User talk:ChiveFungi

This user may have left Wikipedia. ChiveFungi has not edited Wikipedia since 4 November 2018. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Hello, ChiveFungi! 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)[reply ] Getting Started Contributing to Wikipedia Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Reliable sources 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 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 Talk pages User scripts

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hello, ChiveFungi. 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

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)[reply]

You were mentioned in an

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 [1] you can do [2].

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) ==[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi ChiveFungi,

In the last several months, you've participated in a discussion on

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

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

Hello, ChiveFungi. 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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[reply]

Dealing with repeated disruptive editing on several pages and for several days now: [3] [4] [5] Someone is not here to build an encyclopedia, from what I'm seeing. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply

]

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

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

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@

WP:NPOV. --ChiveFungi (talk) 17:31, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

Hi Chive Fungi. Would it not be better to leave the Twiiter citation as ^[1] rather than ^[2] The "Candace Owens on Twitter" seems to be an odd title and if you put the quote in the title it serves the same role. Also if you had any input on the use of twitter to establish a subject's positions, there is a discussion on the talk page. cheersPatapsco913 (talk) 22:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Patapsco913: Hi! I think the latter is marginally better. It's using the citation template as intended so I think it will look better and be a little easier for people to read - as readers will be expecting the quote to come at the end and to not look like a link. --ChiveFungi (talk) 11:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May you provide more evidences about it as a white supremacist association?--1233^Talk 14:32, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@1233: I've added some non-paywalled citations to the lede. --ChiveFungi (talk) 21:03, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Basically my argument is that it is a controversy and you can not exactly say it is officially harassment without seeming somewhat biased, so all I'm advocating for is a less biased-seeming tone of text. I'm not advocating that we say he didn't harass anybody (even though I wouldn't advocate that he did), just that (in this particular circumstance) there is controversy surrounding the situation depending on which side of the argument you look at, as there are people out there who defend him on this case. I would reference some articles or other sources but if I'm being honest I'm not really skilled enough in editing pages to add links without messing it up haha. But at least consider my argument. I'm not trying to be a troll or anything so sorry if I'm annoying you. I don't usually edit all that much so I don't really have the time to learn everything. Actually come to think of it, I scanned very briefly through the sources linked to that specific part of the article and I'm pretty sure there was some material in there to argue my case, but like I said I skimmed. All this conflict over a slight change of phrase seems a bit unnecesary however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WiseJoeVescar (talk • contribs) 13:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@WiseJoeVescar: Probably best to discuss this on the article's talk page so that everybody can participate. --ChiveFungi (talk) 20:54, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the word in the discussion and apologise for causing offence with it. I can't really say much because of

@Ritchie333: I totally understand that. I know in the context of your friendship that word is okay, but sometimes things can get complicated when you take in-jokes into a wider context. Thanks for removing it! I appreciate it. --ChiveFungi (talk) 15:57, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't reply. At the time you posted to my talk page, it was the middle of my night (although I might have been up to let my old dog out!). I try to check people's contribution pages to see if they're likely to be around. But the key thing is never use talk pages to report threats of doxxing, see

I saw what you did over at Wikiquote regarding Coraline Ada Ehmke; thanks so much!--Jorm (talk) 22:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i'm Tomybrz on fr.wikipedia. (I'm not a administrator) but i moved your request to fr:Wikipédia:Requête aux administrateurs (see w:fr:Special:diff/152948964). This user has been blocked. Thanks for your report. Regards . Tomybrz Bip Bip 16:43, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomybrz: Thank you for your help! Merci! --ChiveFungi (talk) 16:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at

• I was not "lying" - I improved color consistency by changing the rgb value of the entry in row 4, column 2 to match the rgb values of the other highlighted entries in column
• I swapped the color coding between columns 1 and 2 to change the implication that "Oppose laws that require transgender individuals to use bathrooms that correspond to their birth sex" is bad because it had a red color coding. Wikipedia is a trans-friendly/pro-trans platform. Please see
  MOS:GENDERID and WP:Gender identity
  . Laws restricting trans people is negative, therefore being opposed to such laws is good, and vice versa.

Please do not accuse editors with valid contribution histories of lying. At least use less confrontational language and terminology such as "misleading" if you feel misled by an edit. Update: thank you for for understanding. Transphobia sucks, and I say this as a trans Wikipedian =) 𝒶𝓎𝒶𝓃𝓮_𝓂^{💬 • ✏} 19:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They're gay dude, get over yourself. R.A Huston (talk) 11:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ChiveFungi, we had an edit conflict at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, where we both reported R.A Huston at the same time. I have merged the two reports.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:43, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ChiveFungi. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]