Guycn2

Guycn2, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Guycn2! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Theopolisme (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

renaming articles

I am going to revert your article moves, these go against the current naming convention. Frietjes (talk) 22:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't understand - why did you cancel the rest of my edits? Guycn2 (talk) 11:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

see WP:Disambiguation, the names of the articles were fine before you moved them. Frietjes (talk) 15:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, you right about the name Help Wanted (SpongeBob SquarePants), but about the name Christmas Who? - I think that need to note in the name of the article that it's relate to SpongeBob. Guycn2 (talk) 15:30, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

see WP:Disambiguation, we only disambiguate when there is another notable term. if you search for "Christmas Who" on WP you will only find articles about SpongeBob. hence, no need for disambiguation. Frietjes (talk) 15:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, sorry. Guycn2 (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

also, see WP:EGG, we should use the article name for the link text unless there is a compelling reason not to do so. Frietjes (talk) 15:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

"Links' to better names"

Hey Guycn2! Thanks for your contributions! It has come to my attention that you have changing links "to better names" but it's disruptive. Yesterday, I've undid your revisions per {{Infobox television episode}}; "Wikilink to the "<showname> (season #)" and/or "List of <showname> episodes" article(s)." Please visit {{Infobox television episode}} for further information. Thanks and happy editing! :) Mediran (t • c) 23:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. I won't do it again. I think that the links' titles that I wrote was better. Guycn2 (talk) 17:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

A belated welcome!

Sorry for the belated welcome, but the cookies are still warm!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Guycn2. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Mediran (t • c) 06:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Guycn2 (talk) 19:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2017

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Bon Appétit (song). Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 05:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

@IndianBio: Excuse me, but calling my edit “vandalism” is an exaggeration. What’s wrong with my edit? Katy Perry’s next single after “Bon Appétit” is “Swish Swish”, so I don’t understand why I’ve been reverted. Guycn2 · ☎ 06:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Send a 'thanks' notification to one contributor for a log entry: it is almost possible...

Hello,
I have noticed that you have created the Phabricator task T152218. It is mentioned in this proposal in the 2017 Community Wishlist Survey. It can become possible... if you add your support vote to the proposal!
Regards --NicoScribe (talk) 17:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

@NicoScribe: Thanks for notifying me, I have added my support. Guycn2 · ☎ 18:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Portals

The Portals WikiProject has been rebooted.

You are invited to join, and participate in the effort to revitalize and improve the Portal system and all the portals in it.

There are sections on the WikiProject page dedicated to tasks (including WikiGnome tasks too), and areas on the talk page for discussing the improvement and automation of the various features of portals.

Many complaints have been lodged in the RfC to delete all portals, pointing out their various problems. They say that many portals are not maintained, or have fallen out of date, are useless, etc. Many of the !votes indicate that the editors who posted them simply don't believe in the potential of portals anymore.

It's time to change all that. Let's give them reasons to believe in portals, by revitalizing them.

The best response to a deletion nomination is to fix the page that was nominated. The further underway the effort is to improve portals by the time the RfC has run its course, the more of the reasons against portals will no longer apply. RfCs typically run 30 days. There are 19 days left in this one. Let's see how many portals we can update and improve before the RfC is closed, and beyond.

A healthy WikiProject dedicated to supporting and maintaining portals may be the strongest argument of all not to delete.

We may even surprise ourselves and exceed all expectations. Who knows what we will be able to accomplish in what may become the biggest Wikicollaboration in years.

Let's do this.

See ya at the WikiProject!

Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   10:21, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much

The RfC discussion to eliminate portals was closed May 12, with the statement "There exists a strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals at this time." This was made possible because you and others came to the rescue. Thank you for speaking up.

By the way, the current issue of the Signpost features an article with interviews about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

I'd also like to let you know that the Portals WikiProject is working hard to make sure your support of portals was not in vain. Toward that end, we have been working diligently to innovate portals, while building, updating, upgrading, and maintaining them. The project has grown to 80 members so far, and has become a beehive of activity.

Our two main goals at this time are to automate portals (in terms of refreshing, rotating, and selecting content), and to develop a one-page model in order to make obsolete and eliminate most of the 150,000 subpages from the portal namespace by migrating their functions to the portal base pages, using technologies such as selective transclusion. Please feel free to join in on any of the many threads of development at the WikiProject's talk page, or just stop by to see how we are doing. If you have any questions about portals or portal development, that is the best place to ask them.

If you would like to keep abreast of developments on portals, keep in mind that the project's members receive updates on their talk pages. The updates are also posted here, for your convenience.

