Trout this user

User talk:Guy Macon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to 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 Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself.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 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


New discussion[edit]

Only 994153918 articles left until our billionth article![edit]

We are only 994153918 articles away from our 1,000,000,000th article... --Guy Macon

Depiction of Wikimedia Foundation destroying Wikipedia with Visual Editor, Flow, and Mobile App[edit]

Depiction of Wikimedia Foundation destroying Wikipedia with Visual Editor, Flow, and Mobile App.

--Guy Macon

Calvin discovers Wikipedia[edit]

  • "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

Another chart[edit]

Page views for this talk page over the last year

Detailed traffic statistics

Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet[edit]

"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.[edit]

Updated essay: see new "2016-2017 update" information near the bottom.

User:Guy Macon/Just because you have some money, that doesn't mean that you have to spend it.

--Guy Macon (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

The most important[Citation Needed] page on Wikipedia[edit]

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..."[edit]

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)

SPLC[edit]

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.
--Guy Macon (talk) 21:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

WikiDefender Barnstar Hires.png 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[edit]

It occurs to me that your entry here[1] fails your own concept of requiring a citation. Yet your response has the ring of truth. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

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)
What you could do is try to provide a reference for any response to a question, and get a sense of how difficult or easy that can be. Then you'd be coming from a position of strength on the subject. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
That is a really interesting idea. Let me think about it. More later. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:07, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Shameless plug[edit]

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)

I have no experience with the featured article nomination process, but if the necessary improvements could be spelled out, I'd try to help. Good luck. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:40, 23 April 2019 (UTC)