Open main menu
Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

Contents

A barnstar for you!

  The Barnstar of Diplomacy
For extraordinary efforts to resolve a stubborn dispute, Energy Catalyzer, about news about something that cannot possibly work, but may involve a lot of money. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Your case is difficult also, as are many cases involving fringe theories. I got slammed for stating Wikipedia policy against being used as the publishing vehicle for a fringe experiment. You got slammed for even asking whether the spending of a possibly large amount of money on a fringe device was notable. We have uncivil or NOT HERE editors who want to insert fringe content, and we also have editors who are willing to be uncivil and to go to any length to defend against fringe content (never mind that there is a place in Wikipedia for the fringe). Both the e-cigs case and the GMO case come to mind as examples of uncivil behavior trying to defend truth against drugs or pseudoscience, but being willing to sacrifice other core principles in pursuit of excluding that which is known beyond knowledge to be falsehood. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
As to the demand for a "higher unbiased authority", I have my own opinion on what that is, but I won't let my religion get in the way of Wikipedia policy. I know that He could register an account if He wanted to do so. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
But are you going to invest your wiki pay rise in this remarkable device. Think of the returns on investment if it works? -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 14:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Drat! I just invested everything in a company that offers this product to solve this problem! Oh well, maybe next time... --Guy Macon (talk) 14:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
(Begin sarcasm) The Coulomb barrier is not definitive because the fifth force overcomes the Coulomb barrier in this case. However, free will would be required to discover the fifth force. (End sarcasm) Robert McClenon (talk) 15:54, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
In my role of theoretical physicist I'd like to make comment on your describing the e-cat at something that cannot possibly work: simply this, that proofs that cold fusion 'cannot possibly work' are based on unjustified simplifications, such as neglecting the possibility that some coordinated activity in the condensed matter environment may enable the Coulomb barrier to be overcome (and other mechanisms may be possible also). It is pretty well impossible to prove a negative in science. Brian Josephson (talk) 20:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't recall having said that the E-cat is something that cannot possibly work. If I did, I was mistaken. It is extremely unlikely that the E-cat will work. Due to the Coulomb barrier, claims of low-energy nuclear reactions are extraordinary claims and require extraordinary evidence. If you think that I said that the E-cat could not possibly work, please show me where I said that and I will reword it. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Hmmm...this discussion is reminiscent of an early episode of The Big Bang Theory. I imagine it's so because I've been playing catch-up on the 70+ episodes I missed during the 10 months I was out of the country. The programs were recorded to DVR, and I'm now down to 55 episodes. I will be watching them with renewed interest. 👀 😊 Atsme📞📧 16:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

DRN

Is the archiving bot working? The case you marked as failed ("Energy Catalyzer") has not been automatically archived for a few days now. Ping me when you respond to my message. --JustBerry (talk) 21:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

JustBerry, Thanks for alerting me. We have a 48-hour autoarchive, and the bot usually runs once a day. I closed the Energy Catalyzer case at 12:00, 21 September 2015, so let's give it a day or two more in case the bot is temporarily down. After that I will take care of it if it still isn't working, so you don't have to do anything further. Again, thanks. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Sure, absolutely. Also, I decided to fill-in for inactive co-ordinator for now at DRN, so I'll try to let you know if it has not been archived by 12:00, 24 September 2015 or so. --JustBerry (talk) 02:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  Done See this. --JustBerry (talk) 03:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

How Did You Notice

Out of curiosity, how did you notice this?   --JustBerry (talk) 04:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Because I have been involved in dispute resolution for a while, I have collected the following pages on my watchlist:
Any edit to any of the above shows up on my watchlist. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Nice. --JustBerry (talk) 05:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank u

Thanks for your long-ago suggestion that I put my idea-opinion into essay form. (I finally had the balls to do it. WP:Let the smartest among us restructure. Amateurish, I know, but hey, it was result of maybe 30 minutes!) Thanks again for the encouragement. Sincere, IHTS (talk) 10:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:FIX idea

As we seem to be the primary editors on WP:FIX, howsabout you and I work on the longer typo lists, and leave the ones that have less than 100 errors to any newer people - to kind of allow them to 'get their feet wet'? What do you think? :) Sct72 (talk) 18:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Excellent idea! Agreed. Another idea (maybe good, maybe bad): I was also thinking that whenever we get a new database dump, we might want to put something like "help needed" in place of our names. Don't you just hate it when the paparazzi follow you around because you are a famous Wikipedia typo fixer? :) --Guy Macon (talk) 18:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, I have used the listed names in the past to contact previous editors to see if they want to help out again. As for following, the only ones that seem to do that have a stick firmly placed up their .. never mind. Then again I probably don't see 1/10th of the disputes you do! Sct72 (talk) 00:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Citation in Comparison of command shells

