User talk:Abscissa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Welcome, and an answer to your question 2 Removing other users' warnings from this page 3 Apology accepted 4 Unan1mous Edits 5 Hyperreality 6 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shock sites (fourth nomination) 6.1 Skinmeister 6.2 Citation 6.3 Brenneman 7 List of shock sites protection 8 Safari 9 Happy Earth Day 10 Anti-Bush Userbox 11 Userboxes part deux 12 Userboxes part III 13 Monty Hall, Monty Hall, Monty Hall,Monty Hall, Monty Hall, Monty Hall, continued... 14 Razz 15 Images 16 Melissa Hopkins 17 Three columns 18 NSA (nyuk, nyuk) 18.1 Camino 1.0.1 or Seamonkey? 19 Anti-bush userbox 20 ibook... 21 Copperfield 22 Serial box 23 Serial Box 24 Serial Box 25 Link to Gameplanet article deletion proposal 26 No Exaggeration 27 WikiProject Cats 28 Chrisco 29 A Piece of Blue Sky 30 My edit to Slot Machine 31 hyperreality and all that jazz 32 Penguin joke 33 Re: New anti-Semitism 34 MPD indeed 35 Your message 36 ants 37 World Poker Tour 38 World Series of Poker 39 Moral Luck 40 JFJ & JFS 41 J4J 42 Justforasecond and Jews for Jesus 43 Done! 44 Woody Allen 45 WikiProject South Park 46 Re:WikiProject South Park 47 Super/System 48 WikiProject South Park page 49 Pauline Kael 50 WPT

[edit] Welcome, and an answer to your question

Welcome!

Hello Abscissa, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your interest in "The Free Encyclopedia" - I hope you like what you see and decide to stay. To help you get more comfortable with things, here are a few links with helpful information for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

Also, when communicating with other users on talk pages, please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date, and make conversations much easier to follow. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, or feel free to ask me on my talk page. Cheers, and happy wiki-ing! 

I thought the above welcome was in order - both for the sentiment, and for the usefulness of the links. As for your particular question, about your edits being labelled with a top: this isn't anything at all to worry about. It simply signifies that the edit in question is still the latest one, hence is on "top" in the history. For example, at the time of this writing, you were the last person to edit my talk page, which you can see by looking at the page's history here. But even just by looking at your contributions here, you could tell that you were the last person to edit my talk page, since that edit is marked with the aforementioned top. Hope that clears things up! --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 03:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing other users' warnings from this page

Please don't edit or remove other users' warnings from this talk page, as this is considered vandalism. If you find the page too cluttered, you are free to "archive" the page's contents. You can find out how to do so here. Thanks. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 06:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apology accepted

Thanks. I definitely understand about having bad days. Sometimes I'm a little sensitive in the other direction and I worry that it's the racists here who are so eager to label every biography on Wikipedia by their ethnicity. Clearly not the case with you. PeruvianLlama is right that most of us archive our talk pages instead of simply deleting stuff, but I've taken the liberty of re-removing my earlier warning, since I don't think it serves a real purpose at this point. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unan1mous Edits

Thanks for bringing up those point about my edits to the "Unan1mous" article. I actually did not fully remove the whole controversy section, that was done in this edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unan1mous&diff=47403312&oldid=47284054). I fully agree that now someone has pointed out the IMDB page, the information relating ot Adam should be added back in.

My biggest reason for removing the porn link was that I didn't know the WP policy for including "adult" (and yes, it's relatively mild, but still "adult") links inside articles that one wouldn't expect to link to such material. I think the fact that he has done adult photography definitely should be included since there is that proof, but I'm still on the fence about whether or not that link should actually be present in the main article. If you feel that it's ok being there, feel free to add it back in and I won't remove it -- I just wanted to stay on the safe side without knowing if that link would be allowed according to WP policies or not. --SSTwinrova 22:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hyperreality

Actually I read an article about the transformation of this city in a Swedish newspaper (link http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=1058&a=532049 ). The author referes to Baudrillard in his discussion.

Dubai fulfils the modern dream of a global village. It is a designed mix of commers and postmodern kitsch. The "team" that are directing Dubais transformation "into hyperreality" consists of consults, engineers and PR-people. They are gathered from all of the world but mostly from America and Europe, and their job is to design and market the city.

