This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
[Boring dispute that was resolved long ago deleted]
The hair barrette engineer? Isa ( talk) 20:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I did not mean to infer that you were being requested to respond, but felt that if I mentioned your name, you should be aware of it. I'll drop a note here next time so I don't cause a misunderstanding in the future. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 20:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Actually, "only" six years ago (and I agree, not a real precedent for anything). Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC) I don't think we're living in the decade you think we're living in :) Also, threaded replies are frowned on, and there's a 63.8% chance you're going to get yelled at by a clerk because of it. Although actually, probably not, because no one is going to read that whole thing. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 23:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
Your comment here concerns me.
Really? You really believe that I was the cause of this?
I'm extremely disappointed in that analysis of the situation. GregJackP Boomer! 20:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I noticed on WikiProject Cooperation, you said you were interested in engineering/technical articles, so I wanted to let you know about my COI work for the Qualcomm Snapdragon article here. I also pinged the engineering WikiProject, etc. CorporateM ( Talk) 00:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry Guy, I reverted as it has been archived. Cassianto Talk 19:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
You might want to re-read that RfA's opposes more closely. No one proposed any such "free pass"; rather, actually being here to work on the encyclopedia, not just participate in its subculture, is one among many important criteria a lot of editors want to see from admin candidates. A:B → B:A is not valid logic. Not passing someone because they're missing one criterion does not equate to passing anyone who does fulfill it, since there are other criteria. And many of the editors with such a criterion in mind are WP:GNOMEs. While I did see a few people expect to see some FAs, that doesn't appear to be a majority viewpoint, and my own comment there made it clear that I accept, indeed encourage, gnoming as valid content-editing experience; even GregJackP agreed with that. Habitually wading into talkpage and noticeboard fights that don't concern you isn't gnoming, it's drama-mongering. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 09:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Bishonen | talk 10:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC).
The two users who are reverting my edits on Ghulam Ahmed Pervez are removing counter-arguments to their points of view which are cited. This is against NPOV. The "differing opinions" section I created highlights both sides of the issue, they want it deleted, even though it contains citations and sourced material. They also claim my edits are "promotional" (referring to the major ideas section) when that is not true. e.g. Go to Max Weber's page and there you will find his ideas sourced from his own work. How is this any different? I'm reverting your edit. If you don't agree, please state your case on the talk page or contribute your opinion to the escalation on the administration page where the escalation is currently posted on this issue. Thanks. Code16 ( talk) 16:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Based on past interactions, I have no problem with you at all. I am sure we have disagreed on things but they are probably things on which reasonable people may disagree. Guy ( Help!) 08:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Guy - I'm a bit confused over the purpose of being IP exempt? Does it apply to editors who have a user account, and then possibly edits from a smart phone or iPad that tends to sign one out automatically after a certain length of time, and then if the user posts a comment not knowing their signed-out, it goes through anyway under an IP address? That has happened to me more than once using the iPad, and I don't quite understand the consequences or why it matters. I noticed yours says IP exempt. Just wondering... Atsme 📞 📧 13:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
In my role of theoretical physicist I'd like to make comment on your describing the e-cat at something that cannot possibly work: simply this, that proofs that cold fusion 'cannot possibly work' are based on unjustified simplifications, such as neglecting the possibility that some coordinated activity in the condensed matter environment may enable the Coulomb barrier to be overcome (and other mechanisms may be possible also). It is pretty well impossible to prove a negative in science. Brian Josephson ( talk) 20:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, how did you notice this? -- JustBerry ( talk) 04:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your long-ago suggestion that I put my idea-opinion into essay form. (I finally had the balls to do it. WP:Let the smartest among us restructure. Amateurish, I know, but hey, it was result of maybe 30 minutes!) Thanks again for the encouragement. Sincere, IHTS ( talk) 10:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
As we seem to be the primary editors on WP:FIX, howsabout you and I work on the longer typo lists, and leave the ones that have less than 100 errors to any newer people - to kind of allow them to 'get their feet wet'? What do you think? :) Sct72 ( talk) 18:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
In https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Comparison_of_command_shells&diff=682665310&oldid=682117627 you changed "the the" to "the" in a citation. While the latter is the correct one, the original text on http://tldp.org/LDP/abs/html/bashver4.html has this error. So, I'm wondering whether this correction is adequate here. Said otherwise, should text in citations be corrected on Wikipedia? Vincent Lefèvre ( talk) 13:17, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
{{
sic}}
to show that the error was not made by Wikipedia. However, trivial spelling and typographic errors should simply be corrected without comment (for example, correct basicly to basically and harasssment to harassment), unless the slip is textually important."It's difficult to know when the recipient of a little ribbing might take it wrong. I just wanted to be sure you knew I was kidding. Atsme 📞 📧 23:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Just confused by [2]; I approached it as a content dispute that was fueled by bad conduct (and AN does deal with conduct disputes all the time) and intervened only to handle what appeared to be source falsification, which is definitely bad conduct that needs to be prevented. I wouldn't have intervened at all (unless to block edit-warriors or to protect the article) had I known that it was solely a content dispute. Nyttend ( talk) 00:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Re this, Byrd no longer works for the WMF as of September 30, so don't expect a response. I just noticed they got around to locking his WMF account today, so in any case he'd have to use a different account to edit. What, don't all organizations announce personnel changes on mailing lists? That's what all the hip youngsters these days are into, right? If you want to monitor WMF staff changes, the most comprehensive "official" place to find out appears to be the Foundation Wiki. I saw your edit while poking around on Meta, if you're wondering. -- 71.119.131.184 ( talk) 19:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I saw this. I stated multiple times during the discussion that if Arbcom chose to rule that restoring uncited material to a BLP after it had been challenged for lack of sources was not a BLP violation, I would abide by that decision. It's interesting both that they never made such a determination and that my agreement to abide by such a decision wasn't considered sufficient. I admit that my degree of involvement was at least grey: I think virtually white, but others apparently think virtually black. My contention throughout was that since the restoration of the material was an unambiguous BLP violation, and TRM refused to stop committing that BLP violation after multiple warnings, that greyness didn't matter.
As for any argument that I'm harping about it, I'm more than happy to let the matter drop if you just stop mentioning it. Feel free to leave me completely out of your thoughts, and I will extend you the same courtesy if you wish.— Kww( talk) 02:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, everyone, for letting me know that this was being discussed once again, and once again giving the former admin Kww a soapbox to claim he was doing things right, despite both the community and Arbcom finding otherwise. The sooner this broken record gets hauled into the trash, the better. The Rambling Man ( talk) 20:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Electoral Commission#User:Guy Macon. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 16:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Wow! "Aaron" was a sock puppet of somebody who was banned. He even had a conversation with himself from a different IP address. It took a lot of work for you to remove all of his talking on Computer program. Thank you for the effort. Timhowardriley ( talk) 19:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC) WarKosign”
Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase I/RfC -- Guy Macon ( talk) 16:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
All I can say is "wow". Jeh ( talk) 04:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
You're in, by unanimous consent: [4]. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 18:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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.[ [8]] He doesn't agree with the material I've been trying to add and opened a NPOVN discussion related to the content.[ [9]] 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.[ [10]] I posted a talk page discussion related to the changes at the same time.[ [11]] 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 [ [12]]). Thanks Springee ( talk) 15:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 06:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Since you demanded a recount... and since I see the other two election-commissioners already have talkpages busy with their ACE2015 duties... I figured I would dump this question in your lap. :-)
I've been helping User:GamerPro64 work on the regular Arb-Report column for the WP:SIGNPOST, and there was a suggestion made that maybe the next Arb-Report could cover an exit poll, of people who have been voting in ACE2015. If you've been following the discussions at User_talk:Dennis_Brown, User_talk:Opabinia_regalis, User_talk:Slimvirgin, and the talkpages of your fellow commish folks, you probably know that there is a reasonably amount of interest in finding out what sort of folks have been voting this year. So, my currently-vague proposal, is that I would like to write up some exit-poll questions for the voters, and then leave a usertalk message for 5% of them, selected pseudo-randomly from the list -- https://vote.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/list/560?limit=5
Now, I could always download the list myself, and do some kind of random selection therefrom. But for transparency reasons (and in case this becomes a "regular thing" that happens in arbcom elections going forwards), it is probably better to see whether a neutral party can do the selection-work. Writing up the questions to ask is also a sticky wicket, but probably that can be managed using existing procedures (RfC or somesuch). So my question for you is, let's say that some signpost person wanted to get a randomly-chosen list of 200 unique voters from the list of all voters (discounting all greyed-out and struck-thru votes to avoid accidentally weighting the randomness towards those who re-voted). Who would be able to do that work? One of the election commissioners? One of the scrutineers? And how would the work be done, with maximum transparency?
