User talk:Funcrunch/Archive 2

Thank you for supporting our editathons

	Thank you for contributing to our June 2016 editathons There were over 350 articles on Women in Entertainment, 55 on Jewish Women's History and 50 on Women in LGBTQ Host: Women in Red June 2016 #wikiwomeninred Our next event: Women in Halls of Fame

--Ipigott (talk) 16:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

Sophie Labelle podcasts

Hi Funcrunch, Awesome work you're doing. I thought you might be interested in these two podcasts featuring Sophie Labelle. I haven't listened to them yet but was at the talks, so I think there should be useful material in them. [1] and [2]. -- haminoon (talk) 10:43, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Ajamu Baraka

Thank you for getting involved in finding a balanced perspective on this page which does not distort the person's views via oversimplification. I was disappointed to see that you had to delete some of my work, but I agree that direct & above all complete citation are important (I had paraphrased the end part of a long citation). I thought it was interesting that you considered West's criticism of Obama and Dyson to be tangential to Baraka using the term "sheep-dogging" to describe West's efforts to work within the party. It seemed to me that this provided useful context for understanding the comments. All the same, your influence on this page has been very positive. Thank you! SashiRolls (talk) 17:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

It was mostly the characterization of his words as "surprising" (in reference to Roof and the death penalty) that I objected to. We should not be editorializing or trying to educate readers; we should simply provide concise, unbiased information and links where they can read more for themselves. Funcrunch (talk) 18:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the original editor had truncated the citation to make it seem surprising. I agree. And are you sure the comments on West are tangential (See above)? SashiRolls (talk) 18:08, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd prefer to discuss these issues on the talk page for the article, where other editors can weigh in (and where I won't get a new e-mail alert every time you edit my page). Funcrunch (talk) 18:11, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Talkpage redaction

Hello. Good to see you are active at WP LGBT Studies. Do you approve of this redaction? I have never seen this on a talkpage.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - I had unfollowed that page so I didn't notice the one-sided redaction. Funcrunch (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

It was just redacted again. Never seen this on a talkpage. Can you please revert it again?Zigzig20s (talk) 06:20, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not an admin and I don't want to get involved in an edit war, especially on a page that's of low importance to me. As the redacting editor said, feel free to remove the entire section per WP:NOTFORUM and possible BLP violations. Funcrunch (talk) 15:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

We're not in the habit of censoring talkpages. Why wouldn't it be restored, with your "NOTFORUM" message at the end?Zigzig20s (talk) 15:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't want to get further involved in this dispute. I only edited Morell's page to add this bit about his Clinton endorsement. I'm going to unfollow the page again now. Funcrunch (talk) 15:34, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. Always thought he was cute, but unfortunately he's not gay. Looking forward to your contributions at WP LGBT Studies, in any case! Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Notice (October 2016)

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Soham321 (talk) 21:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@Soham321: I am aware of the discretionary sanctions. Are you leaving this notice on the talk pages of all editors of the page in question (Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations), or just mine for some reason? (Note that I also changed the title of this section, as there's a prior notice on my talk page with the same title.) Funcrunch (talk) 21:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I am leaving the notice on the talk page of all prolific editors who are editing the Trump article you have been editing. I have even placed this notice on my own talk page. Soham321 (talk) 22:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Funcrunch. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for working with me on the AfD discussion, I am just trying to keep it real on Wikipedia so that people like the subject don't get lost in a swamp of wannabe's! CeilingCrash (talk) 02:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for withdrawing your AfD nomination. Funcrunch (talk) 03:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Kat Blaque article

Hi, please stop your inclusion of unreliable sources and fluff articles on Ms. Blaque's page. We discussed this months ago on the talk page. Denarivs (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Your comment here is obviously in response to my comment on your talk page. Per prior discussion on the Kat Blaque article and the state of your user page at that time, I do not believe you are editing in good faith. Funcrunch (talk) 05:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Fair point!

Sorry. I was getting tired. I'm in the UK and it's now way past 1am... I kinda see your point as I scroll the page up and down. My sig is all over the place! I also get obsessive when I start on something and like to see it through to the bitter end... and then usually start making stupid mistakes. Your intervention is timely and most welcome! BTW, when I said "I'll get back to you" it was because I thought you might have misinterpreted the pages you linked to. Not so sure now... Perhaps they need to be made clearer? E.g. m:Grants:IdeaLab/Don't feed the trolls: "An individual perceiving harassment should be encouraged to avoid responding for some period of time, preferably involving at least one sleep cycle. During that period, the user might get some physical exercise, edit some other subject, or research some subject of interest..." Why? It doesn't say and does sound rather pompous and patronizing. I might pop over there and make that point when I've had some sleep myself. Anyway, enough space on your page now... Good night and sorry again! — Iadmc♫^talk  01:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding my point. It's probably not worth commenting on that "Don't feed the trolls" page on Meta though, because that campaign ended months ago. Funcrunch (talk) 02:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hello Funcrunch,

Thank you so much for attending my presentation about the Teahouse in San Francisco this evening. Thank you also for your work on a very practical measure to reduce harassment on Wikipedia. It was a pleasure to talk with you, and I wish you the very best in these trying times. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I just looked at your website, and you are an excellent photographer with a talent for capturing people's personalities. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Cullen328, did this get picked up by video stream? I was sorry to miss it. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello Peteforsyth. Here is the YouTube video. By the way, Funcrunch speaks toward the end about the recent measure to prevent IPs from editing userpages (which has usually been vandalism/harassment). Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:00, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Thanks very much! I enjoyed your very informative presentation, and Dexter is adorable. Funcrunch (talk) 18:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection policy RfC

You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Megathon7 (talk) 16:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Teahouse post

Hi Funcrunch. Seeing your recent post at the Teahouse—the qualification it started with—I just wanted to tell you that "non-hosts" answering questions there is absolutely welcome. The host designation is quite informal and self-selected (and only asked to be removed when the person gives bad advice over and over, or deeply violates the norm there of trying to be friendly with new users).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: Thanks, good to know! I attended (and photographed) an excellent presentation about the Teahouse by Cullen328 at the Bay Area WikiSalon earlier this month, so thought I would check it out. Funcrunch (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, great. I see there's a Youtube video of the talk. I think I'll give it a gander. Cullen is a sterling editor; a great asset to the project and the Teahouse.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:30, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I am blushing, but thank you, Fuhghettaboutit. Thanks to both of you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)