Again, we can't thank you enough for your support of portals, and we hope to make you proud of your decision. Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   11:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

P.S.: if you reply to this message, please {{ping}} me. Thank you. -TT

Disambiguation link notification for December 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited LGBT rights in Oklahoma, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Norman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Same-sex Marriage

Your recent editing history at Same-sex marriage shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Wait until a consensus is developed on the Talk page before you edit this paragraph further. BobRoberts14 (talk) 21:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

The only one who engages in an edit war is you. The previous version has existed in the article for a very long time. You cannot change it without having sufficient consensus in the talk page. Block threats are meaningless since I was just reverting the article back to its original version as it was before the edit war. Guycn2 · ☎ 22:04, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I made an edit, and three more people made the same exact edit. You reverted all of them. BobRoberts14 (talk) 22:26, 13 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

Again, the previous, original version had been in the article before the edit war started. If somebody opposes the original version, it is their responsibly to propose changes it in the talk page. Before a consensus is reached, the previous version should stay. Guycn2 · ☎ 22:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I made the edit originally because I did not find sufficient evidence in the source. On top of that, consensus goes against your edit, since four people reverted your edits and only one supported them. BobRoberts14 (talk) 22:32, 13 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

How can you argue that there is no sufficient evidence? What is this research if not a sufficient evidence? By the way, only a few hours have passed since you made your edit. This is obviously not a sufficient time period for a consensus for this drastic change to be reached. Guycn2 · ☎ 22:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

There was no "drastic change". I changed a part of the article that was very contentious, because most people would agree that it is factually incorrect. You are the one who has to prove that it is actually true. You can cite "some researchers" saying that Barack Obama wasn't born in the US, but it still isn't true. BobRoberts14 (talk) 22:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

Also, that source states that "Most prior studies have found no statistical difference in the educational performance or well-bring of children from gay or lesbian couples (a few have found negative effects), but this latest research was also able to control for the effects of divorce, which often has a negative impact on school performance and can skew results," which is a minor benefit at most, since their only "better off" reasoning is that they "were about 7 percent more likely to graduate from high school than children raised by different-sex couples." That is a single study, and most studies still find that they do not "fare better off" than straight couples' children. BobRoberts14 (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

UserInfoPopup

Hi there, and thanks for your script! However, it has an elusive bug. When you first click on it, at least on Firefox, the window size doesn't change after the data has been fetched, clipping off some of the information from the bottom. Coul dyou kindly fix this? Thanks! Aaron Liu (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Aaron Liu. I'm glad you find the script useful :)

I've just tested it on Firefox 122.0.1 (on a Windows PC), and unfortunately, I am unable to reproduce this issue. When I hover over the icon or click on it, the window size does expand, and the entire popup content is visible.

May I ask, which Firefox version are you using? What operating system? Which skin is enabled in your preferences?

Thanks, Guycn2 (talk) 05:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, I can't reproduce it on the latest version of Firefox too...
I'm currently using a fork of Firefox (Waterfox) that's on version 115. (With Vector 2022 on Windows)
What I can reproduce, though, is that on my own user page, the flyout appears below the watchlist star instead of next to it, for some reason. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Aaron. I've just tested the script on Firefox 115.8.0esr, on a Windows 7 Virtual Machine. From what I see, the flyout appears to be properly sized and positioned on your user page, as well as on other pages. See a screenshot here (you'll probably have to click the image to increase it). Do you see something different on your browser? If possible, could you please share a screenshot? Thanks! Guycn2 (talk) 08:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

https://imgur.com/a/WFwie82 Aaron Liu (talk) 13:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. The upper screenshot likely has to do with the fact that Firefox 115 doesn't support the CSS :has() selector, which this script makes use of. To work around this issue, you may add the following lines to your global CSS page:

#user-info-popup-popup .oo-ui-popupWidget-body {
	height: unset !important;
	max-height: unset !important;
	scrollbar-gutter: unset;
}

(I prefer not to add this patch to the general script's code since it is already fixed on Firefox 121 and above. Therefore, when you update your Firefox version to 121 or later, I recommend that you remove those lines from your global.css.)

As for the lower screenshot, unfortunately I couldn't manage to reproduce it on Firefox 115.8.0esr. I suspect it may be caused as a result of some conflict with one of your gadgets or scripts, although I didn't see any issues even after copying your entire CSS and JS pages (both local and global ones). Do you see this glitch on other pages apart from your user page? Could you check to see if it also happens on Safe Mode (by adding ?safemode=1 to the page's URL, and then loading the script from the browser's console by pasting this code)? Thanks, Guycn2 (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the response! That's a pretty useful website you've got there. Unfortunately: 1. The CSS doesn't work 2. I have the flag mentioned on that website enabled already 3. The problem on my page also happens in safe mode. Weird stuff. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Weird stuff indeed... I was pretty confident that the CSS would fix the clipping issue. I will try to find time to install Waterfox and see if I can reproduce anything there. May I ask which operating system you use? Also, have you encountered similar problems on other devices, such as a mobile device with desktop view? I ask in order to figure out whether the issues are confined to a specific device/browser, or are on your user account level. Guycn2 (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

The clipping problem I've reproduced on Windows, and the problem with it displaying on my user page happens anywhere I can visit Wikipedia. That includes Safari iOS, Safari Mac, Waterfox Windows, Firefox Windows, Edge Windows, and Waterfox Linux. I'll see if I can reproduce the clipping problem on Waterfox Mac and Linux. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi again. Sorry for the late response. During the last few days I continued to try to reproduce the issues, unfortunately to no success so far. My time is very limited these days due to many semester exams. I will continue to dig into it when time permits :)

Thanks again for pointing this out, and I would obviously appreciate any further feedback or bug reports. Guycn2 (talk) 14:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)