p.s. In terms of WP:DEADLINEs, the next issue of ArbReport is *dated* for Wednesday December 2nd, WP:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-12-02/Arbitration_report, but that datestamp is actually when the rough draft process begins. Actual publication will happen this coming weekend, in other words, the evening of Saturday the 5th (or sometimes "a day late" on Sunday the 6th which is also when voting ends this year). Thus, if we are going to have a reasonable response-rate to the proposed exit poll, ideally we would get some questions written up by Wednesday, send out the 200 usertalk requests early on Thursday, and then process the initial results Saturday morning. There is some tension between getting accurate answers ("can you remember whom you voted for and why?") by asking as soon after the voter comes out of the SecurePoll as possible, and the worry that voters who have not yet voted, or who plan to re-vote, might alter their behavior should they hear about the exit-poll predictions *prior* to the polls actually closing, see Exit_poll#Criticism_and_controversy, so that also may need to be taken into consideration. Thanks, 75.108.94.227 ( talk) 16:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Online pseudorandom number generator website? Real cryptonerds use Hardware random number generators. :) Here is a number selected by a HRNG: 18 -- Guy Macon ( talk) 14:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Question, what do the various annotations mean? Some of the 146 names are greyed-out, some are struck, most are both. But there is at least one name which is greyed out, but not struck, and one name which is struck, but not greyed out. And the implied follow-up question is, should the nine usernames which are currently struck and/or greyed out, be included in the exit poll? At first I thought struck out meant invalid vote, e.g. under the 150 edits or something, but now I'm wondering if re-votes are also being annotated thataway. Please advise. 75.108.94.227 ( talk) 16:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Guy, Where is the place where one asks general questions. For example, I recently wanted to ask about the meaning of the RS guidelines. I really wanted to ask that question without reference to a specific article. How should such a question be asked? Thanks Springee ( talk) 04:15, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Was wondering if I could ask you to review a few if you have time. [15] [16] [17]. Some of these are 1-2 months old and 2 of them are pretty small/simple/minor. David King, Ethical Wiki ( Talk) 16:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
I see your point. :) Thanks for cleaning that up. — PinkAmpers & (Je vous invite à me parler) 22:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
HNY, Guy. I just want to let you know that I'm a big fan of your work here. I'm curious, have you made a list of any major "WTF" practices (Re:how completely messed up practices become normal) that we can address? I think it would be an interesting exercise to attempt to address a single issue with you in a leadership position pushing forward. I'm confident in your abilities. Viriditas ( talk) 20:50, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Regarding this edit: although it doesn't necessarily change your line of argument, solely based on your excerpted quote, the stated amount is a monthly bandwidth cost, and so your scaling up of the cost for 2015 is off by a factor of 12. Thus you've only increased the cost by a bit more than 8 times, rather than a hundred. isaacl ( talk) 15:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Seemed potentially in your interest area for technical subjects. The proposed draft and Request Edit have remained on the Talk page for more than a month without response. Was hoping you might take a look. David King, Ethical Wiki ( Talk) 21:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Guy, you may find these useful for your "In the news" section:
Best, -- Andreas JN 466 11:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Guy, thanks again for your support - I can now edit again, so I thought I would ask for help from a WP expert. I looked up "primary sources" on WP, and apparently still don't understand what is meant by them - the discussion in question is in /info/en/?search=User_talk:JzG . I am wondering if you could explain what (the other) Guy is concerned about in terms I can understand - it seems strange to disallow important (IMO) references that would be of interest to readers, but allow references that (I assume) can talk about them. Maybe you can suggest remedial action I could ask someone to take (as I can't do the edits myself!). TIA. Jpaulm ( talk) 00:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Just checking in with a fellow WP:FIX typo-fixer, seeing what you've been up to. And I see by the religion-related contributions, one of your resolutions for the new year was to pull your hair out. :) (kidding, seriously.) Anyhoo, it looks like we have a couple new people at WP:FIX, plus another is creating a bot for the database dumps, see the talk page. Good luck and see you over there! Sct72 ( talk) 01:00, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I read your flat earth argument on your page. I wanted to let you know that you should pick a better topic. Since people did not believe the earth was flat, your argument that they did and, therefore, were wrong is invalid. 199.15.144.250 ( talk) 16:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I apologize for undoing your edit to Western Reserve Academy, having now read the RfC involved. Please note that other nonsectarian schools, like Phillips Exeter Academy, still retain their nonsectarian status listed under 'religion' in the infobox, which was the basis of my edit. I would have liked to have been linked to the RfC in your original edit summary so that I would at least have been educated about your proposal and its success. Drasil ( talk) 07:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Looks like there's reasonable consensus on the NOR noticeboard. What's the procedure there - is it closed automatically after a waiting period or do we have to ask for a close? Given the discussion there and your previous RfC (which appears to resolve this unambiguously) how do we proceed? Are the RfC and NOR decisions binding? D.Creish ( talk) 02:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Can you change #5 to something more like
Otherwise it can be read as saying that it's okay to do something other than the above, as long as you mention it on the talk page. (Which I don't think was your intention.) — Steve Summit ( talk) 23:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi! I thought I should reply here rather than on the ANI report to avoid it getting (even more) off topic. I hope you don't mind that I brought up your username. While I think Malik Shabazz's threat would be pretty serious for any editor, I thought it bore mentioning that it would be doubly so in your case. I did notice that you'd carefully avoided bringing the issue up yourself, which I think shows a lot of good faith on your part. Hope you're holding up okay. Marianna251 TALK 09:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
You may have wanted to settle this more quietly but I take a dim view of retaliatory threats to go to the media over content disputes. AE Request is now open. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 10:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
J. J. Goldberg, 'Bernie Sanders Keeps Talking About Being Jewish. Why Won't We Listen?,' The Forward 26 February 2016.
I often disagree with this writer's views, but this is a commendably sane review of the whole issue, which is really about a conflict between two constituencies in American Judaism, the sleeve pullers of one-of-"us-ism" (who often unwittingly play into the hands of one-of-"them-ism"), and the Isaian universalists, like Sanders, who think their particular ethnoreligious background is, while important, not something to be worn on the sleeve or brandished politically, because they see themselves predominantly as integrated into a larger tradition, of which the 'Jewish' component, though seminal, if manipulated one way or the other, only lends itself to the divisiveness already toxically rampant in most other 'confessional' politicians. As a politician, Goldberg remarks, Sanders like many others wishes to represent a broad national tradition, and all of his constituency. If only more from the Evangelical, Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, whatever, subcultures could take a leaf from his book, that place would be saner than it has been for a long time. Nishidani ( talk) 11:30, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Guy, can you point to any instance in the entire history of Wikipedia where it was decided to not attribute material at a person's website to that person? Anythingyouwant ( talk) 13:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
NOTE TO ALL: In the interest of not having multiple discussions on the same subject all over Wikipedia, please consider all of the above questions to be asked and answered. If (as often happens) you disagree with, are not satisfied with, or will not accept my answers, please discuss it on the article talk page where is belongs. Any further discussion here will be removed. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I tried to advise QuackGuru that if anyone was bludgeoning the process, they were by making demands of Jimbo Wales that couldn't be satisfied in the same space and time. They reverted. But we know that QuackGuru is a combative editor. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi there!
I'm the one who started that discussion on the village pump regarding username policies. I would like you to help me by conducting the following experiment with your test account. Could you, while logged in as TestAccountZboxx3R7ql001, navigate to the NLWIKI? No need to do anything there, just go there so that your account will appear as newly created on the wiki. That way I can see if the folks there really have enforce this "confusing username" policy.
Many thanks! <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> ( talk) 01:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Guy, thanks for the advice. At the moment I'm not interested in pursuing it. The closer's responsibility should be to gauge consensus - the strength of the arguments matter insofar as they convince the community, not the closer. Apparently what we have instead is a super-opinion - ultimately all that matters is the opinion of a single admin - it's an admin-as-jury model rather than admin-as-judge. It should be obvious (and worrying) how easily that's abused. Putting any more effort into what is effectively a roll of the dice seems pointless. I appreciated your input in the debate, always well-reasoned and the car/ford analogy was hilariously accurate. Take care. James J. Lambden ( talk) 21:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
at JW talk p. DGG ( talk ) 06:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I understand that some users on here may be familiar with user called guy macon on here. I have been asked by a family member to pass on the message that Guy was involved in a traffic incident a few hours ago. His situation is serious but fortunately he is stable. If any users wish to pass on messages of support, I will try and pass these on to his family.
Thank you for any support during this difficult time. Lynda — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.230.108.156 ( talk) 10:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
I would like to understand what you did so I don't repeat the error again. You removed my blog URL from my User Page and labeled it: (Deleted scoop.it blogspam.) I am not a super experienced editor so I can't quite figure out what was going wrong here. Was scoop.it spamming someone? Thank you for your help. Have a good day. NegMawon ( talk) 22:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
For all my minions talk page watchers, here is a new XKCD comic about Wikipedia:
http://xkcd.com/1665/ --
Guy Macon (
talk) 14:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
At the biography article ( Marjorie Cameron) is wholly procedural—I was at JW's Talk page for a separate reason, noted that a book author's query had caught JW's attention, looked to the article's Talk page to see what the status of the issue, and on seeing that JW's perspective was not considered, produced his comment (and my concurring opinion) at that Talk page—so that the two responding editors, at that Talk page, would no longer dismiss the concerns of the over-cited book author.
Otherwise, my opinion is stated in my Talk, there; I think the best way to proceed is to move paragraphs in clear violation (one source, close paraphrases drawn entirely from the author's work) to Talk, leaving placeholder section stubs, then to guide repopulating the sections from a small set of sources (rather than just the one). This spoke as a former Prof, and not as a Wikipedian. This redaction of clearly violating paragraphs will go a long way to satisfying the concerned book author, and will make clear you are serious about compliance with WP:VERIFY. We have recently taken the fully plagiarised Dixie Walker in the same direction, and it seems to be working (stub in place, material slowly repopulating).
Otherwise, note, if you go to the book author's Talk page (an IP page), I let him know that while the issue of overuse could be addressed, his specific demands for including and excluding things would likely not be to his satisfaction. See that statement, there. I also encourage him to register.
Cheers, Le Prof. Leprof 7272 ( talk) 04:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have listed yourself on the list of volunteers at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering#List of the DRN volunteers.
First, assistance is needed at DRN. We have recently closed a number of cases without any services being provided for lack of a volunteer willing to take the case. There are at least three cases awaiting a volunteer at this moment. Please consider taking one.
Second, this is a volunteer roll call. If you remain interested in helping at DRN and are willing to actively do so by taking at least one case (and seeing it through) or helping with administrative matters at least once per calendar month, please add your name to this roll call list. Individuals currently on the principal volunteer list who do not add their name on the roll call list will be removed from the principal volunteer list after June 30, 2016 unless the DRN Coordinator chooses to retain their name for the best interest of DRN or the encyclopedia. Individuals whose names are removed after June 30, 2016, should feel free to re-add their names to the principal volunteer list, but are respectfully requested not to do so unless they are willing to take part at DRN at least one time per month as noted above. No one is going to be monitoring to see if you live up to that commitment, but we respectfully ask that you either live up to it or remove your name from the principal volunteer list.
Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 17:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC) (Current DRN coordinator) (Not watching this page)
I seem to remember at WikiProject Cooperation you said you were interested in topics with a technical leaning. No rush, but thought you might be interested in participating as I work to improve the page with a COI if nobody already invested in the article responds. See: [20] CorporateM ( Talk) 15:49, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Strewth! You were quick out of the blocks. I reformatted your link addition not because I though it was wrong, but because I thought I had added it and not got it right. At least the two match in style. Thanks for your interest anyway. 85.255.232.219 ( talk) 13:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi Guy! I closed (nac) that sea lion barking on ANI but wanted to say that if you wish to pursue a tban further, more power to you. Just seemed like that post was going nowhere fast with a noisy sea lion in the rear seat. Feel free to revert if you wish. Hopefully they'll return to Pier 39 quietly. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Is the Do Not Archive Until date arbitrary, or is that the actual time of the little-known concealed binary doomsday? Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Guy, it's been awhile. I hope things are well with you. As the heading gives away, I'm reaching out to see if you would be willing to weigh in on a proposed update that I've been having the darnedest time getting anyone to look at. The subject is Hilary Rosen; I am working with the firm she runs to bring the article up-to-date and make it a more well-rounded picture of her career. The article has been somewhat hostile and little-edited for a few years now, so there's some real inertia built into the page. I've reached out to editors previously involved with the article, and relevant wikiprojects, yet have received no reply in nearly four weeks. If you're willing, you can find the open request here. Let me know what you think when you get a chance. Cheers, WWB Too ( Talk · COI) 18:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Could you two please sort out your differences over a beer rather than here. I personally value both your contributions and watching you spat over commas, Oxford or not, is depressing. Thanks Velella Velella Talk 19:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Regarding your edit here, the addition wasn't a BLP violation since George Carlin has been dead since 2008, and BLP policies only apply to the more recently deceased (within a year or two) and living per WP:BDP. The CFD you initiated does however bring up a valid general concern. We'll see how that plays out. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 13:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
See File talk:500 x 500 SMPTE Color Bars.png#Challenge. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 16:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm Riff. Cause when you're a Jet, you're a jet all the way from your first cigarette to your last dying day. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi! I saw a while ago that you had some inquiries about whether Californians speak with a General American accent. Assuming you are yourself a native Californian, I'm going to ask you a few fun questions that you can answer at your leisure:
Afterwards, I'd be happy to explain what I know of the relationship between California and General American! Wolfdog ( talk) 16:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the ANI notice, however, I'm going to stay away from Wikipedia for the next few months for the reasons stated here. In fairness, I should note I actually wrote the text that is currently at that article (though, obviously, it was intended to be contextual and introductory, and not the entire article). Ironically, despite the huge number of participants, no one has really edited any content, virtually all the words continue to be what I originally wrote. It's just been a series of mass deletions and restorations. I tried opening a RfC to resolve the issue but even the RfC was deleted, so I'm not sure there's anything more anyone can do and we should probably just let the article die for the good of general peace and tranquility. I sincerely wish you the best of luck but I'm just too beat down by this to continue. LavaBaron ( talk) 05:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Just so you know, the number of spaces following the terminal punctuation of a sentence in the wiki markup makes no difference on Wikipedia; the MediaWiki software condenses any number of spaces to just one when rendering the page (see Sentence spacing). More info here: MOS:PUNCTSPACE. Cheers! -- RickyCourtney ( talk) 18:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
You appear to be a reasonable, non-partisan editor which (if my quick review of your recent contributions is accurate) the James O'Keefe article could use more of. Your increased participation there would be welcome.
