User talk:Guy Macon

A Wikipedia Content Dispute.

Welcome to Guy Macon's Wikipedia talk page. Please Click here to start a new topic. Please post your new comments at the bottom of the comment you are replying to. Please sign and date your entry by inserting "~~~~" at the end. Please indent your posts with ":" if replying to an existing topic (or "::" if replying to a reply). I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, so you may want to watch this page until you are responded to. I delete or collapse most messages after I have read them. The history tab will show you a complete list of all past comments. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/User_talk:Guy_Macon.

"Wikipedia's articles are no place for strong views. Or rather, we feel about strong views the way that a natural history museum feels about tigers. We admire them and want our visitors to see how fierce and clever they are, so we stuff them and mount them for close inspection. We put up all sorts of carefully worded signs to get people to appreciate them as much as we do. But however much we adore tigers, a live tiger loose in the museum is seen as an urgent problem." --WP:TIGER

Only 993092666 articles left until our billionth article!

We are only 993092666 articles away from our 1,000,000,000th article --Guy Macon

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

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

--Guy Macon

Calvin discovers Wikipedia

• "A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction into a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day." -- Calvin, of Calvin and Hobbes. --Guy Macon

The Elephant In The Room

Today the WMF is spending 300 times as much (52596782 ÷ 177670 ≈ 296) to accomplish basically the same job it was accomplishing just fine ten years ago.

I could accept a 10X increase, but 300X? How can anyone justify something like that? I would really like to see someone argue that the WMF is accomplishing three hundred times more than it accomplished ten years ago.

Year	Total Support and Revenue	Total Expenses	Increase in Net Assets	Net Assets at year end
2003/2004	$80,129	$23,463	$56,666	$56,666
2004/2005	$379,088	$177,670	$211,418	$268,084
2005/2006	$1,508,039	$791,907	$736,132	$1,004,216
2006/2007	$2,734,909	$2,077,843	$654,066	$1,658,282
2007/2008	$5,032,981	$3,540,724	$3,519,886	$5,178,168
2008/2009	$8,658,006	$5,617,236	$3,053,599	$8,231,767
2009/2010	$17,979,312	$10,266,793	$6,310,964	$14,542,731
2010/2011	$24,785,092	$17,889,794	$9,649,413	$24,192,144
2011/2012	$38,479,665	$29,260,652	$10,736,914	$34,929,058
2012/2013	$48,635,408	$35,704,796	$10,260,066	$45,189,124
2013/2014	$52,465,287	$45,900,745	$8,285,897	$53,475,021
2014/2015	$75,797,223	$52,596,782	$24,345,277	$77,820,298

References

Comments welcome. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I found someone who thinks that that 300X spending increase was a great idea, and is advocating even more spending. See User talk:Jimbo Wales#The elephant in the room. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm hoping they decide they have way too much money and need to give a chunk of it to any editors who happen to be British bureaucrats who support Norwich City and like writing Featured Articles. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Interesting information: Assessing endowment performance (Vanguard, PDF) --Guy Macon (talk) 03:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

General American and California English

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:

1. Which sound represents best how you pronounce the "short E" vowel in the words bet, mesh, or dead (listen to all of them!): , Sound B, , , ?
2. For you, do these pairs of words rhyme: spa and thaw; cot and bought; song and gong; gods and broads?
3. Do you make this distinction in the pronunciation of the word rider versus writer: ?
4. Which sound represents best how you pronounce the "short A" vowel in the words bat, cab, or laugh: , Sound B, , Sound D?
5. Which sound represents best how you pronounce the "oo" vowel in the words soon or too (this may be difficult to determine!): , , ?
6. Does the word centaur rhyme with store or star?
7. What do you call the flying insect that glows in the dark?
8. What is your generic term for rubber-sold shoes used for athletic activities, regular everyday walking, informal settings, etc.?

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)

I know I'm a bit late to this (a month!), but this is actually pretty awesome. I used to do something similar when speaking to people about the Floridian accent. (Us crackers tend to say "ch-rap" instead of "trap" and "j-rum" instead of "drum".) MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Nines Complement of One Billion

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)

Answered. Do not archive until the end of the world, or at least the end of this server. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

(What we passed 16 years ago was the naked decimal doomsday, and it was a self-defeating prophecy. The prophecy wasn't wrong; it was just averted. Sometimes the prophet would say, "If you do not repent, you will face the wrath of God." That has an out clause. Sometimes people repent. They repented of using two-digit years in time. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

See Fact Checking: Adams Law of Slow-Moving Disasters for an interesting take on this. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

In short, humans are relatively ingenious, and, if a problem is anticipated, a solution can be found. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

