Jump to content

User talk:CMacMillan/Archives/2023 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Welcome

Hello, CMacMillan/Archives/2023 1, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Newcomers help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!

...and I just wanted to let you know that if you go to a page to warn someone for vandalism, and see a current {{test4}} (ie the recent Ben Franklin anon vandal) then there is no need to warn with a further test2. You can report them to WP:AIV as a vandal that needs to be blocked from editing. :) Thanks! --Syrthiss 14:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Syrthiss, THANKS for the message, and the links. I've used Wikipedia for a fair amount of information and - naively - was shocked that someone would actually vandalize a page. I may have jumped in too quickly to begin fixing things, but it's in my nature. I really appreciate the links, the message of welcome, and the very well delivered how-to regarding warnings. Now tell me how people keep up with the vandalism? It seems fantastically widespread. CMacMillan 16:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I have to admit, its hard to keep up with it at times. There are a few things that regular users can do to keep up with it: add a few pages where they are familiar with the subject to their watchlist and look for odd changes, or take a look at some of the tools at the cleaning up vandalism wikipage. I too was shocked early on that someone would vandalize articles, though now I've become blase about it and just revert it without a lot of conscious thought. Cheers! :) --Syrthiss 17:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Antun Vrdoljak and Goran Visnjic

At what point does the truth become vandalism?? What specific points did I make that are untruthful or inaccurate??

Please let me know so that this situation does not degenerate into a revert war.

Please disregard anything Demiurge states. He is a wannabe censor who has been caught on numerous occasions by other Wikipedians attempting to censor or gut anything he personally disagrees with or does not like such as edits to pages re Ante Pavelic, pre-Code movies (and movie censorship), domestic terrorism in the US (Irish roots), etc. I hope you are not allowing him to influence you in any way. You will have cause for regret later.

Thanks!! Brandubh Blathmac 15:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Look, I don't know who Demiurge is, I don't know what your issues are and I honestly don't care on either front. Honestly. However, your edits are heavy handed and radical to the articles, as was the removal of the Talk comment. Play within the pillars of Wikipedia, or don't play.
Your other edits seem very well thought out and you've taken a lot of trouble to wikify whole sections of articles. It's obvious you care about what you're doing - just leave the POV at home OR cite sources or arguments for your edits. CMacMillan 15:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Fine, I understand your point. No one is 100% immune from POV, regardless of what they claim, and we all have issues. However, as regards Goran Visnjic and Antun Vrdoljak, do I need to cite a source for several seasons worth of pro-Croatian propaganda episodes on TV's "ER"?? -- and I guess the fact that Visnjic was a Croatian soldier, and the fact that his father-in-law, Vrdoljak, is a political ultranationalist linked to the corrupt and brutal, ethnic cleansing regime of Franjo Tudjman are just coincidence??

Come on. Brandubh Blathmac 16:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Pal, let me be clear: I don't care where your Croatian sympathies lie and I doubt I could even pick it out on a map. Propaganda is just someone's definition of POV, and I'm a Wikipedian, not the UN.
Your edits may be justified; don't know, don't care. Follow the rules and it won't be an issue, right?
Your name is interesting, though: Ravenblack Flowerson? CMacMillan 16:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Dealing with editing conflicts

Hi there and welcome :) The RfAR I was referring to is a request for arbitration, which is the last step in our dispute resolution process. If you look at that editors talk page, the last message was a notice that he was suspected to be a sockpuppet of another user and had been added to a requested case.

Generally, when you run into editors that push their point of view and talking to them on the article discussion page or their talk page doesn't work, you'll want to look at other steps in the dispute resolution process. If the dispute is between yourself and one other editor, a lot of times a third opinion will help solve the problem. If its about content in an article, putting up a request for comments from other editors can help resolve the situation. There's also options like mediation for heated disputes and if none of these things work, you can bring up a request for comment on that editors conduct. The Arbitration Committee is a last resort if none of the other options are able to resolve the issue. If you browse through some of those links, there's a lot more information about the process and ideas on how to handle them.

Above all, don't let them get to you :) Stay cool, keep it from getting personal and use those dispute resolution steps as needed. Hopefully you'll find most editors are easy to deal with :) I haven't looked at the dispute, but since its on-going, I wanted to mention our three revert rule just so you don't accidentally run afoul of it -- essentially it states that you may revert an article only 3 times in 24 hours; more than 3 and you can get a short block. I'm usually of the opinion that if I have to consider reverting someone more than once (and its not obvious vandalism) that I should start looking into other options for the dispute.