I reverted one of your edits here which moved the 2016 video reception to the general reception section. Since most incident-specific criticism is listed in incident-specific sections (some with their own reception sub-section) it seemed best to keep the general "Reception" section to general criticism (and defense) of his methods. Reasonable? I've been trying to organize the article over the last week or so. James J. Lambden ( talk) 20:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi Guy. I'm currently researching this topic and I stumbled upon your entry wondering why someone had advocated putting GDTs in series with MOVs. I thought you might find the following article interesting/informative. Regards, Mike http://www.wseas.org/multimedia/journals/power/2012/54-510.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.147.4.25 ( talk) 02:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
(Moved to User:Guy Macon/Wikipedia has Cancer)
Interesting information:
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 20:44, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello again. I've been thinking. Is having two closers performing joint closure enough, or should we have one more closer to volunteer the joint closure? Thoughts? -- George Ho ( talk) 10:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello again, Guy Macon. Umm... I was advised to step away from the referrer info RfC. Therefore, you can communicate with two volunteers ( Winged Blades of Godric and Cyberpower678) and decide whether more than two closers are necessary. Also, I was told to leave my request to have third closer up to others to respond. Well, if having two closers is enough as said by Power, then I'll accept. You can tell Godric and Cyberpower678 to go ahead without having any more closers if you wish. Otherwise, if you decide that a third closer is necessary, then let's wait. You decide; I think my work is done after relisting it. Thoughts? -- George Ho ( talk) 22:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Hey Guy, I saw that your ANI report about the persistent vandalism on the list of Subaru engines article didn't really get any traction (ha!). If you want to spin me up on the details, I'd be happy to help you watchdog the article. A Train talk 21:23, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Who would have guessed that thinking tools for ANI discussions could be found in 1980s video games? ― Mandruss ☎ 22:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi, You wrote: "If there is a BLP problem, post it at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard." Did you perhaps mean post it at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard? Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 13:44, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi Guy, now that I have looked a little more in detail into what the ADA protects I think it is unlikely that wikipedia editing falls under it. This is based just on my own understanding, and if a qualified american lawyer comes along then their interpretation should trump mine. But to quote ada.gov "The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) prohibits discrimination and ensures equal opportunity for persons with disabilities in employment, State and local government services, public accommodations, commercial facilities, and transportation." After a bit of a search I don't think wikipedia can credibly come under one of those headings. All of the other high profile cases (TARGET, Berkley etc) have very different circumstances. "public accommodations" is the most ambiguous term that is not something that I have ever come across before - but I can't find an example of a non-profit website being sued under that term by a volunteer and everything I read seems to interpret this as talking about commercial companies offering services to the public. I think that wikipedia should be accesible for disabled people as a matter of principle - if we claim to be a free encylopedia that anyone can edit we are failing our mission if people are prevented from doing so for any reason... but not very confident initially that the ADA will be a useful tool. AlasdairEdits ( talk) 16:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Guy - when checking out a diff on a very long page, the diff view shows a LINE:# and then a + sign in the margin showing the diff. Let's say it's LINE: 357 - is there a way to find that line in the article view below the diff section? I'm not seeing where the lines are numbered, and can't figure out what purpose the line # has in the grand scheme. Atsme 📞 📧 14:16, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Guy, you've been around long enough to know better than that. Doug Weller talk 15:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Hey Guy. In case you didn't see it, the WMF has posted a response at Wikipedia talk:Village pump (policy)/RfC: Wikimedia referrer policy. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 18:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Guy, let met start out by saying I think you undertook an enormous amount of effort on something having little to do with you to produce something positive for the project. I sincerely applaud your efforts. It's very magnanimous of you to do so. None of what I'm about to say is any comment on you in any respect.
In its stated purpose of advising ArbCom, the RfC's outcome I think is something other than anyone expected.
From a straight we-should-go-this-way perspective, the RfC has failed. It does nothing to inform on that issue. There are only two proposals that have achieved more than 50% support, and those only barely so. #4 has 57% support and 2a has 61.9% support. I'll come back to that 61.9% figure. Consensus isn't a number. But, the numbers can inform as to how divided a pool of participants is. Looking deeper into this division we can see problems. For example; one voter voted in opposition to 2a, saying 5 years had been long enough. The very next opposition vote opposed lifting the ban at all; those two positions are 180 degrees opposite of each other, yet both oppose 2a. Then, we have several votes that are second choices. Are they really supporting? Hard to know; they might shift their opinions given the presence of only 2a as an option. We don't know. If we discount their support, we get to the 61.9% figure. If we don't discount, and we claim 2:1 support for this measure, there's going to be massive controversy over it. 2a _seems_ have support, but the reality is otherwise.
This gets even more convoluted when we compare this 2a proposal against the results with proposal 4. We can't say we support 2a and we support 4. They are opposite to each other's intent.
The only other proposal relative to Δ is 7, but as you said in your opposition to that proposal, Δ's already done that, and ArbCom was supposed to take action in regards to it (and apparently hasn't). So, Δ could do it again, but we'd be back at the same square we are on now.
The net outcome of all this is the RfC has effectively failed to produce any coherent direction that ArbCom can look to which the community supports. What it has done an unintended job of doing is showing how divided the community is, and how dramatically muddy the picture has become. It's become a gordian knot problem.
ArbCom's solution to gordian knot problems is to go after (read; dispense with) that which is central to the dispute, whether the editor who is central to that dispute has done any wrong or not. Very frequently they ignore the problematic behavior of several (if not dozens in some cases) editors involved in the dispute. This is why we end up with cases titled after a specific editor, and why we always pass sanctions against that specific editor and rarely do so against anyone else involved in a dispute. ArbCom's general take on this will be (1) there's a dispute, (2) Δ is central to that dispute, (3) maintain the status quo of banning Δ from the project. There. Problem "solved".
If there is to be a way forward, there has to be an RfC that is strictly regulated, and not disrupted. It needs to have very specific questions such as you would see on a ballot at a polling booth. For example, it might start with:
If there is sufficient support to move forward, then a subsequent set of questions might address what type of restrictions should be used. For eaxmple;
Etc. Etc. My thoughts here are that the RfC as currently crafted can never show a direction because it's too open ended. Either we support the notion of Δ being unbanned (the elements of restrictions or not come later) or we don't. If there's support, for a possible unban, then we can start trying to untie the gordian knot of what elements of the unban have to be in place for the community to support it. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 16:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi Guy Macon. I was wondering if you had the time to do one or two COI reviews. One of them is three distinct issues I raised with some recent edits made on a controversial issue regarding America's relationship with a Russia-based IT security company.
The other involves a shared draft on an IT security company that would better balance the article and bring it up to GA standards. (it's possible Bilby will respond to this on, as he was involved on the Talk page some years ago and I pinged him)
CorporateM ( Talk) 18:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi Guy Macon. If you have a few minutes, I was hoping you might be willing to take a look at a few places where I have made COI requests/questions:
Of course, you may be pre-occupied on Wikipedia elsewhere, but thanks in advance if you do spend the time to review. Best regards. CorporateM ( Talk) 19:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Click on this link first: http://wondermark.com/1k62/
Click on this link second: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMDtibc13fc
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 19:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for posting that timeline on Jimbo talk.
There is something else that is not mentioned in it, that happened between these two events:
It's that the Signpost inquired with the Knight Foundation whether the Knight Foundation would have any objection to the WMF's grant application being published, along with the Knight Foundation's letter confirming the grant. (That inquiry is briefly mentioned in the opening paragraph of Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-10/Special_report.)
The Knight Foundation responded that their default is openness and that they generally leave the decision whether and how to release the grant paperwork entirely to the grantee – although the parties would of course need to check with each other before releasing joint documents, just out of courtesy.
The Knight Foundation told us they communicated with the WMF on Feb. 11, and that the WMF then responded by publishing the document immediately.
Hope that helps.
Cheers, -- Andreas JN 466 18:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
When you wrote at
WP:AN asking the closers to explicitly write out --....a thoughtful joint statement regarding whether Wikipedia or the WMF controls Wikipedia content
; I had reservations on whether it would be an over-reach for the closers!
But proceedings like
this resulting in execution of something in direct contraventions of an RFC---has compelled me to believe the utter necessity of your sought opinion on the matter!(Apparently these guys aside from coding, have vested upon themselves the magic wand that has a mandatory necessity of zero experience on en-wiki to do all these f***ing businesses.)And there are always some guys in support of them!
Winged Blades
Godric 11:15, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi Guy. You'll be happy to hear that the projected Total Annual Operating Expenses for the WMF for FY 2016-17 are $63,000,000, [41] which is almost $3,000,000 less than the Total Annual Operating Expenses for 2015-16. [42] Of course we won't know the actual final numbers for another month or so, but hopefully they will be somewhere in that ballpark. Kaldari ( talk) 04:18, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
DannyH (WMF), I have something that I would like you to think about when you get a bit of time.
How about a help page where editors like myself can go to find a step-by-step explanation about how best to make a technical proposal and have someone on the Community Tech team spend, say, five minutes evaluating it and putting it on a page where such proposals are to be discussed?
The reason I bring this up is because I was feeling very discouraged when I saw the call soliciting proposals for a community wishlist, put a fair amount of effort drafting up a proposal (see meta:2015 Community Wishlist Survey/Archive#Start a project -- a real project with measurable goals and a schedule -- to reduce page weight), submitted it in the place where the instructions said to submit such things, and then didn't see it on the list of proposals that we were supposed to vote on. I don't expect the WMF to automatically accept and implement my suggestions, but you could have offered a bit of help. You could have said that you are putting a developer on it, total effort not to exceed four hours, to make a couple of test pages with and without my suggested changes and measure the page weight. Or at the very least you could have told me that it was now on list X and that there are Y suggestions from other Wikipedia editors that are in line that need to be evaluated first.
BTW, I made a tactical error when I made that proposal. I assumed that the reason why it was being ignored was because it was too expensive, and so I stupidly pared it down to one small change that could be evaluated using no more than an hour or so of the developer's time so we could see if my idea was good or bad. That small change was rejected as well. I should have stuck with my original proposal. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 06:44, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
DannyH (WMF), I have no problem with the move to my talk page.
I still think we need a central help page so that engineers such as myself who are not paid WMF staff can make suggestions, offer to help, etc. As I said, it is really discouraging when you put in a fair amount of effort making a proposal and the reaction is indistinguishable from being ignored. All the worse if you find out years later that someone at the WMF is working on the issue you raised, but nobody told you or gave you a link to a place where you can see what progress has been made.
So, to avoid the exact thing happening with the suggestion I just made, please indicate with an [X] one of the following answers:
[ ] The WMF has decided not to create the help page you describe.
[ ] I am the wrong person to ask about the help page. The correct person is staffer X, who has been informed of this conversation.
[ ] The WMF has decided not create the help page you describe. It has been assigned to staffer X, and you will get an update here when it is done.
