User talk:Funcrunch/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Funcrunch. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Please read: If you're coming here wondering why I pinged you about vandalism to your user page when there is no obvious recent vandalism in that page's history, it was probably attempted vandalism by an unconfirmed or anonymous user which was caught by this edit filter. I've been monitoring that filter log because I started the RfC that resulted in its creation.

Do you have any interest in opening an RfC? I see TJW's point, but I object to the idea for two reasons. One, it would provide yet another venue for unpleasantness, as has been seen in other RfCs on related topics. More importantly, I object on procedural grounds because I think it's always the responsibility of the one user arguing against consensus to seek additional opinions. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 20:46, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@Rivertorch: I don't feel the burden should be on me (or any other editor besides CO) to open an RfC, for the reasons you said here and at ANI. I also don't feel this is simply a content dispute issue (or I wouldn't have started a thread at ANI). Funcrunch (talk) 23:15, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'm inclined to agree. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 15:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, just wondering if I can ask you what the edits you reverted on my talk page from IP users 92.40.249.20 and 188.29.165.24 were about? The reason I ask is that, over several months, I've been involved in reverting vandalism from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TomWatkins1970 under multiple accounts/IP addresses, and suspect that it is likely to have been from this user (who has vandalised my userpage before). I can't actually view what was written on my talk page in the edit history, so assume it was offensive. The user recently accused me of being a "molester" (sic) in an edit summary, which has since been removed. I would like to add these IP addresses to the sockpuppet investigation (and viewing their talk pages, there is a history of vandalism on other pages/being blocked), but can't do so without being able to view their edits. Would you mind adding them? It was just last night I reported 3 new accounts from this user, and they were blocked, so I think it's highly likely the vandalism is from the same person.Nqr9 (talk) 00:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@Nqr9: The edits were attempted vandalism that was caught by an edit filter that prevents unregistered editors from editing other editors' user pages. The log entries are publicly viewable, you can see them here: 188.29.165.24, 92.40.249.20. Funcrunch (talk) 00:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you.Nqr9 (talk) 02:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how? Could you provide an example of such, because what I mostly do is just correct minor grammatical errors or delete or rewrite oddly worded things.FamAD123 (talk) 18:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@FamAD123: I have no idea what you're referring to. Have I left a vandalism notice on your talk page? Funcrunch (talk) 20:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, two days ago.FamAD123 (talk) 01:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@FamAD123: I'm looking at your talk page and I see no messages from me, in fact no messages posted there at all since December. Can you please send me a link to what you're talking about? Funcrunch (talk) 03:12, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi,
You recently served a warning to User talk:92.236.112.96 about vandalising my talkpage, but I crosschecked history or my talkpage (and userpage too), as well as the user's contributions. He didnt vandalise anything. Maybe he vandalised somebody else's page. Kindly look into that. Thanks. :)
—usernamekiran(talk) 02:20, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: It was attempted vandalism; you can see it in the IP's filter log. Funcrunch (talk) 02:26, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I hadnt checked that. Thanks a lot. :) —usernamekiran(talk) 02:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing the edit on my user page! I'm worried though as I did not edit it! Did it say that I wrote the obscene words, or was someone else editing it with their own username? I'm worried someone has access to my account! If you could provide any information I would really appreciate it! Thank you and keep up the good work!! 😊 January27 (talk) 13:20, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@January27: Could you please send me a link to what you're talking about? It was probably attempted vandalism of your userpage by an unregistered editor that was caught by an edit filter; the notice I leave pings the user who was targeted. Funcrunch (talk) 16:34, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I also must thank you, Funcrunch. I didn't even notice the vandalism, and moreover, I think the person who wrote it might think I'm someone else, as he mentions someone named "George". <shrug> I'm glad to see there are Wikipedians like you who look out for others! --SidP (talk) 21:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Im not sure if I'm doing this right, but the link to the message I got is as follows:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2601:190:4301:C7BE:58CB:C46B:829C:E700?markasread=106845816#May_2017

Did someone else vandalise it? Or did someone log into my account and vandalise it? I took a screen grab in case the above link doesn't work: https://ibb.co/b2h2SF Is there a way to see what was attempted? It's quite important to me if there is a way to see what vandalism was attempted!!! Please let me know! Thanks :)

-- Lucy P. — Preceding unsigned comment added by January27 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

