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 you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that I have no affiliation with or control of mirror websites. 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 994064989 articles left until our billionth article![edit]

We are only 994064989 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

--Guy Macon

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
--Guy Macon

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

The most important[Citation Needed] page on Wikipedia[edit]

User:Guy Macon/On the Diameter of the Sewer cover in front of Greg L’s house‎ --Guy Macon

"...It looks like Wikipedia is really pulling out all the stops in their latest appeal to their users..."[edit]

Donations Needed: Wikipedia Has Posted An Appeal Asking For One Night Of Physical Intimacy From Each User --Guy Macon

Wikipedia Celebrates 750 Years Of American Independence[edit]

"The Revolution's main adversaries were the patriots and the people from Braveheart," said speaker Tim Capodice, who has edited hundreds of Wikipedia entries on subjects as diverse as Euclidian geometry and Ratfucking. "The patriots, being a rag-tag group of misfits, almost lost on several occasions. But after a string of military antics and a convoluted scheme involving chicken feathers and an inflatable woman, the British were eventually defeated despite a last-minute surge, by a score of 89–87."[1]
--Guy Macon

Wikipedia: DNA edition[edit]


Hi Guy, thank you for raising the captcha issue. I had been aware that there was a problem, what I hadn't realised was just how long the Foundation have known about it and done nothing. It's a really important issue - until it is fixed the "Encyclopaedia anyone can edit" claim rings rather hollow. My sister is a senior executive at a major educational organisation which has a blind board member. Anything they do to support him in his role, they do for any of their staff and students who need it. Why? well, of course they wish to avoid legal problems, and they wish to attract the very best, regardless of disability, but it's also a matter of behaving with basic decency. All the best, DuncanHill (talk) 20:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Raystorm's response here. DuncanHill (talk) 21:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Guy (pinging because it's an old thread), thanks for raising the Captcha/blind accessibility issue; I learned of it at User talk:Doc James#13 years. It's infuriating to read the account of it. I suppose this would never rouse the level of interest as the ongoing WMF ban issue, but do you suppose an independent project page somewhere to follow all developments would be worthwhile, as opposed to scattered fragments on Talk pages here and there, which eventually get archived? Not sure how I could help, but if you think of a way, let me know. Mathglot (talk) 05:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Hey, just thought of one way, maybe: do you know anybody at Signpost? How could we get this into the next issue? Surely that couldn't hurt? Mathglot (talk) 05:13, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

WMF Financial Transparency[edit]

Have asked folks from WMF Finance dept. to answer your queries, Let's see ..... WBGconverse 09:32, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Links: [2][3] --Guy Macon (talk) 19:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Have emailed them too at the same time, asking them (or someone else, who is in charge of the affairs) to kindly attend the queries.
So far, no reply. WBGconverse 14:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Have replied over email. Since there's absolutely nothing, which can be rationally expected to be minimally private information and I'm (thus) copy-pasting the reply for your convenience:-

Hello Winged Blades of Godric and <redacted> (CC'd),

Thanks for your message. Our practice is to provide information about the Foundation’s budget and the work that is being funded at our Annual Plan pages and Medium-term plan pages, which is the most important work informing expenditures. You can find information about previous years and see how the budget has changed over time. I have linked to those and additional pages, below.

The information specifically referenced in the thread that you linked to (GuyMacon's questions) was shared with the Audit Committee and the Board at the time the expenses were incurred, in line with our procedures for governance and reporting. You can view board meeting minutes and board meeting materials on meta.

We have also been pointed to this discussion about the possibility of 10 followup questions. Keeping in mind our ethical, legal, and time limitations, we would be interested in hearing a little bit more about what had you in mind.




CC:-Kudpung. ~ Winged BladesGodric 06:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Please send James the following reply, saying it is from me:

I have searched your email to Winged Blades of Godric dated [PLEASE INSERT EXACT DATE AND TIME] and titled [PLEASE INSERT EXACT TITLE] and carefully searched every link you provided.

I could not find the answer to my question (see copy of question below).

You ask "we would be interested in hearing a little bit more about what had you in mind" What I have in mind is that you either answer the question I asked, tell me who can answer the question I asked, of just tell me straight up that the WMF refuses to answer the question I asked.