[ ] Is existing help page X what you were looking for? Can it be modified to be more suitable?
[ ] We have the following questions about your suggestion; [List of questions].
[ ] Other: ______________________________________
Any answer, even a simple "fuck you, go away", would be vastly preferable to making a suggestion and getting no response. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi Guy Macon. Given some of your recent comments at the Village Pump, I wonder if you'd like to take a look at the lead sentence of Islam in Europe. If you're busy or otherwise disinclined, I'll get to it eventually. Rivertorch FIRE WATER 21:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Have you considered that the the NSA or FBI may have done some sort of homeopathic attenuation on the electronic signals? Is it possible that the 12X (that is, 10^12) attenuation makes the signal have one-trillionth (short scale) of the detectable strength, but one trillion (short scale) the harassing power of the original signal? Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:28, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Maybe a single-atom-thick tinfoil is the proper homeopathic defense then. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:28, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
[43] In case you hadn't seen that. 173.228.123.121 ( talk) 18:27, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello. The Betacommand RFC has enough arguments already, so I figured I'd stop by your talk page for this one. (Disclaimer: While I voted against your proposal, I don't think the RfC was in bad faith or anything, and think you should be able to say whatever you dang well want in the intro. This is hopefully unrelated to the argument you have there with Beyond My Ken.)
I'm someone come to the opposite conclusion (who isn't trying to be disruptive). TTR is unconvincing, DTTR is correct for a multitude of reasons.
I think a good analogy is the policy against "cooling off" period blocks, which are extremely discouraged by policy now after being used a little in Wikipedia's early days. Even if a proponent of such blocks wouldn't be offended by being blocked themselves for a 24-hour period, the objective fact is that some people are enraged by such a block, and it only makes things worse. It doesn't matter if "you" think it's fine and no big deal; others do, and you need to take that into account.
In the same way, I personally find it an utterly grievous insult to be templated. It's especially worse when it's an "unmerited" templating which by definition will happen at least *some* of the time from people who think that placing the templated warning is perfectly reasonable. How many people are the same? Who knows. But even if it's a "low" amount - say 20% of active editors - something that enrages 20% of the user base and makes their Wikipedia experience more negative is something that sounds really bad for editor retention and that should be avoided. The benefit from... I dunno, a firm commitment to equal treatment for all editors... doesn't seem to match up to the loss.
I have no idea if this is at all convincing to you to change your mind, but I hope that even if not, you respect that there exist non-disruptive editors who firmly support DTTR as the correct policy to have. SnowFire ( talk) 22:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, my main goal was to reduce the hyperbole in claims of the essays' relative support by 20%, so I think I said my piece on that.
Also since people jumped on it, okay, "policy" is an overloaded word. DTTR is the correct "policy" in the vanilla English sense of "system for how people approach problems" not in the Wikipedia sense of "formal policy," IMO.
A lot of your & Hammersoft's comments are about how disruptive editors are wrong and need to be smacked down by righteous talk page justice. Well, maybe. The point of DTTR is, however, that EVEN WHEN you are totally right and the other person is totally wrong, the backlash from templating means that it is better for Wikipedia to not use a template. Some of them might be jerks and wrong anyway. But using a template is only going to make a bad situation worse. It's possible they'd have reached for their flamethrower, but why would you want to intentionally increase the temperature of it? I think that handcrafting a message - even a short, terse one along the lines of "please read WP:RELEVANTPOLICY, it says that your action is not permitted" - will get you a *better* response, even if it still won't always be one you want. Call that a "level 0" template - look at the template you were going to use, and just steal the policy links, and paste 'em in. "You've been around, please double-check these policies, they're why I reverted you."
I'm going to call out one of Hammersoft's lines though for special treatment, because it's something I personally find frustrating.
Well, no, you have something more than that. I'm *telling* you that this is true. You can argue that people who think like me are stupid and wrong, or that they're very rare, but you can't claim you know their feelings better than them themselves. (Example: A: "You're not having fun." B: "Yes I am." A: "No you're not." Who is right, A or B? There IS a correct answer, not "it's just an opinion.") This kind of stance is very frustrating because it denies people their own agency. (And if I need "evidence" or proof of this, I'll offer that I stopped reporting vandals to AIV after I got template'd for not having jumped through all the proper warning hoops... despite there being an explicit exception for bot-powered fast vandalism of multiple articles in short succession, which is what I was reporting. If *I* get reported for doing this, why should I bother? Screw this. And that was even a happy case where everyone agreed afterward it was a good report and I shouldn't have been templated; the damage was done.) SnowFire ( talk) 19:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
@ SnowFire: I wasn't suggesting it wasn't true for you. I was speaking in the abstract. Looking at the entire population of editors here, we have no way of knowing if templating a regular is less likely to induce rage than a handcrafted message or if it is the other way around. I grant it angers you. That's fine, and I don't mean to state that makes you wrong. Let he who is without anger cast the first stone. We all get upset from time to time. My anger is no more valid than yours, or vice versa. But again, this isn't the point. From the abstract view, we have no way of knowing. It's a situation where you can't make everyone happy. For my part, I try to take the pathway that I think is least likely to cause a negative reaction. But, in the end, it's a guess. We don't know how the recipient will react. So, in that respect, both TTR and DTTR are both very valid opinions. Knowing beforehand where each is appropriate with reasonable certainty is nearly an exercise in futility. With you, I now know that templating you is not the right course. I know that because of this conversation. If we had not had it, I would not know that. Now I do know, and at anytime in the future if I find cause to template you I know not to do so. But, if I never had encountered you before, I wouldn't know. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 14:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Over that article Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2017-02-27/Op-ed i would like to personally tell you that i think the WMF shouldn't spend more than 16 million USD annually. Why? well, we all know that 3 million go on to the servers and colocation services. They have 300 staff, say everyone has a 1000 USD Per month salary. That makes for 3.3 million USD annualy in staffing costs. Now it's 6.6 million USD annually, and everything else goes to the bank. Now im saying 16 million because they have to pay for office spaces and other misc costs, not to mention they like to help others. My point is that the WMF should spend 4 or 5 times less money than they actually do because, as you said, it's like a cancer, and nothing can go on forever. Pancho507 ( talk) 20:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Looking through [44] how far would you say Federated Wikis are from going into production on large projects? SciHaus ( talk) 17:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
The "conversions" section of User:Guy Macon/On the Diameter of the Sewer cover in front of Greg L’s house could use expanding. See List of unusual units of measurement for ideas. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello dude. I wrote to Wtshymanski talk page, but he did not answer, just deleted my question, and I tried, maybe he write a meaningful answer to my question, without cause, withdraws my edits, and you,gives him the truth. I think in the English Wikipedia I stop my activities, as there are "strange" editors. As U. Tivadar Puskás, Hungarian inventor, what was the problem and the justification? — Preceding unsigned comment added by InterCity(IC) ( talk • contribs) 20:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
I posted this same message on my talk page, and I figure I would post it here.
Guy Macon, Please explain to me how my links are inappropriate for this web page (qb64). I have been part of the QB64 community since 2011, and I started The QB64 Edition long before QB64.org came into the picture. If there are any external links that should not be on this page it is "Black Annex is the best QBASIC game you've ever seen - an indie video game compiled in QB64 (incorrectly stated to be QBASIC game in the article)". The QB64 Edition (located at qb64.thejoyfulprogrammer.com) is primarily about sharing various projects created in QB64, and to socialize with other QB64 programmers. It was created in 2014 when QB64.net (the official web site of QB64) went down for two weeks and we didn't know when it would be back up.
In my point of view, the links to my QB64 programming forum is just as viable and legit as QB64.org (another official QB64 partner site), and far more valuable then the "Black Annex" link. I feel that the "Black Annex" link should be removed and mine put back in.
If my links (in the external link section and in the infobox) are inappropriate, then I would appreciate a good reason as to why that is, and what makes the other links appropriate.
-- Waltersmind ( talk) 01:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
...on One against many and almost have it memorized, (ok-that was an exaggeration). I found it very good and was just what I needed to read. Thank you for the time you put into creating it. I do want more advice from you because I couldn't find it in the essay. In a number of articles that I create, content is changed, reverted, deleted and so on. I'm okay with that because lots of times the article is improved. One common interaction that I have is when the content I have added/created is analyzed and instructions are given to me (not suggested!) on what is wrong or what needs to improved. The editor making the comments states that something is missing and needs to be included-yet the missing content actually exists in the article. I want to be 'nice', amicable, consensus-driven and not insult anyone. BTW-this has nothing to do with what I am working on at the moment. I've purposefully put off questions like this for months so that a specific editing issue that I have can not be linked to this message on your talk page. If I correct the other editor with diffs and other such documentation I feel more confrontational than what I would like. I have also noted that this other editor reacts in a way that suggests that they are insulted. They are highly respected, and prolific. What are some options, in your opinion. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 22:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
My input: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposed alternative solution. -- Guy Macon ( talk)
hi, I noticed you answer questions at the help desk as well, I post there yesterday [48] but haven't gotten any response, can you help? thanks-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 12:59, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Are you able to access the store?
The store used to be here: http://getchip.com/pages/store but I cannot access this link any more, it used to be present as a link on all pages of http://getchip.com but it vanished from most pages. Only on the forum page the link persists.
I never claimed that getchip.com is defunct, only the store.
Please revert your deletion. Treutwein ( talk) 18:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
You might also take a look at this thread on their forum Treutwein ( talk) 09:49, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
See Talk:7400 series#Need help finding citation for NAND gate in analog mode Especially helpfull would be someone who speaks German. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
...if you saw this link I posted in the JW discussion? The image at the top of your page fits well. Atsme 📞 📧 16:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi Guy. Would you happen to know if this song is protected by copyright? I stumbled across an old Google discussion thread where someone calling himself, of all things, "Guy Macon" said this: "Works published from 1923 - 63: When published with notice (Under the 1909 Act, works published without notice went into the public domain upon publication. Works published without notice between 1-1-78 and 3-1-89, effective date of the Berne Convention Implementation Act, retained copyright only if, e.g., registration was made within five years. 17 U.S.C. § 405. The copyright term was 28 years + could be renewed for 47 years, now extended by 20 years for a total renewal of 67 years. If not so renewed, now in public domain. (Source: Tom Field / Lolly Gasaway. Last updated 11-5-98)" Any recollection of that at all? Many thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 21:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market needs to be expanded. This topic is hot right now, and at User talk:Jimbo Wales, Jimbo wrote "I'm interested in bringing this to wide attention in the community [...] about an upcoming vote in the European Parliament which is very important". Please jump in an expand the article. I am offering double the usual pay... -- Guy Macon ( talk) 22:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
I have stolen this without credit:
Should credit be given to anyone? :) -- Timeshifter ( talk) 14:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
<div>As of {{CURRENTDAYNAME}}, {{CURRENTDAY2}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}, {{CURRENTTIME}} (UTC), The English Wikipedia has {{NUMBEROF|USERS|en|N}} registered users, {{NUMBEROF|ACTIVEUSERS|en|N}} active editors, and {{NUMBEROF|ADMINS|en|N}} administrators. Together we have made {{NUMBEROF|EDITS|en|N}} edits, created {{NUMBEROF|PAGES|en|N}} pages of all kinds and created {{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|en|N}} articles.</div>
I know you have done a lot of low-level technical work. Has that involved TCP/IP? A discussion here (and at bottom of talk) needs people who understand the topic. Johnuniq ( talk) 07:37, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
[Boring dispute that was resolved long ago deleted]
The hair barrette engineer? Isa ( talk) 20:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I did not mean to infer that you were being requested to respond, but felt that if I mentioned your name, you should be aware of it. I'll drop a note here next time so I don't cause a misunderstanding in the future. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 20:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Actually, "only" six years ago (and I agree, not a real precedent for anything). Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC) I don't think we're living in the decade you think we're living in :) Also, threaded replies are frowned on, and there's a 63.8% chance you're going to get yelled at by a clerk because of it. Although actually, probably not, because no one is going to read that whole thing. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 23:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
Your comment here concerns me.
