User talk:ChiveFungi

Welcome!

More information Getting Started, Getting Help ...

Hello, ChiveFungi! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! North America1000 09:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC) Getting Started Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Close

Yes, I do have a question - in what way am I not adhering to "purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies"? How may I refute this claim?

Please also inform me if I am meant to discuss this here or on my talk page. 31.48.230.152 (talk) 00:46, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Please see the talk page of Nat Turner regarding the African-American issue. It would be a violation Wikipedia guidelines to do a second revert without a discussion, which I have started. Eodcarl (talk) 20:28, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

You were mentioned in an WP:ANI discussion, located here EvergreenFir (talk) 06:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Please read our WP:OUTING policy. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for patrolling for trolls, but the removal of the IP comment from Talk:Chelsea Manning was not helpful. Please take a look at WP:TPNO. Happy editing. – S. Rich (talk) 16:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Did you know that the citation templates have fields called:

• archive-url=
• archive-date =

If you use these fields, you can leave the original URL in place, but still make the main link to the archived version. So instead of you can do .

There is also another field:

• dead-url =

If you leave dead-url blank, it makes the archive link the main link. But if you want to give an archive URL whilst the original still works, you can do dead-url=no. This leaves the original URL as the most prominent link, but also displays an archive link.-- Toddy1 (talk) 05:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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. Edgeweyes (talk) 18:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi!

The RFC on IPv6 contributions and talk pages that you recently filed has been scheduled for public discussion on IRC this Wednesday. As always, the RFC discussion will take place on the Freenode channel #wikimedia-office, at at 21:00 UTC (2pm PDT, 23:00 CEST).

Please comment on the ticket and let me know if you'll be able to attend. -- Daniel Kinzler (WMDE) (talk) 09:16, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

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! Keith Johnston (talk) 08:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC) ==

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!Keith Johnston (talk) 08:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi ChiveFungi,

In the last several months, you've participated in a discussion on Talk:Zoë Quinn about which preferred gender pronouns to use in the article. So I thought I'd give you a heads up that I'm starting a WP:RFC to hopefully resolve this issue! You can find the relevant discussion here.

Regards. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:25, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I've processed the revision deletion you requested, blocked the IP, and reported it to the Wikimedia Foundation. In the future, please do not make requests for revision deletion of that sort of material at WP:ANI (see the Streisand effect). Instead, follow the steps at WP:911. You can use this tool to find an admin who has been on recently. You can also use Special:EmailUser/Oversight to email the oversight team if you think the material includes information that is covered by the oversight policy (it didn't in this case, but often requests for revdel for reasons other than copyvio will). TonyBallioni (talk) 05:39, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I do have a question - in what way am I not adhering to "purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies"? How may I refute this claim?

Please also inform me if I am meant to discuss this here or on my talk page. 31.48.230.152 (talk) 00:46, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

So you have the authority to decide that my comment on the talk pages did not add anything to the topic of the article - that is very interesting. Perhaps it begs the question, "what is the topic of the article?". Where an article is identified as being 'about' an interesting term, which is yet contended as to its application, it seems to me that the article must be BOTH about how the term is commonly used, and about how the term is commonly contended. The term, I would argue, is probably useful when applied by a person to themselves, or when applied in an academic context, where its use is clearly demarcated as NOT personal. If a person chose to describe me as 'cis', I would describe such use as objectionable. I would also contend that this would not merely be a matter of opinion. No one has any right to label my gender identity directly, nor even indirectly. No one can construct any rational argument that would give them the right to label my gender identity, nor any right to allocate me to some group whose gender identity they feel entitled to label. When people choose to discuss gender identity, they ought to be clear in their mind about what exactly they are discussing, and my edit was designed to clarify that point. If you want to exert authoritarian power, why don't you just get a dog?

Woof, woof — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.112.174 (talk) 13:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Full text/entry as it appears on my user page:

January 2018 [edit]

Wikipedia is not a forum. We don't want to hear your antisemitic rants.

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. --ChiveFungi (talk) 13:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

(my response below)

ChiveFungi: I am not sure WHO you are and why you are intruding in my wikipedia experience with your most problematic attitude. Instead of making generalized statements about "wikipedia is not a forum" and "we do not want to hear your antisemetic rants" perhaps you can come up with a more civilized approach of why you think there is a problem and why you think I am the cause of that problem. Also, just out of curiosity, who told you Wikipedia is not forum. The talk pages of every topic ARE indeed a form of forum where people should be and ARE allowed to FREELY express their opinions, as long as of course they do so in a mature civilized way. Finally, who are the "we" who do not want to hear my "antisemetic rants"? Do you represent a group of people and who are they? Also can you define "antisemitic" in direct relationship to a quote attributed to me. I will be expecting your reply. But rest assured that if you continue to harrass me I will be the one who will file a complaint requesting that YOU are banned! Hopefully, you have the capacity to understand that what you did is extremely serious and will be handled in the most assertive way the law permits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.251.172 (talk) 06:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Hey,

I don't see how providing Roem's original name at "birth name" and "born" is wrong since it is referenced. Why is it?

WhatsUpWorld (talk) 02:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I feel that your comment to me today was both not nice (as it complained about my edits, plural - suggesting they all offend you) and, lacking a pointer to what you are concerned about, too nonspecific to inform my self-improvement efforts as an editor. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 15:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

He makes a habit of being nasty, aggressive and confrontational. I suspect his ego can't handle what it sees as criticism, a common problem among juveniles. PetePassword (talk) 10:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

The "it's ok to be white" 4chan operation was not in any way white nationalist or white supremacist. It was done simply to show that an innnocuous phrase could be blown up by media outlets and progressives into something it was not. --2001:8003:548A:5600:E01E:9DA7:E730:223D (talk) 03:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

The body of the article says it's related to white nationalism/supremacy. And there are sources backing this up. If you want to remove the categories, you must first remove the part of the article that says it's related to white nationalism/supremacy. (And yeah it is. It's obviously propaganda with the goal of converting people to white supremacy.) --ChiveFungi (talk) 12:52, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Nightfury 13:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC) - Posting on behalf of User:PetePassword.

