User talk:Guy Macon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:Guymacon)
Jump to: navigation, search
Oil Painting of Civil War Battle of Spottsylvania
A Wikipedia Content Dispute.
Welcome to Guy Macon's Wikipedia talk page.
  • Please Click here to start a new topic.
  • Please post your new comments at the bottom of the comment you are replying to.
  • Please sign and date your entry by inserting "~~~~" at the end.
  • Please indent your posts with ":" if replying to an existing topic (or "::" if replying to a reply).
  • I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, so you may want to watch this page until you are responded to.
  • I delete or collapse most messages after I have read them. The history tab will show you a complete list of all past comments.
  • If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at

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

New discussion[edit]

Only 995321455 articles left until our billionth article![edit]

We are only 995321455 articles away from our 1,000,000,000th article... --Guy Macon

Notification criteria?[edit]

What's your criteria for who you're notifying about the infobox straw poll? NE Ent 11:19, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I made a list of everyone who had commented on or reverted one of my infobox edits, paying very careful attention to avoid missing anyone who disagreed with me, then I removed those who had already !voted in the straw poll and two editors who had been indefinitely blocked since commenting/reverting. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. (That looks like a lot of work.) Without trying to be bureaucratic about it, when I've seen those types of notifications before I've often seen "because you've previously commented at ..." or something to that effect -- not a requirement or anything but makes what you're doing clearer. NE Ent 11:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Good idea. I will add a note next time. I am really hoping that we can get enough of a sample so that nobody can doubt what the consensus is. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:12, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Nice work. When notifying people on their talkpages, it's very easy for somebody to make accusations of canvassing - best to defend against that. bobrayner (talk) 17:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I think that attitude is important. You really have to believe in your heart that following consensus is best for the encyclopedia even in those cases where you disagree with the consensus. I had difficulty with this at first, but then I realized that all the important decisions come down to accurately depicting what is in the sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Relevant discussion about MH17[edit]

That's not a very helpful comment thread to read. Plus, Guy Macon was asking for relevant discussions elsewhere.
Anyway, there was a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive862#Disruptive editing. Make sure to note the closing comment. In light of that, I personally think this DRN is out of its depth here. Another (albeit behavioural) ANI thread is Allegation of Racism at Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. Stickee (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
That's a VERY relevant discussion because it shows how sources are dismissed for no apparent reason. The other two are also very good examples, because they show how content discussions dissolve into chaos and who creates the chaos. Thank you! USchick (talk) 01:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I think DRN is a good step for all of you. Here is how I handle conduct issues: on DRN, I stop anyone from taking about other editors. It really does help. (Has talking about each other on the article talk page resolved your content dispute? No. So why not try something new?) I don't take sides (easy in this case, because I have just about zero interest in politics of any kind) and I try to get the content dispute resolved. At the end of it all, when I either close the case as resolved or failed, I then advise all the parties as to where I think you should go to resolve any user conduct or other issues. The admins at Arbcon and ANI have dealt with many cases that have gone through DRN, and tend to pay attention to the volunteer's advice -- which is a good reason to be on your best behavior on DRN.
I do appreciate the links (everything is helpful -- I am quite capable of deciding what is relevant), and will read them, but don't expect me to comment or take sides -- I don't "do" user conduct. How sources are dismissed for no apparent reason? Nope. Not allowed on DRN. How content discussions dissolve into chaos and who creates the chaos? Nope. Not allowed on DRN. You are all going to have to focus on content, content, content, sources, sources, sources. Can you do that for me? You are still free to talk about each other on your talk pages or the article talk page, just not on DRN. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I'm very encouraged that this is going to work. Thank you! USchick (talk) 05:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi Guy Macon; I see the drn is on hold for the RfC. It might be of use to note (since the opening drn editor refers to it) that the last New York Magazine article on MH17 that I know of was back on 9-9-2014 almost 3 months ago. This event is also subject to rapid changes in the news, as in this one from 48 hours ago [1]. Cheers. FelixRosch (TALK) 17:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I have no idea what to make of that IBT story. This is an "old" conspiracy theory which came out right after the plane got shot down. It's nonsense. It keeps referring to some "reports" but it's not clear what these are exactly, except that these "reports" were discussed on Russian TV. Which is also the same TV which ran those faked images of an Ukrainian jet supposedly shooting down MH 17, which were photoshopped. I think IBT is going off the RS list.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
This raises a question in my mind. The article needs to properly cover things that are found in Russian media. Do we have anyone who speaks Russian working on the page? Any other languages?
Yes, we have involved editors fluent in Russian, Ukrainian, German and Dutch. USchick (talk) 20:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I can't comment on specific assertions concerning the MH17 page and remain neutral, and I don't want my talk page to become a substitute for DRN, but I do have some general advice on handling this sort of thing. Take a look at how Wikipedia handles the conflicting claims in the The Holocaust / Holocaust denial, Assassination of John F. Kennedy / John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, and September 11 attacks / 9/11 Truth movement pages. Study the way on each topic we handle the fact that a significant number of people strongly disagree with what we at Wikipedia have in the main article. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
It's been suggested several times that a dedicated article on MH 17 conspiracy theories be created where the wacky stuff that's out there can go, something like Malaysia Flight 17 conspiracy theories. The "attempt to assassinate Putin" theory would definitely go in there. I might still do it if I can get a bit more time.
There already exists a section on Russian media in the article and we have a dedicated article to portrayals of the conflict in media in general.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
An attempt on Putin's life is a conspiracy theory, yes. The fact that the investigators are considering more than one scenario is not a conspiracy theory. USchick (talk) 21:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Again, I cannot take sides on any of this, and I don't want my talk page to become a place to discuss things that should be discussed on the article talk page. --21:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Procedural question. While the DRN is on hold waiting for the RfC to close, do you recommend we take specific sources to the NPOV noticeboard for comment? Or would that be considered forum shopping? USchick (talk) 22:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Never mind, I'll wait. USchick (talk) 23:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi Guy; Your last "hat" on text five minutes ago collapsed too much of the rest of the page at DRN. Could you look at it again? Cheers. FelixRosch (TALK) 18:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Fixed it. The termite guys showed up while I was editing and I hit the wrong button, saving a half-edited page. Thanks for reverting the error. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Religion info box -Ian Paisley[edit]