As to Y2K, there were certain systems where there was a particularly high degree of panic that they would fail, where I knew as a fact that those systems could not have Y2K failures. One of the particular lines that was repeated the most frequently by the panickers was that Social Security would stop being able to print Social Security checks (and that healthy older people would riot and blood would run in the streets). I was reasonably sure that Social Security in particular wouldn't have a Y2K problem, because it had to have four-digit years, because, when Social Security was first automated in the 1950's, it was paying old-age pensions to people who were born in the nineteenth century. There was also panic that electrical generation would stop. That was nonsense. I had worked on a power plant monitoring system, and I knew that power plant monitoring systems do not use a date as such for monitoring (possibly only for reporting to management), because they measure time from an epoch, often from 1 January 1970, and 1 January 2000 was just 14400 seconds after 31 December 1999. There was also concern about bank software. Banks had known about Y2K in January 1970, because banks hit the Y2K wall in January 1970 when trying to generate amortization tables for 30-year-mortgages. (They may have hit the wall again in January 1995 on car loans if they hadn't imported the fix to mortgage loans.) So I had known that two of the systems that there was a particularly high level of panic about were things that couldn't possibly fail. I wouldn't have been surprised if inventory control systems, written in ancient stupid COBOL, had failed, but that would have been a nuisance to the stores, not a disaster. In any case, people repented of the idolatry of the two-digit year. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I saw only one actual Y2K bug, and I was looking hard. The "today is..." on a website rolled the year over from 1999 to 19100 (it was fixed the next day). Of course by being cute with the expiry date I just set myself up to have archiving on those parts of my talk page kick in if nothing changes between now and 2038. I think I will risk it... --Guy Macon (talk) 02:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Demanding answers to questions

I never suspected I was obligated to answer questions that others post on my talk page. I did not ignore your question. I did decline to decide whether to answer it until I had a clearer idea of what you were trying to say, so I asked a question.

I have never been offended by another Wikipedian's omitting to answer a question I asked. I was surprised by what appears to be your anger about that. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:17, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Evasion noted. If you are not willing to answer a reasonable question (See User talk:Michael Hardy#Would you be willing to request a voluntary desysop?) then I am not interested in interacting with you any farther. Please don't post to my talk page again. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:40, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Personal questions to strangers

"Guy Macon": You _need_ to learn the following. When you post a personal question on a stranger's talk page, they are not under an obligation to answer. If they respond by asking why you ask, that is appropriate, and in fact you invited that question. You have no business being indignant at what you call their "unmitigated gall" in not answering your question. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Michael Hardy, please get a chance to know the five pillars of Wikipedia, especially Civility. Your tone was a bit rude in that post and it's always a good idea to respect your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree. Happy editing! Hawkeye75 (talk) 07:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@Hawkeye75: : No kidding. Know this: I was not simply disagreeing with Guy Macon. Guy Macon was extraordinarily rude, to say the least. Michael Hardy (talk) 07:20, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

If you want, I can take a look at his comments and see what I can do. Hawkeye75 (talk) 07:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Hawkeye75, I have stopped interacting with Michael Hardy and I have asked him to not post to my talk page,[1] and yet he posted here anyway.[2][3]. I am asking you to please not respond to Michael Hardy on this page, as doing so encourages further bad behavior. You can talk to Michael on his own talk page or anywhere else, and you are free to talk to me or anyone else here on my talk page. In particular, if you think I did something wrong, I would really welcome a discussion about it here. Nobody is perfect, and if I have strayed into incivility I want to know it so I can apologize and stop doing it.

Michael Hardy is now the subject of an arbitration committee case. They are considering whether to desysop him for behavior unbecoming to a Wikipedia administrator. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Michael Hardy for details. Any further discussion about Michael Hardy's behavior should be taken there. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Cham Albanians

Hey, as i've read you are currently in a real life crisis, I would like to offer to take over cham Albanian DRN to take the burden off of you. Regards, Iazyges (talk) 17:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Iazyges, yes, please. It would be a huge help. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I have made an edit introducing myself as the new volunteer. Iazyges (talk) 18:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Help with a COI request?

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)

Done. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate it very much. As I progress, I'm going to try to rely on the same projects and previous editors as before, but if things remain very slow and you're willing to revisit later, I might check in again. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 12:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Asking if someone wants to be a Wikipedia administrator

May I discuss some of this with you, or would you prefer to keep discussion of this at the case pages? Carcharoth (talk) 06:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussing it here is fine. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The main question I had, was whether you would be willing to look again at this exchange and see whether you might have over-reacted? Try and see it from the point of view of someone who is being literal. Right at the end, Michael Hardy says to Miniapolis that they "can't speak for others". He meant that literally, but Miniapolis interpreted this as being argumentative. You can see the same thing where Michael Hardy said "I am surprised by your anger." He was trying to engage in discussion, and your (Guy Macon's) response was to demand an answer to your question. I get the context is the ANI thread, and the 'old school' (and in some respects outdated) approach, but this seems a generational (Wikipedia generations) thing at heart. You mostly started editing in 2010 (though you were around before then) - I started in 2005. I struggle at times to understand what it was like back in the early days (2003 and earlier), and many of the early admins are simply not around any more. Those that are, tend to mostly avoid using tools, or use them sensibly. It is rare for someone to show by their actions and words that they are out-of-step, and even rarer for that to blow up in a dispute like this. It feels like a failure of the current generation to understand earlier generations. Carcharoth (talk) 05:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

No, I did not over-react. Please learn the difference between demanding an answer and saying "evasion noted". Or perhaps spend more time reading what actually was written instead of Michael Hardy's misleading and diff-free descriptions of what he imagines happened.

