User talk:Shanman7

=2009=

Voltaire
Voltaire is widely and verifiably noted as a chief Enlightenment figure. I can understand placing references to him in another section or context of the overview of information - in order to shape a more well written presentation. However, there would be no just cause for removal of his name or his quote, ie., "If you wish to converse with me, define your terms," especially since this page was having so much trouble establishing a clear definition of the Age of Enlightenment, in terms of it being a distinct period, not directly or fundamentally involved with the Socialist movements of the Victorian & Romantic periods of 19th Century Britain, Europe, and Russia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki truth enlighten (talk • contribs) 17:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but perhaps it would be better placed later in the article. The definition and background information should be presented to the reader before quotes on one of the Enlightened thinkers. This quote might be placed in the section of influence of the Enlightenment or on Voltaire's page.  Maybe it could be placed at the end of the introduction.  Shan  man  7  20:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay. Sounds like a worthy challenge. It would be nice to find just the right spot for that quote from Voltaire if only because it encapsulates a key principle from the Enlightenment and possibly the MAIN point of Wiki itself, ie., "define your terms." [or people, or events, or principles, or concepts, etc.] Your suggestion is probably dead-on for placement. I'll try it later when I have focus time. Or I'd be just as pleased to see how you'd do it. I'm an independent worker but I really like the collaborative dynamic of Wiki also. Thanks again. Wiki truth enlighten (talk) 15:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thomas Paine and Common Sense
There is no cause to remove reference to this chief figure or his works. There may be cause to place it in a more smooth context with the general overview of the Age of Enlightenment.

Context is grounds for elaboration or editing, not deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki truth enlighten (talk • contribs) 17:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Your right on this mark, sorry. I didn't check to see that he was among the important figures in this article.  I guess I was too bold.  Continue editing the Enlightenment page! Your doing a good job.  Shan  man  7  20:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Cool! And to think I was bracing myself to be derided & chided and who knows what. I'm impressed by this unexpected air of open civility, hospitality, and intellectual honesty. And thank you for the encouragement. Your constructive remarks have won my further interest and support of this site. I'll do whatever I can to help out.Wiki truth enlighten (talk) 15:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Mrnoone2009
''This conversation was imported from Fvasconcellos's Talk Page. It was placed in his Archives on 9 March 2009 (UTC)''

Not that I have anything to do with it, but are you sure that you are not bitting the newcomer with that block you gave to Mrnoone2009? He only made one edit, and got a level two warning before you blocked him for the same thing. Shan man  7  01:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi there. Did you notice the article we have on the Main Page today, and the content of Mrnoone2009's vandalism? We're using a "block on sight" policy today—see discussion here. Best wishes, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 11:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandal on "the Age of the Enlightenment."
It may be this snarky fellow. Saddhiyama. I put some bate out for the vandal in the discussion box. This is the fellow who came out with his Noam Chomsky feelings hurt. There has been a tremendous amount of damage to that page, replaced by unbridled editorial, revisionist contextual interpretation from modern diatribe - utterly nothing cited. I was sad to see how much solid good work had been removed by this dabbler. We may need to go in and do a throw down. Your friend, WTE Wiki truth enlighten (talk) 07:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

St. Joseph's Collegiate Institute (1)
''This conversation was imported from JBC3's Talk Page. It was placed in his Archives on 5 June 2009 (UTC)''

Thank you for the additions to the info box, it needed to be expanded. As a student at that school, I like it when the page is improved. (Which doesn't happen all that often. Mostly it's just vandalism.)  Keep up the good work! Shan man  7  02:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for leaving me a message! It means a lot to know that my efforts were appreciated! I'm on the other end of the state so I don't know much about the school personally, but I know how to make an infobox using the information already provided to me. If there is something specific of a technical nature that I can help with let me know. --JBC3 (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Shanman7's User Page
''This conversation was imported from SoWhy's Talk Page. It was placed in his Archives on 8 April 2009 (UTC)''

