User talk:Funcrunch

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.

Task forces

Hi Funcrunch. I was reading the discussion on Women in Red about people with nonbinary identities, in part as there is a significant intersection between people with nonbinary identities and intersex people. I support the creation of a transgender task force, but I also aspire to the future creation of an intersex task force. In my view, there are few people writing on intersex topics, and this generally only happens incidentally by people writing on other issues (on people with nonbinary identities like Pidgeon Pagonis being a case in point). I have hoped that the increasing breadth of material now published on intersex topics would help encourage more people to fill in gaps, and improve the depth of the pages, but this doesn't appear to be happening much (there is an editor working on related medical topics but not so much on other issues). I guess this also reflects the continuing limited visibility outside Wikipedia. As one of the people I encounter more often on overlapping content, I wonder if you have any thoughts on creation of multiple task forces, including an intersex one? Thanks. Trankuility (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@Trankuility: I have appreciated the amount of work you've put into editing intersex topics. I would gladly support the creation of an intersex task force. My only concern is making it clear that not all intersex people identify as being under the LGBT+ umbrella. I know there's controversy over this issue... Funcrunch (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@Trankuility: Tangentially, would you be interested in presenting with me at Wikimania this summer? I don't know where in the world you live or how comfortable you are with public speaking, so I realize it might be completely impractical for you, but I've been trying to get a panel together without much success... Feel free to contact me by e-mail on this... Funcrunch (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and invitation. I am more comfortable documenting the topics than speaking about them, but I really appreciate the invite. I agree with you on the connection with LGBT+, but I see a task force as a positive way of responding to this issue. Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/Task forces states that they can be intersectional - though, at the moment, there is anyway no obvious other parent project. Trankuility (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it is best to wait until other people show interest, or adopt an approach of "if you build it, they will come"? Trankuility (talk) 02:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Trankuility: Yeah, I would just start building out a trans/nonbinary task force myself, but the WikiProject guidelines say to gain consensus in the parent project first... Funcrunch (talk) 03:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Signpost WikiProject report

Hi Funcrunch. I noticed that you recently offered to write/interview for the Signpost Wikiproject report [1]. If you're still interested in helping out, there is actually a request at WP:POST/TIPS § WikiProject Report? to cover WikiProject Birds, in relation to their recent run of FAs. Since they came to us, you would almost certainly have willing participants for an interview. Its up to you if want to proceed with this, but please feel free to ask me, Pete, or the others for any help if you need it. If you do go ahead, I'm sure we'd all be glad to have a Wikiproject Report in the Signpost again. Cheers, Evad37 [talk] 08:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Evad37: Sure, I have an unusually busy week right now but I could reach out to them next week to start on a report, unless you and Peteforsyth need it sooner. Funcrunch (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

That would be good timing Funcrunch. We're pushing out an issue today, and will publish again in ~2 to 3 weeks, so that will give time to formulate questions, reach out, and write up the results. Thanks for the nudge Evad37! Funcrunch, I realize I have been remiss in reaching out with specifics. Apologies. Let's connect in the next couple days, after this edition's out. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 16:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Evad37: - Peteforsyth and I have been touch about this report over e-mail. I posted a page of questions for the bird folks today, and pinged their WikiProject. Funcrunch (talk) 21:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, looks good! You may also want to check out Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/WikiProject desk (if you've haven't already), for further ideas and resources. - Evad37 [talk] 23:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey Funcrunch, thanks for writing up the birds wikiproject report - good stuff there! I hope you continue writing for the Signpost – if you're looking for some more Wikiprojects to interview, I know that WP:USRD, WP:MILHIST, and WP:AUS (or sub-project WP:WA) are active and you're likely to get multiple responses. The have been reported on previously, but not for 5+ years. Also, 2017 is the International Year of Sustainable Tourism for Development [2], so maybe consider WP:TOURISM (they seem to have had some recent activity on their talk page). Cheers, and once again, thank you! - Evad37 [talk] 04:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Evad37: Thanks and thanks for the WikiProject suggestions - I'll check them out. Funcrunch (talk) 05:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, feel free to use/edit Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/WikiProject desk and its workpages – or if you can think of some technical or layout changes to make the space more suitable, let me know and I'll have a go at changing it. (BTW, I've archived the old requests to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/WikiProject desk/Archive 1 if you're looking for them later) - Evad37 [talk] 03:41, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@Evad37: Sorry for not responding sooner. I had been exchanging e-mail with Peteforsyth on this also, and just told him that I'd try to have a report ready for the Signpost after the upcoming Feb 20 edition. Funcrunch (talk) 18:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Legal recognition of non-binary gender