Here, once again, is my question:

  • Some here have, quite reasonably, asked "where does the money I donate to the Wikipedia Foundation go?" Well, about two and a half million a year goes to buy computer equipment and office furniture.[4]

That's roughly twelve thousand dollars per employee. The report says "The estimated useful life of furniture is five years, while the estimated useful lives of computer equipment and software are three years." so multiply that twelve thousand by three or more -- and we all know that at least some employees will be able to keep using a PC or a desk longer than that.

I would really like to see an itemized list of exactly what computer equipment and office furniture was purchased with the $2,690,659 spent in 2012 and the $2,475,158 spent in 2013. Verifying that those purchases were reasonable and fiscally prudent would go a long way towards giving me confidence that the rest of the money was also spent wisely.
If I can't get an itemized list of where the money was spent, could I at the very least get a breakdown as to how much was spent on computer equipment and how much was spent on office furniture? It wouldn't be an actual answer to my question, but it would at least allow me to either ask a question about computer equipment or ask a question about office furniture instead of repeatedly asking the same question about computer equipment and office furniture.
A little bit of financial transparency would go a long way here. -- Guy Macon
Getting back to my ongoing discussion with Winged Blades of Godric (in other words, not part of the question I want asked in the email), WBG, in your opinion does the above email answer the question I asked?
Also, concerning the claim "The information specifically referenced in the thread that you linked to (GuyMacon's questions) was shared with the Audit Committee and the Board at the time the expenses were incurred, in line with our procedures for governance and reporting. You can view board meeting minutes and board meeting materials on meta", does anyone reading this believe that back in 2013 they predicted the question I would ask years later and gave the Audit Committee or the Board an itemized list of exactly what computer equipment and office furniture was purchased with the $2,690,659 spent in 2012 and the $2,475,158 spent in 2013.? Or did they simply give them a copy of [ ]? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:44, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
User:Winged Blades of Godric It has been a month. Did they ever respond to that email? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)


"Reasoning will never make a man correct an ill opinion, which by reasoning he never acquired: for, in the course of things, men always grow vicious, before they become unbelievers..." --Jonathan Swift ( 1721)[5][6]
In modern language that would be
"You cannot reason people out of something they were not reasoned into. They will viciously attack you instead of abandoning their beliefs".
--Guy Macon (talk) 12:59, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Another barnstar for you[edit]

Barnstar of Democracy.png Barnstar of Political Indifference
Thank you for your out-of-the-box solutions to the problem of keeping political articles up to date. Here's hoping that we survive the next wave of political elections with our sanity intact. :-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:16, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Laughing out loud[edit]

Hahahahahahahahaha! (see diff)

Good one! I never understood that song until now when I read it on that talk page. I think it deserves to be a Wikipedia essay :>) Point well taken! Hahahahahahahaha! ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:48, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

"In the clearing stands a boxer, and a fighter by his trade;
And he carries the reminders, of every glove that laid him down,
or cut him till he cried out, in his anger and his shame;
'I am leaving, I am leaving', But the fighter still remains..."
--The Boxer by Simon & Garfunkel

It was pure coincidence that I was there because I was previously discussing an issue with Doc James :>). ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:48, 29 August 2019 (UTC)


Who made you Jesus, and why are you trying to get me indeffed. It seems random and since we never spoke before I can only suppose you were being opportunist. I'm Paul, obv you are far greater than me, but please - stab in the heart, rather than through the back. Ceoil

For those following along at home, this concerns Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Ceoil --Guy Macon (talk) 14:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Ceoi, Stay off of my talk page. WP:NPA is a Wikipedia policy and it does apply to you. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:00, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

ANI thread[edit]

