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 Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself.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 995247808 articles left until our billionth article![edit]

We are only 995247808 articles away from our 1,000,000,000th article... --Guy Macon

IP request for help[edit]

I'm at a loss - if I email with EoRdE6's so-called fair use, am I making a legal threat? Would you take a look at User_talk:EoRdE6#Train_derailment and suggest a course of action? His position seems to be that he does not have to properly identify the copyright holder or inform them, and that by my informing them of "fair use" of their material, I have made a legal threat. He has warned me that I may be blocked. - (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Looking into this now. I should have some sort of advice and/or resolution for you later today. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to impose and thank you for taking the trouble. - (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
No trouble at all. I love helping people.
Here is how I advise handling this sort of issue:
  • First, post a polite note on the user's talk page. There is no need to get into an extended debate if he disagrees; you just want to make sure he was notified.
  • If that doesn't work, post a polite question on the article talk page. Again, no need for extended discussion if anyone disagrees; you just want the folks who edit the page to know that there might be a copyright issue.
  • If that doesn't work, post a polite question to Wikipedia:Copyright problems (for text) or Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files (for images, sounds, etc.). Then disengage and move on to other things, knowing that you did your part.
BTW, the legal threat accusation was just blowing smoke. Ignore it. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, if the Associated Press has no objection to use of their image File:Mount_Carbon_Derailment.jpg with The Columbian mis-listed as copyright owner, then the issue is moot. I feel step one has been done to the user's smoke blowing annoyance. EoRdE6 got notified. I would like to go directly to disengage and move on, but 2 is possible - I may post a polite question on the article talk page. As for 3, files that are tagged with a non-free template should not be listed at Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files according to that page, so since the argument is fair use, that's the wrong place to go. It was kind of you to respond. Thank you. - (talk) 01:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I took File:Mount_Carbon_Derailment.jpg to {{Non-free review}}, where an editor suggested a couple of public domain photos on commons. After I told EoRdE6 that I substituted one of them for the AP photo, he had his copyright upload deleted. - (talk) 17:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


Can you please put this talk page section under your own name, or a different IP ? As mentioned before i'm no spammer and didn't vandalise anything. The fact I do such a bad job in trying to hide it (and make everything worse rather than better) probably makes this obvious too. If you want me blocked, then that's fine too. I won't be adding new texts at wikipedia. I'm just overcautious and don't sleep well knowing this section is signed by my ip; so please put it under a different one. If you agree, that's the last you'll see of me. 2A02:A03F:126D:A800:213:20FF:FE3B:A79E (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

If you want to delete your own contributions (including any that you put a fake signature on), go right ahead. That is allowed. Doing that will remove your signature as well. Do not attempt to delete anything anyone else posted at the same time, like you did the least few times. Deleting other people's contributions is not allowed. You might want to put "deleting my comment per discussion with Guy Macon" in the edit summary. That way if anyone objects they will come to me and I will set them straight. Remember, you can only delete your own posts. Not anything anyone else wrote.
As for faking signatures, no. I would be violating Wikipedia's rules if I did such a thing. Everything on Wikipedia is subject to the license listed at the bottom of the edit window:
"By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL with the understanding that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient for CC BY-SA 3.0 attribution."
The signature is the attribution, and it would violate both the CC BY-SA and the GFDL license to falsely attribute any contribution to someone else.
Finally, if you ever decide to stop breaking the rules, you will be welcome here. If you register a username, nobody will be able to see your IP address. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
The Tor Talk page has been protected now, so can't be altered by contributors without a username, but I guess that if Blueraspberry agrees to remove his comments (so the section doesn't stand out that much anymore) -I asked him directly, so he'll be the one removing it if he agrees, not me-, and together with my https ip adress, it will probably be safe enough. I don't mind the text being in there, as long as it's done anonomyously. Next time I'll definitely log in using a username; I didn't mind the tracebility -so wikipedians could see what articles I modified-. The reason instead why I didn't make a username and log in was because I thought a https ip was more anonymous/secure (well, at least if I didn't screw up the way I did). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:126D:A800:213:20FF:FE3B:A79E (talk) 14:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


Guy, you and I have been accused of being sockpuppets of each other, along with (I assume) Andy Dingley, here - note the edit summary. This requires action, but I am not sure how and where. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it requires a thorough ignoring. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
It's annoying, but probably not in itself actionable beyond a warning. For the record, Guy Macon is my full legal name and I am listed at the Wikimedia Identification noticeboard,[1] so I am a particularly unwise choice as a target for false accusations of sockpuppetry.
I have, of course, been looking for a position as a Minion. I have a lot of experience as a Henchman and am looking to move up. If you know of any Evil Overlords or Criminal Masterminds who are hiring, let me know. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
<G> DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