Hope the info helps; let me know if there's anything more I can assist with. Thanks and happy editing! .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 17:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on Xeni Jardin article

Thanks for your help on Xeni Jardin article: I'm quite glad relieved that there might finally be a compromise instead of an edit war. --Christopherlin 04:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Glad I could help in some way. I doubt that it will be the end of it though, unfortunately. CMacMillan 22:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

bigot in the classic 20th century Scottish and Northern Irish mold

Hi

I have just read your post on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Rms125a@hotmail.com and I was wondering about this comment:

I'm a little bothered by the phrase "bigot in the classic 20th century Scottish and Northern Irish mold"

Why does this bother you? I did not mean to offend, but will gladly refrain from such comments in the future if they come over in a way which was not intended.

Fergie 19:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


Hi, Fergie,

It read to me as if it meant '20th century Scots and Northern Irish are bigots', which I'm sure you didn't mean. After reviewing I think you meant that he's a 'bigot along the same lines as many of the bigots produced out of 20th C Scots and Northern Irish' rather than classifying all Scots/Northern Irish as bigots.

Every society has their bigots, unfortunately, but no society has cornered the market on them - yet. CMacMillan 02:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that was what I meant- the type of idiots found (thankfully rarely) in Scotland and NI when I was growing up. Most of them have now moved away from bashing catholics and onto harrassing muslims and asylum seekers these days, so it is unusual to come across people who still get hot under the collar about 'The Irish' Fergie 19:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

"Every society has their bigots,.." The north eastern part of Ireland could export them for a living. It has that many of them(bad people) Culnacreann 18:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Ha, Ha

Your comments for the Stem cell vandalism revert made me laugh- "Based on that comment you might actually qualify as a stem cell." Very funny. SeanMD80 19:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

(*grin*) Thanks. I've found that reverting tons of articles with boring vandalism that doesn't even try to be creative makes you a little punchy. I mean, seriously, how many times can you read "(insert name here) is gay/stupid/a dick HA HA" before you just have to ramp up the insults a notch? I have to admit, I am trying hard not to do it ;) CMacMillan


Niloc

Just my first name spelled backwards. Thanks for noticing....Ha! Ha!

I don't know about you but nobody had a problem pronouncing my name till General Powell took centre stage. Then the "semi Colin" jokes re-emerged from my childhood. Thanks to therapy, I'm dealing with it! --Niloc 15:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Rimouski

Thanks for your help for translation. I see you're better in french than me in english!

Spelling

Sorry about that. I never knew some spelling differed between the US and UK. Since Stephen Hawking is British, I'll deffinitely keep it at that.--Hyokano 16:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

JF Lepage 05:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

7 minute correction of Border Collie

Your recent correction of my one word insert into the Border Collie page was premature to say the least. I was in the middle of teaching my wife how to edit such errors.

I inserted the error in plain view and left her alone to seach and remove the inserted error by herself. 15 minutes later, I asked her what was taking so long... and she stated that she couldn't find it. No wonder... someone had already corrected the error within 7 minutes, and was even kind enough to send me a note stating so.

Being a dutiful Wikipedian is one thing, but you really ought to get a life.

--Written by David K. Brown 20:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


I've vascillated between trying to take this with a smile and asking you to pull your head out of your own ass. I thought I had caught a training problem, welcomed a new user, and helped by reverting the offending change. You thank me, or let me know that what you were doing, with a nice sarcastic, insulting note. Way to go, Big Guy, pat yourself on the back for that and for teaching your wife that vandalism is okay in the name of teaching.
I've decided instead to ask that you not use the main articles - that others have dedicated hours to improving and maintaining - as your own personal training ground.
Oh, and the life's just fine, thanks, I've arranged it so that I don't have to deal with bad manners such as yours. CMacMillan 20:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

colored people's time

sorry for not making that change under my name, I had just forgotten to. This is the person who made the change twice to colored people's time.

I'm not changing it back in fear of being banned or anything like that, but african american is not accurate. not every black person is from africa. the black people who are here because their families were brought here on slaveships are not african since the importation of africans was entirely banned on the first day of 1808. so to say that blacks in america are "african american" is just nonsensical.

