, but the Talk/Discussion Page . ..
I've discovered it's ALL on Google!!!


 * Here's my result of my search for you:.


 * I hope that motivates you to make your TALK page as attractive.


 * So, can you please clean up the Board of Trustees?


 * Here:


 * And if you want to visit me, please do, I'm one click away !!!:


 * PS: I've discovered you on my vist to said FN-D page.


 * Yours truly, Ludvikus 00:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Why not change the Top of This Page
Why don't you put a PYRAMID at the top of this page?
 * It's your discussion page.
 * You can put come colorful stup UP at the TOP?
 * Regards, Ludvikus 04:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's a possible example — if you cover the copyright Ludvikus 04:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Again - I still do not understand all the copyright mumbo jumbo, Ludvikus 04:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

'Copyrighted images removed. Casey Abell 05:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)'

Public Domain Images
Do you know any source for such images? Ludvikus 04:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:David.Copperfield.fall.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:David.Copperfield.fall.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hi, I recently replaced your uploaded cover image with an image of the original cover of the book per User:Chick Bowen/Bad book covers. A recent cover like yours technically would not be acceptable under the "replaceable" clause of our fair use policy, since the books' original covers, title pages, etc. would be free. Thanks, and I was just letting you know that I did this. --QueenStupid 06:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)