User talk:Casey Abell/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Orphaned fair use image (Image:What Maisie Knew.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:What Maisie Knew.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 of What Maisie Knew 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 18:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Washington Square (novel)

Just a note to say, great addition of citations on this article! If only all articles could be cited as well and as promptly. Frexes 22:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

copyright question

The question is whether there is any creative content to the photograph--see Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., in which the US Supreme Court declared that photographs designed merely to copy an image could not be copyrighted. There is discussion of this at WP:PD and elsewhere. Chick Bowen 15:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Looked at the Washington Square one--yes, I think these slightly 3D images may be borderline. We've been discussing this very issue at User talk:Chick Bowen/Bad book covers, if you'd like to join in. My own feeling is that the one you uploaded does not have enough content to be copyrightable, but I admit not to being 100% sure. Certainly, scans are better, and undoubtedly free. Anyway, thanks for uploading it. Chick Bowen 16:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Alabama State Route 59

It would be much appreciated if you did not subst: the road infoboxes. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do not subst. If we change the infobox coding later, then your substed infoboxes will not be updated. Any substing will be reverted. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Recreation

Thanks for your help with this article, I'm really quite astounded how much this article has been vandalized, and by so many different networks; I've semi-protected it for a few days and added it to my watchlist(s). Can't sleep, clown will eat me 13:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Good job with the North Texas land spammer

Casey, thanks for the quick work with the North Texas spammer. I caught onto him fairly late, and you had most of the spam edits reverted already. Nice work! --JFreeman ^(talk) 05:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

James's religion

Hello. I notice you removed my categorization of Henry James as a humanist. Fine, but I was attempting to address the fact that the article makes no apparent mention of his religious beliefs of lack thereof. My source for the "humanist" part is Alan Holder, "T. S. Eliot on Henry James", PMLA, Vol. 79, No. 4, p. 494, September 1964: "To be sure, Eliot could hardly regard James as a brother Anglican; the novelist was a secular humanist from first to last. Where Eliot has been much concerned with the relation of man to God, James never dealt with anything but the relation of person to person. However, Eliot did find in James a moral preoccupation, an intense sense of good and evil, that he could respect." A short note on his religious/philosophical outlook would not be amiss. Biruitorul 20:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Did he have a religion, then? Or was he an agnostic? I think that's one piece of information the reader might like to know. Biruitorul 20:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, that is quite interesting; do you not think it would be appropriate (now or in the future) to include (if proper citations can be found) some sort of comment on this subject in the article text - even one so simple as "James never professed adherence to any particular system of philosophy or religion"?

On a more mundane subject, I've noticed that (for instance) in the "Shorter narratives" section, punctuation often varies between the James article and articles on the works referenced. For instance the first speaks of "Daisy Miller", but the article on the novella itself styles it Daisy Miller. This discrepancy should be eliminated, right? Biruitorul 03:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I've enjoyed the discussion. Biruitorul 19:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed CZ article

I have recast the two sections which you called attention to in your posting on the discussion page of the CZ article. This includes a major expansion of the section on CZ policies and structure. Please have a look at the proposed article on my user page and let me know what you think. JFPerry 03:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Wikipedia

Thank you for your comments. Normally I would discuss wholesale deletions however I have a few reasons why I didn't in the case of this article. First, the article is too long. Deletion of one or two paragraphs is not going to detract from the article significantly. In fact, I think some trimming would help the article. Second, my general feeling about the article is that it has become a dumping ground for original and poorly sourced research. There is little cohesiveness between the different sections. My feeling on original research and poorly sourced sections in articles that are already overlong is that these sections should be shot on sight. Would the article be worse without the Hiawatha quote? I don't think so. As it stands now it's a minor quote from a Boston Globe writer. While better than some of the blog citations I deleted, it's not necessarily on par with the editor of Encyclopædia Britannica. I also feel that it relates more to Wikipedia's aversion to experts than use of lack of dubious sources. As you probably know, Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources strongly discourages use of blogs and self-published works. I think if this section were to remain there needs to be stronger sourcing. —Malber (talk • contribs) 15:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

For the prevention of noxious hoaxes, O and for the standard deviation userboxes. 68.39.174.238 15:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Along the same lines...

Would you be adverse to a mass AfD of all these articels? If nothing else the additional eyes may be useful in ferreting out some more. 68.39.174.238 20:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll leave the ProDs to expire and not AfD them. 68.39.174.238 18:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

GSP

Where exactly did you get your data here? It doesn't seem to match the percent changes listed, OR the old 2004 data, OR agree with the statement that these figures are unadjusted for inflation, NOR is it explicitly listed . Also, how was it that in 2004, Virginia had a higher GSP than North Carolina but was ranked lower (12 vs. 11)? Ufwuct 19:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Shopping Spree (variety show)

You reverted a deletion of the proposed deletion tag from this article. As per the policy on contested proposed deletions, this tag is not to be put back once removed, as its removal, whether a reason is given or not, constitutes contestation of the deletion. I have nominated the article for AfD. Bradycardia 22:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for cleaning up behind me

My thanks to you and Gwern for cleaning up behind me in what is probably my first real effort to be bold. It has been a very curious experience to be working on such a high profile article with such a diverse group of editors, especially knowing that there would be many other experienced and knowledgeable editors keeping an eye on what was going on. I do hope that if I am completely making an idiot of myself on the Essjay controversy article, someone will be kind enough to say so.Risker 07:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Florence and WMF

That was a helpful catch. Thanks :) Gwen Gale 14:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Notice of my response to your post on the Essjay talk page

Perhaps I should have taken the original discussion surrounding "Doesn't this look silly?" to your talk page, or after posting the section that you at first thought was a blanket statement regarding your posts to the whole page, I should have posted to you here to let you know that I had made the post, and that it was regarding the originating discussion. (that's a bit convoluted, but I hope you follow...the upshot, I could have done it differently/better). That said, since it started in the talk page, and some of my concern was how it looked in the talk page, I've kept the discussion there.