I am just wondering why my user page was on CAT:CSD in the first place. Was it a glitch that just "happened"? Any response would be great, Thanks. Shan man  7  21:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It was about the userbox user CVU4-en you and others have on your page. The creator of the userbox tagged it with db-g7 but forgot that CSD taggings on Templates need to be in -tags, lest they are transcluded to all pages the template is used, like in this case. If that happens, the server takes some days to process the job queue with the changes, i.e. even if the tag is removed, it will still show up in category until it is processed anew. This can be sped up doing null edits, i.e. just loading the page and saving it without any changes. Such null-edits do not show up in the revision history. In some cases however, like in yours, it may happen that some special characters or anything like that are not correctly parsed and even saving the page without touching the edit window will create a change (for example add some blanks). The effect is the same, there are no changes visible but then it will show up because there was in fact a change, although none that can be perceived. Hope that explains it. Regards  So Why  21:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thanks for fixing OGame when I changed it. I wouldn't want it to be wrong because of me. :)  Lychosis  T / C  19:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem! I play the game so I have some experience its past.  Thanks for trying to help though!   Shan  man  7  00:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Ogame
This conversation was imported from the talk page of IP address 220.238.14.163

Sorry about your section being deleted from the Ogame article. It was removed because Wikipedia is not a guide. Originally, the page was almost entirely like that, but it almost got deleted because of that policy. It was kept on the condition that the guide section was removed, and more sources were added. See here for the original guide version and here, here, and here for the deletion attempts. Keep working on the wikipedia project though, everyone can help. Shan man  7  17:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Transportation in Iran
''This conversation was imported from SoWhy's Talk Page. It was placed in his Archives on 2 May 2009 (UTC)''

There is an article for Transportation in Iran, but there are also 8 articles about the specific roads. They is only a single sentence long each one, with where they go, no citations and sometimes poor spelling. I'm wondering if these articles should be deleted. They are here, and at the bottom are links to the rest of them. Thanks for the help, Shan  man  7  00:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I see no reason for deletion. Instead, I suggest you merge the content (there is some in the infoboxes as well) to either Transportation in Iran or a new Roads in Iran and then turn the current articles into redirects. Regards  So Why  11:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

St. Joseph's Collegiate Institute (2)
Hey Shanman7. I removed St. Joseph's Collegiate Institute from the Buffalo, New York article because it is not physically located within the city, but rather is located in the town of Tonawanda. SJCI is already included in the Tonawanda article, and a notation has been made that, although SJCI has a Buffalo mailing address it is located in the town. If you still feel SJCI should be included in the Buffalo article, you may want to discuss it on the talk page, as its attempted addition has been controversial in the past. Take care! --JBC3 (talk) 02:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the warning, I wasn't aware that it was a controversial subject. It just seems that people who know that SJCI is somewhere in Buffalo may not know that it is specificly in Tonawanda. Thanks again,  Shan  man  7  11:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. I don't think it's ever been brought up on the talk page, but a look at the article history shows SJCI (and other Catholic schools outside the city limits) are frequently added and reverted. I'm not a final authority on whether it gets included, so if you feel strongly about it, you can see if there is a concensus (for inclusion, exclusion, or compromise) by bringing it up on the talk page. --JBC3 (talk) 20:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Help
I have a question about rollback privileges. How are they any different from Twinkle's "Rollback" feature? All I've noticed is that rollback has a button in the "history" tab, but I usually check the edit before I use the Twinkle rollback feature. Thanks for any assistance. Shan man  7  23:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * They are very similar, but TW rollback allows you to summarize your revert, whereas WP:Rollback reverts with a generic summary: Reverted edits by so-and-so to last revision by so-and-so. Intelligent  sium  23:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So, technically it's better to use Twinkle, as it gives you greater control? And also, you don't need permission to use Twinkle do you?  Because I haven't been given any permission, but nobody told me I was doing something wrong.    Shan  man  7  23:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It depends on what you mean by "better". If you mean you want to be able to type in a custom summary, then yes, TW rollback is better. However, for blatant vandalism cleanup, the generic rollback summary is usually enough. Also, WP:Rollback is faster than TW rollback. And no, you only need the confirmed or autoconfirmed permission to use Twinkle, which you obviously already have, as you were able to install it. Intelligent  sium  02:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well thanks for all the help. Shan  man  7  02:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)