Guy, you may be able to offer advice on Ian Paisley. Way out of my depth on that one. Regards JRPG (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC) which

Thanks! I have my eye on it. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


Hi Guy, if I've understood your comments on the talk there, you have a COI? If I misunderstood, please remove the connected template, regards Widefox; talk 10:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't own an Odroid, and I have no connection to the makers of Odroid, either as an engineer or financially. When I wrote "I am one of them" I was responding to the comment "If you still think Odroid is open hardware, then talk to the people who prevent projects like the Raspberry Pi from being on the open hardware lists for the same reasons". In other words, I am one of the Wikipedia editors who opposes Raspberry Pi being listed as open-source hardware. (I don't own a Raspberry Pi or have any other connection to that project either, but eventually I will probably buy one to see how the £24/$38 B+ compares to other single board computers I own.)
Regarding why I oppose Raspberry Pi but not Odroid being listed as open-source hardware, something is open-source hardware if there is sufficient documentation under a suitable license so that someone who has the capability of creating hardware can create and sell a working copy of it without infringing on any patents or copyrights. You can do that with Odroid. You can't with Raspberry Pi.
I don't edit pages where I have a COI. For example, as a former Barbie engineer who still does occasional consulting work in the toy industry, I would not be comfortable editing our page on Mattel, and would limit myself to making suggestions on the article talk page with full disclosure of my potential COI. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying.
I agree with you opposing RasPi as open-hardware. Widefox; talk 21:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Your Religion edits and Vladimir Lenin article in particular[edit]

Hi Guy,

Thanks for the post on my talk page mentioning the issue of edit warring. I feel that my reverts are clearly not edit warring, but an attempt to prevent unwarranted changes to articles on an issue that is currently under discussion at . The discussion is still ongoing, but it seems very likely that that majority view does not support the removal of the Religion field based on a general principle that "None (atheist)" is inappropriate. If the consensus is that the field should be removed entirely, then of course this is perfectly acceptable - my point is that the discussion needs to take place and finish first. Anything else seems very WP:point and is very close to being vandalism, given that both editors involved in removing this content are well aware of the ongoing discussion. Atshal (talk) 19:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Please note that being right is not an acceptable excuse for edit warring. See WP:BRD and WP:TALKDONTREVERT. You have been reverted by three editors[2][3][4][5] and have reverted to your preferred version four times.[6][7][8][9]. Also, as has been explained to you before, local consensus on an article talk page overrides and consensus on on template talk. I have placed a warning on your talk page[10] and will open a case at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring if you continue edit warring. --19:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree - hence why I have stopped editing the article. I am also correct that content changes should not take place on the basis of a discussion that is still ongoing - especially as the majority opinion in that discussion is evidently against the change being made! I don't really feel like getting into a wiki-fight over this - so lets finish the discussion on the Template talk page and see what the general opinion is. Atshal (talk) 19:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Try asking the fine folks at template talk whether local consensus on an article talk page overrides any consensus on on template talk. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

