User talk:Deeuu

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)[reply]

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

• News and notes: AffCom still grappling with WMF Board's criteria for new chapters

• Special report: Olympics readership depended on language

• In the media: Librarians, Wikipedians, and a library of Wikipedia coverage

• 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

• Recent research: One study encounters critique of its ethics from Wikipedians; another critiques the ethics employed by Wikipedia

• Blog: Upload of free photos from Swiss library underway

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 16:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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

Flipboard

Email

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

you need to stop vandalising this page and the behest of the subject of the BLP. remain impartial with your editing 1.125.105.19 (talk) 00:09, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Er, so according to you professor, FACTS are vandalism, but your regurgitation of tabloid journalist gossip is not... Oh no Guy, you haven't been on the skunk again have you? Or have you just supped deeply from the cup of postmodernism eh?

You really are a bitter twisted, irrelevant wee boy aren't you. Your constant display of pettiness, ignorance of how Wikipedia works, your flagrant disregard for truth, reality & decency are something next level and your own unwarranted air of self importance is most amusing. I do like to watch mediocre 5th rate men humiliate themselves, again & again, & again... So go hard champ. Carry on having no care for other users while you desperately try to work out your clear inadequacies publicly by vandalising that page over and over again. Maybe if you registered an account your bleating in the wilderness may be taken more seriously, highly unlikely, but nevertheless possible. Deeuu (talk) 00:40, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

you will find out when she fucks you over. she fucks everyone over 1.125.111.19 (talk) 07:51, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In your recent edit at Dannii Minogue you inserted the text Based on your request, here is the full piece formatted for direct insertion into a Wikipedia article. The text has been structured with a section heading and corrected reference tags., which you presumably copied accidentally from a chatbot. Using LLMs to write content in Wikipedia articles is usually not recommended, and there is an expectation for editors to disclose in an edit summary when text was generated automatically. Remember that editors are always responsible for their own work. See the essay Wikipedia:Large language models for more information. Thanks, –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 15:28, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "controversy" mentioned in your edit, while the story itself is a nothing-burger, I'll also note that none of the sources clearly relate Minogue to the story, nor describe it as accusations she failed to address. Avoid WP:editorializing, especially on WP:BLPs. Transphobic backlash to I Kissed a Boy season 2 and is described in WP:DUE weight at I Kissed a Boy (TV series)#Reception. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 15:37, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deeuu! I noticed that you've made several edits in order to restore your preferred version of Tziporah Malkah. The impulse to repeatedly undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure that you're aware of Wikipedia's edit warring policy. Repeatedly undoing the changes made by other users in a back-and-forth fashion like this is disallowed, even if you feel what you're doing is justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages in order to try to reach a consensus with the other editors involved. If you are unable to come to an agreement at Talk:Tziporah Malkah, please use one of the dispute resolution options that are available in order to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of repeatedly reverting other editors' changes can help you avoid getting drawn into edit wars. Thank you. StAnselm (talk) 17:16, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@StAnselm Thanks. I started a talk on the subject. I hope it is helpful and illustrates the matter appropriately. This page has previously been vandalised by a former acquaintance of the LP and I fear this may also be related. It's 2026 not 1996, women should not be defined by unremarkable men they crossed paths with briefly over 30 years ago, surely? Deeuu (talk) 07:14, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing a page's content back to how you believe it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree with your changes. Please stop editing the page and use the talk page to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus among the editors involved. Wikipedia provides a page explaining how this is accomplished. If discussions reach an impasse, you can request help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution such as a third opinion. In some cases, you may wish to request page protection while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.

If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia—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, or whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please 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 do not violate the three-revert rule— if things indicate that you intend to continue reverting content on the page. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:29, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, according to the reverts you've made to Tziporah Malkah. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. StAnselm (talk) 20:58, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Deeuu. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the Edit Request Wizard), including links or details of reliable sources that support your suggestions;
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:02, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note. I want to clarify that I am not editing on behalf of the subject, nor am I receiving any form of compensation. My involvement on Wikipedia is as an academic concerned with evidence‑based sourcing and the correct application of WP:BLP, WP:BLPSOURCES and WP:UNDUE. My comments in the BLPN thread have been grounded entirely in those policies.

Editors are not required to disclose personal details about their private lives, and COI applies when someone is editing to promote, protect or represent a subject. That is not what I am doing. I have raised concerns because the material in question is a contentious claim about a living person that lacks verifiable evidence and does not meet BLP sourcing requirements.

