User talk:Guy Macon
|Welcome to Guy Macon's Wikipedia talk page.
"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
- 1 New discussion
- 2 Only 994926165 articles left until our billionth article!
- 3 Depiction of Wikimedia Foundation destroying Wikipedia with Visual Editor, Flow, and Mobile App
- 4 Estimate of costs
- 5 Juniper MX-Series
- 6 Primary sources wrt Flow-Based Programming
- 7 Some more commentary on board events
- 8 Hi
- 9 Friendly reminder
- 10 Checking in!
- 11 Your comment on Meta
- 12 Flat Earth
- 13 Religion in infoboxes
|Click here to start a new discussion thread|
Only 994926165 articles left until our billionth article!
We are only 994926165 articles away from our 1,000,000,000th articleGuy Macon--
Depiction of Wikimedia Foundation destroying Wikipedia with Visual Editor, Flow, and Mobile App
--Guy Macon (talk) 01:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Estimate of costs
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)
- Thanks! In the words of Barbie, "Math Is Hard!" :) --Guy Macon (talk) 15:41, 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)
Primary sources wrt Flow-Based Programming
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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)
- @Guy Macon:I am really curious what is the logic behind JzG's "primary-inline" tags. I wonder if you could explain it to me - JzG's responses are too cryptic for me! If WP only accepts secondary sources, how does it record information about new discoveries? But this question just illustrates how confused I am! :-) TIA Jpaulm (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Some more commentary on board events
Guy, you may find these useful for your "In the news" section:
- Wikimedia Foundation bins community-elected trustee, The Register
- The Crisis at New Montgomery Street, The Wikipedian
- Meltdown at Wikipedia?, Posthegemony blog
- Strategy and controversy, Liam Wyatt's blog
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)
Your comment on Meta
Hi Guy, you recently made a comment on Meta Wiki. I moved it for reasons that are hopefully not offensive to you -- I want to be sure the roles of the trustees (who have not noted that they are trustees) is very prominent for the many readers who may not be familiar with their names.
In addition, I wonder if this might be a more useful place for that discussion? meta:Talk:Wikimedia Foundation transparency gap It's already somewhat under discussion there (see the "low hanging fruit" section). -Pete (talk) 04:04, 25 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. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 16:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- You might try reading our article on Flat Earth before claiming that "people did not believe the earth was flat" in the 4th century BCE. You likely have confused the 4th century BC belief with the modern misconception regarding belief in a flat earth during the 15th century CE. We have an article on that as well: Myth of the flat Earth. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Religion in infoboxes
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)
- I have no problem with your clearly good-faith revert. Alas, linking to the RfC would have required a time machine (friendly smile), because the edit was made on 18 October 2015 and the RfC was posted on 31 December 2015.
- I thought that I had removed "non-sectarian" from the infobox of all schools (not disputing the point if anyone reverted) but I missed Phillips Exeter Academy because I was searching for "religion: non-sectarian" or "religion: nonsectarian" and did not search for "Religious affiliation(s): non-sectarian". Thanks for catching my error. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)