Hi there. We are at risk of duplicating material on legal recognition of non-binary, genderqueer and third gender categories. I propose to create a page specifically for this, which can then be transcluded where needed. Trankuility (talk) 19:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@Trankuility: I was thinking about this when I tidied up the addition to the Genderqueer page a few minutes ago (and was about to do the same for this intersex human rights edit from the same editor, unless you want to handle that one). I'm not really familiar with working with transclusions though; would that be confusing to new/inexperienced editors? Funcrunch (talk) 19:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@Funcrunch I will tidy that edit in coming hours. On editor familiarity, it is simple to set up transclusion, and a comment visible only to editors can be added to the article text pointing to the source page. Trankuility (talk)

@Trankuility: I guess I don't object to that, as long as the comment is also visible to those using the visual editor (I always edit source myself). Funcrunch (talk) 19:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@Funcrunch: comments do appear. Trankuility (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@Funcrunch: the article has now been started at Legal recognition of non-binary gender, with transclusions. I hope that it means that the growing volume of material on definitions, discrimination and legal recognition can be better organized. Trankuility (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hi Funcrunch, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! joe decker^talk 05:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

(The above is a template, this is from me the human.) Realized you likely met the usual threshold for this when I saw your recent wave of article creations, so I took a closer look. Nice work. Cheers, --joe decker^talk 05:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@Joe Decker: Thanks very much Joe! :-) Funcrunch (talk) 05:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Whose Knowledge? News - February 2017

Thanks for all of your support for Whose Knowledge? so far! Get ready, we're going to need lots of your help in 2017 :)

What's new in 2017:

1. Volunteers needed

As Whose Knowledge? grows, there are lots of things to do! Can you help?

• Are you good with data entry, categories, mailing lists or social media? We especially need people to help with organizing knowledge for Dalit History Month, and building out our communications (including this monthly newsletter!) right now!
• If you're interested in volunteering for these or any other projects, please signup here

2. Pilot projects

Building partnerships and testing our approach with marginalized communities.

• Dalit History Month: We're working with Equality Labs to support Dalit communities in South Asia and the United States to map knowledge and create Wikipedia content. Dalit History Month edit-a-thons are coming in April!
• Women's Human Rights Defenders: In partnership with Urgent Action Fund, we'll be supporting a group of women's human rights defenders around the world with more mapping and wiki content creation. Themes and geographies coming soon!
• Kumeyaay Wikipedia Initiative: Following the 2016 Indigenous People's Day edit-a-thon, we're continuing to work with members of the Kumeyaay tribe in Southern California and Baja to map and contribute indigenous knowledge to Wikimedia projects. A discussion day with Kumeyaay community in San Diego is being planned for May.

3. Funding

We've got financial support for 2017!

• WMF grant: 6-month funding (February-July 2017) was approved to pilot our approach to mapping knowledge and creating Wikipedia content with the Dalit community and global women's human rights defenders. Thanks for all your endorsements!
• Shuttleworth Fellowship: Anasuya is a Shuttleworth Fellow! This means we'll be able to spend more time organizing, and have support for convenings, campaign infrastructure, etc.

4. Wikimedia Strategy

Find us at Wikimedia Conference.

• Anasuya and Siko will be carrying the Whose Knowledge? vision of diversity, pluralism and representation of marginalized communities into movement strategy conversations in Berlin March 2017.
• What's your vision for the Wikimedia movement? If you have a perspective that you'd like us to help represent in Berlin, please reach out and let us know!

In solidarity,

Siko (talk) 01:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I Apologize

Ok I really do apologize for putting all those fake rights and would really like to edit my page the right way. Please accept my apology it wont happen again. Izaiah.morris (talk) 14:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Izaiah.morris: Thank you. I can't unprotect your user page though; that's up to an administrator. Funcrunch (talk) 16:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red#The_list

After this discussion has reached a conclusion, feel free to ping me and I'll create you the list that you're after using Template:Wikidata_list based on this discussion. In theory I have the skills for this but they're a little rusty. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Stuartyeates: Thanks, I appreciate it! Funcrunch (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry about that. Quis separabit? 01:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

No problem, I figured it was just a mistake. Appreciate the apology regardless. Funcrunch (talk) 05:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for adding a new image to Nevertheless, she persisted article. The DYK has been approved, but still not promoted... Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@Grand'mere Eugene: Thanks, I looked at the DYK discussion after I added the new image, and agree that the tattoo image is a better one to go with. Congrats on getting it approved for DYK! Funcrunch (talk) 19:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the Kamala Harris nugget! I added her image just for fun. Cheers! --Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 05:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

