User talk:Deeuu
Wikipedia Help Survey
[edit]Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.
Thank you for your time,
the wub (talk) 17:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)
The Signpost: 6 September 2016
[edit]
- Special report: Olympics readership depended on language
- WikiProject report: Watching Wikipedia
- Featured content: Entertainment, sport, and something else in-between
- Traffic report: From Phelps to Bolt to Reddit
- Technology report: Wikimedia mobile sites now don't load images if the user doesn't see them
July 2022
[edit]
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Funcrunch (talk) 06:42, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Munroe Bergdorf, you may be blocked from editing. Funcrunch (talk) 06:42, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Funcrunch either Wikipedia is about factual accuracy or it is a total nonsense. I have no interest in ridiculous postmodernist ontological metaphysics. I simply care about the truth. this article is about a male and therefore should be factually correct. inclusiveness is not about you censoring science & replacing it with genius beliefs. That's a form of Orwellian wrong think. Deeuu (talk) 06:49, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Funcrunch You have totally failed to answer one point that I have made. That reflects upon your bigotry & ignorance not my "vandalism"... How sad to live in such a tiny world where truth & reality must be extinguished for you to be able to validate a bizarre, paedophile inspired cult. This never ends well for the criminally stupid, but how would you even be able to find this out as history is being rewritten & science is ignored. Well done, don't let the truth interfere with your ego eh? Deeuu (talk) 07:03, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. April 2023
[edit]
Hello, I'm DanielRigal. I noticed that you recently removed content from Magdalen Berns without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. I'm being generous here by not making this a higher level warning given that your edit summary had absolutely nothing to do with the change you made. I am not sure if you did that deliberately or out of carelessness so I will let that slide once. Only once. If I see you do that again I will assume it is a deliberate attempt to avoid scrutiny. DanielRigal (talk) 11:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- @DanielRigal Magdalen NEVER used that postmodernist term, but you wouldn't know that or care - just follow your cult script mate. Your historical revisionism does not change the facts. But, as you have just proved, Wikipedia is ideologically captured & a bigger joke than it used to be... Deeuu (talk) 11:55, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- It is not part of a quotation. We are not attributing the word to her. We are explaining who she was talking about. Your edit rendered the sentence vastly less clear. You have already been blocked for disruptive editing once before. If you keep on with this nonsense then you will end up getting blocked indefinitely. You don't have to do that. Please find another article on a topic completely unrelated to trans people and edit that in a constructive way instead. DanielRigal (talk) 12:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- @DanielRigal Home
- Search
- CloseSearch the siteGO
- Science, Tech, Math
- Humanities
- Languages
- Resources
- About Us
- Contact Us
- Editorial Guidelines
- Privacy Policy
- Ad
- Humanities › Literature
- '1984' Quotes Explained
- Share
- 1984 Study Guide
- Introduction
- Overview
- Summary
- Characters
- Themes
- Key Quotes
- Discussion Questions
- Vocabulary
- Quiz
- By
- Jeffrey Somers
- Updated on April 22, 2019
- ‛Big Brother is watching you.’
- "In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it ... And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable…what then?" Deeuu (talk) 12:24, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- A person who sneakily removes facts that they wish to suppress from Wikipedia, seeking to obfuscate not clarify our articles, is quoting from Nineteen Eightyfour? Truly irony knows no limits! Anyway, I may be moderately big but I'm not your brother. I'm just a Wikipedian who protects articles from vandalism. I'm not here to hound you. Just avoid any further vandalism and I'll probably forget you exist soon enough. DanielRigal (talk) 12:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- @DanielRigal removing a nonsense meaningless word is NOT vandalism. Yes, you are just a "Wikipedian" whereas I am an academic who used to teach postmodernist Queer Theory. I know that "cisgender" is a philosophical word that is understood by few. The term was only coined in 1994. German sexologist Volkmar Sigusch used the neologism cissexual (zissexuell in German) in his 1998 essay "The Neosexual Revolution". Somewhat niche wouldn't you say? Whereas the word lesbian on the other hand goes back into antiquity. It is understood very clearly by almost every English speaker, not to mention those non English speakers who have variants of the word in their native languages. Precisely what is your problem with material reality & well understood language? Reinstate the edit which actually upgraded the entry & allowed more than a select few Queer Theory zealots to fully grasp the point she made consistently. I won't hold my breath. I have encountered students like you before - unable to deal with basic facts & follow the evidence because of a weak intellect & ideological confirmation bias... Deeuu (talk) 16:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- Niche? Cisgender people are approximately 99.5% of the population. That's quite some niche.I won't comment on your alleged credentials except to say that, if what you say is true, then all that proves is that you really should know better than to behave as you have. You were caught sneakily removing valid content with what was, at best, an irrelevant