EMTVSS seen as SPAM? Not sure why, but I am adding a new, very important technology to Wiki and Guy Macon claims it is spam, while another, Wtshymanski says it is snake oil. Instead of simply deleting what may be the most important discovery about electrical circuits of the 21st century, I ask that you work with me to make it acceptable to all. The science behind EMTVSS is sound, and it has been in use for over a decade. it is insulting for someone with no experience with the device or expertise in electro magnetic physics to simply dismiss this. NASA, the US NAVY and the Dept of Homeland Security are taking this technology very seriously; is it too much to ask for you to take 5 minutes out and help instead of deleting? If not, I will simply take this to 3rd party arbitration and work with the best people to get this on Wiki. CharlieTrig (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Well and truly flogged to death at User talk:CharlieTrig. It turns out that there is a conflict of interest at play here too. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 18:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
As I advised CharlieTrig[2], per Per WP:TALKDONTREVERT and WP:BRD, he should open up a discussion at Talk:Surge protector. This is the mandatory first step in resolving any content dispute on Wikipedia. Any attempt to use Wikipedia Dispute Resolution will be rejected if there is no attempt to first discuss it on the article talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Like-Minded Person[edit]

"Dreaming the same Impossible Dream"

The Like-Minded Persons' Club
For displaying here common sense and uncommon good taste by agreeing with me or saying something I would have said if only I'd had the presence of mind, I hereby bestow upon you Provisional Membership of the Like-Minded Persons' Club.

To qualify for Full Membership, simply continue to agree with me in all matters for at least the next 12 months.

(Disagreements are so vulgar, don't you think?)

Congratulations, Guy. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 07:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Wow. What an honor. I am sure to get that promotion from Henchman to Minion now! :) --Guy Macon (talk) 07:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

those dang traditions[edit]

I'm afraid I must absolutely agree with everything you said, and everything you implied, in your "call to close" argument. I wish it were otherwise, but wishing doesn't always make it so. (But: very well put, anyway.) —Steve Summit (talk) 04:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Your thoughts please.[edit]

Guy, I would value your opinion. As I mentioned above, I have started compiling a list of occurences where Wtshymanski is reverting IP address editors for no discernable reason. I have recorded no less than five occurences since mid February, two of which were a clear case of failing to assume the required good faith (which someone else commented on as well). You can read the summary at User:DieSwartzPunkt/IP. There are countless example that predate my start date, but any potential ANI does not need scores of diffs when five or so adequately make the point.

My motive here was that I had previously identified another editor who was routinely reverting IP address editors solely because he did not believe they should be allowed to edit Wikipedia (sound familiar?) not to mention a whole raft of unacceptable behaviour. On that ocassion, I raised an ANI which attracted a lot of interest, mainly from other users who expressed concern that IP editors who could potentially become productive editors were being driven away and that any user doing this should be indefinitely blocked. An indef block was never likely, but he did get blocked for 72 hours, though the block was for the other problems rather than the anti IP address stance, though I dare say it was a factor. You can read the thread here, but it takes a bit of sorting the chaff from the wheat.

I have no idea how many productive editors started by dipping their toes in the water as an IP address editor (I'm pretty sure I did). What we need is such editors to be encouraged not driven away. My question to you is this: is this worthy of making an ANI case. The required outcome is some sort of restriction on Wtshymanski reverting IP address editors solely for that reason alone. If that requires a short term block then that's fine by me if the goal is achieved. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it is worth taking to ANI. The usual result is either a strong warning or a short block, followed by Wtshymanski realizing that he stepped over the line and going back to standing with his toes over the line. Sigh. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
OK. I will make a start drafting an ANI tomorrow. Results at ANI do seem somewhat patchy, but you never know. I know what you mean about that line, but WTS usually becomes blinkered to it within a few days. <Sighs in sympathy!> DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 18:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you not yet been involved. The thread is Editor routinely reverting contributions from IP address editors.. Thank you.
For information as discussed above. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[edit]