@January27: It was attempted vandalism of your user page, which you can see here. The warning message I left contained a link to a log of the user's attempted vandalism, including of your page. Funcrunch (talk) 03:32, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Funcrunch -- You dinged my addition to this page, "(Undid revision 790257784 by Rhadow (talk) Rv good-faith edit: Please write the article first) (undo | thank)" Please help me understand what I did wrong, why I'm not allowed to add to this page, why you rejected it. Thanks Rhadow (talk) 20:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@Rhadow: For list articles like this it is generally expected that only items notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles will be included. That especially applies to List of lawsuits involving Donald Trump as there have been hundreds, if not thousands, of lawsuits filed against Trump, and without any references listed on the page there's no other good way of narrowing it down. Please feel free to discuss on the article talk page if you disagree. Funcrunch (talk) 22:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@Funcrunch: -- user:Penbat made one edit on ACLU v. Trump and Pence. An IP editor made another. Aside from that, it appears no one else cares. You do. That's something. The Commission made all the news today. That's something too. Rhadow (talk) 22:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I just wanted to say thanks for pinging me on the discussion of the merge request, which was EPIC, and led me back to a name-change proposal that has also become EPIC! I had no idea things would get so messy! I do not at all have the spoons to deal with this, and I think maybe by the time I do have spoons this will all have blown over.

I guess the issue is that nonbinary is the term most people are using, but common usage is kind of a dictionary thing? And even then, as far as I know it's only an English dictionary thing! So if all the academic stuff is still 20 years behind and using "genderqueer", and that's the wikipedia standard way of naming pages, then I'm happy for it to continue to live at "genderqueer". And I don't really mind about the merge - things are fine as they are, and if they're merged they'll be fine that way too, I reckon. I might be wrong though. It really sucks to read a huge sprawling argument where people are arguing about, like, our identities. I don't think I could step in and be involved in that.

Good luck, and I hope a good solution that you like is found! :) --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 00:46, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@Cassolotl: I understand you not wanting to be further involved. It's been a very stressful series of discussions for me. Take care of yourself. Funcrunch (talk) 02:29, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I hope I haven't made that stress worse. I hope that the point of my arguments is clear. Trankuility (talk) 02:31, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@Trankuility: You are definitely not the source of my stress. :-) Funcrunch (talk) 02:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Funcrunch, I was particularly touched by your comment. It means a lot to me. - Jim

@Cullen328: You're welcome; it was heartfelt! Congratulations on your well-deserved and overwhelmingly successful bid for adminship! Funcrunch (talk) 17:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Funcrunch, Thanks for your help with a vandal. I don't believe I've ever been targeted before and did not know such filters even existed. Cheers, Samf4u (talk) 19:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I thought that nobody was updating the article anymore as it was so short so I didn't bother to check if anybody was still looking at it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon698 (talk • contribs) 14:35, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jon698: You are welcome to expand the article, but you need to add more citations from non-primary sources; see WP:Verifiability. Funcrunch (talk) 14:41, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, you said to get consensus on the talk page. I posted the change on the talk page. What do I do now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by UigeqHfejn1dn (talk • contribs) 02:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

@UigeqHfejn1dn: Thanks for posting on the article talk page. I'd suggest waiting a few days for responses, and also consider posting to WT:LGBT for additional feedback on the proposed change, especially as if adopted, the page title should also be changed. Funcrunch (talk) 03:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey Funcrunch, thanks for posting/editing on the talk page. I was wondering if you were keeping up on the page? You said you wanted to see additional citations and at this point, I have listed 52 sources from multiple countries (as other users had requested-see talk page). Have you had time to look at any of these? What do you think?UigeqHfejn1dn (talk) 03:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@UigeqHfejn1dn: Yes, the page is on my watchlist and I have been reading your comments and those of the other editors, and am aware of the 52 (and counting) sources you've added. Consensus on contentious issues usually doesn't come immediately; please be patient. Funcrunch (talk) 04:49, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

It looks like Alex Shih has closed the discussion. Can you share with me your opinion on WP:COMMONNAME? From the WP:COMMONNAME page- "Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the criteria listed above." I've listed 68 sources from 13 countries. This way I can continue to look into what evidence people need to reach consensus on the updated nomenclature from the sources I showed. Thanks. UigeqHfejn1dn (talk) 08:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