After reviewing your talk page

It seems like you could have a history of this. VanillaDazzle (talk) 08:30, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Blavity

The article Blavity has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Good concept, but not yet notable.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@DGG: Deprodded; see edit summary. Funcrunch (talk) 05:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I decided I have higher priorities--there are so many articles with even less support. DGG ( talk ) 15:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Regarding your message

I don't know if this is the right way to message you on this site, otherwise please direct me to the appropriate place. Regarding the following:

Per this edit: Do not intentionally misgender Asia Kate Dillon or any other trans or non-binary person again on Wikipedia. This is your final warning. Funcrunch (talk) 04:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Please define the term 'misgender' and tell me why I should follow your demands. 83.54.134.209 (talk) 08:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@83.54.134.209: Misgendering is using pronouns or other terms that do not correspond to a person's gender. I have explained multiple times on the article talk page that Asia Kate Dillon is non-binary, prefers singular they pronouns, and should not be referred to as "she" or "her". I also explained both there and on your talk page that the article is under discretionary sanctions. If you continue to willfully misgender trans or non-binary people on Wikipedia, I will report you to the appropriate administrative noticeboard. Funcrunch (talk) 12:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Right, well as far as I am concerned that is a simply a made-up nonsense word. And again, what any individual prefers is not more important the truth. What you consider 'misgendering' is simply being objective and accurate so there is nothing to at all to report me for. I shall continue to advocate for correct English usage on that page and possibly others. 83.59.37.63 (talk) 15:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride 2017

You are invited to create and improve LGBT-related content at Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects throughout the month of June as part of the fourth annual Wiki Loves Pride campaign. Feel free to add new and expanded content on the project's Results page. Happy editing! (I see you're already familiar with this page, but I wanted to invite all Wiki Loves Pride participants nonetheless. :p) ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

We're on Twitter!

WikiLGBT is on Twitter!

Hello Funcrunch! Follow the Wikimedia LGBT user group on Twitter at @wikilgbt for news, photos, and other topics of interest to LGBT Wikipedans and allies. Use #wikiLGBT to share any Wiki Loves Pride stuff that you would like to share (whether this month or any day of the year) or to alert folks to things that the LGBT Wikipedan community should know. RachelWex 21:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC) For more information about Wiki Loves Pride, → click here ←.

Question about project leader identification

Hi Funcrunch,

I am a PhD student major in computer science from the University of Minnesota. I do research in Wikipedia area about the collaboration among editors mostly in the context of WikiProjects. I have a question to you, and hope you would provide me some suggestion.

Right now, I am planning on a project is about WikiProject recommendation - we will create algorithms to generate a list of recommended editors for the leaders of WikiProjects, and let them to recruit those editors. Do you like the idea? To start, we are planning to conduct a polite study, and contact about 10 - 20 project leaders to participate. A problem then is how to identify the project leaders. I came across the WikiProject report where you did interviews with some participants of the project. I think those participating editors could to some extend be considered as project leaders, or core project members, aren't they? So I wonder how did you identify those editors, maybe as well as the editors who participated the previous interviews in the report. Please let me know. Thanks for your time in advance!

Bobo.03 (talk) 01:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Bobo.03: Hi, thanks for writing. WikiProjects don't have any "leaders" per se; they are just collaborations of whatever editors are interested in the topic. Some WikiProjects maintain signup lists for editors, but I haven't seen any that formally refer to leaders or core members. For the Signpost report I posted a message on the WikiProject Birds talk page and pinged several editors who were active on it at the time. You can see the text of my post in the archives. Funcrunch (talk) 03:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Funcrunch: Got you! I thought they are the editors who can speak on behalf of the project - but I guess to certain extend they can.. Thanks for your clarification!Bobo.03 (talk) 13:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The Case of the Phantom Vandalism

I see you left a notice for an IP user about vandalism of my userpage, but I'm not seeing any evidence of something happening there. Am I missing something? Thanks! —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 15:21, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@JamesLucas: It was attempted vandalism. You can see it in the filter log. I've been monitoring that filter, which prevents unconfirmed users from editing other users' pages, since I started the RfC that resulted in its creation. Funcrunch (talk) 15:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Well that is some mighty useful programming. Is it a feature or a bug that the blocked edit doesn't still go into the editor's contribution history? Seems like it'd be worth having those breadcrumbs more readily visible. —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 15:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@JamesLucas: Since the attempted edit was never actually completed, it's only visible in the filter log, not in the contributions history. So I'd say not a bug :-) Funcrunch (talk) 15:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