They are building exotic mysticicm with different layers of simulated and real modernity. There are a miniature version of Empire State Building housing the citys own version of Hard Rock Cafe. They are actually building the worlds largest building - Burg Dubai - half a mile high. But most of all they try to transmitte a stronger feeling of beeing in the middle east than any other "authentic" middle-eastern city can offer.

--Exformation.info 13:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Made some changes on Hyperreality. You´re good! --Exformation.info 23:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shock sites (fourth nomination)

I'd strongly recommend not dragging in anything personal like that info an AfD debate - even if the information is public on his user page, bringing it up would still be implying a motivation for AfDing the page beyond simply believing that the page doesn't belong in Wikipedia... in other words, it would be an accusation of bad faith. Which certainly is a personal attack around here. Looking away from "personal attacks are a no-no" for a moment and speaking pragmatically, bringing that sort of thing up is unlikely to be productive: the closing admin should discount votes made without reasoning about the page (as opposed to the person), and personal arguments are just going to make the whole AfD more of a grudge match than it already is. I'd stick to pointing out the history of the deletion nomintations for the page, and listing reasons why you think the page should be kept, focusing on the content (or potential future content) of the article. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Skinmeister

About the advertisement tag, I consider the article List of shock sites to be in violation of Wikipedia's policy of no advertisement/promotion because it is giving publicity to shock sites that are not significant enough to merit their own articles. Only 3 of the 20+ sites mentioned there have their own articles, and one of those is being nominatied for deletion. I am not the only one to comment on the article being like an advertisement, and as this issue is currently disputed, I believe that the tag should remain for the time being. - Conrad Devonshire 04:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation

I suppose you've got a source for "Once again it has been scientifically proven that this is infact fecal matter traveling from the woman's anal region?" If not, I'd suggest you review the policies on verifiability and in particular the parts that say "Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed," and "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." The emphasis is in the original, by the way. - brenneman^{L} 06:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brenneman

Hey Abscissa,

Thanks for helping out with the article. Anyway, Mr. Brenneman apparently started a discussion thread about himself at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#List of shock sites.

See ya,

Primetime 06:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Abscissa! Will do!--Primetime 19:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of shock sites protection

• I paid no attention to what was being protected. I looked, I saw an edit war, I protected the page. That's what we're supposed to do. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Safari

Go Safari!! -- Mac Davis] ⌇☢ ญƛ. 12:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

.

[edit] Happy Earth Day

I'm randoming around wishing Happy Earth Day! __earth ^(Talk) 16:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Bush Userbox

The box was created and there is no template. I had found the code on some other users page and then adapted it - changing the image file and text. The box code can be seen by editing this page.

All custom boxes begin with <div style and end with |} or your box will not display properly.

You can closely look at the construction of the box this way. 1st is the box border color of solid darkblue. 2nd is the background color around the image (white). 3rd is the image shown by brackets then image name. 4th you'll see is text for the userbox. Click (Edit this page) and view the code. Play around with the colors, image, and text for what you'd like to see. Box types are limitless. Beware of the Wikipedia cops in using images, they love to undo what they consider non-fair use images. I have to now repair my user boxes because of these bastards by creating my own graphics. Noles1984 14:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userboxes part deux

If you'd like, I could arrange your boxes in columns of 3 for maximum exposure. Noles1984 18:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userboxes part III

I put 3 columns on your page. Organize as to what category you think the boxes should go in to or change category name by editing the page. Noles1984 20:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monty Hall, Monty Hall, Monty Hall,Monty Hall, Monty Hall, Monty Hall, continued...

Actually, the odds of losing by not swapping has more to do with the number of doors at the outset than anything else. Starting with only three doors seems to be the most likely way to confound the greatest number of people, and that is the point after all. Imagine if you will that the "show" were to be lengthened so as to accommodate say one hundred doors with Monty dutifully revealing ninety-eight goats each night - wow! wouldn't that be a thriller, no viewers, no sponsors and no show. So, lets reduce the number of doors to the minimum - three. That way we can maximize the confusion (along with our profit). Clever. Look at the folks here at WP that are unwilling to "see the light", some marketeer got wealthy over that one!
It's still fun however, especially if we get a convert now and again. ;-) hydnjo talk 01:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Razz

For the Wikiproject, all you need to do is to add your name to the list and then get crackin'. :)