By the way - this is why I was concerned about people not responding (and posted on people's talk pages). I was concerned someone would close this before they got to see my responses (i.e. they wanted international sources - and now they won't get to look through them and potentially change their vote) UigeqHfejn1dn (talk) 08:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Though I see you are now blocked as a sockpuppet, in reading how this happened I saw someone link to an essay that sums up your behavior on the Sex reassignment surgery talk page: WP:BLUDGEON. (Please do not reply here if you are unblocked; I'm not interested in continuing this discussion.) Funcrunch (talk) 14:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Had a whole comment typed out and ready to save here, responding to User:UigeqHfejn1dn's comment above, but turns out they're a sock, so you won't be hearing from them again, just FYI. {ec: I see you've figured that out already.} Mathglot (talk) 23:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting, I obviously hadn't realised all comments were above, Good job someone's on the ball lol, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 18:52, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

No problem; lengthy blocks of text like that can get confusing, especially when multiple editors are rapidly adding to it. Funcrunch (talk) 18:53, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Never realised people were tripping the edit filter on my user page .... holy moly. Some people have too much time on their hands. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:50, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. FWIW, I'll be presenting on this topic at WikiCon NA this week. Funcrunch (talk) 15:54, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

If people ask nicely "why did you delete my article it's a notable 'x'" I'll usually show sympathy and move it to draft-space, but "u deleted my f***ing article you f***ing faggot" will just trip the filter so I'll never even see it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:06, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Funcrunch,

I restored some content of a July 29 post of yours at Talk:Gender dysphoria that was altered by 24.96.38.178 (talk · contribs) contrary to WP:TPO in this edit. I will be adding a notice to their TP shortly to stop altering other users' remarks on Talk pages. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 01:11, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Thanks. I'm at the Wikimania conference this week and don't have the time or inclination to track my watchlisted page changes closely right now. Funcrunch (talk) 10:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that you are presenting there, congrats and I hope to see a Webinar after about it if they record it. Our watch lists probably have serious overlap (every article on the sidebar is on my list) but if there's anything you want me to keep an eye on in particular (including on other, unrelated topics) for a few days, I'd be happy to. Just let me know. And have a great time in one of my fave cities! Oh, and make sure to have a "poutine" at La Banquise--don't miss it! (non-vegan, and some are non-veg). Mathglot (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Thanks - any more eyes on trans- and gender-related articles are always appreciated. My partner Ziggy recorded my talk and is working on the video. Meanwhile you can take a look at the slideshow in Google Slides or PDF format. As for poutine, we found a vegan restaurant serving some just a few blocks from the conference hotel, but unfortunately it was covered with mushrooms (which I hate); I know there are more Montreal restaurants that serve vegan poutine however! Funcrunch (talk) 01:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Saw that you created the Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump article. Will you be updating the article to reflect recent developments in the case? I hope so! I am a plaintiff in the case, and after wikilinking my name in the infobox (declaring my COI in the edit summary), I placed {{connected contributor}} on the talk page and don't think I will edit again.

Obviously I would never disclose confidential information about the case in the first place, but I think it would be difficult for me to even update the article with objective facts derived from reliable sources & cited appropriately. I'll probably endeavour to refrain from making any edits beyond the wikilinking, so can you circle back and spend some more time on the article, especially in light of the latest developments? (This month we filed a pre-motion letter indicating intent to request a prelim injunction, and the DOJ eventually responded.) I can post some links to coverage from reliable sources.

Cheers. joepa^T 17:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

[UPDATE]

Here's link where preliminary injunction request and gov't response are both noted: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/08/trump-can-block-people-on-twitter-if-he-wants-administration-says/

Here's good National Constitutional Law Center podcast on the case, fyi:

TRUMP, TWITTER AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT Can President Trump block citizens from following his own Twitter feed? Alex Abdo and Eugene Volokh join National Constitution Center president and CEO Jeffrey Rosen to discuss the First Amendment aspects of a pending legal case.

JustSecurity discussing latest gov't response: https://www.justsecurity.org/44201/federal-courts-lack-power-enjoin-president/

Anyway, yeah I have a lot of these links saved but obviously they're just a google search away. Coverage of the case by reliable sources has been consistent and robust. Cheers. joepa^T 17:46, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Joep01: Thanks for declaring your COI. Updating that particular article hasn't been high on my priority list (other than watching for vandalism), but I suggest you post the links to current coverage on the article talk page so that if I don't get to it, other interested editors hopefully will. I also updated your own article after seeing your edit to the Knight page, with a note that you're a party to the lawsuit.

