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
- 1 New discussion
- 2 Only 994153918 articles left until our billionth article!
- 3 Depiction of Wikimedia Foundation destroying Wikipedia with Visual Editor, Flow, and Mobile App
- 4 Calvin discovers Wikipedia
- 5 Another chart
- 6 Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet
- 7 Just because you have some money, that doesn't mean that you have to spend it.
- 8 The most important[Citation Needed] page on Wikipedia
- 9 "...It looks like Wikipedia is really pulling out all the stops in their latest appeal to their users..."
- 10 SPLC
- 11 A barnstar for you!
- 12 Science ref desk
- 13 Shameless plug
|Start a new discussion thread|
Only 994153918 articles left until our billionth article!
We are only 994153918 articles away from our 1,000,000,000th articleGuy Macon--
Depiction of Wikimedia Foundation destroying Wikipedia with Visual Editor, Flow, and Mobile App
Calvin discovers Wikipedia
- "A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction into a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day." -- Calvin, of Calvin and Hobbes. --Guy Macon
|Page views for this talk page over the last year|
Detailed traffic statistics
Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet
"Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game because they almost always turn out to be -- or to be indistinguishable from -- self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time." --Neil Stephenson, Cryptonomicon
(talk page stalker) A late friend of mine put it this way: "Arguing with idiots is wasted effort. They have no minds to change; and unlike you, nothing better to do with their time." Jeh (talk) 04:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
That works very well if turned about. "Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game because you are almost always -- or are indistinguishable from -- a self-righteous sixteen-year-old possessing infinite amounts of free time." Edaham (talk) 07:20, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Just because you have some money, that doesn't mean that you have to spend it.
Updated essay: see new "2016-2017 update" information near the bottom.
User:Guy Macon/On the Diameter of the Sewer cover in front of Greg L’s house --Guy Macon (talk) 16:00, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
"...It looks like Wikipedia is really pulling out all the stops in their latest appeal to their users..."
Donations Needed: Wikipedia Has Posted An Appeal Asking For One Night Of Physical Intimacy From Each User --Guy Macon (talk) 16:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Are you seriously dismissing their work as biased? I read your comments on their talk page and I can come to no other conclusion. You're making this your last stand, taking on a historic civil rights organization? 2601:1C0:6D00:845:40AD:D720:F067:F1E7 (talk) 21:39, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- They used to be a historic civil rights organization. They once were a wonderful organization that fought Klansmen and Nazis to protect the rights of minorities. Now they are a shrill, biased, denouncer of miscellaneous petty thoughtcrime. Worse than that, they are sloppy. They put people and organizations (and the occasional plastic sign) on their list of active hate groups without a shred of evidence that they belong there, and have lost several lawsuits for doing that. Please, read the following. Then research the claims made for yourself.
- Why Is the Southern Poverty Law Center Targeting Liberals? Source: The New York Times
- Southern Poverty Law Center Gets Creative to Label 'Hate Groups': Principled conservatives are lumped together with bigots. Source: Bloomberg
- The church of Morris Dees: How the Southern Poverty Law Center profits from intolerance Source: Harper's Magazine
- The Southern Poverty Law Center Scam Source: John Stossel
- Has a Civil Rights Stalwart Lost Its Way? Source: Politico
- The Southern Poverty Law Center has lost all credibility Source: The Washington Post
- Occupy the Southern Poverty Law Center Source: National Review
- SPLC targets conservatives, not just hate groups, critics say Source: The Associated Press
- A Demagogic Bully: The Southern Poverty Law Center demonizes respectable political opponents as “hate groups”—and keeps its coffers bulging. Source: City Journal
- ‘Essentially a Fraud’: The Southern Poverty Law Center has less to do with justice than with fundraising Source: National Review
- It’s time to show SPLC the door Source: The Washington Examiner
- The SPLC’s terrible year just got worse Source: The New York Post
- 7 Things You Need To Know About The Southern Poverty Law Center Source: The Daily Wire
- The Southern Poverty Law Center Strikes Again Source: Reason Magazine
- Hate, Inc.: The SPLC Is a Hyper-Partisan Scam Source: National Review
A barnstar for you!
|The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar|
|Given for diligent clarification regarding pseudoscience and quackery. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 00:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)|
Science ref desk
- Note to any talk page watchers: the above is in reference to a proposal that I made to run a limited-time experiment in which one of the Wikipedia reference desks would require all answers to contain links to Wikipedia articles or to external sources. The proposal was shot down by the ongoing consensus among those who are currently providing refdesk answers that no restrictions of any kind on their behavior will ever be acceptable. (To his credit Baseball Bugs appears to be open to some sort of limited-time experiment but clearly wants it to be a good proposal and has legitimate objections to the proposals posted so far.)
- Bugs asks a very good question. I considered (and am still thinking about) unilaterally trying this or one of the other proposals, possibly with attempts to get others to voluntarily accept the same restrictions. The main reason I haven't is a lack of specific nut-and-bolt rules, which I think should come from a discussion.
- Until I do decide to unilaterally restrict myself I will continue working under the same rules everyone else is working under. Does anyone want to argue that if I and I alone started using citations on every answer that it would have a positive effect? Does anyone want to make a commitment to join me in such an experiment for, say, three months? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Shameless Plug (but I am plugging a proposed improvement to Wikipedia, so shameless plugs are allowed):
The 2019 redefinition of SI base units is scheduled to happen on 20 May 2019. I would like it to be Today's Featured Article on that day. To make this happen, it needs everything listed at Wikipedia:Featured article criteria (some of which it already has), followed by a nomination at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, then a nomination at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. Any help improving the article would be greatly appreciated. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)