Really? You really believe that I was the cause of this?
I'm extremely disappointed in that analysis of the situation. GregJackP Boomer! 20:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I noticed on WikiProject Cooperation, you said you were interested in engineering/technical articles, so I wanted to let you know about my COI work for the Qualcomm Snapdragon article here. I also pinged the engineering WikiProject, etc. CorporateM ( Talk) 00:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry Guy, I reverted as it has been archived. Cassianto Talk 19:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
You might want to re-read that RfA's opposes more closely. No one proposed any such "free pass"; rather, actually being here to work on the encyclopedia, not just participate in its subculture, is one among many important criteria a lot of editors want to see from admin candidates. A:B → B:A is not valid logic. Not passing someone because they're missing one criterion does not equate to passing anyone who does fulfill it, since there are other criteria. And many of the editors with such a criterion in mind are WP:GNOMEs. While I did see a few people expect to see some FAs, that doesn't appear to be a majority viewpoint, and my own comment there made it clear that I accept, indeed encourage, gnoming as valid content-editing experience; even GregJackP agreed with that. Habitually wading into talkpage and noticeboard fights that don't concern you isn't gnoming, it's drama-mongering. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 09:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Bishonen | talk 10:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC).
The two users who are reverting my edits on Ghulam Ahmed Pervez are removing counter-arguments to their points of view which are cited. This is against NPOV. The "differing opinions" section I created highlights both sides of the issue, they want it deleted, even though it contains citations and sourced material. They also claim my edits are "promotional" (referring to the major ideas section) when that is not true. e.g. Go to Max Weber's page and there you will find his ideas sourced from his own work. How is this any different? I'm reverting your edit. If you don't agree, please state your case on the talk page or contribute your opinion to the escalation on the administration page where the escalation is currently posted on this issue. Thanks. Code16 ( talk) 16:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Based on past interactions, I have no problem with you at all. I am sure we have disagreed on things but they are probably things on which reasonable people may disagree. Guy ( Help!) 08:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Guy - I'm a bit confused over the purpose of being IP exempt? Does it apply to editors who have a user account, and then possibly edits from a smart phone or iPad that tends to sign one out automatically after a certain length of time, and then if the user posts a comment not knowing their signed-out, it goes through anyway under an IP address? That has happened to me more than once using the iPad, and I don't quite understand the consequences or why it matters. I noticed yours says IP exempt. Just wondering... Atsme 📞 📧 13:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
In my role of theoretical physicist I'd like to make comment on your describing the e-cat at something that cannot possibly work: simply this, that proofs that cold fusion 'cannot possibly work' are based on unjustified simplifications, such as neglecting the possibility that some coordinated activity in the condensed matter environment may enable the Coulomb barrier to be overcome (and other mechanisms may be possible also). It is pretty well impossible to prove a negative in science. Brian Josephson ( talk) 20:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, how did you notice this? -- JustBerry ( talk) 04:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your long-ago suggestion that I put my idea-opinion into essay form. (I finally had the balls to do it. WP:Let the smartest among us restructure. Amateurish, I know, but hey, it was result of maybe 30 minutes!) Thanks again for the encouragement. Sincere, IHTS ( talk) 10:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
As we seem to be the primary editors on WP:FIX, howsabout you and I work on the longer typo lists, and leave the ones that have less than 100 errors to any newer people - to kind of allow them to 'get their feet wet'? What do you think? :) Sct72 ( talk) 18:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
In https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Comparison_of_command_shells&diff=682665310&oldid=682117627 you changed "the the" to "the" in a citation. While the latter is the correct one, the original text on http://tldp.org/LDP/abs/html/bashver4.html has this error. So, I'm wondering whether this correction is adequate here. Said otherwise, should text in citations be corrected on Wikipedia? Vincent Lefèvre ( talk) 13:17, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
{{
sic}}
to show that the error was not made by Wikipedia. However, trivial spelling and typographic errors should simply be corrected without comment (for example, correct basicly to basically and harasssment to harassment), unless the slip is textually important."It's difficult to know when the recipient of a little ribbing might take it wrong. I just wanted to be sure you knew I was kidding. Atsme 📞 📧 23:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Just confused by [2]; I approached it as a content dispute that was fueled by bad conduct (and AN does deal with conduct disputes all the time) and intervened only to handle what appeared to be source falsification, which is definitely bad conduct that needs to be prevented. I wouldn't have intervened at all (unless to block edit-warriors or to protect the article) had I known that it was solely a content dispute. Nyttend ( talk) 00:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Re this, Byrd no longer works for the WMF as of September 30, so don't expect a response. I just noticed they got around to locking his WMF account today, so in any case he'd have to use a different account to edit. What, don't all organizations announce personnel changes on mailing lists? That's what all the hip youngsters these days are into, right? If you want to monitor WMF staff changes, the most comprehensive "official" place to find out appears to be the Foundation Wiki. I saw your edit while poking around on Meta, if you're wondering. -- 71.119.131.184 ( talk) 19:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I saw this. I stated multiple times during the discussion that if Arbcom chose to rule that restoring uncited material to a BLP after it had been challenged for lack of sources was not a BLP violation, I would abide by that decision. It's interesting both that they never made such a determination and that my agreement to abide by such a decision wasn't considered sufficient. I admit that my degree of involvement was at least grey: I think virtually white, but others apparently think virtually black. My contention throughout was that since the restoration of the material was an unambiguous BLP violation, and TRM refused to stop committing that BLP violation after multiple warnings, that greyness didn't matter.
As for any argument that I'm harping about it, I'm more than happy to let the matter drop if you just stop mentioning it. Feel free to leave me completely out of your thoughts, and I will extend you the same courtesy if you wish.— Kww( talk) 02:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, everyone, for letting me know that this was being discussed once again, and once again giving the former admin Kww a soapbox to claim he was doing things right, despite both the community and Arbcom finding otherwise. The sooner this broken record gets hauled into the trash, the better. The Rambling Man ( talk) 20:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Electoral Commission#User:Guy Macon. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 16:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Wow! "Aaron" was a sock puppet of somebody who was banned. He even had a conversation with himself from a different IP address. It took a lot of work for you to remove all of his talking on Computer program. Thank you for the effort. Timhowardriley ( talk) 19:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC) WarKosign”
Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase I/RfC -- Guy Macon ( talk) 16:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
All I can say is "wow". Jeh ( talk) 04:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
You're in, by unanimous consent: [4]. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 18:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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.[ [8]] He doesn't agree with the material I've been trying to add and opened a NPOVN discussion related to the content.[ [9]] 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.[ [10]] I posted a talk page discussion related to the changes at the same time.[ [11]] 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 [ [12]]). Thanks Springee ( talk) 15:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 06:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Since you demanded a recount... and since I see the other two election-commissioners already have talkpages busy with their ACE2015 duties... I figured I would dump this question in your lap. :-)
I've been helping User:GamerPro64 work on the regular Arb-Report column for the WP:SIGNPOST, and there was a suggestion made that maybe the next Arb-Report could cover an exit poll, of people who have been voting in ACE2015. If you've been following the discussions at User_talk:Dennis_Brown, User_talk:Opabinia_regalis, User_talk:Slimvirgin, and the talkpages of your fellow commish folks, you probably know that there is a reasonably amount of interest in finding out what sort of folks have been voting this year. So, my currently-vague proposal, is that I would like to write up some exit-poll questions for the voters, and then leave a usertalk message for 5% of them, selected pseudo-randomly from the list -- https://vote.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/list/560?limit=5
Now, I could always download the list myself, and do some kind of random selection therefrom. But for transparency reasons (and in case this becomes a "regular thing" that happens in arbcom elections going forwards), it is probably better to see whether a neutral party can do the selection-work. Writing up the questions to ask is also a sticky wicket, but probably that can be managed using existing procedures (RfC or somesuch). So my question for you is, let's say that some signpost person wanted to get a randomly-chosen list of 200 unique voters from the list of all voters (discounting all greyed-out and struck-thru votes to avoid accidentally weighting the randomness towards those who re-voted). Who would be able to do that work? One of the election commissioners? One of the scrutineers? And how would the work be done, with maximum transparency?