Hey, there, fifteenrabbits. I don't necessarily disagree with you on the point that not all Blacks in America are African Americans. I do believe the euphemism is political, and not an accurate portrayal. Especially since all live originated in Africa - which in theory makes everyone in the US an African American! ;) The issue here is that isn't not a necessary edit since African American is currently a politically acceptable phrase. You can bring it up on the talk page for the article and see what the consensus is. CMacMillan 01:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


Hahaha, when you said that you replied to me in your user page I thought that you were implying that on your list of ridiculous people that I was either under "racist" or "righteously indignant." Either way, I'll put it up on the talk page. Maybe I'll change america! :/ Thanks.
Whoops! :) Forgot that was on there! Definitely not, but it was worth a laugh at least. *grin* No problem, and just drop me a line if you have any questions.

Re: User Block: Donnyjays6

Can you update the user talk:Donnyjays6 block... he's been blocked for "a period of Joe Sakic" *grin* CMacMillan 22:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Done! The WP toolbar doesn't work with Firefox 2.0, so the occassional mistake has been made with all of the manual typing required to warn and block editors this evening. Let's hope someone patches it soon! (aeropagitica) 22:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

User page

Hi,

I always follow up edits to evolution to see who is writing there (call me strange)... So I came to your user page, and thank you, it gave me a good chuckle! --Michael Johnson 05:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Warning vandals

When you warn vandals or welcome users, make sure to put "subst:" in front of the name of the template. For example, use {{subst:test1}} rather than {{test1}}. Thanks! --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 01:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Reverting

Hi CMacMillan

You revert a good faith entry to a discussion here using popups.

Why? ➨ ЯEDVERS 08:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Good question. Sorry about that, I'm not sure how that happened, but I certainly didn't mean to revert an entry like that. I only use popups for vandalism, but I was following that discussion closely and I must have clicked RV. Again, sorry. CMacMillan 13:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Why revert the truth about Fidel Castro his regime is a dictatorship. See Discussion on page.Tannim 16:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Blanking

Please don't blank pages, even if one does require deletion. Instead, slow down and visit WP:CSD. Select a template that applies (they don't stretch) and apply it to the page. Blanking to achieve deletion can lead to accidental accusations of vandalism that then cannot be removed from your talk page. And we don't want that. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Kind of like this? *grin* Thanks for the info, but I was trying to resurrect a page that used to exist, created a #REDIRECT then realized that the target no longer existed either. I blanked my own edit, and posted a request for help on the Administrator's Notice Board. CMacMillan 20:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Mase

Yeah, if you look at his biographies and/or listen to his recent mixtape songs, you'll read/hear "Mase Murder." :) Lmz00 00:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

RE: Franks

No problem. I was following the edits of a suspected vandal and I came across the previous edit in the article. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 02:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Haha. Well, I am an Irishman (dual-citizen) and you appear to be a Scotsman. However, I'll be a prairie boy in about a month and a half. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 03:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Dogs

Thank you for having joined WikiProject Dogs. As you may have noted, it is a comparatively new group and the project page is still a little rough, but we're working on that. We just added a userbox for members of the project, and established the gallery of all the featured picture nominees. Our primary goal is to improve the articles, and I hope that you can continue to improve any and all that appeal to you. If you have any questions, please feel free to leave them on the project's talk page or contact myself or one of the other members directly. Thanks again for having joined! Badbilltucker 15:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


RE: Rumsfeld

Hi, MacMillan. It would seem that my contributions to the Rumsfeld article are being removed faster than I can find the sources to back them up(It would take me about three minutes or so to find a defense, but the claims vanish in about a minute). Whoever's undoing my edits is remarkably efficient. A whole section vanished before I could even find the statements to which I was making additional comments. I guess that the tidbits I know on the issue that aren't already mentioned are things that somebody around here is clearly not interested in. Because of this, I usually avoid directly contributing to political articles...contributions I make vanish within seconds just as soon as someone decides they don't want to know the little extra that I contribute, even if I do cite sources immediately. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CormorantEnt (talk • contribs) .