P.S. I'm originally from Pittsburgh, and attended summer arts camp at Chatham back in the 80s, when it was still Chatham College. Funcrunch (talk) 17:48, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the quick reply. Declaring my COI seemed like the responsible thing to do, even just to add a wikilink. Understood re. the priority of the article for you, so I'll take your suggestion and post the media coverage links to the article's talk page. (Hope you can still find time to edit article though :) Great Pittsburgh connection! We're everywhere! ;) hehe. Chatham has such a lovely campus. I lived only a mile or so off-campus in Shady Side while doing my MBA there but am back in the South Hills now. Cheers. joepa^T 18:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, I don't appreciate your off-topic responses to my posts. I see that as a rhetorical tactic to misrepresent what I said, and then to discredit my opinion by replying to it with strawman arguments. Out of courtesy, I asked you to remove those remarks elsewhere, and you declined. You should have taken that opportunity. Geogene (talk) 00:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Apparently a reference to this discussion. Mathglot (talk) 09:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Geogene (talk) 14:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for posting to my talk page about writing for The Signpost. I read your blog post, and yes, this could be adapted into article or articles. I see several possible stories - what is Wikipedia's response to harassment, you could either respond to the ACLU keynote or I could recruit a 1-3 other short responses to that keynote and piece them into an multi-perspective response to supplement linking to a video of the actual keynote, you could talk about the goals of "Whose Knowledge?" (either in context of that organization or for the sake of the goals themselves), or if you really like you could talk about how the Wiki community responds to off-wiki political tension. You have ideas and it seems apparent to me that many of your ideas are aligned with the interests of The Signpost readership. Please give it a go and if I can assist then ping me. I appreciate your answering the call. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: Thanks, each of those stories could be the basis of a whole article! I'd been thinking of writing a longer piece about my response to the ACLU president, and I'd seen a few other attendees grumbling about the US-centric nature of that keynote (in the context of an international conference), so maybe I'll go with that angle. I could also link it to some of the stuff I brought up during my harassment talk, on harm to marginalized people. Funcrunch (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: Sorry for the delay in getting back to you on this. I've been thinking a lot about the subject, and decided I don't really feel comfortable sharing my thoughts about the ACLU keynote in a forum where my words can be edited by others. I'd rather write more about that on my own blog or a site like Medium. I can still contribute other thoughts on Wikimania to the Signpost if you're still interested. Maybe I could just share some of my photos? Funcrunch (talk) 21:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Funcrunch: Use your intuition about whatever you think is best to share. If your only concern is avoiding re-editing, you could simultaneously post to your own blog and The Signpost. The Signpost does not permit anything more than typographical fixes to opinion pieces but if that is your worry, it could also say that the story came from medium or wherever.

A photo essay is a great idea. You had great photos and if you want to do show and tell then I think everyone would appreciate that. Also, you have the option to do more than one story, or to do something now and something later. Anytime within the next year is probably an appropriate time to write about Wikimania 2017. A lot of your current writings are longer and more thoughtful, but if you have shorter thoughts to share, those are welcome too. Old-form paper newspaper opinion submissions from readers were shorter than what is common for online postings but I think that in The Signpost, short posts work well. Thanks for your ongoing interest. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't get what was going on here - I have checked the history of User:Iggy the Swan and history said that the user 67.230.58.152 hasn't made an edit to that page. Iggy (talk) 08:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@Iggy the Swan: Please see the note under "Please read" at the top of my talk page. This is the edit that IP attempted. Funcrunch (talk) 14:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit filters - I have never seen those before - thanks for pointing that out. Iggy (talk) 14:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

You have recently created an article on American writer Raquel Willis, without adding her to the relevant category Category:21st-century American women writers. Could you please add articles on women writers to the relevant categories about women writers of various eras? Wikipedia:WikiProject Women writers is maintaining the categories and reviewing articles. Dimadick (talk) 07:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@Dimadick: Sure. I hope you saw my edit summaries on why I removed the various Catholic categories from this bio. I'm also not sure WP:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology is particularly appropriate, but since another editor already left a rating under that (and the other) categories I won't remove it. Funcrunch (talk) 13:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I included it because she designed a flag. Dimadick (talk) 13:24, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I got that, but it seemed to me a rather minor part of the bio. She changed a white stripe in an existing flag to a black one. Regardless, I don't really object to adding that WP like I did to adding the Catholic categories. Funcrunch (talk) 13:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello Funcrunch,

I just noticed your post at BLPN about Jacob Tobia. Sorry to be slow to see it but I took a look at the history and am happy to see that the article has been stable in recent days, after some disruption. Please feel free to contact me directly in this or similar situations. Dealing with this sort of problem is among the reasons that I was granted the administrative tools a couple of months ago. Just ask. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:08, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Thanks - I'll let you know if the disruptive user returns. Funcrunch (talk) 13:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi there,

The Anti-Harassment Tools team plans to start develop of a new feature to allow users to restrict emails from new accounts. This feature will allow an individual user to stop harassing emails from coming through the Special:EmailUser system from abusive sockpuppeting accounts.

