Trout this user

User talk:Guy Macon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Oil Painting of Civil War Battle of Spottsylvania
A Wikipedia Content Dispute.
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 Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself.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

"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

New discussion[edit]

Only 994981393 articles left until our billionth article![edit]

We are only 994981393 articles away from our 1,000,000,000th article... --Guy Macon

Emeco 1006[edit]

FYI. You were involved in the article previously, so I thought I'd give you a ping. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 23:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey, good to hear from you again! Always glad to help. See my comments on the article talk page. Also, keep in mind that I am interested in dealing with editors who harass those paid COI editors who follow our rules, so please ping me if you see that happening. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Hey Guy. Do you think I can bother you with this from a couple weeks ago? David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 21:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

You asked for it[edit]

You're in, by unanimous consent: [1]. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Cheers! Let's hope the responsibilities to be thrust upon you aren't as foreboding as Flo's header makes them sound. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
It was a tough, hard fought election; the mudslinging, the backroom deals, the huge contributions by lobbyists... :)
In the words of Pope Francis after learning he had been elected pope, "May God forgive you for what you’ve done”.[2] --Guy Macon (talk) 18:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Bad ideas[edit]

You said: "Joel R. Goheen himself may be notable enough for a BLP article, based on sources like this". Geez, don't give ideas to someone who's been repeatedly abusing Wikipedia, including spamming, sock puppeteering and block evasion. :) -- intgr [talk] 08:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

(For those following along at home, this is in regard to User talk:Nyccontrib#This is not a boilerplate message.)
Good point. I doubt that Mr. Goheen would be happy with the BLP article, seeing as how the reliable sources say things like "The state attorney general on Wednesday charged Shuttle America and several affiliated companies with deceptive trade practices and civil theft, saying the firms accepted money from potential employees and did not provide promised jobs.... Also named in the suit are Joel R. Goheen, president of the JRG companies and founder of Shuttle America"[3] and "[Securities and Exchange Commision] administrative proceedings instituted against JRG Trust Corporation, individually and formerly doing business as Shuttle America and Joel Goheen"[4] --Guy Macon (talk) 17:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Worthy of kudos[edit]

I saw this edit and found it to be so utterly sensible, I was moved to offer kudos. Though you may not find that you're a midst a large crowd; when doing these right things, you'll neither be alone for I pledge my support to bring yours to fruition.--John Cline (talk) 10:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Depiction of WMF destroying Wikipedia with Visual Editor and flow[edit]

Depiction of WMF destroying Wikipedia with Visual Editor and flow.

--Guy Macon (talk) 01:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

thank you[edit]


  • Guy_Macon
  • RexxS

Before I go on to other things, I wanted to drop a note of appreciation for the input and information regarding security on the Internet. Personally? I have been "out-of-the-loop" for a few years, and I very much appreciate the refresher course, and current knowledge you've shared. The links and information are invaluable. Thank you. — Ched :  ?  01:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Could I have your advice?[edit]

I am currently trying to deal with a plural naming convention problem involving four articles:

There seem to have been multiple move requests (on both sides of the issue), whether they should be plural or singular, However, it seems that the ice skating crowd always seems to lean toward the naming convention which technically should be singular, while the roller crowd says that it is going too far with the naming convention rules as they are always used in pairs.

Now that you are up to speed, and knowing that you have experience in dispute resolution, my question is this: as the move requests seem to be blocked by non-consensus on both sets of pages, how in the world am I supposed to get both sets of pages to use the same convention? Clearly both sides cannot be right and personally, although I agree that it is a bt of a grey area, I side on the singular, as I argued in the most recent move request here.

Where is the best location to bring up a discussion to decide what naming convention should be used for all four articles? The requested moves board has so far been unhelpful in resolving this problem so I am unsure of how to proceed, and I hoped you could offer insight.  InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere  12:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I have been thinking about this and I have decided that I really don't know what is best here. I would suggest going to WP:DRR and selecting the Dispute resolution Noticeboard. Sorry I can't be more help. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Help with Southern Strategy editing[edit]

Guy Macon, As a member of the DRN I was hoping you might offer some suggestions to me with regards to dealing with an editing dispute on the Southern Strategy page. I have now had changes I made undone by Scoobydunk 4 times in the last 2 weeks.[[5]] He doesn't agree with the material I've been trying to add and opened a NPOVN discussion related to the content.[[6]] His arguments didn't gain support and the topic seems to have goon stale over the last 10 days. I have requested the topic be closed. Last night I edited again and per BRD I tried to rephrase and change to address Scoobydunk's concerns.[[7]] I posted a talk page discussion related to the changes at the same time.[[8]] At this point I'm frustrated with an editor who isn't engaging in a productive talk page discussion related to the material, who is claiming the material I'm adding doesn't meet RS standards (See my talk page reply where I refute this claim). Now I'm trying to figure out the best way to resolve this issue with 3rd party help. I'm sensitive to claims of forum shopping because I was, wrongly in my view, accused of forum shopping for Scoobydunk's NPOVN discussion. Also, so long as that discussion is open I can't open a DNR which I think is the correct venue for this issue. So I'm asking you for help in finding the correct way to resolve what I feel is a content dispute that has also involved disputed behavior on both mine and Scoobydunk's part (this is explained as a tangent of the NPOVN [[9]]). Thanks Springee (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)