Hi Guy. I am sorry for making comments that were critical of you. I should have asked you some questions first. Could you tell me how you had the whole Ceoil history handy, and why you posted a third party civility complaint? Why didn't you let the two parties work it out themselves, or wait for one of them to take it to WP:ANI? I'm unclear about those two points and this is why I may have jumped to a conclusion that assumed bad faith. Jehochman Talk 23:26, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I didn't have the history handy. I did a search after noticing the WP:NPA violation by someone I had never heard of before.
I was watching the page to see if Bus Stop was violating his restriction by checking his edit history from time to time. I have mixed feelings about that restriction, so my intent was, if I saw one kind of violation, I would post a gentle reminder on his talk page, and if I saw another kind of violation, I would post a "please reconsider the restriction; this is the sort of thing we really want at ANI" post at AN.
I didn't let the two parties work it out themselves because I looked at Ceoil's edit history and block log. He is about as likely to "work it out" as I am of being elected pope.
I wait for one of them to take it to ANI because I looked at Ceoil's edit history and block log. He constantly uses the argument that his behavior is allowed because of the bad behavior of the person reporting him, and so I decided that the report should be posted by someone who has had zero prior conflicts with Ceoil. Amazingly, he still used that argument, and apparently you fell for it.
As difficult as this may be for you to believe, I am acting in good faith and my motivation is to reduce the amount of toxic behavior by editors such as Ceoil.
So, as long as we are being strait with each other, why did you defend him? Are you one of those people who thinks that if someone creates articles they get a free pass on civility and personal attacks? I can't believe that you actually found his comments to be acceptable or justified. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Oh no, I disliked his comments very much and with the above context clarified, you absolutely did the right thing to report him. There were some confounding circumstances that I can explain if you’re interested. These appear to have had nothing whatsoever to do with you. As for why I didn’t block, it’s my policy never to block any editor unless they are so bad they need an indef block. I have explained my philosophy at Swarm’s talk page. I will save text and not repeat it here. Jehochman Talk 00:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! I think we are good here. Working on the same team, sharing the same goals, etc. Cheers! --Guy Macon (talk) 00:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the kind words. Happy editing. Jehochman Talk 00:54, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
You'd be a reasonable Pope. Bring some common sense to the institution. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 09:58, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


In case you haven't seen this yet: I just noticed a few pages that were posted recently on Mediawikiwiki: A description of the WMF Captcha Initiative (which specifically mentions the problems the current Captcha system causes for the visually-impaired) and the notes from a meeting yesterday by the Captcha working group. It looks like they're finally taking the Captcha problems seriously. --Yair rand (talk) 23:12, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

The good news: They appear to be finally working on it.
The bad news: after me asking pretty much everywhere nobody at the WMF thought that I should be notified. Instead I only found out about it when when a sharp-eyed minion ... henchman ... co-conspirator ... cabal member ... fellow editor noticed it.
So what was that again about the WMF working closely with the community and keeping us informed? :(   --Guy Macon (talk) 02:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)


It was difficult not to see Anthony22's edits as a breaching experiment, but I have gone with WP:ROPE. I hope you can agree there. Also: why the fuck are you not an admin? Srsly dude. Want me to nominate? Guy (help!) 22:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I do agree, and in general I really like warnings instead of blocks if there is any chance of a behavior change.
I would not be against being nominated as an admin if the nomination also included a commitment to respond to any accusations that are completely unfair; defending yourself at RfA is a loser's game and you really need an advocate. There will, of course also be valid criticisms where I would need to freely admit that I didn't handle a situation well, and that's OK.
I think I could be very helpful doing the kind of wikignome things that are uncontroversial but create a lot of work for the existing admins. Alas, WP:GOODBIAS and WP:CANCER have created a lot of enemies who would love to see me fail an RfA. On the plus side, WP:1AM has been very well received and probably should be mentioned during any nomination.
Strategically, is it better to be nominated when several other RfAs are open, or to wait until your nom is the only one? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Curious, too. Hyperbolick (talk) 23:42, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


incisive on the PD page. A single !vote by AGK, is what it leads to .... WBGconverse 18:43, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Code? Hyperbolick (talk) 23:42, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
It does look like some sort of secret code, but I understood it perfectly.
Key for decoding:
  • My question that Winged Blades of Godric is answering: = [7] ("I could not find any "not particulary incisive" comment.")
  • Ctrl+F = [8]
  • PD page = [9][10][11]
  • "incisive" in vote by arbitrator AGK: = [12]
So WBG, knowing that I am an engineer, told me in engineer-speak "look here (search for the word 'incisive') to find the answer to the question you asked."
The reason I didn't find it myself was because [A] Fram didn't support his claim with a diff (always important at arbcom) and [B] Fram made a spelling error and dropped a word, causing me to search for "not particulary incisive" (note the lack of an L) when the actual quote is "not a particularly incisive user".
Finally, here is the definition: [13] I don't know if this is true in this case but "incisive" is often mistakenly used when the writer meant "insightful".[14] --Guy Macon (talk)

--Guy Macon (talk) 00:20, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Not mistakenly. Legit meaning. Wiktionary:incisive. Definition #2. Hyperbolick (talk) 01:01, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
And thank you for explaining. Hyperbolick (talk) 01:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)