Trout this user

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 Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself.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 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

New discussion[edit]

Only 994754670 articles left until our billionth article![edit]

We are only 994754670 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

The Elephant In The Room[edit]

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[1] $80,129 $23,463 $56,666 $56,666
2004/2005[1] $379,088 $177,670 $211,418 $268,084
2005/2006[1] $1,508,039 $791,907 $736,132 $1,004,216
2006/2007[2] $2,734,909 $2,077,843 $654,066 $1,658,282
2007/2008[3] $5,032,981 $3,540,724 $3,519,886 $5,178,168
2008/2009[4] $8,658,006 $5,617,236 $3,053,599 $8,231,767
2009/2010[5] $17,979,312 $10,266,793 $6,310,964 $14,542,731
2010/2011[6] $24,785,092 $17,889,794 $9,649,413 $24,192,144
2011/2012[7] $38,479,665 $29,260,652 $10,736,914 $34,929,058
2012/2013[8] $48,635,408 $35,704,796 $10,260,066 $45,189,124
2013/2014[9] $52,465,287 $45,900,745 $8,285,897 $53,475,021
2014/2015[9] $75,797,223 $52,596,782 $24,345,277 $77,820,298

References

Wikimedia Foundation financial development multilanguage.svg

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[edit]

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!): About this sound Sound A, Sound B, About this sound Sound C, About this sound Sound D, ?
  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: About this sound listen here?
  4. Which sound represents best how you pronounce the "short A" vowel in the words bat, cab, or laugh: About this sound Sound A, Sound B, About this sound Sound C, 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!): About this sound Sound A, About this sound Sound B, About this sound Sound C?
  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)

Archived discussion[edit]

BLP and categories[edit]

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[edit]

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

West Side Story[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

Mensch5.png 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)

Wikipedia Library: Emerald[edit]

You should have received an email a few days ago, providing a link for completing the Wikipedia:Emerald access that you requested. However, you don't appear to have completed the form yet, so this message is to check whether there is any communication breakdown? AllyD (talk) 11:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Archived discussion[edit]

Soapboxing[edit]

I just noticed that you reverted my edit to the Science RefDesk, so I wanted to pop along to say that I'm disappointed that my comments came across as soapboxing. That really was not my intention, and I hope that a quick sift through my RefDesk contributions would confirm that. I'd merely found what seemed to be a decent reference (from the Daily Express, albeit second-hand) that I thought might help, despite my misgivings about it looking like a homework question, and being on the wrong desk.

Having said that, there's absolutely no hard feelings. It's difficult to keep on top of some of the wild and wacky viewpoints that get thrown around on the desks, so I appreciate you taking the time to remove something that seemed to promote distasteful views. Again, I'd like to reiterate that that was in no way my intention, so I'm sorry that it came across wrong.

Keep up the good work, and enjoy your day :-) - Cucumber Mike (talk) 11:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

For those following along at home, the above is about this revert:[7]

You seem like a nice enough person, but you had to have known that this edit[8] was not going to remain unchallenged. Your reference is a Holocaust denial web site (see[9]) and is not a reliable source for your claim that the Anti-Nazi boycott of 1933 is "the international Jewish leadership declaring war on Germany in 1933". And indeed, another editor removed the entire thing shortly afterwards[10] Surely you know the difference between a tabloid-style headline[11][12][13] and an actual declaration of war as listed in Declarations of war during World War II. I actually have a high tolerance for people who hold opinions that I think are completely wrong, but I have a low tolerance for stupidity, and that is what your answer was, because it stupidly called something an actual declaration of war when it clearly was not. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. Point taken on the stupidity - I should have found the original Express article and left it at that, and I should have checked the site I linked more thoroughly. I do try, when answering RefDesk questions, not to claim something, but to point to sources and let others figure it out for themselves. However I think in this case I did not choose a good enough source to do that with. I can only offer to hang my head and try to do better next time since, as you say, the question is now gone and it's somewhat academic.
Again, your removal of what I wrote was a good one, and I thank you for taking the time to explain it in order that I can learn from my mistake. Ta! - Cucumber Mike (talk) 15:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Seth Rich[edit]

I hadn't checked that article in a while as I removed it from my list once I recognized that I was, like you, no longer able to assume good faith with certain editors there. I just now noticed that you've done the same. Sorry it has to come to things like this, but it seems clear that the good faith collaborative approach is unworkable for certain topics on Wikipedia. I told myself that it just isn't worth my sanity. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Apologies[edit]

Hi Guy Macon

After reviewing the talk page at the Michael Hardy case it appears that you did not get the notification that was sent to those named in the Proposed Decision for the Michael hardy case.

For ease of posting I used the massmessage functionality to send the notification to the parties involved. After checking it had arrived on the first few pages I didn't continue to check the rest to see it had hit every talkpage.

As you had opted out of the massmessage notification (as your perfectly entitled to do so) the message was rejected from being posted and you were not notified of the proposed decision in a timely or appropriate manner.

Please accept my apologies for this and any inconvenience or aggravation this has caused. I will endeavour to remember to check those I am sending to are not part of the opt out group prior to sending a message of this importance in future.

Amortias (T)(C) 17:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)