The IP who is defending W is probably W logged out, a sockpuppet, but it isn't worth making an issue about it. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, please. W. never goes to that much trouble to defend himself. If you honestly think this is a SP case, why not take it to SPI? Jeh (talk) 18:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Robert, it is very very important when dealing with Wtshymanski‎ to be scrupulously fair and to only bring up issues where there is solid evidence. In this case shows us that that IP address is a wireless broadband connection in the UK, and Wtshymanski‎ has self-identified as being in Canada. Plus, as Jeh rightfully pointed out above, Wtshymanski‎ has never behaved like that. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I disagree. Look here [[3]] (the first case). I became far more convinced that this was Wtshymanski after the case was rejected. This was for a number of reasons.
  1. The geolocation of the IP address was close enough to Wtshymanski's known location that it could have been him while away on business or a week's holiday. Not conclusive enough in itself, but ...
  2. One of the IP addresses was compiling a list of Wtshymanski's enemies (an admin's description - not mine). Why?
  3. The IP address was very keen to get my draft RFC/U against Wtshymanski deleted in spite of the IP addresses not being featured in it.
  4. The IP address claimed in the SPI report to be, "sick'n tired of all the BS" that he was taking from another contributor to the SPI despite no interaction having taken place before the SPI was raised (though Wtshymanski had had plenty of interaction).
  5. The IP address edits supporting Wtshymanski's edit stopped as soon as the SPI case was filed.
I know Guy was unconvinced, but that is his privilege just as it is my privilege to disagree.
I note the second report from an IP address editor didn't fly either but as the co-accused was an administrator with a long and mostly separate editing history, it was never likely to. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Where's the IP "defending" Wtshymanski? That's just someone out to troll me. It might be Hengistmate again (he has form, although it's not his usual ISP) or it might even (given some behavioural evidence) be a mighty-morphin edit warrior from Utah, who seems to pop up through various Telefonica IPs. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


"We all know that once we start discussing the above, it will take over the thread." Bugs is really, really good at that. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

 Responding just 
 encourages them! 
         ( \ 
 --Guy Macon (talk) 13:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── ...and of course μηδείς/Medeis is now trolling me[4][5], hoping that I will respond. I am ignoring all such comments and I recommend that others do the same. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I have competely failed to ignore today. --Steve Summit (talk) 16:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
It is difficult. Our brains evolved in small groups of hunter-gatherers where expressing disapproval worked. Here on the Internet, feeding the trolls only results in increased trolling.
                           ______.-------|  |
     __                   (_____(        |  |\\\\|
 ..--  ``--.._               __/ `-------|  |---,
     __       ``--..____.--'| \    ___   |  |  ||
 ..--  ``--.._         |    |  |  |   |  |  |  ||
              ``--..___|    |  |  |___|  |  |  ||
 The plug is pulled     `--.|_/          |  |  ||
 Ignored are the trolls    ____\ .-------|  |---`
 Feed them I will not     (_____(        |  |\\\\|
                                 `-------|  |
(Total time needed to cut and paste the ASCII art above, 17 seconds). :) --Guy Macon (talk) 19:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Peace Barnstar Hires.png The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Secondarily, for actually resolving disputes at DRN. Also, for trying to resolve the long-standing tension at the Reference Desks. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


I mentioned you here μηδείς (talk) 21:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Justin Capră[edit]

Hi, I'm wondering if you could perhaps help me out with a situation going on at this article.

To give you a brief (and, admittedly, biased) summary: the article was started by a quasi-single purpose account, survived AfD, and once that happened, I cut it down to size. The problem is that the original author insists on a version that violates numerous policies, and is willing to slow-motion revert-war for that. He also has a rather original take on WP:V. And he likes to warn me, which is somewhat irksome.

As you can see, this is a somewhat difficult case, and I certainly don't want to continue reverting - that hasn't gotten us very far - but I also do want my version to be the basis for the article as we move forward, rather than the dreadful text the other editor keeps imposing. I'd much appreciate any intervention on your part. - Biruitorul Talk 02:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

A call to my minions talk page stalkers for help[edit]

Our article on Leading and lagging current could use some loving care. I am planning on working on it, but I am really, really lazy stuck on the final boss level on DoomRL a high priority project. Does anyone want to do my job for me wade in and improve it? There will be cake. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Not a regular stalker, but I happened here from Power factor. I agree that that article requires a bit of TLC, in the form of correction and clarrification. If no one beats me to it in the next couple of days, I might find some time to have a crack. There isn't a lot of it and it is (or should be) pretty basic stuff. –LiveRail Talk > 13:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Heather Bresch[edit]

Any interest in taking a look here at a week-old Request Edit? I have to warn the article has a bit of a contentious history as you may have noticed, so I wouldn't blame you if you didn't want to work on an article with so much drama. CorporateM (Talk) 13:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Case Opened[edit]

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 7, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 20:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC) Robert McClenon (talk) 20:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

By the way, a second case is also being opened shortly. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

American politics 2 arbitration case opened[edit]

Pursuant to section 3a of an arbitration motion, you were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. Please note: being listed as a party does not imply any wrongdoing nor mean that there will necessarily be findings of fact or remedies regarding that party. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 14, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 02:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

No longer a party[edit]

Hi Guy Macon, you have been removed from the Collect and others arbitration case by an arbitrator. Accordingly, your evidence size limit is now 500 words and 50 diffs, and you will no longer receive notifications about this arbitration case. For the Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 13:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


Ha! I must say I knew 0 about all the parties beforehand but had a blast reading through that entire ANI. My favorite part was when a couple of people bought the "once a year" thing. I swear, reading that was like watching a movie, so I had to leave a comment like a fan asking a famous actor a question. DawnDusk (talk) 06:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)