|This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.|
|Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27|
|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
|Start a new discussion thread|
Only 993,802,021 articles left until our billionth article!
We are only 993,802,021 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
|Page views for this talk page over the last year|
Detailed traffic statistics
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
- I can see why this has not been added yet; it does not have an "...in popular culture" section! For shame. --IanOsgood (talk) 12:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
"...It looks like Wikipedia is really pulling out all the stops in their latest appeal to their users..."
Wikipedia Celebrates 750 Years Of American Independence
"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."
Wikipedia: DNA edition
- Startup packs all 16GB of Wikipedia onto DNA strands to demonstrate new storage tech --Guy Macon (talk) 14:42, 6 July 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) 
- 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)
Stressed out? Have four minutes to spare?
Listen to this:
How To Remove Ham From CD Drive
Ham stuck in your CD or disc drive? Follow the steps outlined in this video to officially de-ham your CD drive and use make it good as new!
- Absolutely brilliant, thanks. It's interesting that the comments were also high quality. If that discussion had happened here, there would have been many woosh moments with suggestions that the procedure was unhygienic and should not be displayed without reliable sources! Johnuniq (talk) 05:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- It occurs to me that when AI beats the Turing test, parsing videos like this will still be a good way to determine whether you are talking to an android or a sentient human. Johnuniq (talk) 07:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Holy C logo
Let say the TempleOS was public domain. Let's change the reason to similar to C#'s fanart logo because the logo of HolyC was derivative from C++ logo from ISO C++. This means it's a trademark infringement from ISO C++ Website. Flankbed (talk) 08:32, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- I am looking into whether the documentation of TempleOS or HolyC says that it is public domain. A quick glance shows a bunch of people saying that after he died, but unless someone who inherited the trademarks and copyrights released them to the public domain, they remain as originally released.
- In will look into your derivative argument. More later. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
My point is that triangles are a sub-category of polygons. These categories also contain unusual shapes which don't fall into the usual definitions, but still share the name. --Tarnoob (talk) 12:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- No they aren't. From Polygon:
- "In geometry, a polygon (/ˈpɒlɪɡɒn/) is a plane figure that is described by a finite number of straight line segments connected to form a closed polygonal chain or polygonal circuit. The solid plane region, the bounding circuit, or the two together, may be called a polygon.".
In special:diff/989039999, you advised me (and Double sharp and DePiep) to
completely stop responding to any comments about anyone's behavior. That sounds to me like very good avice, and a reasonable request, and one I am willing to follow. You can help me make sure that I properly understand that advice and follow it by helping me to understand in what ways I might have failed to do that in the recent past. Thank you. YBG (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- It was general advice, applicable whether or not you had responded in the past. I did not meant to imply that you were or were not already not responding. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
My entry at Elements ArbCom case
Thank you for the comment you made on that page. I indeed assessed the situation wrongly and as a result, my action was not entirely correct, either, and I thank you for bringing me back to my senses. That being said, the underlying problem is still there. I'd like to amend my entry to reflect it more accurately. I thought it would be reasonable to consult you before posting it to make sure my new comment does not go into the territory you have warned not to enter.
The issue of conflict at WP:ELEM can be separated into two largely non-overlapping conflicts: 1) Sandbh and R8R vs. DePiep, and 2) Double sharp vs. Sandbh.--R8R (talk) 11:30 am, 14 November 2020, last Saturday (3 days ago) (UTC+3)
The second conflict, Double sharp vs. Sandbh, has reached a conclusion and the editors have reached understanding to act together in a collaborative manner. No external action is required; I suggest ArbCom doesn't consider this conflict. Both Double sharp and Sandbh, barring some transgressions this year, have consistently demonstrated great behavior over the years I've known both of them, and both are demonstrating it now in their interactions with each other.
The first conflict, I am afraid, lacks a definite solution as of yet. My goal is a permanent resolution of this conflict. Last events make it look like we have not yet reached a solution we'll be able to sustain. For example, when Sandbh was discussing an issue at WT:ELEM page, DePiep removed a (hardly inappropriate) part of his comment, compounded by a summary that said merely "No." And then, merely two days later, DePiep, without addressing their behavior, expresses a desire to have better communications. This is not the first time, however, that something like this is stated, which makes me believe it won't be the last, either. There is no indication that this doesn't happen again when we are no longer a spotlight. That being said, if I had a strong commitment not to repeat this behavior, I'd be assured this wouldn't happen again and call for a closure of this case. I am very open to the idea of other editors asking for similar commitments from myself; it is my responsibility to be a collaborative editor just as it is anybody else's.
- Let's look at two logical possibilities. There are of course positions in the middle, but let's just look at the extremes for now.
- Possibility #1: Everything you say above is true, you are good and pure, DePiep is evil, and DePiep is going to resume their bad behavior some time after the Arbcom case closes.
- Possibility #2: Everything you say above is false, you are evil, DePiep is good and pure. and you are going to resume your bad behavior some time after the Arbcom case closes.
