Open main menu
Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10


Power factor

Thank you for your thank you. I meant to drop a note to you yesterday, but unfortunately, time crept up on me. I was going to point out that on this occasion, I had to take Wtshymanski's side in that solar panels in themselves were not a good example of negative power factor. Partly because (as Wtshymanski correctly pointed out), solar panels have no mechanism for absorbing power and converting it into something else (do they actually conduct in the reverse direction?). But also because, the power feed from solar panels into the inverter is DC, so power factor does not rear its head at all.

However, this does raise another age old issue. Wtshymanski was perfectly happy to revert other's contributions ([1] and [2]), but not change it to make it relevant. This is further evidence that Wtshymanski prefers to edit war rather than actually improve anything. As you already noted, it did not require a major rewording to make the example pertinent ([3]). DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The good news is that my medical issues have improved and I think I will be able to finish documenting these kinds of issues. RFCU is now defunct, and in the discussions leading to the closing there was some talk about users building a complex case in userspace and presenting it to AN or ANI with a link to the userspace research, and then filing an arbcom case if AN once again fails to solve the problem.
There is a lot of material to be gone through in his edit history, even if I limit myself to the last 12 months, and I have every intention of doing my best to document a fair number of those cases where he did good work instead of pushing pseudoscience. I want to be scrupulously fair.
The biggest question in my mind is what remedy to ask for. Are we dealing with one of the the unblockables here? Given his history of responding well to restrictions (in the sense that he constantly pushes the limits but generally stays within them) would something as simple as a general 2RR restriction or a carefully crafted topic ban be enough? Your thoughts? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I think we have agreed in the past that fairness has to be the watchword here. I was not aware of the changes to the process of censuring problem users. The administrators' noticeboards are not as useful as they ought to be. Although the WP:AN3 noticeboard attracts swift response and action, the WP:ANI board is much more hit and miss. Sometimes a swift response is forthcoming but sometimes a complaint goes by with no response or action at all. And it is not just complaints about WTS where this happens, it seems to be a general phenomenon. I wonder if passing admins tackle the easy complaints but leave the more complex ones hoping that someone else might take it on.
At the RfC, three years ago, there was quite a bit of support for sanctions of some sort, and if this stood any chance, it might be the way to go. My only reservation is that this was tried (at least in part) shortly after the RfC. You may recall, that WTS was (and still is) deleting vast tracts of articles by merging an article with another article but omitting to merge the material that he wants to delete. After the RfC, there were complaints and the the admins instructed WTS not to merge any more articles. WTS complied with the instruction - for around just one week. Then a single merge was tried, presumably to see if anyone was watching, and when no objection was lodged it was back to merge as usual. If sanctions are to be the tool, then there needs to be a way of enforcing them.
The two main issues that I do have with WTS, is not so much his attempting to hammer in fringe theories (think: Power factor here). I have amassed sufficient evidence that that is not the driving factor. The driving factor is that WTS will change his viewpoint to facilitate whatever edit war he is trying to persue at that time. He has argued the entirely opposite views in separate talk pages (when he does discuss) to support two unrelated edit wars. I have several examples of this. On one occasion he did it in the same talk page in adjacent discussions. The other issue is that WTS routinely reverts or alters any edits that are made to the articles that he seems to monitor that are made by IP address editors - which is what really drew it to my attention. Reverting vandalism I can accept, but this happens to good faith edits as well. The revert is often for the most tenuous of reasons. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Guy, I have started to keep a track of good faith edits made by IP address editors that get 'auto'-reverted by WTS on tenuous grounds. Naturally, reversion of vandalism will not be included as won't any where WTS may have a valid point (because it does happen).
I am not going to document them all here, but just as an example from today is this reverted by WTS within half an hour here. Edit was clearly good faith and a more or less correct claim. Reverted as, "ungramatical and out of place". The grammar is easily fixed (and WTS himself is more than able to do so) so no excuse for that. And it was not out of place having been added to the very section to which it applied.
Another editor contributed this substantially comprehensive article on Electrolytic capacitors. English was clearly not his native language because the English is nowhere near top notch (not a critism of the editor as he clearly knows a lot about the subject). WTS reverted to the vastly less comprehensive earlier version here claiming it was superior (I suspect that he was referring to the English because the content certainly wasn't). Nevertheless, the newer version was reverted, and with the magic that is co-operative editing, the English has been considerably cleaned up in a bit over a month. And to be scrupulously fair: even WTS himself has made some contribution. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

w:mr embassy page

Hi, Thank you for your message on w:mr. There indeed seems to be a filter on the embassy page that disallows non-Marathi twxt. Personally, I believe that is wrong but the community seems to have agreed to it. I will ask the Question again and try to remove the filter after a consensus. I will need a bit of time to do that, familiarize myself with filters, then remove it. I ask for a little patience in this matter.