and, at worst, misleading edit summary. Trying to stand on your alleged credentials as an academic doesn't help with that at all. Anyway, nobody is trying to redefine lesbian here. All we are doing is making it clear precisely which lesbians Berns was talking about. She was talking about cisgender lesbians very specifically rather than all lesbians, which would include trans lesbians as well as cis lesbians and hence not accurately reflect what Berns was saying. (No, I do not want to hear any counterfactual arguments against that so please don't bother.) We can't make her sound good but we can at least explain her views in a way that is coherent and comprehensible to our readers. This is an encyclopaedia, after all. Your edit will not be reinstated. Your argument is not even with Wikipedia. Your argument is with the dictionary and with the English language itself. You simply dislike the word cisgender. I suspect that everybody has a word or two that they wish was not in the dictionary but that's not Wikipedia's problem. DanielRigal (talk) 17:07, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- @DanielRigal removing a nonsense meaningless word is NOT vandalism. Yes, you are just a "Wikipedian" whereas I am an academic who used to teach postmodernist Queer Theory. I know that "cisgender" is a philosophical word that is understood by few. The term was only coined in 1994. German sexologist Volkmar Sigusch used the neologism cissexual (zissexuell in German) in his 1998 essay "The Neosexual Revolution". Somewhat niche wouldn't you say? Whereas the word lesbian on the other hand goes back into antiquity. It is understood very clearly by almost every English speaker, not to mention those non English speakers who have variants of the word in their native languages. Precisely what is your problem with material reality & well understood language? Reinstate the edit which actually upgraded the entry & allowed more than a select few Queer Theory zealots to fully grasp the point she made consistently. I won't hold my breath. I have encountered students like you before - unable to deal with basic facts & follow the evidence because of a weak intellect & ideological confirmation bias... Deeuu (talk) 16:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- A person who sneakily removes facts that they wish to suppress from Wikipedia, seeking to obfuscate not clarify our articles, is quoting from Nineteen Eightyfour? Truly irony knows no limits! Anyway, I may be moderately big but I'm not your brother. I'm just a Wikipedian who protects articles from vandalism. I'm not here to hound you. Just avoid any further vandalism and I'll probably forget you exist soon enough. DanielRigal (talk) 12:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- It is not part of a quotation. We are not attributing the word to her. We are explaining who she was talking about. Your edit rendered the sentence vastly less clear. You have already been blocked for disruptive editing once before. If you keep on with this nonsense then you will end up getting blocked indefinitely. You don't have to do that. Please find another article on a topic completely unrelated to trans people and edit that in a constructive way instead. DanielRigal (talk) 12:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:Deeuu, you may be blocked from editing. While you have considerable latitude in what you can say on your own User Talk page this does not extend to making bizarre and incoherent accusations of "a paedophile promoting cult" which, as far as I can tell, were directed at Wikipedia itself. DanielRigal (talk) 17:44, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- @DanielRigal Well, as you indulged in a non sequitur argument pertaining to the "niche" quality of a meaningless postmodernist word, I'm not in the slightest bit surprised that you lack the wit or knowledge to fully appreciate what you're up to. The fact that you either failed to comprehend, or more likely deliberately deflected the statement of fact - you've consistently shown that you struggle with reality - that you are a supporter, adherent & maybe even a fully fledged activist for the compelled cult of gender identity makes me laugh. To obfuscate & suggest that I was referring to Wikipedia is clownish & undergraduate... Wikipedia was established as a knowledge repository. it is now being "gatekept" by ideologues like yourself who are intellectually timid & morally bankrupt. If you are so confident that you are correct, maybe you can furnish me with scientific proof - over 3 Sigma - that gender identity even exists, because, unless you can do that then your ridiculous statement claiming that almost 100% of people are "cisgender" is just that, ridiculous unsupported hyperbole. I realise that we are in an area where I have the expertise, knowledge & scientific facts on my side. You, on the other hand, have nothing but threats of blocking me & too much power that allows you to stifle debate & contaminate cyberspace with ideologically motivated lies & untruths. I think we're at that point - you know the one - where you have no leg to stand on, so, as with all of your ilk, you will now block me because your options otherwise are limited & your tribe will turn on you if you allow facts & reality to be published. As sex in humans is dimorphic & immutable there are only males & females. Lesbians are same sex attracted females. Therefore, unless you furnish solid scientific proof of "gender identity" - none exists - your revisionary activism is very much vandalism - a concept that you bizarrely raised early, but with an obviously poor grasp of its actual meaning of the word vandalism. May I suggest that you correct the entry based on the factual reality that I have acquainted you with. A failure to do so clearly violates the trust that Wikipedia has put in you & is a clear demonstration that you are utterly unfit for the role you are supposedly performing. Deeuu (talk) 03:08, 5 April 2023 (UTC)