User talk:Guy Macon

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 Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself.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 993089480 articles left until our billionth article!

We are only 993089480 articles away from our 1,000,000,000th article... --Guy Macon

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.

New discussion

Start a new discussion thread

2014 main page redesign

Hi Guy Macon. I would have addressed this message to you at the talk page if you hadn't unwatched it. I don't know what the current state of the project is, but I created a design (what do you think of it?) that hid away most of the rubbish, but less so than you did in your design. I would actually rather the main page have your design, but apparently it's too different for the community to accept yet. For your information, I'm willing discuss changes to the process if/when you are. JamesDouch (talk) 14:08, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shermer's last law

Seems to me that if it is discussed in Shermer's article, a redirect might work for now. Viriditas (talk) 02:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment on Historicity of Jesus Debate

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!--IseeEwe (talk) 23:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The DRN case is archived at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 96#Historicity of Jesus. I fully agree with the reasoning of the DRN volunteer who closed it. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JSTOR access

Hello, WP:The Wikipedia Library has record of you being approved for access to JSTOR through the TWL partnership described at WP:JSTOR . You should have recieved a Wikipedia email User:The Interior or User:Ocaasi sent several weeks ago with instructions for access, including a link to a form collecting information relevant to that access. Please find that email, and follow those instructions. If you were not approved, did not recieve the email, or are having some other concern or question, please respond to this message at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved. Thanks much, Sadads (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Note: You are recieving this message from an semi-automatically generated list. If you think you were incorrectly contacted, make sure to note that at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved.[reply]

You seem good humoured

...are you still interested in remediating disputes? There is a need at this Noticeboard, [1]. Is the behaviour in question a COI and POV issue or not? Can a Prof write his own web page, wife assisting, making claims for primacy of discovery based on his own authored primary sources (in largest part), and not receive attention for COI, POV, and OR issues? (OR, because it is inherent in selecting between primary sources, to make claims regarding discoveries, etc.) Perhaps, because he is Harvard, it is OK. Who needs to know about the Neanderthal remarks controversy, anyway? If you have a constructive view, please feel free to chime in. Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like COIN is handling this just fine, and I suggest following the advice you received there. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

For all who have expressed concern about my health, I thank you. Here is an update. It isn't anything life threatening (even though the overall death rate for humans is still 100%) -- more on the annoying side of things. I will still be able to edit Wikipedia, but I might disappear for a while at random times, so don't worry if you see that I haven't edited in a while. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still recovering, but I am making progress. Looking forward to being able to work at WP:DRN. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My health has improved and I am back on Wikipedia. I am going to spend some time skimming the history of a few pages that I am especially interested in, and then I will jump back in. Many thanks for all the messages sent wishing me well. They meant a lot to me. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New discussion started at WP:RSN regarding dispute topic

Hi Guy,

There may be a good reason for this, but I feel like you should have been consulted before this discussion was started at WP:RSN. Thanks Ronnotel (talk) 19:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification. I am on it. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are using your position as a DRN volunteer to advance an editing position and recommend edits [2] that you made previously yourself [3]. Your recommendations align with your previous editing on this topic. I recommend you resign from the DRN case and pass it to someone who actually is uninvolved from the topic. Second Quantization (talk) 22:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made this edit [4] before reading the above. Second Quantization is free to escalate this to one of the usual venues if he wishes to make any further accusations of deliberate misconduct. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'll assume you made the mistake in good faith, Second Quantization (talk) 22:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beneful

Hi Guy. I saw that you were back online recently and wanted to see if you had a few minutes to take a look at a draft I put together in my COI role at: Talk:Beneful#Draft? CorporateM (Talk) 19:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: DRN

Please move it and while you're at it feel free to refactor my arguments ;) Andrevan@ 04:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've gone through and collapsed some comments; however, it seems a bit arbitrary. You kept "a group of orthodox Christian editors are cherry-picking a POV". St Anselm (talk) 11:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for missing that one. I just collapsed it. Let me know if you spot any other errors. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LOL: Love the picture on your talk page. Thanks for shifting our focus back to content! - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please use nice words to explain to Ret.Prof that an early date for the composition of the Gospel of Matthew as a minority view is not the subject of this dispute. It is about the use of Maurice Casey as a source to establish an early date. Therefore, piling on more sources that advocate for an early date is irrelevant. We already have high quality reliable sources in the article to do that. Ignocrates (talk) 16:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing. Can we please stop referring to Maurice Casey as "the secular" Maurice Casey. I personally find this kind of religion-baiting to be repugnant. The implied assumption is that all the other participating editors are bigots. Geza Vermes was also a scholar of the Aramaic origins of Christianity (and a pillar of the Third Quest). We don't refer to him as "the Jew" Geza Vermes. Enough already. Ignocrates (talk) 16:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree being politically correct is important. For me writing an article from a NPOV is the central issue. I believed deleting the 50 CE date was POV pushing. Casey 2014 is an important secondary source and should not have been deleted from the article. The following also support the the 50 CE date. diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff & diff Hope this clears up any confusion. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have been a bit swamped with a family medical issue (looks like everything is going to be OK) and haven't opened up the DRN discussion, but there is little point in debating the issue here instead of the article talk page, which I also read. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Take your time. All of us hope everything is OK. - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I too am going to be unavailable for the next couple of days. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request Edits