In the meanwhile, please do not hesitate to post on my talk page there if you need to convey a message to the w:mr community.

Thank you.

अभय नातू (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Admin, 'crat

Marathi WikipediA

p.s. lol@picture caption

Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 04:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

m:Global user pages

Thought you might want to know about this, since I saw you were creating them by hand. (You can request at m:Synchbot to have the ones you created deleted). --Rschen7754 19:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I do know about the global settings, but I have been testing the various Wikipedias for bugs (because I am a high-functioning autistic, I find this sort of repetitive work to be very relaxing).
So far I have discovered:
  • has a filter that forbids non Marathi languages, and it stops post to the Embassy page -- the page that is supposed to be the place for users of English and other languages to get help. One of the admins is working with me on fixing this.
  • has an edit filter that thinks that is a harmful site. I haven't tried to get a local admin to resolve this yet, but it is on my list.
  • has a problem with LTR text. It puts the icon on the wrong end of https links but gets http links right., for example, has no such problem, so I need to talk to the developers and see if there is some sort of configuration issue or whether this is an actual bug that needs to be reported through bugzilla.
--Guy Macon (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
There are no admins on - maybe try asking at m:SRM to see if someone who knows more about abusefilters knows more about what to do? --Rschen7754 20:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I posted there and the problem was quickly fixed. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 06:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


Can you please put this talk page section under your own name, or a different IP ? As mentioned before i'm no spammer and didn't vandalise anything. The fact I do such a bad job in trying to hide it (and make everything worse rather than better) probably makes this obvious too. If you want me blocked, then that's fine too. I won't be adding new texts at wikipedia. I'm just overcautious and don't sleep well knowing this section is signed by my ip; so please put it under a different one. If you agree, that's the last you'll see of me. 2A02:A03F:126D:A800:213:20FF:FE3B:A79E (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

If you want to delete your own contributions (including any that you put a fake signature on), go right ahead. That is allowed. Doing that will remove your signature as well. Do not attempt to delete anything anyone else posted at the same time, like you did the least few times. Deleting other people's contributions is not allowed. You might want to put "deleting my comment per discussion with Guy Macon" in the edit summary. That way if anyone objects they will come to me and I will set them straight. Remember, you can only delete your own posts. Not anything anyone else wrote.
As for faking signatures, no. I would be violating Wikipedia's rules if I did such a thing. Everything on Wikipedia is subject to the license listed at the bottom of the edit window:
"By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL with the understanding that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient for CC BY-SA 3.0 attribution."
The signature is the attribution, and it would violate both the CC BY-SA and the GFDL license to falsely attribute any contribution to someone else.
Finally, if you ever decide to stop breaking the rules, you will be welcome here. If you register a username, nobody will be able to see your IP address. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
The Tor Talk page has been protected now, so can't be altered by contributors without a username, but I guess that if Blueraspberry agrees to remove his comments (so the section doesn't stand out that much anymore) -I asked him directly, so he'll be the one removing it if he agrees, not me-, and together with my https ip adress, it will probably be safe enough. I don't mind the text being in there, as long as it's done anonomyously. Next time I'll definitely log in using a username; I didn't mind the tracebility -so wikipedians could see what articles I modified-. The reason instead why I didn't make a username and log in was because I thought a https ip was more anonymous/secure (well, at least if I didn't screw up the way I did). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:126D:A800:213:20FF:FE3B:A79E (talk) 14:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


Guy, you and I have been accused of being sockpuppets of each other, along with (I assume) Andy Dingley, here - note the edit summary. This requires action, but I am not sure how and where. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it requires a thorough ignoring. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
It's annoying, but probably not in itself actionable beyond a warning. For the record, Guy Macon is my full legal name and I am listed at the Wikimedia Identification noticeboard,[4] so I am a particularly unwise choice as a target for false accusations of sockpuppetry.
I have, of course, been looking for a position as a Minion. I have a lot of experience as a Henchman and am looking to move up. If you know of any Evil Overlords or Criminal Masterminds who are hiring, let me know. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
<G> DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


