User talk:Guy Macon/One against many/Archive 1

Thank you for writing this
Nicely written and taking many possibilities into account without becoming too long or complicated. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:38, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

very nice essay!
I seem to be reading everyone's essays today, and this one's great. I wish I could have pointed someone at it recently before he got himself blocked from his own talk page. Thanks for writing it! --valereee (talk) 17:20, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Translation
Do you mind if I translate it to Korean Wikipedia for my own consumption @ local? &mdash; regards, Revi 05:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


 * No problem. Anyone can do anything they want with anything I write. I don't believe that anyone should own knowledge. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:33, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

On the shortcut "WP:1AM"
My first thought on seeing it was that it led to an essay offering advice concerning editing Wikipedia at 1 am, local time. (One possible suggestion: if you have to get up at 6 am or earlier the next day, don't edit.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The ambiguity was on purpose. It certainly helps people to remember the Wikilink.


 * I am a serial offender; I used to own a company that designed PA systems for difficult buildings where several previous PA systems had failed to provide satisfactory sound. My business card read:


 * Miracle Audio: if it sounds good, it's a miracle!

--Guy Macon (talk) 21:16, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposed Move
I believe that this should be in Wikipedia namespace.

E Super Maker (😲 shout) 00:25, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


 * While I appreciate the suggestion, I have chosen to have this in my own user space for one simple reason; any essay that is in Wikipedia space can be modified by any editor, and if editors disagree the usual consensus rules apply with the original author's opinion given the same weight as anyone else. An essay in my name space is controlled by me. While I welcome any and all edits to it and accept pretty much all of them. I really want to have the final say. There are far too many editors out there who are in one-against-many conflicts and are willing to try to change this essay in an attempt to force the many to accept their changes. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:44, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Rethinking your life choices

 * @Guy Macon, I made what I felt like was an improvement to the wording of your essay, but it was quickly reverted by @EEng with the very un-convincing edit summary of "oh please" ( also, at nearly the exact same time, reverted another of my edits on another unrelated page in which I had removed something from an article that he had apparently added to the article years ago. I feel he is likely offended that I removed something that he had added and is now trying to "get back" by also reverting other edit of mine. I could be wrong, but just a hunch.) I don't engage in edit warring, so I'm posting here instead of re-reverting. If you agree with my line of reasoning, then great, and if not then that is fine too; it is your essay.
 * In my experience the wording "rethink your life choices" rarely actually results in someone rethinking their life choices. It usually comes across as condemnation and if the intent is to actually get someone to rethink their life choices, then paradoxically I have found that it is not the best way to word things to reach the desired outcome. I changed the wording, before it was reverted, from this: "By the way, if you are the one who is going up against the many yet you find yourself ignoring the advice that was created for you and instead find yourself studying this section so you can play "gotcha" against the many, you need to rethink your life choices." to this: "By the way, if you are the one who is going up against the many, note that this page should not be used as an instruction manual for how to play "gotcha" against the many. If that is how you find yourself using the information contained here, then please rethink your choices."
 * Which wording do you think is better? Or perhaps some other wording entirely other than those two? At the very least, I think changing "you need to rethink your life choices" to "please rethink your choices" is much more likely to actually make people reflect and actually rethink their life choices. The type of person to try to play "gotcha against the many" is also not likely to be the type of person to respond well to such directness. I say this from experience with dealing with someone close to me with mental illness which results in a very volatile personality, and calm approaches usually work better with such people; even mildly condemning-sounding language only escalates things with people who are the type to "play gotcha". Vontheri (talk) 13:58, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * he also, at nearly the exact same time, reverted another of my edits on another unrelated page in which I had removed something from an article that he had apparently added to the article years ago. I feel he is likely offended that I removed something that he had added and is now trying to "get back" by also reverting other edit of mine. I could be wrong, but just a hunch. – Better quit it with the hunches -- see WP:AGF. Both pages are on my watchlist.
 * AFAICS you could have saved everyone a lot of trouble by just suggesting that "life choices" be changed to just "choices". I'm sure guy will make his preference knows.
 * EEng 14:36, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I really do think that anyone who completely ignores advice that is specificly for them and instead studies advice meant for their opponents so they can play "gotcha" needs to rethink their life choices. Anyone who rejects basic wisdom such as "when someone gives you advice, at least consider it" is very likely to be screwing up in other areas of their life, and is experiencing many bad things as society punishes them (alas, sometimes society elects them instead) for their behavior. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 03:05, 11 November 2023 (UTC)