With Razz, I'm serious. :) I got into it via the 2004 WSOP coverage on ESPN. Final 3 was Howard Lederer, Dutch Boyd and TJ Cloutier. I just loved it because here are these 3 top pros and yet all they could say was "God I hate this game". lol And it's the only tourney I've ever won online. Most frustrating thing is when you start with A, 2, 5, 6...so you bet...then a 6 comes up...and you bet...and then a 5...and you bet...and then another 5. lol --Woohookitty^(meow) 13:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images

I'd recommend going here. It's the images help category. It's the closest that we have to a tutorial. I'd just look through there and see what fits what you are looking for. Wikipedia:Images is a good one to start with. --Woohookitty^(meow) 23:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Melissa Hopkins

Hi Abscissa. I completely agree with you and your reasoning over Ms Hopkins and her vanity article. But can you point me to a speedy deletion criterion that allows me to delete it?

CSD-A7 says: Unremarkable people or groups/Vanity Pages. An article about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject.

Note the does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. This article does assert significance, although the assertions aren't up to much. Nevertheless, they exist - "Melissa was employed at The Times managing the media relations office" "Melissa worked for the National Republican Senatorial Committee. She created, developed and managed an interactive radio actuality and satellite teleconferencing program for 25 Republican U.S. Senate candidates" "Conducted on-air interviews with U.S. Senators, Governors, high profile U.S. Senate staff" "credits have included roles for NBC television in “Sisters” and “Days of Our Lives”. As a member of L.A Theatre Works, appeared in Exchange for National Public Radio and BBC radio". All of these are assertions of notability of one sort or another.

I don't think WP:VAIN allows me to speedy delete. However, I'm happy hear the community consensus at AfD (you could push for a speedy delete result there - personally, I would vote for deletion) to find if the community feels that a large pile of small notabilities add up to actual notability or not. I just don't see it as a speedy delete under the existing criteria. Sorry. ➨ ≡ЯΞDVΞRS≡ 19:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Three columns

You wrote: "I would really really appricate it if you would edit my userpage to arrange my userboxes in three diff columns like yours.... looks really cool. Pleae dont' subst them though! :-) "

You then reverted back to your old style of one long column. Your history says: "(rv, I need the space! who reads userboxes anyway??)"

Why? Noles1984 20:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NSA (nyuk, nyuk)

User:Abscissa wrote: Sorry for the slghtly misleading headline, but I know you hate Bush ;-) Hey, in response to this, I thoughtI'd let you know that I would like to apologise and I reverted back to your version. I kind of need some space to write some other stuff though, and the three columns didn't display properly on my iBook. (I since have a got a Macbook)... Sorry again - Abscissa 20:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know you were using an iBook. I really know little about iBooks or Apple products and their screen resolution. As for the NSA thing, I'm an overt protester, promote dissent and am vigorously trying to get on the NO FLY LIST Bush's TSA created. :-) Noles1984 21:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Camino 1.0.1 or Seamonkey?

By the way, have you tried Mozilla's Camino 1.0.1 or Mozilla Seamonkey? Mozilla puts out great products. Noles1984 21:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-bush userbox

Come on, I don't really think that one is fair. I mean, children use better sentences than Bush... -Smahoney 05:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

That was beautiful, especially first thing in the morning. Thanks! -Smahoney 16:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ibook...

Hi, Sorry about the delay. From looking at my System Profiler, it looks like mine came with 128 in one slot, and 256 in the other. You might notice a bit of an improvement, but it probably wouldn't be that dramatic unless you were running something more resource-intensive. For things like video editing, I've noticed that my iBook handles two videos at the same time badly; the key is to change the power settings to "better performance" and this seems to clear it up well, but it drinks the battery. Anyway, they've got the new MacBooks out now so that's always an option too.