I followed up on User talk:CormorantEnt -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 20:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Good catch on User talk:CormorantEnt; I missed that helpful little change between my edits to the page. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 22:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Euskata vs. Thulean

THE REAL VANDAL IS thulean, I wont vandalize anymore but he keeps vandalizing White people still and he needs to be taught a vandalesson.--Euskata 00:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for removing the reference to John McCririck - I was going to do it right now. I admit to adding it for a specific joke, clearly it won't happen again.

Convienience store fellatio

That does sound like a bargain. Lol. Disinclination 06:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Question (moved from your userpage)

Hello, I'm George415. When you get time, please tell me how to protect a page. Someone keeps putting in wrong things, and I would like to stop that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by George415 (talk • contribs)

Fair use rationale for Image:SmuCrestMar.gif

Image:SmuCrestMar.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Border collie caption

I have yet to check out what you changed the caption to, but you should know that it is my option that the image's caption was correct irregardless of the actual activities of the dog in the image. The dog in no way conforms to any national standard of show border collie (especially in comparison to the show collies in the adjacent image), which therefore either makes it a pet or working dog. VanTucky 04:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with the lengthier caption that's there now, is that your edit? I'm not that particular about what it says, just so long as it's clear that the image is included in that section to demonstrate that not all bc's look like the show standard. VanTucky 17:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

VanTucky problems too?

I see you also had a problem with VanTucky in deleting photo(s) of dogs. He seems to be going after dog articles without knowing anything about dogs. My sympathies are with you. Noles1984 21:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Dog Intelligence

I don't discount Coren's work, it's just that I thought the edit was too unambiguous. It gives the impression that Coren is the absolute authority on dog intelligence and that his work has complete and total acceptance by his peers. The original edit is less unambiguous and the included reference to Coren's work allows the reader to make their own decision. If you are really keen to have the edit stand, the articles talk page would be a good place to canvas opinion from interested contributors. Tophonic

GAG! Tophonic shouldn't be allowed to edit any page on Wikipedia if his goal is to CREATE more ambiguity and obfuscate facts and data by making them appear to be opinions. Facts don't lie or have an agenda, interpretation of facts is where bias comes in and since Tophonic apparently has no beef with Coren's interpretation, his need to obfuscate the result is troublesome. The Border Collie article is poorly written in spots and I'd like to improve that later on tonight. Hopefully my changes will make this issue moot as I hope to simply state facts instead of the boldly meaningless puffery that currently exists. 71.196.197.174 02:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Did you guys read my comments in the BC discussion page? I was persuaded by your arguments, I agreed and made a suggestion on how to edit the article based on the Wikipedia article on avoiding weasel words Tophonic 11:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Howie Mandel

Hi CMacMillan,

Just to check: did you intentionally revert my revert on Howie_Mandel? From my point of view, undoing the blanking of a large part of the article by a fellow Anonymous User did seem to be the Right Thing to do. If not, could you explain the reason why you re-reverted to the blanked version? I'd appreciate it very much. For now, the most likely explanation is that you intended to revert to the unblanked version but we got into a conflicting edit... I've reverted to the version with content now. If you do believe the blanked version is best, please re-re-revert and I'll let things thing rest.

212.64.16.131 (talk) 17:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Okay, several reverts too many for one article. I'll let you look after it. CMacMillan (talk) 17:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
*grin* Would almost look as if we're getting into an edit war, both with the best of intentions for the article ^_^ Looks like it's all OK now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.64.16.131 (talk) 17:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

You need to

...assume good faith. Whether you are looking for an excuse to use that template, don't dump it on my talk page for recreational purposes. I have reverted your cruft. You know damn well that wasn't vandalism. 71.106.173.211 (talk) 18:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