My thinking is that if I see an iffy edit from an IP user with only a couple edits in their history, I'd rather know if they had been trying to stir up trouble for hours/days but not leaving any marks. —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 15:48, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@JamesLucas: Well you can still see their attempted edits in the filter log, which is visible for all users, registered, unconfirmed, and anonymous. Here's yours for example (no problematic or blocked edits, just a couple of notices). You can get to it by clicking the editor's contribution history and then clicking on "filter log" under "User contributions" near the top of the page. So there's still a breadcrumb trail. Funcrunch (talk) 15:53, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I get that. I actually already looked up to see if I had previously attracted any other colorful attempted additions to my page (all quiet before today), and I see that the filter logs are not hard to navigate and quick to load. Still, I don't see myself doing it for every IP editor I come across while patrolling pending changes. Having edits and attempted edits in different places is a bit of additional complexity that I could live without, but…I get it. Entropy is the way of the universe. —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 16:02, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

• I was here to ask the same question (one of those "phantom edits"), but now understand too, thank you very much for monitoring those logs, and for the explanation. —PaleoNeonate - 04:04, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

You do good work.

I came across an article that you were recently involved with on AfD, and it led me to your user page. Kudos for making so many valuable, eye-opening contributions. ToddLara729 (talk) 01:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

@ToddLara729: Thanks very much! Funcrunch (talk) 02:31, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Lead at History of TG US

Hi, Funcrunch, Just made a few edits over at History of transgender people in the United States including this one, during which I noticed that the lead really needs a rewrite. It seems the lead was kind of cobbled together last November in good faith after having been lead-less. It's not that it's awful or wrong, it's just kind of bland and looks like some boilerplate someone threw together just to have something rather than nothing, and perhaps it was an improvement. In any case, we can do better. I'm mostly busy on other things just now, so I thought I'd see if you were interested. Mathglot (talk) 07:27, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Thanks for your work on this article. I'm also pretty busy with other things right now, but maybe post to WT:LGBT to see if others can take a crack at it? I added the Wiki Loves Pride template since you made some improvements, which might also get it some attention. Funcrunch (talk) 13:52, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

"Assigned sex"

In what way are you 'assigned' a sex? I think you are confusing it with gender. Sex= male, female or intersex/hermaphrodite. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 17:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

See sex assignment. Funcrunch (talk) 17:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Transgender legal history in the United States

Hi, Funcrunch, thanks for your recent edit at Transgender legal history in the United States. Sounds like you were treading very gently in your edit summary, but no need to be gentle there: this article was recently created in a size split from History of transgender people in the United States and in fact, it still suffers from massive problems including stuff in the wrong sections, an inadequate lead, poor organization, nonsensical section naming and placement, and other problems. So feel free to go in there with a heavy sledge hammer and saw, it could certainly use your help, or anyone's. Slash and burn, move stuff around, reorganize, rename sections, do whatever your think it needs; no gentleness required.

The original article may have suffered somewhat from the split as well; with so much material being removed, the section organization should be reviewed, and there are probably other issues like segues that no longer make sense, due to the removals. But the bigger problem is at the new article, imho. Thanks again, Mathglot (talk) 22:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Understood, and thanks for all your work on this. I tend to get overwhelmed working on large articles like that, especially after a split or other reorganization, but just wanted to include the new information in a logical place without looking like I was ignoring another editor's work. Funcrunch (talk) 00:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I know, I could feel it; that's why I wanted to assure you that it's okay to go at it with the airhammer if you feel a mind to; no toes here being stepped on! And you're right, it can be overwhelming, and it often takes some thought and planning off-wiki before jumping in, but in the end, things are better for it. At least, that's the plan. Feel free to grab me anytime you see a "big" job that needs attention; not promising I'll do it, but I might; and if I don't, I'd be happy to offer talk-page ideas on how to do it. Mathglot (talk) 01:30, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

That ANI thread

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)

Reverted edits from an IP address user on my user page

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)

My edits constitute vandalism?

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)

Warning regarding wrong page

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)

Thanks!

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)

List of lawsuits involving Donald Trump

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)

Thanks!

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)

RfA

File:New Zealand TW-17.svg

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)

Attempted vandilisim

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)

Humane Party

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)

SRS page retitle

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

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)