WTS ANI[edit]

The ANI seems to have gone exactly the way I expected it to turn out. I said yesterday, that I expected it to be concluded as a content dispute. That was my most optimistic prediction for an outcome. It has actually concluded exactly the way I really expected. It has been completely ignored. No administrator has made any response or comment - not even to say that it is non actionable. This seems to be the standard practice for any ANI raised by an IP address editor. There is something dreadfully wrong here. As you noted, some IP editors do cause mayhem and vandalism, but they are matched in numbers by named account holders who do much the same thing. This is a shame because some of those IP editors could feel hey can make a contribution and create an account and edit well. After all, we all had to start somewhere. I can't speak for you but I seem to recall that I started without an account.

I witnessed (though was not part of) an exchange between a named account and an IP editor. The named account clearly believed that IP address editors should not be allowed to edit, and made no secret of the fact. Said IP (along with many others) was frequently reverted with edit summaries along the lines of "IP address editors should not be allowed to edit", or "IP address editors should not be allowed to revert other editors". The IP address was contributing good material and the named account was just deleting it for no other adequate reason. The IP took it to ANI, where it was (as usual) ignored. He gave up stating that IP editors are treated like dirt by the whole Wikipedia community and would not conribute to the project further. He certainly seemed to have a point, which was a pity because what he was contributing was of above average quality for a newbie editor. The named account eventually did get blocked but that's a whole different story. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 14:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

