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
New discussion
 | Start a new discussion thread |
Only 993127208 articles left until our billionth article!
We are only 993127208 articles away from our 1,000,000,000th article --Guy 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
Another chart
| Page views for this talk page over the last 90 days | ||
|---|---|---|
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
Request for Arbitration
I have filed a Request for Arbitration concerning conduct at the Reference Desks. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Conduct at Reference Desks arbitration case request archived
Hi Guy Macon. The Conduct at Reference Desks arbitration case request, submitted 30 October 2017, has been declined by the Arbitration Committee. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 �� t · c) 00:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
"GMO conspiracy theories" deletion discussion
Hello Mr. Macon, I hope you're doing well. I enjoyed your essay in the Signpost earlier this year and I am writing to you specifically because I respect your opinion. I was a little surprised by your comment in the deletion discussion about "GMO conspiracy theories" and I wanted to ask for clarification. In my view the GMO conspiracy theories article is a "POV fork" (most immediately of genetically engineered food controversies) which, by using a loaded term in its title, unfairly associates significant criticism of genetic engineering with spurious memes. You wrote that I need to deal with this issue at the article talk page, rather than delete the whole thing. Probably that would have been a better place to start. But can you see my point about the title and concept of the page itself?
I wrote again on the deletion discussion to highlight a recent edit which exemplifies how all criticism of genetic engineering is being shoehorned under the label of conspiracy theory. Now, someone might say this is just one person adding to the page. But I don't see anyone jumping in to change it either. Whereas in my experience lots of people jump in immediately if anything is written which seems to reflect badly on the industry.
I don' relish these antagonistic situations which always seem to accompany forays into biotechnology editing, but at the same time I have a desire to see neutral coverage of these issues. I would appreciate your sharing your viewpoint on this matter, and any advice you would care to give. Thank you very much, groupuscule (talk) 19:00, 19 November 2017 (UTC)