p.s. In terms of WP:DEADLINEs, the next issue of ArbReport is *dated* for Wednesday December 2nd, WP:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-12-02/Arbitration_report, but that datestamp is actually when the rough draft process begins. Actual publication will happen this coming weekend, in other words, the evening of Saturday the 5th (or sometimes "a day late" on Sunday the 6th which is also when voting ends this year). Thus, if we are going to have a reasonable response-rate to the proposed exit poll, ideally we would get some questions written up by Wednesday, send out the 200 usertalk requests early on Thursday, and then process the initial results Saturday morning. There is some tension between getting accurate answers ("can you remember whom you voted for and why?") by asking as soon after the voter comes out of the SecurePoll as possible, and the worry that voters who have not yet voted, or who plan to re-vote, might alter their behavior should they hear about the exit-poll predictions *prior* to the polls actually closing, see Exit_poll#Criticism_and_controversy, so that also may need to be taken into consideration. Thanks, 75.108.94.227 ( talk) 16:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Online pseudorandom number generator website? Real cryptonerds use Hardware random number generators. :) Here is a number selected by a HRNG: 18 -- Guy Macon ( talk) 14:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Question, what do the various annotations mean? Some of the 146 names are greyed-out, some are struck, most are both. But there is at least one name which is greyed out, but not struck, and one name which is struck, but not greyed out. And the implied follow-up question is, should the nine usernames which are currently struck and/or greyed out, be included in the exit poll? At first I thought struck out meant invalid vote, e.g. under the 150 edits or something, but now I'm wondering if re-votes are also being annotated thataway. Please advise. 75.108.94.227 ( talk) 16:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Guy, Where is the place where one asks general questions. For example, I recently wanted to ask about the meaning of the RS guidelines. I really wanted to ask that question without reference to a specific article. How should such a question be asked? Thanks Springee ( talk) 04:15, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Was wondering if I could ask you to review a few if you have time. [15] [16] [17]. Some of these are 1-2 months old and 2 of them are pretty small/simple/minor. David King, Ethical Wiki ( Talk) 16:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
I see your point. :) Thanks for cleaning that up. — PinkAmpers & (Je vous invite à me parler) 22:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
HNY, Guy. I just want to let you know that I'm a big fan of your work here. I'm curious, have you made a list of any major "WTF" practices (Re:how completely messed up practices become normal) that we can address? I think it would be an interesting exercise to attempt to address a single issue with you in a leadership position pushing forward. I'm confident in your abilities. Viriditas ( talk) 20:50, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Regarding this edit: although it doesn't necessarily change your line of argument, solely based on your excerpted quote, the stated amount is a monthly bandwidth cost, and so your scaling up of the cost for 2015 is off by a factor of 12. Thus you've only increased the cost by a bit more than 8 times, rather than a hundred. isaacl ( talk) 15:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Seemed potentially in your interest area for technical subjects. The proposed draft and Request Edit have remained on the Talk page for more than a month without response. Was hoping you might take a look. David King, Ethical Wiki ( Talk) 21:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Guy, you may find these useful for your "In the news" section:
Best, -- Andreas JN 466 11:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Guy, thanks again for your support - I can now edit again, so I thought I would ask for help from a WP expert. I looked up "primary sources" on WP, and apparently still don't understand what is meant by them - the discussion in question is in /info/en/?search=User_talk:JzG . I am wondering if you could explain what (the other) Guy is concerned about in terms I can understand - it seems strange to disallow important (IMO) references that would be of interest to readers, but allow references that (I assume) can talk about them. Maybe you can suggest remedial action I could ask someone to take (as I can't do the edits myself!). TIA. Jpaulm ( talk) 00:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Just checking in with a fellow WP:FIX typo-fixer, seeing what you've been up to. And I see by the religion-related contributions, one of your resolutions for the new year was to pull your hair out. :) (kidding, seriously.) Anyhoo, it looks like we have a couple new people at WP:FIX, plus another is creating a bot for the database dumps, see the talk page. Good luck and see you over there! Sct72 ( talk) 01:00, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I read your flat earth argument on your page. I wanted to let you know that you should pick a better topic. Since people did not believe the earth was flat, your argument that they did and, therefore, were wrong is invalid. 199.15.144.250 ( talk) 16:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I apologize for undoing your edit to Western Reserve Academy, having now read the RfC involved. Please note that other nonsectarian schools, like Phillips Exeter Academy, still retain their nonsectarian status listed under 'religion' in the infobox, which was the basis of my edit. I would have liked to have been linked to the RfC in your original edit summary so that I would at least have been educated about your proposal and its success. Drasil ( talk) 07:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Looks like there's reasonable consensus on the NOR noticeboard. What's the procedure there - is it closed automatically after a waiting period or do we have to ask for a close? Given the discussion there and your previous RfC (which appears to resolve this unambiguously) how do we proceed? Are the RfC and NOR decisions binding? D.Creish ( talk) 02:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Can you change #5 to something more like
Otherwise it can be read as saying that it's okay to do something other than the above, as long as you mention it on the talk page. (Which I don't think was your intention.) — Steve Summit ( talk) 23:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi! I thought I should reply here rather than on the ANI report to avoid it getting (even more) off topic. I hope you don't mind that I brought up your username. While I think Malik Shabazz's threat would be pretty serious for any editor, I thought it bore mentioning that it would be doubly so in your case. I did notice that you'd carefully avoided bringing the issue up yourself, which I think shows a lot of good faith on your part. Hope you're holding up okay. Marianna251 TALK 09:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
You may have wanted to settle this more quietly but I take a dim view of retaliatory threats to go to the media over content disputes. AE Request is now open. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 10:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
J. J. Goldberg, 'Bernie Sanders Keeps Talking About Being Jewish. Why Won't We Listen?,' The Forward 26 February 2016.
I often disagree with this writer's views, but this is a commendably sane review of the whole issue, which is really about a conflict between two constituencies in American Judaism, the sleeve pullers of one-of-"us-ism" (who often unwittingly play into the hands of one-of-"them-ism"), and the Isaian universalists, like Sanders, who think their particular ethnoreligious background is, while important, not something to be worn on the sleeve or brandished politically, because they see themselves predominantly as integrated into a larger tradition, of which the 'Jewish' component, though seminal, if manipulated one way or the other, only lends itself to the divisiveness already toxically rampant in most other 'confessional' politicians. As a politician, Goldberg remarks, Sanders like many others wishes to represent a broad national tradition, and all of his constituency. If only more from the Evangelical, Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, whatever, subcultures could take a leaf from his book, that place would be saner than it has been for a long time. Nishidani ( talk) 11:30, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Guy, can you point to any instance in the entire history of Wikipedia where it was decided to not attribute material at a person's website to that person? Anythingyouwant ( talk) 13:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
NOTE TO ALL: In the interest of not having multiple discussions on the same subject all over Wikipedia, please consider all of the above questions to be asked and answered. If (as often happens) you disagree with, are not satisfied with, or will not accept my answers, please discuss it on the article talk page where is belongs. Any further discussion here will be removed. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I tried to advise QuackGuru that if anyone was bludgeoning the process, they were by making demands of Jimbo Wales that couldn't be satisfied in the same space and time. They reverted. But we know that QuackGuru is a combative editor. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi there!
I'm the one who started that discussion on the village pump regarding username policies. I would like you to help me by conducting the following experiment with your test account. Could you, while logged in as TestAccountZboxx3R7ql001, navigate to the NLWIKI? No need to do anything there, just go there so that your account will appear as newly created on the wiki. That way I can see if the folks there really have enforce this "confusing username" policy.
Many thanks! <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> ( talk) 01:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Guy, thanks for the advice. At the moment I'm not interested in pursuing it. The closer's responsibility should be to gauge consensus - the strength of the arguments matter insofar as they convince the community, not the closer. Apparently what we have instead is a super-opinion - ultimately all that matters is the opinion of a single admin - it's an admin-as-jury model rather than admin-as-judge. It should be obvious (and worrying) how easily that's abused. Putting any more effort into what is effectively a roll of the dice seems pointless. I appreciated your input in the debate, always well-reasoned and the car/ford analogy was hilariously accurate. Take care. James J. Lambden ( talk) 21:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
at JW talk p. DGG ( talk ) 06:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I understand that some users on here may be familiar with user called guy macon on here. I have been asked by a family member to pass on the message that Guy was involved in a traffic incident a few hours ago. His situation is serious but fortunately he is stable. If any users wish to pass on messages of support, I will try and pass these on to his family.
Thank you for any support during this difficult time. Lynda — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.230.108.156 ( talk) 10:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
I would like to understand what you did so I don't repeat the error again. You removed my blog URL from my User Page and labeled it: (Deleted scoop.it blogspam.) I am not a super experienced editor so I can't quite figure out what was going wrong here. Was scoop.it spamming someone? Thank you for your help. Have a good day. NegMawon ( talk) 22:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
For all my minions talk page watchers, here is a new XKCD comic about Wikipedia:
http://xkcd.com/1665/ --
Guy Macon (
talk) 14:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
At the biography article ( Marjorie Cameron) is wholly procedural—I was at JW's Talk page for a separate reason, noted that a book author's query had caught JW's attention, looked to the article's Talk page to see what the status of the issue, and on seeing that JW's perspective was not considered, produced his comment (and my concurring opinion) at that Talk page—so that the two responding editors, at that Talk page, would no longer dismiss the concerns of the over-cited book author.
Otherwise, my opinion is stated in my Talk, there; I think the best way to proceed is to move paragraphs in clear violation (one source, close paraphrases drawn entirely from the author's work) to Talk, leaving placeholder section stubs, then to guide repopulating the sections from a small set of sources (rather than just the one). This spoke as a former Prof, and not as a Wikipedian. This redaction of clearly violating paragraphs will go a long way to satisfying the concerned book author, and will make clear you are serious about compliance with WP:VERIFY. We have recently taken the fully plagiarised Dixie Walker in the same direction, and it seems to be working (stub in place, material slowly repopulating).
Otherwise, note, if you go to the book author's Talk page (an IP page), I let him know that while the issue of overuse could be addressed, his specific demands for including and excluding things would likely not be to his satisfaction. See that statement, there. I also encourage him to register.
Cheers, Le Prof. Leprof 7272 ( talk) 04:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have listed yourself on the list of volunteers at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering#List of the DRN volunteers.
First, assistance is needed at DRN. We have recently closed a number of cases without any services being provided for lack of a volunteer willing to take the case. There are at least three cases awaiting a volunteer at this moment. Please consider taking one.
Second, this is a volunteer roll call. If you remain interested in helping at DRN and are willing to actively do so by taking at least one case (and seeing it through) or helping with administrative matters at least once per calendar month, please add your name to this roll call list. Individuals currently on the principal volunteer list who do not add their name on the roll call list will be removed from the principal volunteer list after June 30, 2016 unless the DRN Coordinator chooses to retain their name for the best interest of DRN or the encyclopedia. Individuals whose names are removed after June 30, 2016, should feel free to re-add their names to the principal volunteer list, but are respectfully requested not to do so unless they are willing to take part at DRN at least one time per month as noted above. No one is going to be monitoring to see if you live up to that commitment, but we respectfully ask that you either live up to it or remove your name from the principal volunteer list.
Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 17:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC) (Current DRN coordinator) (Not watching this page)
I seem to remember at WikiProject Cooperation you said you were interested in topics with a technical leaning. No rush, but thought you might be interested in participating as I work to improve the page with a COI if nobody already invested in the article responds. See: [20] CorporateM ( Talk) 15:49, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Strewth! You were quick out of the blocks. I reformatted your link addition not because I though it was wrong, but because I thought I had added it and not got it right. At least the two match in style. Thanks for your interest anyway. 85.255.232.219 ( talk) 13:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi Guy! I closed (nac) that sea lion barking on ANI but wanted to say that if you wish to pursue a tban further, more power to you. Just seemed like that post was going nowhere fast with a noisy sea lion in the rear seat. Feel free to revert if you wish. Hopefully they'll return to Pier 39 quietly. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Is the Do Not Archive Until date arbitrary, or is that the actual time of the little-known concealed binary doomsday? Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Guy, it's been awhile. I hope things are well with you. As the heading gives away, I'm reaching out to see if you would be willing to weigh in on a proposed update that I've been having the darnedest time getting anyone to look at. The subject is Hilary Rosen; I am working with the firm she runs to bring the article up-to-date and make it a more well-rounded picture of her career. The article has been somewhat hostile and little-edited for a few years now, so there's some real inertia built into the page. I've reached out to editors previously involved with the article, and relevant wikiprojects, yet have received no reply in nearly four weeks. If you're willing, you can find the open request here. Let me know what you think when you get a chance. Cheers, WWB Too ( Talk · COI) 18:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Could you two please sort out your differences over a beer rather than here. I personally value both your contributions and watching you spat over commas, Oxford or not, is depressing. Thanks Velella Velella Talk 19:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Regarding your edit here, the addition wasn't a BLP violation since George Carlin has been dead since 2008, and BLP policies only apply to the more recently deceased (within a year or two) and living per WP:BDP. The CFD you initiated does however bring up a valid general concern. We'll see how that plays out. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 13:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
See File talk:500 x 500 SMPTE Color Bars.png#Challenge. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 16:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm Riff. Cause when you're a Jet, you're a jet all the way from your first cigarette to your last dying day. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi! I saw a while ago that you had some inquiries about whether Californians speak with a General American accent. Assuming you are yourself a native Californian, I'm going to ask you a few fun questions that you can answer at your leisure:
Afterwards, I'd be happy to explain what I know of the relationship between California and General American! Wolfdog ( talk) 16:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the ANI notice, however, I'm going to stay away from Wikipedia for the next few months for the reasons stated here. In fairness, I should note I actually wrote the text that is currently at that article (though, obviously, it was intended to be contextual and introductory, and not the entire article). Ironically, despite the huge number of participants, no one has really edited any content, virtually all the words continue to be what I originally wrote. It's just been a series of mass deletions and restorations. I tried opening a RfC to resolve the issue but even the RfC was deleted, so I'm not sure there's anything more anyone can do and we should probably just let the article die for the good of general peace and tranquility. I sincerely wish you the best of luck but I'm just too beat down by this to continue. LavaBaron ( talk) 05:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Just so you know, the number of spaces following the terminal punctuation of a sentence in the wiki markup makes no difference on Wikipedia; the MediaWiki software condenses any number of spaces to just one when rendering the page (see Sentence spacing). More info here: MOS:PUNCTSPACE. Cheers! -- RickyCourtney ( talk) 18:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
You appear to be a reasonable, non-partisan editor which (if my quick review of your recent contributions is accurate) the James O'Keefe article could use more of. Your increased participation there would be welcome.
