Trout this user

User talk:Guy Macon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to 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 Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself.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 994302064 articles left until our billionth article![edit]

We are only 994302064 articles away from our 1,000,000,000th article... --Guy Macon

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

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

--Guy Macon

Calvin discovers Wikipedia[edit]

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

Another chart[edit]

Page views for this talk page over the last year

Detailed traffic statistics

Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet[edit]

"Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game because they almost always turn out to be -- or to be indistinguishable from -- self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time." --Neil Stephenson, Cryptonomicon

(talk page stalker) A late friend of mine put it this way: "Arguing with idiots is wasted effort. They have no minds to change; and unlike you, nothing better to do with their time." Jeh (talk) 04:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The Spell-Checker Song: Owed to a Spell Czech Her (Ode to a spellchecker)[edit]

Eye halve a spelling chequer.
It came with my pea sea.
It plane lee marks four my Rhea view,
Miss steaks aye Ken knot see.

Iran this Poe Em threw it.
Your shore lee glad two no.
It is core wrecked in every weigh,
My chequer tolled me sew.

A Czech her is a bless sing.
It freeze yew lodes of thyme.
It helps me right stiles ewe can reed,
And aides me when aye rime.

Eye strike a key and type a word.
And weight four it two say.
Weather eye am wrong oar write.
It shows me strait aweigh.

Each frays come posed up on my screen,
Is trussed two bee a Joule.
The check Ur pours o'er every word,
To Czech sum spelling rule.

As soon as a mist ache is maid.
It nose bee fore two long.
And eye can put the error rite.
Its rare lea ever wrong.

Bee fore a veiling cheque curs,
hour spelling mite decline.
If wee R. lacks oar have a laps,
We wood bee maid two wine.

Butt now bee cause my spelling,
Is checked with such grate flare,
There are know faults with in my cite,
Of nun eye am a wear.

Now spelling does knot phase me,
It does knot bring a tier.
My pay purrs awl due glad den,
With words sew fare too here.

2 rite with care is quite a fete,
Of witch won should bee proud;
and wee mussed dew the best week Anne,
Sew flaws argh[1] knot aloud.

Sow ewe can sea why aye dew prays.
Such soft wear four pea seize.
And why eye brake in 2 averse
With righting sure too please.

Attribution: I composed the above as a modification of various versions found on the web labeled "author unknown" or some such. Later I discovered this page, which appears to document the original sources, and my version is clearly a heavily modified derivative version of what is listed on that page. To whatever extent the above is my own work, I release it under the Creative Commons CC0 license. --Guy Macon
--Guy Macon (talk) 22:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC) [ Citation Needed ]

Receiving stolen goods[edit]

I have stolen this without credit:

As of Wednesday, 15 August 2018, 05:07 (UTC), The English Wikipedia has 34,247,361 registered users, 120,446 active editors, and 1,211 administrators. Together we have made 850,313,613 edits, created 45,566,302 pages of all kinds and created 5,697,935 articles.

Should credit be given to anyone? :) --Timeshifter (talk) 14:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Everything I contribute to Wikipedia (along with everything else I post on the Internet) is licensed under the CC0 License. Basically you can treat it like the standard CC BY-SA 3.0 License but without any attribution requirement. So you are welcome to reuse anything I write anywhere without crediting me. In fact, you can even claim that what I write is your own work, with the risk of everyone mocking you when they find out. :)

For others who might read this, please note that you want to use this in your edit window:
<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>
...which displays as...
As of Wednesday, 15 August 2018, 05:07 (UTC), The English Wikipedia has 34,247,361 registered users, 120,446 active editors, and 1,211 administrators. Together we have made 850,313,613 edits, created 45,566,302 pages of all kinds and created 5,697,935 articles.
(bold added).
...the difference being that my version gives the latest numbers the first time you see it and updates every time you refresh the page. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC)


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)

Talk:Internet protocol suite#The reason for the confusion, and a suggested way forward --Guy Macon (talk) 14:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Is the following claim accurate?[edit]

I am about to make a claim that involves a calculation, and as we all know, whenever you do that there is a good chance that you have made a trivial math error that you cannot see and which makes you look like a fool.

So could someone please check my numbers and assumptions in the following claim?

There is an attitude around Wikipedia of putting up with minor annoyances and glitches rather than making the software excellent.
As of Wednesday, 15 August 2018, 05:07 (UTC), The English Wikipedia has 34,247,361 registered users, 120,446 active editors, and 1,211 administrators. Together we have made 850,313,613 edits, created 45,566,302 pages of all kinds and created 5,697,935 articles.
If we made a tiny improvement to our software that reduced the time to create a page (the total time, including every edit ever made to that page, every talk page comment, and all the time spent by multiple users checking the page for errors over its lifetime) by a single second, that would be the equivalent of a single person working 40 hours a week for six and a half years.
As of the 2016-2017 fiscal year we had $91.3 million USD in revenue, $69.1 million USD in expenses, and $113.30 million USD in assets.[2] So we could easily afford to hire a few top-notch software developers to make obvious improvements to our software.
Given the above numbers, in my considered opinion we should not put up with minor annoyances in our software. We should hire someone to fix them.

