User talk:Shagmaestro

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Welcome
2 Marquette
3 Your old page
4 Upper Canada College
5 US presidential line of succession.
6 "Universally expected" Nancy Pelosi
7 Context
8 Sino-Sino relations sounds more intriguing than Chinese Civil War

[edit] Welcome

Hello Shagmaestro (interesting name, though I can hardly talk!). Welcome to Wikipedia.

You might find these links helpful in editing pages or creating new ones: Tutorial, How to edit a page, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should probably read our policies at some point too.

But don't feel you have to read every policy document before you do anything. Dive in, be bold in editing, and if you do anything wrong, someone will be quick to correct it and let you know (hopefully, politely!)

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! -- ALargeElk | Talk 16:28, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Wow! You sound a real macho man! Deb 17:50, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC) PS. Sorry, did I come across as sarcastic?

[edit] Marquette

Hi there, I was working on an article for Marquette University while you put the stub there. Would love for you to proof read it and add on as neccessary. Yardcock 18:26, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for working on that article, appreciate it. I hope you are enjoying your time at Wikipedia. If you need some help with anything, just drop me a note here. Yardcock 20:06, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome. Be sure to write in complete sentences. Check out Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers for more tips. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 04:17, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Your old page

Hi, your old page ([Shagmaestro]) and associated talk page have been moved to User:Shagmaestro/Old and User_talk:Shagmaestro/Old respectively. If you don't want anything there, let us know and we'll delete them. In general, you should never move a page on Wikipedia using cut-n-paste, as it loses the history - use the "Move this page" link. No harm done in the case, so you don't need to worry about it. Noel (talk) 00:31, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Upper Canada College

I am a current student at UCC and have been involved in editing and changing the article over the last couple of months. I have reviewed both the article and the page on the UCC website and can only find one infraction of copyright regulations - one sentence long. Moreover, that sentence was an edit to factually incorrect information which remained on the page for the longest time, describing the school as a 'private school,' which is it not. Thus, that sentence (The College is an independent, non-denominational school for boys, incorporated under an Act of the Legislature of the Province of Ontario, and is administered by a seventeen-member Board of Governors as a public trust,) was used as a reference, and can be altered to avoid the infringement. A lot of the rich history of the College was edited out of the article because, apparently, it sounded too impressive and boosterish - the same type of text on the "more about us" page. If I have missed other infractions, please let me know and I will be more than happy to reword or remove the offending text. I do not want to see my school's article removed over careless editing. Thank you.

Travisritch 03:33, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] US presidential line of succession.

Please don't remove information unless you know that it is not factual. Condoleezza Rice is the fourth in succession to the President. President -> (1) Vice President -> (2) Speaker of the House -> (3) Head of the Senate -> (4) Secretary of State. Source: United States presidential line of succession If you can provide information contrary to this, please do so. --Bluesquareapple 19:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Universally expected" Nancy Pelosi

Hi, I'm going to remove "Universally" from the title here because he haven't seen any vetting yet. Yes, I'm sure she will be speaker, but lets not use such broad terms yet. It will be automatically cleared up soon anyways, so for accuracy's sake, why don't we avoid such language....for now anyways.

[edit] Context

It's always important to read remarks in context. You asserted that I was biting Pixel. However, if you read my remarks in context, it's quite clear I was not responding to pixel but the anon/unsigned person, who I suspect was not pixel. Specifically:

ok--Pixel ;-) 18:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Plurality means that its still the largest party. Its just the stupid article being too fancy. Why can't they make it simple and say "Christian Democrats remain the largest party"???

Plurality is a well understood English word with a specific meaning when it comes to elections. This is the normal English wikipedia, not the simple one. Do you suggest we give up on all words and just don't communicate? Nil Einne 11:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

As you can see, someone specifically said "Its just the stupid article being too fancy. Why can't they make it simple and say "Christian Democrats remain the largest party"???". In context to this, I asserted, very strongly I agree, that the article wasn't being fancy and that given plurality was a well understood English word, suggesting we don't use it was just as silly as suggesting we don't use other English words. I wasn't intending to, and never have responded to pixel. While my harsh comments probably didn't help convey my POV and obviously offended a few people, I'm not apologising for them. I still think it's a bit silly to suggest we don't use plurality or that we're trying to be fancy when IMHO it accurately conveys the information and any uncertainty can be resolved by reading the link. Nil Einne 15:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I know that the way I explained (both that post and subsequent ones) my POV about the issue wasn't particularly constructive since it offended and annoyed people rather then help them understand what I was trying to say Nil Einne 16:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)