[edit] Copperfield

Hi, I noticed that you (accidentally, I assume!) seem to have transferred an article onto its talk page, overwriting the talk on that page. You were probably aiming to remove the German addition on the page - oh, and I see that you've done so. Nevermind, all the best! Ziggurat 01:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

No probs, I figured it was just a software peculiarity! Regards Ziggurat 01:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Serial box

It's not enough vandalism to protect it. However. I warned the last user who put the link up and I'll watchlist the page so you aren't having to revert this person alone. How does that sound? I like your userpage btw. I agree with all of it. And I've actually had poutine when I went to Niagara Falls on my honeymoon. :) Good stuff. --Woohookitty^(meow) 05:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Serial Box

Hello Abscissa! I'm sorry if you have gotten tired of my timeless page edits. I am not as familiar with Wikipedia as I should (if it isn't obvious, I finally figured out how to chat with users). I really do appreciate what the Wikipedia team has done with this website. An open source of information is a precious contribution to society. But as open and uncensored as Wikipedia has become, I still do not understand why the codez4mac link has been censored time and time again. This is not an attempt of vandalism. I only want the viewers of Wikipedia to know that there are alternative websites to serials.to. Is this not what others want? Wouldn't they want to be aware of alternatives? Thanks - (This comment added by 71.141.157.145)

[edit] Serial Box

I understand and thank you very much for your time. It will not happen again.

[edit] Link to Gameplanet article deletion proposal

I apologise for missing your previous request for the link. Click here to visit my nomination, which resulted in keep. Please consider also viewing the diff that I nominated for deletion.--Conrad Devonshire ^Talk 17:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No Exaggeration

As per my post above, the deliberate use of exaggeration can be helpful for some to achieve their "Aha!" moment and I think that your addition of the banner is just fine. I believe that the problem starting with only three doors is the most difficult to grasp which of course why it is done that way. I was hoping to provide a tongue-in-cheek example that wasn't too belittling that we could point out when all else has failed to convert someone or whenever appropriate. Please feel free to edit the "article" or its talk towards that end. On the other subject, true. It's a time and energy thing and both seem in short supply these days but I'll take your comment as compliment and thank you for your confidence in us. :-) --hydnjo talk 12:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Cats

I can see from your userboxes that you love cats.

Would you be interested in WikiProject Cats?

If you want to join, you can add yourself to the participants list. If there's anything you want to know, contact me, User:ostrich11, on my talk page, or the project founder, GeorgeMoney, on his.

Thank You very much! :) Ostrich11 21:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)--Ostrich11 21:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chrisco

I have deleted the page because it is entirely unsourced and Chrisco has complained.

If you wish to recreate the page, please do so with due regard to sources for all assertions.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 00:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Piece of Blue Sky

Oops you're correct sorry! I removed the tag (I didn't realise the last paragraph was a quote) Thanks for the heads up - Glen 12:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Did you get my first msg above? - Glen 12:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - end of what? The tag is gone so not sure what end you msy be referring to - Glen 13:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My edit to Slot Machine

You said: "Your revert was inappropriate. As you can clearly see, the significance of the slot machine (that 70% of casino income comes from slots) is clearly an important point and one that needs to be sourced. I inserted a source for this claim and there are many more out there if for some reason you think that source is spam. Do you think I work for that site, profiting from such a claim? Please pay more attention."

It may not have been spam in terms of your benefit, but an Ezine article written by a casino affiliate and filled with his links is hardly a reputable source and deserved to have been removed. The revert was appropriate. Check the article - another user replaced your "rv rv" with a more appropriate link. -- FeldBum 03:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hyperreality and all that jazz

hiya

my spanish ain't so great, but it should be good enough to explain your motivations and whatnot . . . so i did a simple translation of what you left on the talk page, and re-removed the link to mmorpgs. but if someone contests it i'm not sure that i'll be able to argue your case . . .

cheers --heah 03:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Penguin joke

Hey, thanks for the joke although it's really only a chuckler for me. I'm a big fan of the engineer, mathematician, physicist jokes (if you don't know these, let me know), and I really like absurdist jokes (e.g. "Q. How many zen masters does it take to change a light bulb? A. A tree in a golden forest."). Two of my all time favorites:

A blond, brunette, and redhead are on an elevator. Their mutual boss gets on and stands in front of them. The brunette notices he's got a pretty bad case of dandruff. After he gets off, she turns to the redhead and says "we should give him some Head and Shoulders". The redhead says "yeah, sounds like a good idea". They turn to the blond. She says, "OK, I guess I'm in, too. But how do you give shoulders?".

A doctor, architect, and computer scientist are arguing about God's first profession. The doctor says, "Well, God removed a rib from Adam to make Eve which was clearly a surgical procedure". The architect interrupts, "Long before the Garden of Eden, God made the heavens and earth out of chaos - clearly an architectural feat.". The computer scientist says, "Where do you think the chaos came from?".