While the above does happen, I am not going to assume that it is happening in this case when the ANI case has only been open 24 hours. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
We shall see. I note that a non administrator has already tried to shut the discussion down claiming that it is about content and not behaviour. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
It does look like you are right about it being ignored. I am going to wait three full days and then start making some noise. Any other examples of IP editors with legitimate issues being ignored would be quite helpful -- I expect a fair amount of pushback on this. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Guy, I would love to provide you with more examples. The problem is: that IP editors don't seem to make that many complaints to ANI. The few that have been made recently have been relatively open and shut cases (not necessarily in the IP's favour!). There have been quite a few IP cases ignored in the past, but nothing recently enough that I stand much chance of finding them in the archives. If I could remember what the disputes were about, I might have found something from the article edit history, but my memory prevents this approach.
A number of people, including yourself, have critisised the IP editor as being equally at fault as Wtshymanski. Revisiting the edit history at Ladder logic, I am not so convinced that the IP editor did too much wrong. His opening shot was to delete a {synthesis} template complaining that there was no clue as to what was synthesised. Looking at the article as it would have appeared to the IP editor at that time, he was clearly correct especially given that the justification was not added to the talk page either. It was only when I looked at the previous history that what was being challenged became clear (the IP editor clearly did not look back). Wtshymanski put the {synthesis} template back stating that the discussion was on the talk page. Well it may have been, but how was the IP editor to know where to look (or anyone else come to that)? The IP editor removed the tag reiterating that there was no indication as to what was synthesised (which I have to agree with), an then by coincidence, (and I have to assume it was coincidence) added a reference to that same part of the article that Wtshymanski was challenging (and we all know that there is nothing whatsoever wrong with adding references). Wtshymanski, once again re-adds the {synthesis} tag and claims the subject is discussed on the talk page though again leaves no clue where. IP once again deletes {synthesis} tag and also deletes a sentence (which I happen to know that Wtshymanski added over a year ago pushing his fringe theory) and adds a reference supporting the deletion (so again there is nothing wrong with making an edit where it is supported by a reference). It was only because those references went against Wtshymansky's fringe theory that he just declared the references as unreliable and then provided a hidden comment that was pure synthesis from the last reference.
As I stated in the ANI, looking at that article that I linked above, at the time Wtshymanski added that {synthesis} tag (now known to be challenging the idea that ladder logic existed before PLD days), the paragraph covering the point was completely unreferenced so there was nothing for the paragraph to be synthesised from. The IP was correctly removing a {synthesis} tag but for a different, though valid reason (though arguably should have addressed the point on the talk page - not that that would have cut any ice with Wtshymanski, but at least we were saved from a long drawn out discussion).
Although I was aware that the technique was used in relay days, I was not convinced myself that the term 'ladder logic' was used in those days, and attempts to find references proving the point one way or the other failed. However, I found it in inconceivable that engineers would not apply a ladder related name to a diagram that so closely resembled a ladder. Google 'ladder diagram' and there is no shortage of references even for the use with relay logic. And I just noticed that one of the references that the IP editor added calls the technique 'ladder diagrams' and not 'ladder logic', though states that they are sometimes called 'ladder logic'. Maybe the article needs a name change given that it primarily discussed the diagrams?
As a parting shot, given Wtshymanski's prediliction for saving edits without reading them and leaving others to tidy up the spelling, grammar and typos. I rewrote a nonsense sentence that he left at Valve actuator here (The odd edit summary was a result of the Wiki interface doing its usual crash of Internet Expolorer). (Wtshymanski had stated that the operators of manual valves required adjustment rather than the valves themselves). I can only assume that his reversion back to the nonsense version was just pure retaliation because I contributed to the ANI (and this has been seen before). Since editing in nonsense can be legitimately classed as vandalism, I reverted twice more, both times Wtshymanski restoring the nonsense version. It took another editor to agree that it was nonsense and agreeing with the reason before Wtshymanski rewrote it to say what he (presumably) intended to say in the first place (and had the gall to critisise that editor for not rewriting it!!). DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 14:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Sigh. I keep trying to stay out of this, but it is becoming crystal clear that [A] The Wtshymanskis situation is hurting the encyclopedia, and [B] ANI is unable to handle the situation. I really think that I am going to have to write up a solid case and submit it to Arbcom after the holidays. What a pain that will be.... --Guy Macon (talk) 20:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
IMO there are two things that make it difficult to handle. One is that it's a long-running situation: AN/I wasn't set up to deal with those, and there's another giong pear-shaped on that board right now. The other is that one needs a certain level of competence in engineering to assess the situation - we've had problems before with experts that have been aggravated by the need for some level of expertise in the field to follow the ins and outs. (And while I appreciated your explanations in that thread, I still don't understand the dispute.) And now in addition to WQA (or whatever the abbrev. was) we've shut down RfC/U. So AN/I is also overloaded, and getting testy responses to reflect that. I don't know what to tell you, but I do apologize on behalf of all my fellow non-engineers. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Guy, as I'm sure you are aware: I am an engineer of long standing. If you need some additional expert input, please drop me a note on my talk page and I will assist where I can.
I had though that WTS was about to start an almost exact same edit war with a different IP editor somewhere else, but I am happy to report that he has (so far) resisted the temptation. At the very least, a step in the right direction! DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Guy, WTS has recently provided a superb example of exactly what the problem is with his editing. As you know the ANI was over an IP's removal of a tag because WTS was not providing any reason as to why he was putting it where he was. WTS later subsequently added another tag to another article without giving a reason. Well, actually, the tag code demanded a reason but the reason given was a non reason [11]. Just two days later, WTS deletes a tag put by someone else, because that someone failed to leave a reason [12].

I am building up a list of examples where WTS changes his argument to the precise opposite when it suits whatever fringe theory he is trying to push. This sudden switch leads me to believe that he doesn't really believe them, but is just being deliberately awkward. On one occasion he even did it in two adjacent edit wars on the same article Audion where in one discussion he was insisting that an Audion was distinct from a vacuum triode because of the presence of low-pressure gas (true) whereas in the next it was exactly the same device (false). In one war WTS wrote, "I don't think this should be merged with "vacuum tube" - for one thing, Audions initially weren't supposed to be under vacuum." In the very next, he put in an edit summary, "an audion at room pressure didn't work; deForest knew it had to have a vacuum." and even claimed on the talk page in support, "... anything less than sea level pressure is a vacuum.". DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

That will be super helpful when putting together a case. I started to put together a draft RFC/U at User:Guy Macon/Wtshymanski 2 a while back but got busy and never finished it.
You may recall that I was reprimanded for compiling a draft ANI (somewhat unfairly in my view as there is a process for doing so). It might be useful if it could be resurected as there may be some useful content should this go further. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Your question[edit]

