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 994662309 articles left until our billionth article!
- 3 Depiction of Wikimedia Foundation destroying Wikipedia with Visual Editor, Flow, and Mobile App
- 4 Calvin discovers Wikipedia
- 5 The Elephant In The Room
- 6 Another chart
- 7 A beer for you!
- 8 A beer for you!
- 9 Dispute
- 10 compliment
- 11 Help needed with controversial editorial opinion.
- 12 Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet
|Click here to start a new discussion thread|
Only 994662309 articles left until our billionth article!
We are only 994662309 articles away from our 1,000,000,000th articleGuy Macon--
Depiction of Wikimedia Foundation destroying Wikipedia with Visual Editor, Flow, and Mobile App
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|
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/Archive 209#The elephant in the room.
- Assessing endowment performance (Vanguard, PDF)
- Wikipedia has a ton of money. So why is it begging you to donate yours? (The Washington Post)
- Wikipedia fundraising drive: Should you donate money to the Wikimedia Foundation? (International Business Times)
--Guy Macon (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
|Page views for this talk page over the last 90 days|
Detailed traffic statistics
A beer for you!
|Thanks for your work on Ben Carson. I, for one, miss Jay Pharaoh's presence on SNL in part because of his spot-on Carson impression. Marquardtika (talk) 23:41, 30 January 2017 (UTC)|
A beer for you!
|A cold beer for the hard work trying to enforce WP:NPOV despite adversity! Saturnalia0 (talk) 23:22, 31 January 2017 (UTC)|
I was recently involved in editing Royal Rumble . I am seeking your help as whenever I edit that page, I recieve a notice on my talk page from a user named Vjmlhds everytime. I tried to convince him/her with reference links from the official site of WWE but he/she would not consider my edits. I got blocked for my edits but this time I seek help from a volunteer. Please help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Class.wrestling (talk • contribs) 10:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Help needed with controversial editorial opinion.
I am about to publish an editorial in The Signpost titled "Wikipedia has cancer".
I would invite anyone interested in WMF spending to take a look at it, comment on the talk page, and edit it if you see any glaring errors or obvious improvements that can be made. The basic point I am making is sure to cause heated arguments, so I want to make it as clear as I can.
A draft of the editorial is at
and the page for discussing it is at
Any help would be appreciated. It is really hard to see flaws in something you wrote yourself. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet
"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
--Guy Macon (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2017 (UTC)