-- Rick Block (talk) 04:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: New anti-Semitism

It might become an FA candidate by someone nominating it :-) I assume you've looked at the instructions regarding that at WP:FAC. Have you asked the main contributors to the article their feelings on whether it's ready for that step, though? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Abscissa, first, thank you for thinking it's good enough to make FA. I appreciate it. However, I'm not sure it's quite ready yet. It probably needs a bit more work, and we'd also need to make sure that all the regular editors agreed with the nom, because it would look a bit odd if any of the people who helped to write it objected, though I've seen that happen before. :-D Perhaps we could talk about it again in a couple of weeks? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Any of the people on the talk page would be regular. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MPD indeed

You're the only one who got it! The hardest part was taking the photo of me... err her...err us...  ;-) --hydnjo talk 14:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your message

I'd like you to know that I'm a rather non-confrontational person and I have no wish to begin any sort of unproductive shouting match with you or anyone else. I'm a strong believer in the "agree to diagree" philosophy. Though I strongly disagree with your opinion, I'd be the first person to protect your right to hold it. After all, we're both Canadians, eh? :) That's part of our culture. (Btw, it's entirely up to you to keep this info confidential, but since you're from Canada, where in Canada do you live? Again, if you prefer not to answer the question, that's your right too.)

However, I think you misread my post (or perhaps your own). You did not merely state that you were ashamed of Israel. That would be one thing. Rather, you stated that you were ashamed to be a Jew. Reread your post. That's what it says. My response was simply that if you're ashamed to be a Jew, you're under no obligation to refer to yourself as such.

I'm a strong believer and a big fan of lively intellectual debate, provided that it remains civil, that mutual respect is maintained at all times, and that all parties ultimately "agree to disagree" in the end. Shalom to you, and Am Israel Chai. Loomis 13:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Unfortunately, reading your message, and especially taking into account your position of the United States and Israel as such evil terrorist states, second only to Nazi Germany, a regime under which a great deal of my family perished, I can't help but say that I'm rather severely offended, and that we have too little in common to continue any sort of intellectual debate. Any further discussion would be fruitless. Shalom and Am Israel Chai. Loomis 08:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ants

See Image:Two ants.png. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] World Poker Tour

If you have a citation regarding where you heard that it's illegal to have live feeds from a gaming area as you posted into the WPT article, please add that information back to the WPT article and cite your source. If true, it's a very interesting addition to the article, probably because I find it difficult to believe.

I'd be more than happy to be proven wrong. Unfocused 15:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel I'm in an edit war, and don't want to involve you in one. However, if you had a source for what you added a while ago, I'd be happy to see it in the article. I already know that much of what is broadcast is done in post production, but quite frankly, I found it difficult to believe that it's illegal for the commentators to see what they're commenting about live.

However, whether they do see the hole cards live or not is irrelevant to whether it is illegal or not for them to do so. The unsupported claim that it's illegal is the center of my recent edits.

Also, if you can reference the VVP biography where he comments about how he has to pretend to be excited, that's exactly the kind of content that the article needs. After all, WPT is a television program, and production details are interesting and appropriate for an article about a television program.

Again, I'd be happy to be proven wrong if you have a source for the claim that it's illegal in any jurisdiction for the TV crew to see the feed from the hole card cam. Unfocused 18:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] World Series of Poker

The winner was a pro but a newish pro. Allen Cunningham finished in 4th place. What amazes me is how fast it's all grown. Allen won 3.6 million for 4th. In fact, the top SIX all made more money than Chris Moneymaker got for winning the whole thing just 3 years ago. That just blows my mind. --Woohookitty^(meow) 18:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Well. Newish would be. Newish. :) I.e. hasn't been a pro that long. And I'm not sure if he's full time. I know Raymer was part time when he won in 2004. Could be the same thing. Not sure. Won't say any more. :) --Woohookitty^(meow) 18:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moral Luck