No, actually, I don't know that the edit wasn't "bullshit". You have a previous warning, you deleted my warning, and you added an edit to an article that seems unnecessary, effectively changing the meaning of the disambiguation page for Colossus. And direct your angry posts elsewhere. CMacMillan (talk) 18:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Your "bullshit" posted on my talk page was in relevance to my edit to colossus. You called it vandalism when it is clearly not. That is not assuming good faith; it is just a mere excuse to use a vandalism template to harbour your anger. Take you angry "bullshit" elsewhere. 71.106.173.211 (talk) 18:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Seriously, man, what's your issue? You didn't like it being called vandalism? Okay, I found the edit un-contrustively modified the meaning of the disambiguation page and reverted it, but your piss and vinegar isn't going to change the issue or wreck my day, so why not just constructively discuss your concern? CMacMillan (talk) 18:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
You should know better that such an edit is clearly not vandalism and to take it with a grain of salt. The vandalism template is not a toy and if you find an edit unconstructive, explain why in a sensible fashion. It is not a matter of what I like it to be called; it is a matter of what it is. Tell me that you don't honestly believe that my edit was vandalism or are you really so arrogant? Now do you understand why this is an issue? 71.106.173.211 (talk) 19:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Let me understand clearly: you post a confrontational note about my template use, accuse me of harbouring anger and using the template to direct that at you. Now you accuse me of arrogance? I don't understand. Arrogance of what? I completely understand why you would be concerned that the vandalism template was used if vandalism wasn't intended, and think that you're correct to call "Assume Good Faith". I suggest that maybe you read it: you expect to have good faith assumed, then don't afford someone else the same courtesy?
No, I don't understand why this is such an issue that it would spur anger. I don't understand why you didn't post a note asking why I thought it was vandalism, and perhaps helping me to understand why it wasn't. It is true that I posted vandalism only after seeing a previous entry and I assumed it was the next in a series. I don't know how you take an edit "with a grain of salt", and I would be willing to listen to your point of view, but seriously only after the rhetoric is toned down. Otherwise, take it elsewhere. CMacMillan (talk) 19:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
If you are warning me about vandalism when my edit clearly wasn't vandalism, what else could you be doing other than harbouring anger or using the template as a recreational tool? Enlighten me. Otherwise, if you cannot understand why this post isn't an issue, that embodies arrogance. I have also read WP:AGF and I cannot assume good faith on your behalf as you haven't on mine.
So now apparent to your post you are saying that you blindly reverted my revision to colossus without even looking at the revision? This is what I mean by taking the edit with a grain of salt. Analyse the edit... is it vandalism? Do I really have to explain to you how that isn't vandalism? I cannot understand how anyone could revert an edit before actually looking at it and call it rhetoric to point out that it clearly isn't. But I can't expect to understand your rhetoric from my perspective as you lost me at "piss and vinegar". 71.106.173.211 (talk) 19:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Of course I read your edit, and have tried to respond civilly - even following your first post and the "cruft" comment - but I feel now that this is bordering on a personal attack. This is my request that this cease. CMacMillan (talk) 19:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you chill out. If you meant well, then good for you. You (an IP) reverted what could easily be construed as a valid edit. Doing so, in light of your past edits, is easily mistaken for vandalism. Assuming good faith only goes so far. I suggest you (both) drop the issue and move on. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Your user page

Really liked your observations about Wikipedia. So far, it's been eye-opening if nothing else! — so true. I've learned of weirdness that I never even knew existed until I discovered Wikipedia. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Fried Munkee Vandal

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my page. The IP user is really quite annoying.-BlueAmethyst .:*:. (talk) 04:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Images on your userpage.

I've re-removed the image on your userpage that is fair-use only. Please read the description (at Image:SmuCrestMar.gif). The image can only be used fairly (read: legally) in article space (not user space). --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up! CMacMillan (talk) 06:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
No problem. --Cheeser1 (talk) 08:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks +barnstar

Thanks for reverting vandalism off my talk page so I thought I would give you this...

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For revertig vandalism off my user talk page and countless other pages Alexfusco5 12:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


you deserve it Alexfusco5 12:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, CMacMillan. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Culture at 3

Not sure why you reverted yourself, but this edit fixed a clear typo so I reinstated your first one. Let me know if I missed something? Star Mississippi 21:57, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

No, you didn't miss anything :) I got all twisted around trying to clean up too many at once. Thank you! CMacMillan (talk) 23:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Our fingers sometimes do too much walking! Star Mississippi 00:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Kathy Hochul