In https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_command_shells&diff=682665310&oldid=682117627 you changed "the the" to "the" in a citation. While the latter is the correct one, the original text on http://tldp.org/LDP/abs/html/bashver4.html has this error. So, I'm wondering whether this correction is adequate here. Said otherwise, should text in citations be corrected on Wikipedia? Vincent Lefèvre (talk) 13:17, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Good question. MOS:QUOTE says:
"If there is a significant error in the original statement, use [sic] or the template {{sic}} to show that the error was not made by Wikipedia. However, trivial spelling and typographic errors should simply be corrected without comment (for example, correct basicly to basically and harasssment to harassment), unless the slip is textually important."
In this case, the text was not textually important, so I corrected it. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Hope you took my comment as intended...

It's difficult to know when the recipient of a little ribbing might take it wrong. I just wanted to be sure you knew I was kidding.   Atsme📞📧 23:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I thought it was hilarious. It didn't even occur to me that it was anything other than good-natured kidding among friends.
For my loyal minions (and respected enemies, if any) following along, we are talking about User talk:Notecardforfree#"I personally find administrative law scintillating". --Guy Macon (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Confused

Just confused by [1]; I approached it as a content dispute that was fueled by bad conduct (and AN does deal with conduct disputes all the time) and intervened only to handle what appeared to be source falsification, which is definitely bad conduct that needs to be prevented. I wouldn't have intervened at all (unless to block edit-warriors or to protect the article) had I known that it was solely a content dispute. Nyttend (talk) 00:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Regarding "source falsification, which is definitely bad conduct that needs to be prevented" you can put on your administrator hat and protect the page or block the user for the bad conduct, or you can edit the page as an ordinary editor and correct the source falsification, but you cannot do both, as you did here. It is fundamentally unfair to the other users to use your admin tools as a supervote on source falsification even when you are sure you are right (and as we now see, being sure you are right and being right are not always the same thing).
What you should have done is to enter the conflict as an ordinary editor and dealt with the source falsification the way the rest of us have to do, calling for admin help as needed at AN or ANI the way the rest of us have to do.
I know that you don't agree with all of the above, and all I can do to convince you is to ask you to please read the thread and note how many people thought that it was a misuse of tools worthy of a desysopping if you intend to do it again, and to pay very close attention to the Kww arbcom case, where Kww was desysopped for pretty much the same thing. Again, I don't care if you agree with me. All I care about is that you said that you won't do it again. As I said, I trust you and believe you when you say that. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

  The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Without your last-ditch effort, the conflict may have not been resolved and it would have been a lose-lose situation for everybody. I appreciate your good faith effort in bringing out the diplomatic nature in us all. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Editors like you bring substance to the concept of a fair and involved wiki-community. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 01:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Your questions to the now former WMF chief of finance

Re this, Byrd no longer works for the WMF as of September 30, so don't expect a response. I just noticed they got around to locking his WMF account today, so in any case he'd have to use a different account to edit. What, don't all organizations announce personnel changes on mailing lists? That's what all the hip youngsters these days are into, right? If you want to monitor WMF staff changes, the most comprehensive "official" place to find out appears to be the Foundation Wiki. I saw your edit while poking around on Meta, if you're wondering. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 19:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! One can only wish that someone at WMF had posted a notice on his talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

  The Civility Barnstar
I appreciated your willingness to have an open conversation and you showed great maturity here in listening to other people's ideas. Mkdwtalk 05:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY is being revisited: How should Wikipedia refer to transgender individuals before and after their transition?

You are being contacted because you contributed to a recent discussion of MOS:IDENTITY that closed with the recommendation that Wikipedia's policy on transgender individuals be revisited.

Two threads have been opened at the Village Pump:Policy. The first addresses how the Manual of Style should instruct editors to refer to transgender people in articles about themselves (which name, which pronoun, etc.). The second addresses how to instruct editors to refer to transgender people when they are mentioned in passing in other articles. Your participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail!

 
Hello, Guy Macon. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 08:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Swarm 08:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Swarm, I have read the email. The answer is yes, you have correctly described the situation and yes, I would like you to do what you offered to do. You didn't ask this, but I also have no problem with the ANI case being closed with no action required. I consider your explanation of our outing policy to be quite sufficient and agree that any violation was probably unintentional. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Sent you another one. Swarm 04:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Guy Macon/Archive 14".