My archive

This is an archive of my talk page. I'm sorry if I missed some or got it in the 'wrong' order; I really don't have the kind of time to devote to this all the time. Sorry. Ruff ^{Bark away!} 04:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signatures

I'm testing my signature. - Ruff

looks pretty boring right now. -- Netsnipe ^(Talk) 22:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O you critiquer of the signatures, I humbly ask, is this good enough? Ruff ^{Bark away!}

You're the man now, dog! -- Netsnipe ^(Talk) 22:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original sin

Hi, thanks for your comments. Directly stating fact is, in fact, necessary to avoid non-neutral points of view. "Some may argue" and "some critics" are in fact weasel words which is why I reworded it. I have injected no bias or opinion by doing so. Plus, the statement about Judaism's rejection of the concept of original sin is powerful and should be placed at the front of the paragraph, don't you agree?--Metron4 23:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to assume you are referring not to my edits removing weasel words, but to the addition I made about God's omniscience. Remember that the topic is "Problems with original sin". The two statements are related. The first part discusses the question of God's unconditional love. My statement discusses the question of his/her omniscience. It is not MY question. I do not even believe in God. Yet both statements support the topic. If I meant to be surreptitiously biased, I could have worded it something like, "Such a theory also questions God's existence, since he cannot be both omniscient and punitive for crimes he knows will be committed." I think I played it by the book on this one. Feel free to disagree.--Metron4 23:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lead of Israel-Lebanon war article

What's the problem: can't you read? I removed this material from the lead. It's not "deleted"; anyone can easily retrieve it from the edit history, and I've invited anyone to put it elsewhere in the article, just not in the lead. You know, sometimes a legitimate part of editing an article is removing stuff. +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to keep your communication with other users in a WP:Civil tone. I've found that the cooler we keep the conversation, the more productive. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 18:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was really just referring to the "Do I make myself clear?" part. It just doesn't help to speak that way, regardless of whether you're correct or not, and it could be construed as a policy violation. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 18:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. If you ever have questions or need help, feel free to approach me. Happy editing Tewfik^Talk 18:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hardly an expert on those matters, but feel free to do what I did, and copy another user (like me). I think the <sup></sup> tags are the ones you are looking for though. Also, while I agree that the Hezbollah caveat should be replaced, you shouldn't refer to Anon's removal as vandalism, which has a very specific definition. Other users don't take kindly to being called things they aren't . Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 19:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clearing your own page

Actually, it isn't considered good form to clear your own WP:TALK (in response to your edit-summary). I suggest you restore whatever you removed, and if the page gets to large you can always archive. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 04:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Umm

It used to be one big thing, but that would take up a huge amount of space if I made it like so now. And the disappearance of your edit puzzles me, too. :S Cheers, Master of Puppets ^{The Walrus!} 22:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poor contrast for some of the less fortunate out there who still use CRT tubes, I guess. :P This one is simpler, which means better. Cheers, Master of Puppets ^{The Walrus!} 03:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Szulczewski

Hi Ruffin,

While I'm not a sysop, I did tag the article with a proposal for deletion tag. If no one can make a good argument that the subject is notable, the page can be deleted in five days. Let me know if you have any questions (and you really shouldn't clear your Talk like this), Tewfik^Talk 16:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, I didn't notice

. 15:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

For Firefox hit ctrl-shift-R, for IE you can clear the cache under Tools>Internet Options, though I'm not aware of a quick button. Tewfik^Talk 16:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grammardom

Yeah, I couldn't resist that one. :) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Post to the village pump

You may want to move your comment over to WP:ANI which is a more approrpriate place (also, it looks to me like WP:SPAM is probably the relevant policy). JoshuaZ 02:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So...

My guess is that you don't understand my humor? oTHErONE _Contribs 05:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution et al...

"scientific fact" in double quotes: i was meant as an translation into everyday`s language not scientific language (terminology). In strict scientific terms it would translate to (scientific concensus). So if the average joy is allowed to speak of science in his words i think i remain the right to translate science into his words :D And scientists don`t constantly speak pure terminology - but way too much so anyways, especially when talking to the public.

There are certain theories which can be considered the conerstones of all science, one of them is quantum mechanics. Slicky 17:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The previous comment used to read: [1]

Crucifer

Thanks for defending the disambig page; it's my second article that was speedy flagged, don't know whether to consider it a compliment or a critique of my choice of topics lol. But I really don't understand why it's been flagged, it's a clear example of disambig. Anyways, cheers. Anchoress 05:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]