User talk:Guy Macon: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 17:54, 9 January 2014

Template:Archive box collapsible

Welcome to Guy Macon's Wikipedia talk page.

Please Click here to start a new topic.
Please post your new comments at the bottom of the comment you are replying to.
Please sign and date your entry by inserting "~~~~" at the end.
Please indent your posts with ":" if replying to an existing topic (or "::" if replying to a reply).
I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, so you may want to watch this page until you are responded to.
I delete or collapse most messages after I have read them. The history tab will show you a complete list of all past comments.
If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/User_talk:Guy_Macon.

"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 993120245 articles left until our billionth article!

We are only 993120245 articles away from our 1,000,000,000th article... --Guy Macon

Wikibreak

Guy Macon is suffering from physical health issues. This may affect his ability to work on Wikipedia. Consequently, he may not be able to respond to talk-page messages or e-mails in a timely manner. Your patience is greatly appreciated.

I've seen you back around the last day or so, and so I hope that things are going well for you. Best, --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! At this point the medical issue is more annoying than it is serious, but I wanted everyone to know that I might suddenly disappear from editing for a while. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your post on User talk:Elvey

Please don't post responses to talkpage threads in the middle of someone else's post, as it looks like you just did, perhaps inadvertently. It makes it almost impossible to figure out who wrote what. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I of course do understand and attempt to follow WP:INTERSPERSE (I had better, seeing as how I created the redirect at WP:INTERSPERSE) :)

In this case I am not sure that what I did was wrong -- but of course I am open to being educated on that.

Elvey posted three comments, each properly signed, at the same time.[1] This is not unusual -- many editors make multiple comments and post them as a batch -- but having two of them one right after the other is a bit unusual; most editors would have only put a signature at the bottom of the pair.

I posted my reply under Elvey's signature.[2] I didn't pay attention to the date on the next signed comment directly below my new comment (nor do I think I am required to make a practice of checking for such a rare event), but I am not sure that I would have done anything differently if I had. I posted a reply directly below a signed comment, which I believe was correct behavior. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually, I was about to come here and recommend you disengage from his talkpage entirely. I know that there's the school of thought that posits that every erroneous statement should be rebutted, and I while I don't necessarily disagree (in particular due to the nature of some of the very statements that led to the block), I think we're at the point where any further interactions while he's blocked will be counterproductive. Take the high road. It really is the better path. MLauba ^(Talk) 22:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like this? :) I tend to be a little more aggressive in disputing false accusations because I use my real name, but of course that was my choice. That being said, you are right. I really only have to declare that I have no COI once. Good advice. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Randall Munroe is the Terry Pratchett of webcomics. Under the surface humor, he hides some of the keenest observations of human behaviour of our time. :) MLauba ^(Talk) 23:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I went to User talk:Elvey‎ to unwatch the page, and gave in to the temptation to take one last peek. Now I am a sockpuppet as well as a paid shill and a criminal. Well it just goes to show you that, Wikipedia being what it is, if you participate in talk page discussions over a period if time you have the possibility of attracting your own personal tendentious editor, who considers any attempt to explain Wikipedia policy as a personal affront, and considers it their duty and obligation to "expose" the person they fixate on. It's kind of pathetic, but they can't quite seem to figure out why no one else sees their actions as heroic. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's how it works - when confronted, he will latch on the slightest and tiniest details and finagle over it for months on end, to turn attention away from his own issues. The editors who give in to the exasperation and reply in kind make it more difficult to deal with the situation, because when it ends up at the noticeboards, there's plenty of bad behaviour on all sides to consider, and the walls of text that come with it discourage an in-depth review of the root causes. Over the years, I've finally come to see that the best way of dealing with people who believe they have to win at all costs is not to play. MLauba ^(Talk) 10:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Getting back to my point at the top of the thread—all I was saying is that when I read that page, it wasn't initially clear to me which paragraphs were your posts and which were someone else's. Maybe it was just the way the page or thread is formatted, or maybe it's my age-related deteriorating eyesight, or maybe something else. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

Thanks for your contributions at WP:DRN this month. Cheers! — Keithbob • Talk • 21:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some advice?

Regarding the message you left on my talk page... The situation at GERAC has not improved. Where would you recommend to turn to as a next step? Dispute resolution noticeboard, RfC, or request a third opinion? Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 02:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, read WP:CONSENSUS. That's your basic road map. WP:DR is helpful as well.

As for this specific dispute, and not taking sides, if there are only two editors disagreeing and you believe that both of you will accept a third opinion even if it goes against you, third opinion would be a good choice. It there are more that two editors involved or you think that you can work out something agreeable to all with a little help, the dispute resolution noticeboard would be a good choice. An RfC is different, in that it does not require cooperation among the disputing editors. If one of the editors just won't budge, and the RfC goes against him he has to follow the consensus as determined by the RfC closing statement. If he is unwilling to do that, he is likely to face a series of escalation blocks. Personally, I would go with the RfC in your situation, but it is your call. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, man. --Mallexikon (talk) 05:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 88: / Line 88: @@
 :As for this specific dispute, and not taking sides, if there are only two editors disagreeing and you believe that both of you will accept a third opinion even if it goes against you, third opinion would be a good choice.  It there are more that two editors involved or you think that you can work out something agreeable to all with a little help, the dispute resolution noticeboard would be a good choice. An RfC is different, in that it does not require cooperation among the disputing editors. If one of the editors just won't budge, and the RfC goes against him he '''has''' to follow the consensus as determined by the RfC closing statement. If he is unwilling to do that, he is likely to face a series of escalation blocks.  Personally, I would go with the RfC in your situation, but it is your call. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon#top|talk]]) 03:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 ::Thanks, man. --[[User:Mallexikon|Mallexikon]] ([[User talk:Mallexikon|talk]]) 05:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
-==Werieth==
-For your information, I got your name from one of the many many ANI archives on Δ/Betacommand, where you expressed your support for a topic ban from NFCC enforcement due to his inflexible and misleading application of policy/guideline/essay/some shit he just made up (the exact same thing that Werieth is engaged in at industrial speeds as we speak). If you've forgotten having made that post (for reference, it was at 03:16, 1 July 2011), that's hardly my fault is it? Given what you said then, it seemed to me you were quite familiar with the situation, and it was more than just the usual passing comment from the usual sort of gadfly that hangs out at AN/I. So, unless you've had some kind of brain injury in the last two years, expecting you to recall that given the level of detail I provided, hardly makes me a moron. I certainly wouldn't be stupid enough to think that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Werieth&diff=prev&oldid=544868642 this] constituted a meaningful prior interaction, now would I? If you don't want to know about this issue any more, that's fine by me. On current evidence, you being involved would only lead to some disaster like Werieth being granted a bot flag rather than being exposed as a ban evading sock (of the bad kind, the sort that actually edits article space, rather than 'spamming' useless editors like yourself as a last resort when other avenues have been obstructed by corrupt and incompetent admins/clerks). You just sit back and do nothing. Once I find someone who remembers who Beta was and is smart enough to do something about it, then I'll let you know what the outcome is. Then maybe you can have a long hard think about whether people like DeltaQuad or Future Perfect are somehow less likely to string you along or lie to you, than a moron like me, who for reasons all the smart editors have probably already figured out, are not minded to 'come out of the closet' and reveal their main account, just to be able to have these accusations examined properly. [[User:78Box|78Box]] ([[User talk:78Box|talk]]) 07:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)