You asked me a question on DRN noticeboard, but prohibited to respond at DRN during 24 hours [13]. Sorry, but I do not have time for these games and therefore respond here (I hope this is fine). Here is my answer. No, the article is not guilty. Blaming articles is like lashing the Hellespont. This is all about people. Why someone can not peacefully negotiate with others on article talk pages and drop the issue when WP:Consensus is not on his side, by instead complains on various noticeboards? That depends on the person who files the complaint and rather obvious from their editing pattern. I believe one should think about it prior to taking any DRN case. Honestly, if I were a DRN volunteer, I would never took this case, which would help me to save a lot of time for everyone involved. My very best wishes (talk) 03:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Now, speaking about your closing comment, I am certain that if anyone submits a request to Arbcom, it will be rejected. This is for two reasons: (a) this subject area is already covered by discretionary sanctions (so the complaints should go first to WP:AE), and (b) there are no real grounds for the case (perhaps one could find material for filing only one WP:AE request, nothing more). My very best wishes (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

ANI discussion[edit]

Regarding this, what is the problem? Notification should happen immediately after the start of a dramaboard thread. GiantSnowman 15:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

For those talk page watchers following along, the above concerns this edit in this thread.
The problem is that [A] there is no Wikipedia policy or guideline that supports your "immediately" claim, and [B] four minutes is not enough time to allow someone to open up the correct talk page, make the edit, make sure that it is correct using the preview button, then save the page. I have seen it take two minutes just to load a page when I am editing from my satellite phone, and some handicapped editors type with a mouthstick. You should apologize for not giving the user enough time and in the future you should wait at least 15 minutes before making snarky "you failed to notify" comments. If you choose to immediately post a notification yourself that's fine, but in such cases you should WP:AGF if you didn't give the user at least 15 minutes to complete his edit. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry but no - if you're going to start a dramaboard thread about another user you should damn well make sure you are able to notify promptly. Given this editor's speed of editing it is obvious they were not editing from a phone or whatever, there really was no excuse for the delay. However you're probably correct in saying that my comment was snarky and I will apologise to the editor in question. GiantSnowman 17:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Late reply, but just having a very slow or unreliable internet connection can cause you to take longer than four minutes to do something like that - equally, it's possible to immediately notify someone, switch out of that tab, and then realize that Wikipedia's server had a brainfart again and didn't save your edit due to a database error/loss of session data. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Maybe this shouldn't bother me, but having a wikipedia administrator tell me "Notification should happen immediately after the start of a dramaboard thread" when there is no such requirement still bothers me. Someone who has the power to block users, protect pages and make reversions invisible should understand our policies and guidelines better than that. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Peace Barnstar Hires.png The Barnstar of Diplomacy
For work as a volunteer dispute resolution moderator, and for trying to get battleground editors at Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, which really is in a battleground, to resolve their differences. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your effort. USchick (talk) 16:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Ken Levine's atheism[edit]

Added "(atheist)" back in after "None" in the infobox as the "None" already acknowledges that he has no religion (and that atheism is not a religion) and "atheist" in parentheses further qualifies his stance. Believe me, I know how frustrating it is to see "Religion: Atheist" in infoboxes for the reason you mentioned in your edit precisely, and I adjust it whenever I come across it. Cool? Karin Anker (talk) 04:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 arbitration[edit]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, RGloucester 06:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Guy Macon is is Trouted[edit]

Rainbow trout transparent.png Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: Fixing an "is is" that is not a mistake. It's an intentional error in the title for an article discussing spoken grammar. I'm going to add an {{sic}} template to the article so that it makes it more obvious. Jason Quinn (talk) 11:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Well trouted, sir! (sheepish smile). I am going to see if we can get the scripts that generate lists of potential errors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fix common mistakes to not list potential errors that are marked with the sic template, and I will put something in the instructions about adding the sic template where appropriate as we go through the long lists of pages with potential errors. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
BTW, the title above is brilliant. I was doing something else after replying here when I stopped and said "hey, wait a minute..." :) --Guy Macon (talk) 14:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for all the work on WP:FIX! Good to know I'm not the only one! Sct72 (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC) P.S. Love the picture at the top of the page! :)