I would really appreciate it. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

(...Sound of crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 07:59, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
You apparently have more faith in the WMF devs than do I. Based on past performance, what would actually happen is that someone would be hired to reduce the time to create a page by one second, decide that the most efficient way to do so is to redesign the user interface to make it "more intuitive", break everybody's workflow because the buttons are no longer where users expect to find them, and subsequently be forced to put everything back exactly the way it was. Head on over to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures, which is where our allegedly elite team of developers dump their bright ideas, and see if you can find one single thing that actually makes the experience quicker, easier or less buggy. When it comes to reducing page save times, bear in mind that the main cause of delays isn't the coding, it's the bottleneck at the EQIAD server, and reconfiguring the servers of a top-ten website for greater efficiency isn't a matter of flipping a switch or hiring a few extra programmers. To have any serious impact on load and save times would probably need either a formal partnership or a megabucks contract with Amazon Web Services, Google, IBM or Microsoft, and that would cause about 30% of the editor base to resign on the spot. ‑ Iridescent 16:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Points well taken. What I had in mind were easy fixes like a message that tells you if you are posting to a talk page but forgot to sign your post, or even (we are getting into alien technology here...) automatically added the sig with the option of removing it. I would bet that if someone counted up the number of times template:unsigned was used, picked a really small number of seconds needed to apply it and added them up, this alone would add up to many man-years of labor. Or the ability to watchlist a section instead of a page. Or allowing us to user [regex]] in the search box. But yes, the WMF would no doubt manage to "fix" those issues by making things worse.
Clearly I need to add more more detail on what I mean by "putting up with minor annoyances and glitches rather than making the software excellent".
As for my original request for someone to look the above over for errors, I suppose that I could advertise that I am willing to pay someone $50 to edit my talk page. That wouldn't cause anyone to get upset, right? :(   --Guy Macon (talk) 16:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
On the specific issue of talkpage posts and signing, you might want to check out User:Enterprisey/reply-link which does all the signing and indenting for you. Funny you should raise section watchlisting, as that was what WP:FLOW was meant to achieve; you may recall just how well that worked. Regex searching works fine (enter insource:/regex/ in the search box), but we intentionally don't publicize the fact or make the magic word guessable as the processing power needed if 34,247,361 people were all routinely conducting regex searches of 45,566,302 pages would make the server kitties cry. ‑ Iridescent 16:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • As someone who writes software professionally, and then uses said software just as professionally, I have to agree with the overall point Iridescent makes here: most "improvements" are only an improvement to a small group of people who so rarely use the software in question that the time cost of adapting one's workflow to a new paradigm (be it a UI change or an overall system change) is a moot point: they have to spend just as much time learning the existing system that the users know by heart as they do the new system, so they miss a huge downside of the new system. This is a problem with the industry, however, and not inherent to programming. I'm perfectly exempt from it because I am both the designer and the end user. Of course, there's still some complaints to be made by other users about being forced to do things my way, but in the end, my way is faster, for obvious and somewhat masturbatory reason.
But that whole objections rests upon the assumption that the bug fixes in question would be modifications of the UI or workflow that would directly change how the user interacts with the software. If the fix is done inside the black box of code, then Guy's implicit point stands.
As to the math: It's not entirely clear how you're arriving at your number. When I take the total number of articles, and treat that as total number of seconds (1 second per created article, as you said) and break that down into 40-hour work weeks, I get about 40 work weeks. That's from going off your statement that you're discussing reducing the time to create a page by a total of 1 second.
If, instead, I take it to mean the total time to make an edit, then I work that down to just over 113 years of 40-hour-a-week labor. (no vacation because I'm a horrible boss). Which makes your point a bit more cogently, except that it presumes that 1 second can be shaved off every edit, a presumption which would make me laugh in the face of anyone making it. Until WMF is in the ISP and PC building business, we can never fully control the speed at which edits are made. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it if a scriptkiddy would stop wiki pages of all kinds going up and down like a tart's drawers while still doing its slow crawl to my monitor. When I think of the time I've wasted because I clicked in the right place too soon and ended up somewhere else. argghhh. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 16:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
This is a documented issue with Chrome (and other Chromium based browsers) and the eccentric way they handle Javascript, not a bug at the MediaWiki end; switch to another browser and the problem should disappear. ‑ Iridescent 16:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I use Firefox exclusively. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 17:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I do, too, and I've experienced this, as well. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:45, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
With JS off, this jumping no longer occurs, but redirect pages with anchors only jump to the top of those pages (i.e. WP:PSCI: to get the proper anchor link, one then has to click the "redirected from" link to go on the redirect page and then click on the archored link there). —PaleoNeonate – 19:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Started on Huel[edit]