I reverted one of your edits here which moved the 2016 video reception to the general reception section. Since most incident-specific criticism is listed in incident-specific sections (some with their own reception sub-section) it seemed best to keep the general "Reception" section to general criticism (and defense) of his methods. Reasonable? I've been trying to organize the article over the last week or so. James J. Lambden ( talk) 20:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi Guy. I'm currently researching this topic and I stumbled upon your entry wondering why someone had advocated putting GDTs in series with MOVs. I thought you might find the following article interesting/informative. Regards, Mike http://www.wseas.org/multimedia/journals/power/2012/54-510.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.147.4.25 ( talk) 02:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
(Moved to User:Guy Macon/Wikipedia has Cancer)
Interesting information:
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 20:44, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello again. I've been thinking. Is having two closers performing joint closure enough, or should we have one more closer to volunteer the joint closure? Thoughts? -- George Ho ( talk) 10:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello again, Guy Macon. Umm... I was advised to step away from the referrer info RfC. Therefore, you can communicate with two volunteers ( Winged Blades of Godric and Cyberpower678) and decide whether more than two closers are necessary. Also, I was told to leave my request to have third closer up to others to respond. Well, if having two closers is enough as said by Power, then I'll accept. You can tell Godric and Cyberpower678 to go ahead without having any more closers if you wish. Otherwise, if you decide that a third closer is necessary, then let's wait. You decide; I think my work is done after relisting it. Thoughts? -- George Ho ( talk) 22:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Hey Guy, I saw that your ANI report about the persistent vandalism on the list of Subaru engines article didn't really get any traction (ha!). If you want to spin me up on the details, I'd be happy to help you watchdog the article. A Train talk 21:23, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Who would have guessed that thinking tools for ANI discussions could be found in 1980s video games? ― Mandruss ☎ 22:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi, You wrote: "If there is a BLP problem, post it at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard." Did you perhaps mean post it at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard? Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 13:44, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi Guy, now that I have looked a little more in detail into what the ADA protects I think it is unlikely that wikipedia editing falls under it. This is based just on my own understanding, and if a qualified american lawyer comes along then their interpretation should trump mine. But to quote ada.gov "The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) prohibits discrimination and ensures equal opportunity for persons with disabilities in employment, State and local government services, public accommodations, commercial facilities, and transportation." After a bit of a search I don't think wikipedia can credibly come under one of those headings. All of the other high profile cases (TARGET, Berkley etc) have very different circumstances. "public accommodations" is the most ambiguous term that is not something that I have ever come across before - but I can't find an example of a non-profit website being sued under that term by a volunteer and everything I read seems to interpret this as talking about commercial companies offering services to the public. I think that wikipedia should be accesible for disabled people as a matter of principle - if we claim to be a free encylopedia that anyone can edit we are failing our mission if people are prevented from doing so for any reason... but not very confident initially that the ADA will be a useful tool. AlasdairEdits ( talk) 16:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Guy - when checking out a diff on a very long page, the diff view shows a LINE:# and then a + sign in the margin showing the diff. Let's say it's LINE: 357 - is there a way to find that line in the article view below the diff section? I'm not seeing where the lines are numbered, and can't figure out what purpose the line # has in the grand scheme. Atsme 📞 📧 14:16, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Guy, you've been around long enough to know better than that. Doug Weller talk 15:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Hey Guy. In case you didn't see it, the WMF has posted a response at Wikipedia talk:Village pump (policy)/RfC: Wikimedia referrer policy. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 18:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Guy, let met start out by saying I think you undertook an enormous amount of effort on something having little to do with you to produce something positive for the project. I sincerely applaud your efforts. It's very magnanimous of you to do so. None of what I'm about to say is any comment on you in any respect.
In its stated purpose of advising ArbCom, the RfC's outcome I think is something other than anyone expected.
From a straight we-should-go-this-way perspective, the RfC has failed. It does nothing to inform on that issue. There are only two proposals that have achieved more than 50% support, and those only barely so. #4 has 57% support and 2a has 61.9% support. I'll come back to that 61.9% figure. Consensus isn't a number. But, the numbers can inform as to how divided a pool of participants is. Looking deeper into this division we can see problems. For example; one voter voted in opposition to 2a, saying 5 years had been long enough. The very next opposition vote opposed lifting the ban at all; those two positions are 180 degrees opposite of each other, yet both oppose 2a. Then, we have several votes that are second choices. Are they really supporting? Hard to know; they might shift their opinions given the presence of only 2a as an option. We don't know. If we discount their support, we get to the 61.9% figure. If we don't discount, and we claim 2:1 support for this measure, there's going to be massive controversy over it. 2a _seems_ have support, but the reality is otherwise.
This gets even more convoluted when we compare this 2a proposal against the results with proposal 4. We can't say we support 2a and we support 4. They are opposite to each other's intent.
The only other proposal relative to Δ is 7, but as you said in your opposition to that proposal, Δ's already done that, and ArbCom was supposed to take action in regards to it (and apparently hasn't). So, Δ could do it again, but we'd be back at the same square we are on now.
The net outcome of all this is the RfC has effectively failed to produce any coherent direction that ArbCom can look to which the community supports. What it has done an unintended job of doing is showing how divided the community is, and how dramatically muddy the picture has become. It's become a gordian knot problem.
ArbCom's solution to gordian knot problems is to go after (read; dispense with) that which is central to the dispute, whether the editor who is central to that dispute has done any wrong or not. Very frequently they ignore the problematic behavior of several (if not dozens in some cases) editors involved in the dispute. This is why we end up with cases titled after a specific editor, and why we always pass sanctions against that specific editor and rarely do so against anyone else involved in a dispute. ArbCom's general take on this will be (1) there's a dispute, (2) Δ is central to that dispute, (3) maintain the status quo of banning Δ from the project. There. Problem "solved".
If there is to be a way forward, there has to be an RfC that is strictly regulated, and not disrupted. It needs to have very specific questions such as you would see on a ballot at a polling booth. For example, it might start with:
If there is sufficient support to move forward, then a subsequent set of questions might address what type of restrictions should be used. For eaxmple;
Etc. Etc. My thoughts here are that the RfC as currently crafted can never show a direction because it's too open ended. Either we support the notion of Δ being unbanned (the elements of restrictions or not come later) or we don't. If there's support, for a possible unban, then we can start trying to untie the gordian knot of what elements of the unban have to be in place for the community to support it. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 16:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi Guy Macon. I was wondering if you had the time to do one or two COI reviews. One of them is three distinct issues I raised with some recent edits made on a controversial issue regarding America's relationship with a Russia-based IT security company.
The other involves a shared draft on an IT security company that would better balance the article and bring it up to GA standards. (it's possible Bilby will respond to this on, as he was involved on the Talk page some years ago and I pinged him)
CorporateM ( Talk) 18:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi Guy Macon. If you have a few minutes, I was hoping you might be willing to take a look at a few places where I have made COI requests/questions:
Of course, you may be pre-occupied on Wikipedia elsewhere, but thanks in advance if you do spend the time to review. Best regards. CorporateM ( Talk) 19:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Click on this link first: http://wondermark.com/1k62/
Click on this link second: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMDtibc13fc
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 19:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for posting that timeline on Jimbo talk.
There is something else that is not mentioned in it, that happened between these two events:
It's that the Signpost inquired with the Knight Foundation whether the Knight Foundation would have any objection to the WMF's grant application being published, along with the Knight Foundation's letter confirming the grant. (That inquiry is briefly mentioned in the opening paragraph of Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-10/Special_report.)
The Knight Foundation responded that their default is openness and that they generally leave the decision whether and how to release the grant paperwork entirely to the grantee – although the parties would of course need to check with each other before releasing joint documents, just out of courtesy.
The Knight Foundation told us they communicated with the WMF on Feb. 11, and that the WMF then responded by publishing the document immediately.
Hope that helps.
Cheers, -- Andreas JN 466 18:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
When you wrote at
WP:AN asking the closers to explicitly write out --....a thoughtful joint statement regarding whether Wikipedia or the WMF controls Wikipedia content
; I had reservations on whether it would be an over-reach for the closers!
But proceedings like
this resulting in execution of something in direct contraventions of an RFC---has compelled me to believe the utter necessity of your sought opinion on the matter!(Apparently these guys aside from coding, have vested upon themselves the magic wand that has a mandatory necessity of zero experience on en-wiki to do all these f***ing businesses.)And there are always some guys in support of them!
Winged Blades
Godric 11:15, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi Guy. You'll be happy to hear that the projected Total Annual Operating Expenses for the WMF for FY 2016-17 are $63,000,000, [41] which is almost $3,000,000 less than the Total Annual Operating Expenses for 2015-16. [42] Of course we won't know the actual final numbers for another month or so, but hopefully they will be somewhere in that ballpark. Kaldari ( talk) 04:18, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
DannyH (WMF), I have something that I would like you to think about when you get a bit of time.
How about a help page where editors like myself can go to find a step-by-step explanation about how best to make a technical proposal and have someone on the Community Tech team spend, say, five minutes evaluating it and putting it on a page where such proposals are to be discussed?
The reason I bring this up is because I was feeling very discouraged when I saw the call soliciting proposals for a community wishlist, put a fair amount of effort drafting up a proposal (see meta:2015 Community Wishlist Survey/Archive#Start a project -- a real project with measurable goals and a schedule -- to reduce page weight), submitted it in the place where the instructions said to submit such things, and then didn't see it on the list of proposals that we were supposed to vote on. I don't expect the WMF to automatically accept and implement my suggestions, but you could have offered a bit of help. You could have said that you are putting a developer on it, total effort not to exceed four hours, to make a couple of test pages with and without my suggested changes and measure the page weight. Or at the very least you could have told me that it was now on list X and that there are Y suggestions from other Wikipedia editors that are in line that need to be evaluated first.
BTW, I made a tactical error when I made that proposal. I assumed that the reason why it was being ignored was because it was too expensive, and so I stupidly pared it down to one small change that could be evaluated using no more than an hour or so of the developer's time so we could see if my idea was good or bad. That small change was rejected as well. I should have stuck with my original proposal. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 06:44, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
DannyH (WMF), I have no problem with the move to my talk page.
I still think we need a central help page so that engineers such as myself who are not paid WMF staff can make suggestions, offer to help, etc. As I said, it is really discouraging when you put in a fair amount of effort making a proposal and the reaction is indistinguishable from being ignored. All the worse if you find out years later that someone at the WMF is working on the issue you raised, but nobody told you or gave you a link to a place where you can see what progress has been made.
So, to avoid the exact thing happening with the suggestion I just made, please indicate with an [X] one of the following answers:
[ ] The WMF has decided not to create the help page you describe.
[ ] I am the wrong person to ask about the help page. The correct person is staffer X, who has been informed of this conversation.
[ ] The WMF has decided not create the help page you describe. It has been assigned to staffer X, and you will get an update here when it is done.