We’re inviting you to join the discussion because you voted or commented in the 2016 Community Wishlist discussion or IdeaLab discussion about letting users restrict who can send them email.

You can leave comments on this discussion page or send an email to the Anti-Harassment Tools team.

It is important to hear from a broad range of people who are interested in the design of the tool, so we hope you join the discussion.

For the Anti-Harassment Tools team SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

Hi— I noticed that you've had to revert vandalism three times in the past hour on October 2017 Northern California wildfires — in fact I noticed this because I was just about to revert the latest one when you (or your bot) beat me to it. I don't have a lot of experience with this on Wikipedia, so I'm wondering if there is a standard "next move" with recidivist vandals like this one? Does one bother to put warnings on an IP address user page? Does one wait and hope it falls into the 'will get bored and go away' category? Alafarge (talk) 18:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

@Alafarge: My typical progression is to first leave a warning template on the editor's talk page and then if they persist, report them to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, both of which have been done in this case. Next step in the case of persistent vandalism from multiple editors is to post at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, which I will do shortly. Funcrunch (talk) 19:10, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Alafarge (talk) 01:00, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

My recent edits were to correct the incorrect use of "they" and "their" as singular objective and possessive pronouns, respectively. They and their are plural pronouns, not singular pronouns, and should be used correctly. My editing does not seek to defeat any aspect of Wikipedia; indeed, it furthers Wikipedia's very purpose - educating people - in this case education on proper English language grammar.

JohnTopShelf (talk) 14:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Singular they is acceptable English grammar for individuals of unknown gender and non-binary (and other) individuals who choose it as a personal pronoun. The use of singular they is acceptable on Wikipedia. I will not argue this point with you further. Funcrunch (talk) 14:36, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@Funcrunch:, don't let anyone browbeat you about this. Usage of singular they goes back to the 14th century, as the wikipedia article explains. If you need more ammo about this, Bryan Garner's usage guides are a good source; here's one of his blog tips about it.

If you're curious about the argument against singular they, check out this article in The Atlantic, but I find it's nothing but an opinion piece by a prescriptivist with an axe to grind, who offers no actual grammatical or linguistic data to support their argument; it's just a cri de coeur from a partisan, and the whole article is pure IJDLI without any data at all. TopSHelf offers no data either, and comes off as a prescriptivist know-it-all, who doesn't actually know singular they's venerable and ancient history. No need to put up with this crap, just send them packing. Mathglot (talk) 20:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Funcrunch:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – Mathglot (talk) 04:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

@Mathglot: Thanks very much! 🎃 Funcrunch (talk) 15:33, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Can you please add Transgender people and religion to your Watchlist? I just reverted some vandalism by a fringe-y IP user that sat there for six weeks, because it wasn't on my list before. Mathglot (talk) 10:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Thanks for the ping. I've been taking a short Wikibreak because I have a cold and reviewing trans-antagonistic edits doesn't help my immune system. I'll check out that page when I return. Funcrunch (talk) 18:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted your comments at ARCA. Please feel free to re-add them in your own section but the section for arbitrators comments is only for arbitrators to post in. This is a clerk action and must not be undone. GoldenRing (talk) 21:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, fixed. Funcrunch (talk) 21:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello Funcrunch,

Radio news reports while I was driving today, and TV news reports while relaxing this evening have reminded me of you and your community, and your legitimate concerns. So, I just wanted to stop by and offer my warm greetings, and to let you know how grateful I am for your contributions to Wikipedia, and to repeat my previous offers to assist you whenever my ability to use administrative tools is needed to protect this encyclopedia. I hope to be responsive and helpful every day of the year, not just on a day of remembrance. Thank you, and take care. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Thanks for the kind words. I have been avoiding reviewing my watchlist or editing pages on Wikipedia for much of this month as I've been burned out by trans-antagonistic vandalism and microaggressions, but I hope to return soon. I took photos at last night's Transgender Day of Remembrance event in San Francisco, and just uploaded a few of them to the Commons category. Funcrunch (talk) 17:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I think I may have seen you fleetingly on the KTVU news report about that event. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Just found and watched the segment - thanks for the tip! Funcrunch (talk) 19:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

You are most welcome. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Hello, Funcrunch. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Funcrunch. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.