This time however, since I've responded to your last post, I wanted to at least let you know here that I have made a reply here. I think you are in the top group of editor/posters I've run across on my short time here, and it wasn't meant as a personal attack, if anything, when I originally asked for clarification, I was a bit taken aback by your response to me, as I felt my request had been stated politely, and my questioning of your 'example' post was reasonable. Anyway, for what it is worth, I've responded. Cheers. -- Kavri 06:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Chernow

Your puffery of Chernow is derived from his agent's ad for him; surely this should be sufficient warning that it is not unbiased evaluation. We should not be evaluating our subjects anyway, especially living ones; WP:BLP is not confined to negative evaluations, although those are most serious.

Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a book review; it is not our business to claim this or that point in Chernow's book is interesting - and if we did, it would be better - or rather, less bad - not to choose a questionable claim founded on conjectural genetics.

Please stop. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

DNA might be relevant to Alexander Hamilton; I don't find it interesting, or certain enough to add, but Chernow is an adequate source. I don't see why it belongs in Chernow's article, however, unless some other source, independent of Chernow, finds it a notable aspect of Chernow's work.

I do not, btw, contend that Chernow is the worst author in the vast wasteland of the Hamilton literature, although he may well write the worst English. I would nominate Senator Vandenburg's Greatest American, but I may be wrong; I have not faced James Ford Rhodes, monstrum informe ingens. There's a case for Flexner and his private theories, but he includes too much verifiable fact omitted from the works of Federalist partisanship to be entirely dismissed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The Sunshine Boys

Hello! For the past few months I have been working diligently on theatre-oriented articles so they more-or-less conform to the same style. I greatly would appreciate it if you left my edits as is. Thank you! SFTVLGUY2 17:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I respectfully disagree. I think the table of contents appearing immediately after the first paragraph looks awkward, and an article this short doesn't require numerous sub-heads that chop it into a lot of small chunks. As I said, I'm working hard at creating a basic conformity of style with theatre articles, and I hope you will leave it as I edited it. Many thanks. SFTVLGUY2 18:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

LOL!!! Too late, Casey! I've been arguing with SFTVLGUY2 about this for many months now. Yes, he has indeed been editing many articles to eliminate headings and push substantially all of the text into one big block at the beginning of each article. If you look at the edit history of Hello, Dolly!, for instance, you will see a typical example. I have pointed out to him that at WP:MUSICALS, a group of editors created guidelines (Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Article Structure) for articles on musicals (similar to those at other theatre/opera projects) to indicated what sections and headings are appropriate for articles, but he says that he need not follow those guidelines since those editors are no longer active. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 19:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Once again, Ssilvers sticks his nose in other people's discussions without an invitation to join the conversation. How sad that you follow me around tracking everything I do instead of using your time more creatively. The bottom line is Wikipedia wouldn't be open to edits by the general public if its founder strongly felt everyone had to follow rigid rules and regulations. You keep referring to guidelines, which by their very definition are suggested ways of doing things and not requirements. New voices bring new concepts and formats, and if you don't care for them, you're entitled to your opinion, but your constant kvetching about the way I do things is pathetic and tiresome and very childish. When you write 400+ original articles as I have, perhaps I'll give you a more serious listen. SFTVLGUY2 19:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely with Ssilvers that a complicated six-paragraph lede for such a brief article as The Sunshine Boys is way too big. It's just not appropriate to have a lede that's as big or bigger than the rest of the article. That's why the Manual of Style suggests very sharp limitations on the length and complexity of the lede section. For The Sunshine Boys a simple one-paragraph lede (as I wrote here) would be much better. Casey Abell 19:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Key word: suggests. As I said, nothing is carved in stone. I will never understand why people will waste time quibbling about style and format instead of actually creating articles. I already stated my views about small articles chopped it into a lot of small chunks by the excessive use of sub-heads. Using one after the very first paragraph is senseless and looks awkward. Thank you for your input, Casey. SFTVLGUY2 19:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

If you don't want to quibble about format and structure, and you think that creating content is the best use of editors' time on Wikipedia, then by all means, please spend all your time on creating articles, and stop deleting material from existing articles and arguing with other editors about format and structure. Please see the note I left on your talk page. Thanks, and happy holidays. -- Ssilvers 20:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I added a heading at The Sunshine Boys that I think solves the problem? Best regards, -- Ssilvers 21:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Ssilvers' skillful compromise is fine with me. Thanks! Casey Abell 21:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Danny RFA

Re this - I would be utterly amazed and somewhat disconcerted to have the mind-control powers you attribute to me. I don't have actual power to order anything whatsoever. To the extent I'm an "insider," I have the power to be subject to stupidity up close rather than from a remove, and possibly less power to have people listen. And the power to gobble antacid. If you have any further questions on how it all works that I can answer without gossipping, feel free to bail me up on IRC or talk page - David Gerard 14:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Musicals articles

Hello, again. We have been working on the articles for Hello, Dolly! (musical) and Company (musical). Please take a new look and contribute if you can. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 18:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your hard work

Kudos for the ongoing cleaning up the Criticism of Wikipedia article. I still consider much of it to be OR and self-referential, but your sourcing and re-writes has helped those sections tremendously. Now the excessive block quoting needs to be cut down.--Leflyman^Talk 03:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Categories: User talk archives