Regarding this conversation: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2018 June_20#Improving one's palate for subtle flavor differences — I ordered a 2-3 week supply of the product you suggested (Huel, unflavored), conferred with my doctor (who said "well, it won't kill you and may well have a positive outcome, so go ahead"), and today I started on my Huel regimen. My family is supportive. It remains to be seen if I have the discipline to pull it off. The taste is tolerable, reminding me of soggy Cheerios cereal.

I'm hungry again, so I guess it's time for another "meal". I'll let you know in a couple of weeks how it worked out. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:40, 29 July 2018 (UTC)


The relevant policy is Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned or blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content. That is, you can move IHTS's material into mainspace but you're taking personal liability for any errors or issues as if you'd created it yourself. This situation isn't that uncommon; Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard was copy-pasted by me to mainspace from a banned user's sandbox, for instance, while Giano and The Rambling Man have both worked extensively on their talkpage when blocked and relied on the goodwill of others to check their material and send it live. Be aware that although this is Wikipedia policy, some people really hate it, and anything copy-pasted at the request of a banned user will be scrutinized for errors with a fine tooth comb in the hope of tripping you up. ‑ Iridescent 07:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I would consider having my edits scrutinized for errors with a fine tooth comb in the hope of tripping me up to be a Good Thing. :)   --Guy Macon (talk) 07:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Impossible colors:[edit]

By staring at a "fatigue template" for 30 to60 seconds then switching to the neutral target, it is possible to view "impossible" colors.

--Guy Macon (talk) 23:19, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Just because you have some money, that doesn't mean that you have to spend it.[edit]

Updated essay: see new "2016-2017 update" information near the bottom.

User:Guy Macon/Just because you have some money, that doesn't mean that you have to spend it.

--Guy Macon (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


Given that this is part of a enormous CIDR ( reserved for private networks, randomly pointing individual IP addresses in this range to User:Example seems messy and inconsistent. May I suggest an edit-filter or site notice instead? -FASTILY 21:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Thanks! I haven't used edit filters or site notices before -- is this something I can do with my current user rights? Ideally, a "you are posting to the talk page of a user who does not exist" notice would pop up when anyone tried to edit the user page.
BTW, only a handful of the addresses in that range that are widely used. I figured on doing nothing with most of them. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
There's also Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested if it can help, —PaleoNeonate – 22:13, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Numbered lists and line breaks[edit]

Hi, I wanted to draw your attention this edit by Redrose64 undoing your change, and to the relevant MOS entry. It does seem preferable to me to always use accessible formatting because it is not only what appears on our screens that matters, and because the html list seems generally a cleaner solution. That the numbers might change if someone erroneously altered the RfC seems no more problematic than that they might alter your hard coded numbers. —DIYeditor (talk) 09:42, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

RfC Announce: Should the EmDrive be labeled as Pseudoscience?[edit]

Talk:RF resonant cavity thruster#RfC: Should the EmDrive be labeled as Pseudoscience? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Doing the right thing at the Reference desks[edit]

Hi Guy. On your User Page you have the Userbox saying “This User tries to do the right thing. If they make a mistake, please let them know.”

In your recent response to my edit on the Science Reference Desk, you began “Nonsense, ... ...” At WP:RD/G, in the lead section, it gives the following instruction to all Users who post an answer to a question: “... responses should be civil and avoid anything that could even remotely be considered a personal attack ...”

Beginning an answer with the word “Nonsense” appears to me to be incompatible with the above instruction, particularly where it says “even remotely”. If you feel the need to display your view more strongly than permitted by the above, please post on the User’s Talk page, rather than on the Reference Desk. Happy editing. Dolphin (t) 07:17, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense ... -Roxy, the dog. barcus 07:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Nonsense ...: Nonsense... —PaleoNeonate – 08:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
I retract my "nonsense" comment. The answer User:Dolphin51 gave at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#Inverse flight was far more than nonsense. It was a huge steaming pile of BULLSHIT. One can only hope that my minor bit of incivility discourages Dolphin51 from posting false information on the reference desks in the future. I thank Dolphin51 for giving me this opportunity to Do The Right Thing. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[edit]

The Teahouse response included the following: "it's an interesting question which others might like the answer to, and you can use when your block expires." I saw that as a justification to let the person know.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 14:42, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Edit Dispute[edit]

Moved to article talk page where it belongs. Splitting the discussion of a content dispute over multiple pages is a Bad Thing. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)