- Assume for the sake of argument that #2 is true. Would posting any of the above be a good idea? Of course not. Assuming #2, your best strategy is to say nothing about DePiep now, make a commitment to say nothing about DePiep is the future, and keep that commitment.
- Now assume that #1 is true. Would posting any of the above be a good idea? I say no. Far better to have someone else post anything negative about DePiep. You are both under intense scrutiny, and everyone can see a complete record of every edit and every comment either of you has ever made. In fact, it would be far more effective if the negative material came from someone else. (The opposite is also true; any negative material about you from DePiep has far less weight than if it came from someone else.) So Assuming #1, your best strategy is still to say nothing about DePiep now, make a commitment to say nothing about DePiep is the future, and keep that commitment.
- A similar argument works for anything between #1 and #2. Your best strategy remains the same if the blame is 50/50 or 10/90.
- You say "if I had a strong commitment not to repeat this behavior, I'd be assured this wouldn't happen again". Why on earth would you believe any such statement? I certainly wouldn't. Nor would I believe a similar statement from you. All that matters is actual behavior, not promises.
- You say "There is no indication that this doesn't happen again when we are no longer a spotlight". Perhaps you are not aware that you will both be in the spotlight for the next five to ten years. Multiple administrators and multiple experienced editors will be monitoring both of you for the foreseeable future.
- Trust Wikipedia's Arbcom system. It really does work, and it works fine without you trying to goose it along. I advise that you start doing your best imitation of a robot, never using personal pronouns when dealing with DePiep, only talking about page content and about sources, and if they say something about you, not publicly responding in any way. (Free clue: you can still email an admin, tell them what is happening, and ask them how you should respond. Nobody can see those emails but the two of you.)
- Finally, in case DePiep is reading this, everything I wrote above applies the other way as well. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- I did note your edit, and it was precisely the reason why I chose to write to you before doing anything. I thank you very much for reaching out; this gesture, and your later advice, proved absolutely invaluable.
- I follow your logic and I will make the commitment you suggested tonight at the very latest.--R8R (talk) 06:02, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
statement of fact in regular expression lazy matching
You said, "That's not how it works. Please read WP:V.". I did, but I am still not convinced it needs a citation. To me the statement is "obvious", or self proving, and thus not in need of a citation. Are you sure you understand how regular expressions work? Why is this particular statement in need of a citation but not so many other examples in the text? I did think the original wording was too abstract and prone to a misunderstanding, which was perhaps why someone added the "citation needed" in the first place. When I read through it, I initially wondered what the original writer was saying, but then, when I thought through what the example regular expression meant and how it would work, I realized that, while perhaps too abstract, the writer was obviously making a correct statement. It is a nice example of how to use regular expressions effectively, but, also, no more than that, certainly not something new or in need of a formal proof. Then I decided to try to make what they were saying clearer, with less potential for confusion. Perhaps I know too much? I confess first learning this stuff in 1967. AJim (talk) 03:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- I understand regular expressions just fine, but I cannot use that knowledge and neither can you. See WP:OR. If you read WP:V you must have read
- "In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors. Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it."
- Is any of that not clear?
- Perhaps an example would make the reason for this core policy clear. You say that you can use your personal knowledge to edit Wikipedia. The scientologists and flat earthers say the exact same thing. Why should we accept your original research and not theirs? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:12, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- Anyone who has read that far should be able to see that the example pattern says "match a string that starts with a quote, followed by anything except a quote, followed by a quote". Clever, obvious. Anyway, not worth arguing about, or worth it to me to find a reference. Cheers. AJim (talk) 08:37, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
And they say that nobody appreciates what I do...
HA! See Wikipedia talk:Veganism parable#This post is licensed.... --Guy Macon (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
I want to change TimedText:Example so that it displays the same as the commons page at Commons:File:1958-03-17 3rd Vanguard Successful.webm with the extra TimedText tab, the "Available closed captioning." box, and the CC) "Licensing" box. Is that possible? I can't figure out how to format the page to show the extra tab.
Cutting and pasting the source doesn't work, of course, but I do have an interesting side question: when I cut and paste the source from the commons page to the English Wikipedia page and hit preview, why does it mention Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets? Where did that text come from? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi Guy Macon. I work for Andreas Eenfeldt. I proposed a more comprehensive version of the current bare-bones page at Talk:Andreas Eenfeldt a couple weeks ago, in compliance with WP:COI. No one responded and I was wondering if you had time to take a look. AnnaHecht1993 (talk) 13:06, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- I am doing some research now. See discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Science as Culture. Overall it looks like you did a good job and I don't have any suggested changes. I am just making sure all of the sources (not just ones you might have added but also existing sources) are up to our standards --Guy Macon (talk) 15:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
To answer your question
Invitation to review Eat Just page
Hi Guy Macon. I gave you a ping here in a discussion about a “Controversies” section. I wanted to check-in to see if you were interested in participating before I reach out to anyone else unnecessarily. Anoyes202 (talk) 20:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Welcome to the future
Opindia backdoor POV pushing
- Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Using Wikiquote as a back door for POV pushing --Guy Macon (talk) 23:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)