Hey, good addition to the Unsolved Problems of Philosophy article (re: Induction). I'm a bit concerned about your editing my moral luck section, though. It's probably more perspicuous the way you've written it, but are you sure that your description is actually more accurate/illustrative? Oh, you can reply to my talk page, please. Thanks! Danny Pi 13:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, my explanation was largely a paraphrase of Linda Zagzebski's characterization of it. To summarize, I would say that moral luck is the disconnect between justified action and the resultant state of affairs. The "luck" element affecting the "resultant state of affairs". So, I may have perfectly good intentions, but the result of those actions may be "bad" or "good" arbitrarily depending on "luck". What you're describing in your version of the article is "moral luck" as Bernard Williams describes it. And that's okay, because he did invent the term "moral luck", although the philosophical problem was debated for a considerable time before Williams. My objection would be that 1) Williams is only considering a certain case of moral luck, 2) Williams is really considering the meta-ethical problem, rather than the problem proper. So I think the prior use of the word "luck" in relation to morality, and the subsequent [mis]use of Williams's terminology favors the description that I had previously given, namely that justified actions (e.g. giving money to a charity) do not necessarily entail that intended state of affairs (e.g. the charity is actually a front for child trafficking). Of course, this is made more perspicuous when the resultant state of affairs does correspond to some intended good, but the justification for the action did not occur in intended fashion (e.g. the child traffickers somehow inadvertantly do end up helping impoverished children, and their trafficking plans are foiled). Again, I agree that your description is clearer, but I think mine is more accurate. Always open to further discussion, of course... Danny Pi 14:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, I never questioned your qualifications to comment on the matter. I am but a humble undergrad, so you've got me beat for qualifications. Danny Pi 14:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, no RV. I was never particularly happy with my original edit. Yes, I think we're talking about two different problems. Or, more accurately, yours is a particular case of my general definition. Do we agree that moral luck pertains to certain results, which do not correspond to actions/intentions? And the disconnect occurs because the justification for action does not meet result? Williams tends to focus on the "blame" element (or moral culpability or whatever), but it's really a broader question. Williams also takes the issue broader still to examine whether intentionality itself is not merely the consequence of ontological "luck", as it were, and so that's a meta-ethical question, which perhaps we should include, but methinks not under the heading of "moral luck". Danny Pi 15:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

And incidentally, I'm totally opposed to the assination of President Bush. He certainly deserves torture, first. :) Danny Pi 15:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JFJ & JFS

It's been reverted. See User_talk:Justforasecond#Umm, you just violated WP:3RR I think and below. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I found the anon's yesterday's ad hom on your personal religious beliefs very troubling. It should be nobody's business, and we are supposed to discuss arguments and not personalities. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] J4J

I don't understand what you want to do. Can you explain on the Talk: page? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Justforasecond and Jews for Jesus

Thanks for your comments on my page. From what I've seen and what I know of Justforasecond and from what I've read on talk:Jews for Jesus I find it real hard to believe that he is acting in "bad faith". I believe he thought he was doing the right thing and he explained his actions on the talk page. I have no opinion on this issue and don't know enough about it to say anything worth much concerning it. I also think, though, that a 48 hour block for a WP:3RR is way too harsh in this instance. Whiskey Rebellion 03:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Done!

I deleted that template for you. No harm done. :) --Woohookitty^(meow) 03:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Woody Allen

Summarily removed. Thank you. - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject South Park

I have thought of creating a WikiProject for South Park since it is now near its' 10th anniversary and has more articles than ever. I feel we could all do the following things through this project:

• Cleanup any short/poorly written/unformatted articles
• Merge/lengthen the many character articles
• Improve the South Park main page

I have seen your South Park fan template and wondered if you were interested in joining. If so reply to my talk page and I'll get back to you as quick as I can. Thanks, Mr. Garrison

[edit] Re:WikiProject South Park

Don't worry if you can't contribute much, even small edits like correcting links to other pages really does help. Get back to me if you'd like to join. By the way, much appreciated that you replied, Mr. Garrison

• I'm glad you'd like to join, if its' okay follow this link and add your name. Below is a little template for the project I made quickly over the weekend.