CMacMillan, thanks, but the more you revert the more we have to clean up. User:SWR159014, User:Gatemansgc, that goes for you too. This is the work of a long term jerk, and there's no point in warning them or whatever: notify an administrator, report the accounts, get the article protected. Look at what they wrote and how they revert, and then create sock accounts to do the same thing--that is their MO, and you'll keep seeing it until that person grows up or dies, whichever comes first. Note also the geolocation of the IP: it's the Ohio/Kentucky area. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 21:09, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I welcome the direction - it took me some time to recognize what was happening and to get a request for IP/User block on the intervention page. I was headed to request for protection (which I've never done) as you protected. I'll know for next time.
If I might provide some return help, "Thanks, but..." is a great way to deflate the folks trying to support you in your role without the advantages administrator and experience might grant. I look forward to collaborating more. CMacMillan (talk) 21:48, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
OK, but ask yourself how valuable it is to revert the same edit no fewer than five times. Look at the edit history for that article. Drmies (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Upset

I am really upset that you and --WikiUser1234945-- have been reverting my edits. I thought I was making a constructive edit, and it felt like I was being met with unnecessary backlash. This has made me now feel hurt and upset. Please don't delete my comments on your talk page, it makes me feel like I am not being heard as a wikipedia user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.223.203 (talk) 16:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Consider creating a username account so that edits such as yours - which don't immediately conform to editorial standards - may be reviewed more carefully before reversion.

Having said that, leaving messages of a personal attack - such as yours on my page, have no value. Do not unnecessarily accuse others and familiarize yourself with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith. CMacMillan (talk) 16:09, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

People's Party Edits

You reversed some of the changes I have made to the People's Party (United States, 2017). You claimed that "Your changes to this article change its information dramatically", This Claim was obviously false, As I only added two things to the Article, You claim that my edits reflected Bias or POV, Which I have no idea what you are referring too, Lastly you talk of citing which I did, to the Party's own campaign website. Stiner226 (talk) 03:05, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Is there a reason you wouldn't write that on the article's talk page? CMacMillan (talk) 03:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
I apologise, I will try to do that next time, But your characterisations of the edits were still unfair Stiner226 (talk) 03:13, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Ghulam Rehman

Ghulam Rehman is very close friend of me. We play many times together and we also have family relations. 182.186.106.146 (talk) 07:06, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Requesting for an explanation

Can you tell why you nominated Muppathi Moonu Waterfalls for speedy deletion citing multiple reasons? Thilsebatti (talk) 12:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

My reasons were included in the page tag. There is little information, the article uses promotional material as its only citation, and appears to be stubbed out as a business. Did you remove the tag without discussion? CMacMillan (talk) 12:50, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello friend. It is not the first article about a waterfall that I'm creating. Per WP:GEONATURAL, named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. A1 applies to articles lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. It's about a waterfall here, and it's extremely easy to identify the subject. A7 is applicable to individuals, animals, organisations, web content, and events. I'm not sure how a waterfall fits into any of these categories. G11 refers to pages that are solely promotional. Please describe how I promoted this page. Best wishes. Thilsebatti (talk) 13:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand your opposition on my talk page. The speedy deletion process gave you a formal opportunity that you choose not to use.
WP:GEONATURAL outlines that The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. - you have included news links that mention the area in articles about tourist destinations only. The same type of article in English/Tamil(?) are the listed sources.
If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. - It is more likely that an article for the general area, describing the waterfall phenomenon makes more sense.
For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river. - Again, a single article about the area would be preferable to individual articles about waterfalls that appear to be otherwise non-notable. A1 very much applies.
Your citations seem to promote the area tourism (and its jeep tours) as the sole sourcing. (A7 and G11). Wouldn't an article on the area, highlighting what appears to be its notable factor (33 waterfalls in the area) be more fitting? CMacMillan (talk) 13:13, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
My goal at wikipedia is not to promote anything, but to supply as much knowledge to the public as possible. If you look over my creations, you'll see that many of them are about geographical elements, particularly those related to tourism. I have access to a variety of offline resources. Normally, I only use offline sources when absolutely necessary. I can use it here if you want me to. I don't blame you for tagging with A1. There was only one sentence in the article. I can understand. But after seeing G11 and A7, I was completely let down. Because I have a track record of producing clean articles. It was really disheartening to see someone challenging it so suddenly. Thilsebatti (talk) 13:32, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Johnny Newman

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Johnny Newman, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

  • A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 18:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Signa Butler (October 31)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Spinster300 were:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
Spinster300 (talk) 20:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Teahouse logo
Hello, CMacMillan! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Spinster300 (talk) 20:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CMacMillan/Archives/2023_1&oldid=1192256070"