[ ] Is existing help page X what you were looking for? Can it be modified to be more suitable?
[ ] We have the following questions about your suggestion; [List of questions].
[ ] Other: ______________________________________
Any answer, even a simple "fuck you, go away", would be vastly preferable to making a suggestion and getting no response. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi Guy Macon. Given some of your recent comments at the Village Pump, I wonder if you'd like to take a look at the lead sentence of Islam in Europe. If you're busy or otherwise disinclined, I'll get to it eventually. Rivertorch FIRE WATER 21:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Have you considered that the the NSA or FBI may have done some sort of homeopathic attenuation on the electronic signals? Is it possible that the 12X (that is, 10^12) attenuation makes the signal have one-trillionth (short scale) of the detectable strength, but one trillion (short scale) the harassing power of the original signal? Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:28, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Maybe a single-atom-thick tinfoil is the proper homeopathic defense then. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:28, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
[43] In case you hadn't seen that. 173.228.123.121 ( talk) 18:27, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello. The Betacommand RFC has enough arguments already, so I figured I'd stop by your talk page for this one. (Disclaimer: While I voted against your proposal, I don't think the RfC was in bad faith or anything, and think you should be able to say whatever you dang well want in the intro. This is hopefully unrelated to the argument you have there with Beyond My Ken.)
I'm someone come to the opposite conclusion (who isn't trying to be disruptive). TTR is unconvincing, DTTR is correct for a multitude of reasons.
I think a good analogy is the policy against "cooling off" period blocks, which are extremely discouraged by policy now after being used a little in Wikipedia's early days. Even if a proponent of such blocks wouldn't be offended by being blocked themselves for a 24-hour period, the objective fact is that some people are enraged by such a block, and it only makes things worse. It doesn't matter if "you" think it's fine and no big deal; others do, and you need to take that into account.
In the same way, I personally find it an utterly grievous insult to be templated. It's especially worse when it's an "unmerited" templating which by definition will happen at least *some* of the time from people who think that placing the templated warning is perfectly reasonable. How many people are the same? Who knows. But even if it's a "low" amount - say 20% of active editors - something that enrages 20% of the user base and makes their Wikipedia experience more negative is something that sounds really bad for editor retention and that should be avoided. The benefit from... I dunno, a firm commitment to equal treatment for all editors... doesn't seem to match up to the loss.
I have no idea if this is at all convincing to you to change your mind, but I hope that even if not, you respect that there exist non-disruptive editors who firmly support DTTR as the correct policy to have. SnowFire ( talk) 22:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, my main goal was to reduce the hyperbole in claims of the essays' relative support by 20%, so I think I said my piece on that.
Also since people jumped on it, okay, "policy" is an overloaded word. DTTR is the correct "policy" in the vanilla English sense of "system for how people approach problems" not in the Wikipedia sense of "formal policy," IMO.
A lot of your & Hammersoft's comments are about how disruptive editors are wrong and need to be smacked down by righteous talk page justice. Well, maybe. The point of DTTR is, however, that EVEN WHEN you are totally right and the other person is totally wrong, the backlash from templating means that it is better for Wikipedia to not use a template. Some of them might be jerks and wrong anyway. But using a template is only going to make a bad situation worse. It's possible they'd have reached for their flamethrower, but why would you want to intentionally increase the temperature of it? I think that handcrafting a message - even a short, terse one along the lines of "please read WP:RELEVANTPOLICY, it says that your action is not permitted" - will get you a *better* response, even if it still won't always be one you want. Call that a "level 0" template - look at the template you were going to use, and just steal the policy links, and paste 'em in. "You've been around, please double-check these policies, they're why I reverted you."
I'm going to call out one of Hammersoft's lines though for special treatment, because it's something I personally find frustrating.
Well, no, you have something more than that. I'm *telling* you that this is true. You can argue that people who think like me are stupid and wrong, or that they're very rare, but you can't claim you know their feelings better than them themselves. (Example: A: "You're not having fun." B: "Yes I am." A: "No you're not." Who is right, A or B? There IS a correct answer, not "it's just an opinion.") This kind of stance is very frustrating because it denies people their own agency. (And if I need "evidence" or proof of this, I'll offer that I stopped reporting vandals to AIV after I got template'd for not having jumped through all the proper warning hoops... despite there being an explicit exception for bot-powered fast vandalism of multiple articles in short succession, which is what I was reporting. If *I* get reported for doing this, why should I bother? Screw this. And that was even a happy case where everyone agreed afterward it was a good report and I shouldn't have been templated; the damage was done.) SnowFire ( talk) 19:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
@ SnowFire: I wasn't suggesting it wasn't true for you. I was speaking in the abstract. Looking at the entire population of editors here, we have no way of knowing if templating a regular is less likely to induce rage than a handcrafted message or if it is the other way around. I grant it angers you. That's fine, and I don't mean to state that makes you wrong. Let he who is without anger cast the first stone. We all get upset from time to time. My anger is no more valid than yours, or vice versa. But again, this isn't the point. From the abstract view, we have no way of knowing. It's a situation where you can't make everyone happy. For my part, I try to take the pathway that I think is least likely to cause a negative reaction. But, in the end, it's a guess. We don't know how the recipient will react. So, in that respect, both TTR and DTTR are both very valid opinions. Knowing beforehand where each is appropriate with reasonable certainty is nearly an exercise in futility. With you, I now know that templating you is not the right course. I know that because of this conversation. If we had not had it, I would not know that. Now I do know, and at anytime in the future if I find cause to template you I know not to do so. But, if I never had encountered you before, I wouldn't know. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 14:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Over that article Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2017-02-27/Op-ed i would like to personally tell you that i think the WMF shouldn't spend more than 16 million USD annually. Why? well, we all know that 3 million go on to the servers and colocation services. They have 300 staff, say everyone has a 1000 USD Per month salary. That makes for 3.3 million USD annualy in staffing costs. Now it's 6.6 million USD annually, and everything else goes to the bank. Now im saying 16 million because they have to pay for office spaces and other misc costs, not to mention they like to help others. My point is that the WMF should spend 4 or 5 times less money than they actually do because, as you said, it's like a cancer, and nothing can go on forever. Pancho507 ( talk) 20:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Looking through [44] how far would you say Federated Wikis are from going into production on large projects? SciHaus ( talk) 17:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
The "conversions" section of User:Guy Macon/On the Diameter of the Sewer cover in front of Greg L’s house could use expanding. See List of unusual units of measurement for ideas. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello dude. I wrote to Wtshymanski talk page, but he did not answer, just deleted my question, and I tried, maybe he write a meaningful answer to my question, without cause, withdraws my edits, and you,gives him the truth. I think in the English Wikipedia I stop my activities, as there are "strange" editors. As U. Tivadar Puskás, Hungarian inventor, what was the problem and the justification? — Preceding unsigned comment added by InterCity(IC) ( talk • contribs) 20:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
I posted this same message on my talk page, and I figure I would post it here.
Guy Macon, Please explain to me how my links are inappropriate for this web page (qb64). I have been part of the QB64 community since 2011, and I started The QB64 Edition long before QB64.org came into the picture. If there are any external links that should not be on this page it is "Black Annex is the best QBASIC game you've ever seen - an indie video game compiled in QB64 (incorrectly stated to be QBASIC game in the article)". The QB64 Edition (located at qb64.thejoyfulprogrammer.com) is primarily about sharing various projects created in QB64, and to socialize with other QB64 programmers. It was created in 2014 when QB64.net (the official web site of QB64) went down for two weeks and we didn't know when it would be back up.
In my point of view, the links to my QB64 programming forum is just as viable and legit as QB64.org (another official QB64 partner site), and far more valuable then the "Black Annex" link. I feel that the "Black Annex" link should be removed and mine put back in.
If my links (in the external link section and in the infobox) are inappropriate, then I would appreciate a good reason as to why that is, and what makes the other links appropriate.
-- Waltersmind ( talk) 01:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
...on One against many and almost have it memorized, (ok-that was an exaggeration). I found it very good and was just what I needed to read. Thank you for the time you put into creating it. I do want more advice from you because I couldn't find it in the essay. In a number of articles that I create, content is changed, reverted, deleted and so on. I'm okay with that because lots of times the article is improved. One common interaction that I have is when the content I have added/created is analyzed and instructions are given to me (not suggested!) on what is wrong or what needs to improved. The editor making the comments states that something is missing and needs to be included-yet the missing content actually exists in the article. I want to be 'nice', amicable, consensus-driven and not insult anyone. BTW-this has nothing to do with what I am working on at the moment. I've purposefully put off questions like this for months so that a specific editing issue that I have can not be linked to this message on your talk page. If I correct the other editor with diffs and other such documentation I feel more confrontational than what I would like. I have also noted that this other editor reacts in a way that suggests that they are insulted. They are highly respected, and prolific. What are some options, in your opinion. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 22:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
My input: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposed alternative solution. -- Guy Macon ( talk)
hi, I noticed you answer questions at the help desk as well, I post there yesterday [48] but haven't gotten any response, can you help? thanks-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 12:59, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Are you able to access the store?
The store used to be here: http://getchip.com/pages/store but I cannot access this link any more, it used to be present as a link on all pages of http://getchip.com but it vanished from most pages. Only on the forum page the link persists.
I never claimed that getchip.com is defunct, only the store.
Please revert your deletion. Treutwein ( talk) 18:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
You might also take a look at this thread on their forum Treutwein ( talk) 09:49, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
See Talk:7400 series#Need help finding citation for NAND gate in analog mode Especially helpfull would be someone who speaks German. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
...if you saw this link I posted in the JW discussion? The image at the top of your page fits well. Atsme 📞 📧 16:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi Guy. Would you happen to know if this song is protected by copyright? I stumbled across an old Google discussion thread where someone calling himself, of all things, "Guy Macon" said this: "Works published from 1923 - 63: When published with notice (Under the 1909 Act, works published without notice went into the public domain upon publication. Works published without notice between 1-1-78 and 3-1-89, effective date of the Berne Convention Implementation Act, retained copyright only if, e.g., registration was made within five years. 17 U.S.C. § 405. The copyright term was 28 years + could be renewed for 47 years, now extended by 20 years for a total renewal of 67 years. If not so renewed, now in public domain. (Source: Tom Field / Lolly Gasaway. Last updated 11-5-98)" Any recollection of that at all? Many thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 21:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market needs to be expanded. This topic is hot right now, and at User talk:Jimbo Wales, Jimbo wrote "I'm interested in bringing this to wide attention in the community [...] about an upcoming vote in the European Parliament which is very important". Please jump in an expand the article. I am offering double the usual pay... -- Guy Macon ( talk) 22:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
I have stolen this without credit:
Should credit be given to anyone? :) -- Timeshifter ( talk) 14:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
<div>As of {{CURRENTDAYNAME}}, {{CURRENTDAY2}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}, {{CURRENTTIME}} (UTC), The English Wikipedia has {{NUMBEROF|USERS|en|N}} registered users, {{NUMBEROF|ACTIVEUSERS|en|N}} active editors, and {{NUMBEROF|ADMINS|en|N}} administrators. Together we have made {{NUMBEROF|EDITS|en|N}} edits, created {{NUMBEROF|PAGES|en|N}} pages of all kinds and created {{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|en|N}} articles.</div>
I know you have done a lot of low-level technical work. Has that involved TCP/IP? A discussion here (and at bottom of talk) needs people who understand the topic. Johnuniq ( talk) 07:37, 19 July 2018 (UTC)