Also note that my comment came almost six hours after he responded to my question with "And what have you to say about MjolnirPants's personal attack on me, against which I defended myself?" Trying to drag me into his fight with MjolnirPants instead of answering was evading the question. Asking my purpose when I had already clearly explained my purpose was evading the question. He has every right to evade the question if he wants to. I never demanded an answer, but rather noted the evasion, expressed my opinion of his playing the "I asked a question, seeking information." card while evading the question (unmitigated gall, in my opinion), and disengaged. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:49, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

That is your view, but I think a part of what caused the problem here is your insistence that the question you asked was reasonable (my view is that this depends to large extent on how the person you are asking responds - reasonableness is not a one-sided thing). There is always a chance that someone will react to a question like that in a way that doesn't match your expectations. You were someone he didn't know, turning up out of the blue, to ask what he clearly perceived as a puzzling question. It is a reasonable response to be cautious when asked to answer a question and you don't know why someone is asking you that question. Rather than take a step back at that point, and realise that maybe you shouldn't have asked the question and should have just left things well enough alone, you doubled down and made yourself part of the problem. Can't you see that? Maybe Michael Hardy should have just said he didn't want to answer the question, and should have asked you to leave him alone. Maybe he should have fully answered your question. He chose to do something in-between the two. On Wikipedia, people get too used to either full, frank and open discussion, or refusal to discuss. Anything in-between, or a more gradual approach, is rare. Rather than respond the way you did (the bolded text came across as aggressive), you could have engaged him in discussion and tried to understand him. You didn't. You didn't attempt to rephrase your question or explain things, you simply said that the answer to his question was already in your original post and that he was evading the question. It is no surprise that things went downhill from there. Sure, he could have handled himself better, but my point is that fault lies on both sides here, a failure of people to try and understand each other and discuss things. Given what happened here, would you ask this question of someone else in the future, and if you did, would you take a different approach? Carcharoth (talk) 06:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

It was a judgement call. I believed and still believe that I understood him perfectly. He wanted to fight. His response to my question was to invite me to join his ongoing fight with MjolnirPants. Here is the link:[4] Shortly after that I disengaged and stopped watching his talk page. Then he tried to restart the fight on my talk page.[5] and when I asked him to not post to my talk page,[6] he did it again,[7][8] His actions after I stopped responding showed me that I was right, that he did want to fight and not discuss, and that I made the right call to disengage. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Commas

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)

Nobody is having a spat. He made some bold changes, and I reverted them, giving my reasons. Please see WP:BRD. He shouldn't be making mass edits just to add or remove oxford commas, and he certainly shouldn't be making mass edits just to put two spaces after a period -- a change that has zero effect on the displayed page. For those who wish to make mass changes to articles, we have a nice list of things that should be changed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fix common mistakes. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, OK, I was simply, and hopefully politely, suggesting a little introspection. Clearly that is not happening - your decision - but disappointing. Oh, and please, I don't need to be told about policies and guidance, I have been around long enough to know already. Thanks. At least your response was better than your esteemed interlocutor who simply binned the whole conversation into an archive including everything that preceded it.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe that any amount of introspection would lead me to behave other than as described at WP:BRD. The "D" is currently taking place at User talk:Whoop whoop pull up#Oxford commas. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:33, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

BLP and categories

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)

Good point. (Note to self: next time, smoke crack after editing Wikipedia...) --Guy Macon (talk) 13:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Or try something a little less potent perhaps? -Roxy the dog™ bark 13:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

That gave me a good chuckle :P Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Think you are good at image editing? I have a challenge for you

See File talk:500 x 500 SMPTE Color Bars.png#Challenge. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

West Side Story

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)

thanks for the notice

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)

A Barnstar For You

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		For your principled opposition to "Gaming the System" in the Conspiracy theories of the United States presidential election, 2016 controversy, despite being in favor of deleting the article.Ad Orientem (talk) 23:10, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Warning

I'm not going to template you. If you disagree that a new IP single-edit account reporting disputed content sourced to non-RS is vandalism you may raise your concern on talk. You should not undo a valid revert base on what you contend is a faulty edit comment. I suggest you reverse your undo. You have a history of aggressive edits that in the opinion of many editors should be sanctioned per ARBAP2. Do the right thing here. SPECIFICO talk 15:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)