User talk:CMacMillan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hello, CMacMillan, 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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


[edit] 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)

[edit] Rimouski

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] Convienience store fellatio

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)