Dealing with repeated disruptive editing on several pages and for several days now: Someone is not here to build an encyclopedia, from what I'm seeing. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I note that you do not like some editing which I had done recently, and that you have suggested that my edit was vandalism. I would like to suggest that you are more careful in future with your interactions with myself and others. Vandalism is an exceptionally strong term which should not be thrown around when you merely dislike an edit. I would like to remind you that discussing with people you disagree with is a far better way to interact with others than throwing around terms like "vandalism". You never asked for the reasoning behind the edit or attempted to discuss with me anything before you posted what I would regard as a rather confrontation comment.Cadmium (talk) 13:31, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Same here, different point of view from your strong left wing opinions is not vandalism, please refrain from removing common sense and spreading your propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.89.20 (talk) 03:55, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I have also been threatened by this creep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.176.246.94 (talk) 20:21, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

The reference is at the very beginning of the 48th paragraph of the Atlantic article. Also, it is a direct reflection of Neulander's attitude and position expressed in her article in the Jewish Folklore and Ethnology Review August 31 1994 volume 16 #1. I suggest you read it before deleting someone's edit. I will be following this matter very closely.--RioAtrisco (talk) 22:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

C Fungi: It took me seconds to count down the paragraphs. If you are compelled to edit this article to conform to your position then do the work, I have taken quite a bit of my time to research this subject. If you want to speak with any creditability consult the sources first hand. That way you know them and are not relying on anything I provide you.--RioAtrisco (talk) 23:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi ChiveFungi, if it is not OT, I want to ask if you also consider the conspiracy theory that Naomi Wu got help or support from some expert boyfriend is totally bogus. Consider your average US college graduate: how many years of advice from experts and financial support from parents enabled that career? Does that make every college grad a phony? But Naomi Wu, largely self-educated, must be a phony if reddit can prove she has not been in an isolation tank, with no communication with anyone more expert than she is about any maker or tech issue? Inadvisedly sending you this comment, perhaps, but it is past midnight here on the US east coast. HouseOfChange (talk) 04:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

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.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

With this edit, are you saying that Daily Wire is not a reliable source? SemiHypercube (talk) 00:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@SemiHypercube: It's my recollection that they're not a reliable source. But it's possible that I'm mistaken. --ChiveFungi (talk) 02:30, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

If you're saying that they're not a reliable source because of bias, then why are other biased news sites considered reliable sources? SemiHypercube (talk) 14:12, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@SemiHypercube: Which sources? And where are they used? Could you provide an example? --ChiveFungi (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, technically, non-neutral sources can still be reliable, see WP:NPOVS. Therefore, a source like Daily Wire could be a reliable source. Additionally, there are many sources that are cited in articles that are biased, such as The Washington Post, HuffPost, etc. SemiHypercube (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@SemiHypercube: Is there such a thing as a neutral source? --ChiveFungi (talk) 18:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I might have to ask you again, why are you removing citations to right-leaning sites and calling them non-reliable sources, or sometimes even not as sources at all, as with this edit? Your edits seem to be pushing a leftist POV. Again, you should look at WP:NPOVS. If you are editing with too much bias, I might recommend that you edit outside of political articles, or at least put a reminder of this on your userpage. Thanks. SemiHypercube (talk) 18:07, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@SemiHypercube: That revert was unrelated to the quality of the source. The content they added said 75,000 signatures while the Fox News source says 10,000 signatures - it was a matter of uncited material being added. Feel free to read the article and verify my claim.

I appreciate you questioning what you believe may be biased actions by me. However I think asking somebody to step away from editing because they removed a citation to Fox News (a source widely considered to be unreliable across Wikipedia, for an unrelated reason, I might add) is a little rude. We all have our biases, I don't pretend that I don't have a POV and I don't pretend that my edits don't reflect that to some extent, but I abide by the rules and I collaborate, I don't try and stop people from editing because they don't share my opinions. --ChiveFungi (talk) 01:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I saw that you reverted the addition of racial topics in Chelsea Peretti. But interracial marriages are beautiful things and should be promoted. I think it makes sense to celebrate that they are an interracial couple.84.44.240.98 (talk) 15:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@84.44.240.98: While a positive sentiment, Wikipedia is not really a venue for promoting stuff. See WP:NPOV. --ChiveFungi (talk) 17:31, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

But wikipedia is about knowledge and all the added info regarding their race is all factual. Sorry if it caused any racist reactions in people like you. 84.44.240.98 (talk) 11:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I reversed your inclusion of labeling LAURA Loomer as alt-right. I looked into the source. The piece labels her though I have not seen anything to indicate she self-identify with the term. I’ve seen her say she rejects the term “alt-right” and that she spars with Richard Spencer in the very piece. Also IMPORTANT detail is you can’t be Jewish in the alt-right. I guess you missed a lot of their talking points because they emphasize a European-ancestry and reject Christian doctrine. TheTBirdusThoracis (talk) 22:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Hypertext Transfer Protocol: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. - zfJames Please ping me in your reply on this page (chat page , contribs) 00:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. 173.62.245.63 (talk) 12:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Funny that you acuse other people of conspiracy theories when you seem to have obvious bias. I hope people like you don't manage to drag Wikipedia throught the mud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.23.72.92 (talk • contribs)