EMTVSS seen as SPAM? Not sure why, but I am adding a new, very important technology to Wiki and Guy Macon claims it is spam, while another, Wtshymanski says it is snake oil. Instead of simply deleting what may be the most important discovery about electrical circuits of the 21st century, I ask that you work with me to make it acceptable to all. The science behind EMTVSS is sound, and it has been in use for over a decade. it is insulting for someone with no experience with the device or expertise in electro magnetic physics to simply dismiss this. NASA, the US NAVY and the Dept of Homeland Security are taking this technology very seriously; is it too much to ask for you to take 5 minutes out and help instead of deleting? If not, I will simply take this to 3rd party arbitration and work with the best people to get this on Wiki. CharlieTrig (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Well and truly flogged to death at User talk:CharlieTrig. It turns out that there is a conflict of interest at play here too. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 18:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
As I advised CharlieTrig[5], per Per WP:TALKDONTREVERT and WP:BRD, he should open up a discussion at Talk:Surge protector. This is the mandatory first step in resolving any content dispute on Wikipedia. Any attempt to use Wikipedia Dispute Resolution will be rejected if there is no attempt to first discuss it on the article talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Like-Minded Person

"Dreaming the same Impossible Dream"

The Like-Minded Persons' Club
For displaying here common sense and uncommon good taste by agreeing with me or saying something I would have said if only I'd had the presence of mind, I hereby bestow upon you Provisional Membership of the Like-Minded Persons' Club.

To qualify for Full Membership, simply continue to agree with me in all matters for at least the next 12 months.

(Disagreements are so vulgar, don't you think?)

Congratulations, Guy. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 07:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Wow. What an honor. I am sure to get that promotion from Henchman to Minion now! :) --Guy Macon (talk) 07:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

those dang traditions

I'm afraid I must absolutely agree with everything you said, and everything you implied, in your "call to close" argument. I wish it were otherwise, but wishing doesn't always make it so. (But: very well put, anyway.) —Steve Summit (talk) 04:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Your thoughts please.

Guy, I would value your opinion. As I mentioned above, I have started compiling a list of occurences where Wtshymanski is reverting IP address editors for no discernable reason. I have recorded no less than five occurences since mid February, two of which were a clear case of failing to assume the required good faith (which someone else commented on as well). You can read the summary at User:DieSwartzPunkt/IP. There are countless example that predate my start date, but any potential ANI does not need scores of diffs when five or so adequately make the point.

My motive here was that I had previously identified another editor who was routinely reverting IP address editors solely because he did not believe they should be allowed to edit Wikipedia (sound familiar?) not to mention a whole raft of unacceptable behaviour. On that ocassion, I raised an ANI which attracted a lot of interest, mainly from other users who expressed concern that IP editors who could potentially become productive editors were being driven away and that any user doing this should be indefinitely blocked. An indef block was never likely, but he did get blocked for 72 hours, though the block was for the other problems rather than the anti IP address stance, though I dare say it was a factor. You can read the thread here, but it takes a bit of sorting the chaff from the wheat.

I have no idea how many productive editors started by dipping their toes in the water as an IP address editor (I'm pretty sure I did). What we need is such editors to be encouraged not driven away. My question to you is this: is this worthy of making an ANI case. The required outcome is some sort of restriction on Wtshymanski reverting IP address editors solely for that reason alone. If that requires a short term block then that's fine by me if the goal is achieved. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it is worth taking to ANI. The usual result is either a strong warning or a short block, followed by Wtshymanski realizing that he stepped over the line and going back to standing with his toes over the line. Sigh. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
OK. I will make a start drafting an ANI tomorrow. Results at ANI do seem somewhat patchy, but you never know. I know what you mean about that line, but WTS usually becomes blinkered to it within a few days. <Sighs in sympathy!> DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 18:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you not yet been involved. The thread is Editor routinely reverting contributions from IP address editors.. Thank you.
For information as discussed above. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

