User talk:Tsinoyboi

Welcome!

Hello, Tsinoyboi, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Auroranorth 09:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC) Ask for help here

what does this button do?

testing where this plus sign with the caption "Start a new discussion" goes -Tsinoyboi 21:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agnosticism

The sentence as it stood when Pschemp came along was syntactically incorrect on a level close to, "This sentence no verb." Please be bold in updating pages and try to make constructive edits that move the article forward, as opposed to reverts. Thank you. Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake; I should have left the change and only bring it up in the discussion --Tsinoyboi 06:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infallibility

I'm glad you agree with me about the infallibility article. Most of the sections have no references at all- I added one to the Christian Theology section because I happened to have a book in front of me! the links I retained from the theology section to other articles in Wikipedia, most of which are better referenced (but not all). But shouldn't the references appear on this page? --Slackbuie 22:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

certainty

"u don't assum the premises are true; you question them. For the conclusion to be sound, the premises must be true. If "P or Q" and "not P" are certain, then the conclusion will be certain"

hi Tsinoyboi, i agree, If "P or Q" and "not P" are certain, then the conclusion will be certain. This is the point outlining the problem with certainty in logic. if it could be more clear, feel fre e to edit it Spencerk 08:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wedge strategy

Hi. Your edit on Wedge strategy strategy didn't work, which is good because it would have been reverted. Bicolumnar references? No thanks. Jim62sch 22:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with 2 columns? i just thought it was more compact and neater. --Tsinoyboi 07:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For lists (like external links, see also, etc.) I agree wholeheartedly. For references/footnotes they'd end up being confusing, plus it's pretty non-standard (not that I have anything against things that are non-standard if they appear to be an improvement). Cheers. Jim62sch 11:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]