User talk:Guy Macon
|Welcome to Guy Macon's Wikipedia talk page.
"Wikipedia's articles are no place for strong views. Or rather, we feel about strong views the way that a natural history museum feels about tigers. We admire them and want our visitors to see how fierce and clever they are, so we stuff them and mount them for close inspection. We put up all sorts of carefully worded signs to get people to appreciate them as much as we do. But however much we adore tigers, a live tiger loose in the museum is seen as an urgent problem." --WP:TIGER
Only 995530346 articles left until our billionth article!
We are only 995530346 articles away from our 1,000,000,000th articleGuy Macon--
|Click here to start a new discussion thread|
IIRC, RfC's re COI: WTF? (FWIW)
- Wikipedia:No paid advocacy
- Wikipedia:Paid editing policy proposal
- Wikipedia:Conflict of interest limit
- --Guy Macon (talk) 07:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi Guy. I was wondering if you had time to chip-in on a couple articles where I have a COI. User:North8000 has already reviewed my work here on improving the SMS Audio page, but I was hoping to find someone to do the Request Edit.
I've also submitted an AfC here for Brilliant Earth, which User:Fluffernutter provided feedback on here (that I implemented), but he/she said they were not confident enough about company articles to do the formal approve/decline. The backlog is about a month long and I was hoping not to wait so long to get an answer ;-)
Hello! I noticed that you mass-reverted edits by User:220.127.116.11, citing WP:NOTBROKEN (and I see from your messages on the editor's talk page that you observed actual problems with some of the changes).
I just want to point out that some of the user's edits appear to have been constructive. WP:HOWTODAB) and a piped article link (per WP:DABPIPE and WP:DABPIPING). I checked some of the other reverted edits at random and saw additional disambiguation page link repairs (such as ). I also saw edits that the user shouldn't have been performed (per WP:NOTBROKEN), but that also shouldn't have been reverted (because doing so only added another unnecessary revision).appeared on my watchlist. The user had repaired a disambiguation page link (per
I suggest that you examine your edits and self-revert those in which you accidentally undid improvements (and please try to be more careful in the future). Thank you. —David Levy 12:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notification; I had not realized that I had reverted some good edits. I will go through every edit I made and make sure they are good. Again, I appreciate you letting me know that I made errors and giving me the chance to self-revert. I will post a followup not here when I am confident that I caught all of the bad edits. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks again. :-) —David Levy 13:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I have to tell you something. The guy with this IP address suggest moving Die Hard to Die Hard (film), which I don't find it necessary and it doesn't change a thing about it since Die Hard is the main name of the film, among other things. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- I agree. Right now the proposal to move the page is losing, and I don't think anyone will agree that it needs to be moved, so let's wait and see what happens. I have to clean up some errors I made earlier first, but after that I will look into whether the IP user is making a habit of suggesting moves that don't make sense. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Can this be used as RfC evidence?
FWIW, the evidence is this: after the RfC was filed and around the Guy/JzG posted at AN about QG and chiro, QG initially became highly (and imo weirdly) conciliatory, asking for a "truce", telling me and Mallexikon that he's stop editing acu articles if we wanted, asking me to undo all his edits since Decmber-ish, and changing his mind about whether category:pseudoscience should be used for the [[acupuncture] article. Then, a few days later, after I came out in support of a topic ban that others had previously suggested, QG reversed course 180 degrees, posting complaints about my edits at acu (all of which had been resolved earlier, AFAIK), deciding that acu should be in category:pseudoscience after all, and edit-warring over an NPOV tag that I'd placed on another article. This is imo battleground editing; I find it really inappropriate to make content changes for WP-political reasons. Regards, --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 14:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- Assuming that you are correct (I am not taking sides, not having looked at the evidence myself) while there is no explicit rule on this, in general it is better to stay silent if the behavior is at the RFC/U itself and let those evaluating the RFC/U decide for themselves. Not responding (except for correcting statements of fact when you have diffs/citations showing that they are wrong) actually strengthens your argument. Psychologically, our brains tell us "you have to respond or everyone will think that it is true!" but the reality is the exact opposite. That's why you so often see someone in an argument making points in the form of questions; instinctively they know that responding usually weakens their opponent's position. Plus, the subjects of RFC/Us are often stressed out and are given a lot of slack.
- If the behavior is in an article (including changing the category) and your complaint is valid that is the best kind of evidence. Even then staying cool and sticking to the facts is to your advantage.
- Behavior on article talk pages isn't as good for evidence, and behavior o a user talkpage is worse. It's a judgement call whether to point it out at the RFC/U , and egregious behavior is better evidence. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
The six-fingered man
The UAF DRN
- Здравствуйте, товарищ! DRN does not take cases that are at other dispute resolution venues, so I closed it. I was going to close it after 3 days of inactivity anyway. -Guy Macon (talk)