IP request for help

I'm at a loss - if I email with EoRdE6's so-called fair use, am I making a legal threat? Would you take a look at User_talk:EoRdE6#Train_derailment and suggest a course of action? His position seems to be that he does not have to properly identify the copyright holder or inform them, and that by my informing them of "fair use" of their material, I have made a legal threat. He has warned me that I may be blocked. - (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Looking into this now. I should have some sort of advice and/or resolution for you later today. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to impose and thank you for taking the trouble. - (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
No trouble at all. I love helping people.
Here is how I advise handling this sort of issue:
  • First, post a polite note on the user's talk page. There is no need to get into an extended debate if he disagrees; you just want to make sure he was notified.
  • If that doesn't work, post a polite question on the article talk page. Again, no need for extended discussion if anyone disagrees; you just want the folks who edit the page to know that there might be a copyright issue.
  • If that doesn't work, post a polite question to Wikipedia:Copyright problems (for text) or Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files (for images, sounds, etc.). Then disengage and move on to other things, knowing that you did your part.
BTW, the legal threat accusation was just blowing smoke. Ignore it. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, if the Associated Press has no objection to use of their image File:Mount_Carbon_Derailment.jpg with The Columbian mis-listed as copyright owner, then the issue is moot. I feel step one has been done to the user's smoke blowing annoyance. EoRdE6 got notified. I would like to go directly to disengage and move on, but 2 is possible - I may post a polite question on the article talk page. As for 3, files that are tagged with a non-free template should not be listed at Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files according to that page, so since the argument is fair use, that's the wrong place to go. It was kind of you to respond. Thank you. - (talk) 01:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I took File:Mount_Carbon_Derailment.jpg to {{Non-free review}}, where an editor suggested a couple of public domain photos on commons. After I told EoRdE6 that I substituted one of them for the AP photo, he had his copyright upload deleted. - (talk) 17:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The IP who is defending W is probably W logged out, a sockpuppet, but it isn't worth making an issue about it. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, please. W. never goes to that much trouble to defend himself. If you honestly think this is a SP case, why not take it to SPI? Jeh (talk) 18:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Robert, it is very very important when dealing with Wtshymanski‎ to be scrupulously fair and to only bring up issues where there is solid evidence. In this case shows us that that IP address is a wireless broadband connection in the UK, and Wtshymanski‎ has self-identified as being in Canada. Plus, as Jeh rightfully pointed out above, Wtshymanski‎ has never behaved like that. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I disagree. Look here [[6]] (the first case). I became far more convinced that this was Wtshymanski after the case was rejected. This was for a number of reasons.
  1. The geolocation of the IP address was close enough to Wtshymanski's known location that it could have been him while away on business or a week's holiday. Not conclusive enough in itself, but ...
  2. One of the IP addresses was compiling a list of Wtshymanski's enemies (an admin's description - not mine). Why?
  3. The IP address was very keen to get my draft RFC/U against Wtshymanski deleted in spite of the IP addresses not being featured in it.
  4. The IP address claimed in the SPI report to be, "sick'n tired of all the BS" that he was taking from another contributor to the SPI despite no interaction having taken place before the SPI was raised (though Wtshymanski had had plenty of interaction).
  5. The IP address edits supporting Wtshymanski's edit stopped as soon as the SPI case was filed.
I know Guy was unconvinced, but that is his privilege just as it is my privilege to disagree.
I note the second report from an IP address editor didn't fly either but as the co-accused was an administrator with a long and mostly separate editing history, it was never likely to. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Where's the IP "defending" Wtshymanski? That's just someone out to troll me. It might be Hengistmate again (he has form, although it's not his usual ISP) or it might even (given some behavioural evidence) be a mighty-morphin edit warrior from Utah, who seems to pop up through various Telefonica IPs. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


Justin Capră

Hi, I'm wondering if you could perhaps help me out with a situation going on at this article.

To give you a brief (and, admittedly, biased) summary: the article was started by a quasi-single purpose account, survived AfD, and once that happened, I cut it down to size. The problem is that the original author insists on a version that violates numerous policies, and is willing to slow-motion revert-war for that. He also has a rather original take on WP:V. And he likes to warn me, which is somewhat irksome.

As you can see, this is a somewhat difficult case, and I certainly don't want to continue reverting - that hasn't gotten us very far - but I also do want my version to be the basis for the article as we move forward, rather than the dreadful text the other editor keeps imposing. I'd much appreciate any intervention on your part. - Biruitorul Talk 02:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

A call to my minions talk page stalkers for help

Our article on Leading and lagging current could use some loving care. I am planning on working on it, but I am really, really lazy stuck on the final boss level on DoomRL a high priority project. Does anyone want to do my job for me wade in and improve it? There will be cake. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Not a regular stalker, but I happened here from Power factor. I agree that that article requires a bit of TLC, in the form of correction and clarrification. If no one beats me to it in the next couple of days, I might find some time to have a crack. There isn't a lot of it and it is (or should be) pretty basic stuff. –LiveRail Talk > 13:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Guy Macon/Archive 9".