Hi Guy Macon. I saw that you're active again and was wondering if you had time to chip in on a couple Request Edits for a small update to the Hightail page here and mostly regarding cleaning up poorly-sourced contentious material on the Realplayer page here. CorporateM (Talk) 12:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with closure box?

I'm not sure how you normally close the failed cases at DRN, but after this edit I can't see a section heading for Gospel of Matthew any more. Is that normal? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Next steps?

I saw you closed the DRN for the Gospel of Matthew. We gave it a shot at a compromise, but it's no surprise that the other side wouldn't budge a millimeter. Other editors are talking about whether to have an RfC on the article talk page, so that's a step in the right direction. With PiCo retiring from active editing, I think the air has gone out of the balloon somewhat. I'm here for your advice on the Ret.Prof problem. I tried to have an RfC/U for him twice, and he evaded it both times by "stepping back" from editing. I don't see the point of trying a third time, and ANI advised us to take it to arbitration. I'm leaning toward filing for arbitration and as a remedy asking the arbs to assign him a mentor and put him on probation. A targeted topic ban isn't out of the question either to give him something else to work on during the training and evaluation period. Do you have any thoughts on what to do? Ignocrates (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, your RfC/U failed because you could not get a seconder. Also the ANI recommended mediation. Nor was I happy at DRN, being threatened 5 times with arbitration. Whether or not these threats were meant to be disruptive, they had that effect on me. Having said that, I would like us to try to work out our differences before arbitration. With a bit of good faith on both our parts, and maybe some help from Guy I believe we could work things out. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my position on all of this. I am seeing editors(s) accusing other editor(s) of wrongdoing, in areas where I definitely have not made the slightest attempt to determine the facts. You may not know this, but I have Asperger's Syndrome, with the typical traits associated with AS (High intelligence and advanced abilities in language, reading, mathematics, and science combined with impaired social skills and deficits in social insight). What all this means is that I am really good at mediating pure article content disputes, but when it comes to user conduct disputes I often am at a loss to figure out what is going on or why people are upset. because of this, I am really not the right person to offer any help with behavioral issues (assuming that they exist in this case -- I have not verified that). I invite any talk page stalkers who are reading this to jump in and give these two some advice. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there's any good news coming out of this dispute it's on the content front. Andrevan made some changes to the article along with another editor to make it more NPOV, and as a result an RfC became unnecessary. The changes seem to be accepted, so Andrevan removed the NPOV tags and we are back to normal editing (for now). As usual, things get done once Ret.Prof is removed from the editing process. I have seen this happen over and over again for 4 years and counting. That's why this conduct problem needs to be resolved in arbitration. Of course, I'm always willing to listen to free advice. Ignocrates (talk) 02:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually what you said is not true. "Parties involved cannot come to an agreement" was DRN outcome. Your running around Wikipedia making silly little person attacks is not helping your cause. Obviously you are upset and very, very bitter. If I am to blame I apologize! Having said that, I would like us to try to work out our differences before arbitration. With a bit of good faith on both our parts we can succeed! Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, it is wrong for us to continue our little spat on somebody else's talk page!!! - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Guy. Hope your health remains good! All the best. - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interview for The Signpost

This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Time

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Time for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (natter) @ 18:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Three Dimensional Chess

I'm glad to find you still active as an editor here. I was messaging you to let you know that I made what I consider to be an improvement to the 3D Chess article, but I expect it will be attacked like all the other edits I made before by one very possesive and territoral editor. Many of my improvements from before that must have met with his approval remain, but the introduction he rewrote might still be seen by him as untouchable, so I thought I would mention it to someone. This is the specific dif: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Three-dimensional_chess&diff=629557393&oldid=625172756 ...I don't have the time I once had to argue with possessive editors and so I bow to your expertise and investment of time. Thanks. 24.79.32.243 (talk) 10:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]