Mr. Garrison

[edit] Super/System

I'd go with "very important book". Problem with calling it "The Bible" in my opinion is that #1 it has been updated and released with a 2nd edition...and #2 I think that some of the advice it gives is a bit outdated. But I think it was very important for its time. --Woohookitty^(meow) 15:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject South Park page

We have our own page! Wikipedia:WikiProject South Park. Be sure to list your name in the members section. Mr. Garrison 18:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pauline Kael

I noticed that you just removed all references to Pauline Kael's being a Jew. Are you particularly opposed to having this publicly displayed? She was Jewish. I see no reason why it should not be included. - Abscissa 04:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

"All references", you say. There was one reference in the article, in the lead paragraph, which I removed. I removed it because the lead paragraph should concisely detail the subject's defining characteristics. Take a look at the following wikipedia articles devoted to other film critics: Judith Crist, Jay Cocks, Vincent Canby, Andrew Sarris, Roger Ebert, Armond White, James Agee, etc. You will notice that they are simply defined as being film critics. If you believe it is very important to anyone remotely interested in Ms. Kael that she be identified as being a Jew, please add it in the biographical details of the article. Thanks.-Hal Raglan 04:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

In fact, I just took another look at the article and in the "Biography" section she is already described as having been born to Jewish immigrants. Why do you believe it so important to mention this fact in the lead paragraph? I honestly don't think most people would describe her as a "Jewish film critic".—Hal Raglan 04:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

None of the people that you mentioned are Jewish (that I am aware). A couple of the articles (I looked at two or three) are a couple of sentences long. You say: "concisely detail the subject's defining characteristics" and being Jewish is obviously a defining characterisitic as it only describes about 1% of the population. Thus, being white, Christian, Chinese, male, etc. would not be defining characteristics? - Abscissa 04:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

No, being an "American film critic" is her defining characteristic, at least in terms of an encyclopedic entry. If she had repeatedly proclaimed her Jewishness in her reviews, and had become famous as being a "Jewish American film critic", then that would be important to note in the opening paragraph. My point about the other critics was not that they are Jewish, but that whether or not they are Christian, Jewish, or otherwise is not even mentioned in the lead paragraphs of their articles. Why should the Kael entry be any different? Again, it is already mentioned in the article that her parents were Jewish, so its not like I'm attempting to keep something important from "public display".-Hal Raglan 04:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Of what relevance, is it then, that she is an "American film critic"? Since she doesn't deal only with American filims. This refers to her being an American. Why is that there? The plain and simple fact is that she is a Jew, religiously and ethnically. If it is so important that she not be labelled as such then we can just leave it out but let's make your rationale quite clear. - Abscissa 05:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the relevance of Kael being described as an "American film critic" is because that is exactly why she is/was famous. It is standard to discuss somebody's nationality in the lead paragraph of an encyclopedic entry, not their religious beliefs unless that was one of the defining characteristics of their fame. And Kael was NOT famous for being a Jew, she was famous for being a film critic. If she was a practicing Jew (and I have no idea if she was or not), she never discussed it in print (as far as I can recall) or in any interviews, and it didn't seem to be reflected in her critical POV. Now, if she had repeatedly brought up her ethnicity/religion in her reviews as some kind of critical barometer, I could easily understand why somebody would feel compelled to describe Kael as a "Jewish film critic". But she didn't do that. And again I direct your attention to any of the other film critic articles on wikipedia. Is Roger Ebert a "Christian film critic"? Andrew Sarris an "atheist film critic"? Not according to wikipedia they're not. (I'm using those two as examples...I don't know or care what, if any, religious background they may have). And as I've previously pointed out, it is already noted in the "Biography" section of the article that her parents were Jewish. Removing this from the lead paragraph will not be "leaving it out" of the article at all.-Hal Raglan 06:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You may be unaware but "Jew" is also an ethnicity -- and many "Jews" are "Jews" only by ethnicity, so it is no different from saying someone is "American". Again, there is no need to describe majorities using adjectives to describe their majority status, since, in your own words, this includes "defining characteristics" -- for majorities this might be male, white, anglosaxon, catholic, American, Chinese, etc. - Abscissa 19:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I am not unaware of that. I have no problem with your most recent edit to the article, but be aware that since referencing a subject's nationality is pretty much SOP for the lead paragraph in a biographical wikipedia entry, someone else will probably eventually add "American" back.-Hal Raglan 13:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WPT

I sincerely appreciate the information you gave regarding WPT. The Mike Sexton third party quote is excellent source material supporting putting what you had written back into the article with that quote cited as source, although I still have lingering doubts about his legal expertise.  ;) I hope you will take the time to go back and cite your source for future readers and editors. Unfocused 15:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)