I will continue to propose changes on article talk pages and follow Wikipedia’s content policies as expected. Deeuu (talk) 03:22, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are still required to disclose your conflict of interest. You have so far completed avoided confirming/denying if you have a personal relationship with the subject. You still need to do this even if you are not arguing on their behalf. I will continue asking until you do so. If you continue to dodge the question I will be forced to make a post to WP:COIN. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:37, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I want to be clear that I am editing in accordance with Wikipedia’s policies. WP:COI applies when an editor is acting to promote, protect or represent a subject, or when there is a financial, organisational or advocacy‑based connection. None of that applies here. Speculation about whether an editor may or may not know a public figure is not relevant to COI, and editors are not required to disclose personal information about themselves.

My involvement in this discussion has been based entirely on the requirements of WP:BLP, WP:BLPSOURCES and WP:UNDUE. The material in question is a contentious claim about a living person that lacks verifiable evidence and does not meet BLP sourcing standards. That is the issue under discussion.

I will not be responding further to personal questions. If there are policy‑based points to address, I am happy to discuss those on the article talk page or at BLPN. Deeuu (talk) 05:30, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:56, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:25, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Due to your disruptive edit warring, editing against consensus and refusal to confirm, deny or explain your possible personal connection with the subject, you have been indefinitely pageblocked from editing Tziporah Malkah. If you engage in similar behavior elsewhere on Wikipedia, the block may be extended sitewide. Please read the Guide to appealing blocks. Cullen328 (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting review of the pageblock placed on me for the article Tziporah Malkah. I will not edit the article while the block is in effect. My concern is that the rationale for the block does not appear to be supported by policy or by the diffs.

1. Edit warring

I reverted the claim about a “formal engagement” twice because it was unsourced and contradicted by the subject. Once discussion began, I moved the dispute to the article talk page and sought wider input through the appropriate noticeboards. I did not continue reverting after initiating discussion, and I followed the steps outlined in WP:DR.

2. “Editing against consensus”

There was no established consensus on the content issue. The talk page discussion was unresolved, and the BLPN thread did not address the sourcing question. The claim in question has no source whatsoever, reliable or otherwise, and in more than 30 years no published, reliable source has ever documented that a formal engagement occurred. The subject has publicly stated that it did not occur. I understand that AN and ANI are not venues for content resolution, but I want to clarify that I did not edit against a settled consensus.

3. “Refusal to confirm or deny a personal connection”

I did not answer questions about my private life because editors are not required to disclose personal information, and I have no connection to the subject of the biography. I did not believe such questions were relevant to the content dispute or appropriate under policy.

4. Context of the block

The ANI discussion focused heavily on personal speculation and commentary that did not relate to the underlying policy question. The central issue - that the claim had no source at all, and that no published, reliable source has ever documented such an engagement - was not addressed. As a result, the behavioural assessment appears to have been made without evaluating the factual or policy context that led to the dispute.

I am requesting that an uninvolved administrator review whether the pageblock is appropriate based on the diffs and the relevant policies. I would also appreciate guidance on the correct venue for obtaining a neutral, policy‑focused review of the underlying sourcing question.

Thank you for your time.

— Deeuu

The administrative noticeboards are not the place to deal with content issue so it's not surprising that it was not addressed at ANI. You've already twice asked at BLPN for review and multiple editors who've never edited that page before, have far more understanding of our policies and guidelines and far more experience here, and have no connection to the subject, have said you're wrong on the content issue. Not liking the response doesn't mean there's been no independent review, see WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. Finally if you want to appeal your block please read or re-read the WP:guide to appealing blocks which was already linked above. It's incredibly unlikely your appeal will succeed if you don't even use the right template as an independent admin may not even see it or at least won't bother to review your block if you can't even get the extreme basics right. Nil Einne (talk) 06:12, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am another uninvolved administrator and can assure you that the block will not be overturned any time soon. A few months of untroubled editing on other topics may lead to a new result. One tip: people do not like engaging with long text indistinguishable from AI-generated platitudes. Johnuniq (talk) 06:16, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that would help is to clear up the mess regarding File:Tziporah Malkah.jpg. The Instagram explanation does not hold water because of the metadata associated with the image. Administrators dislike deception. Cullen328 (talk) 06:35, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t verify the origin of the image beyond my recollection at the time, and I have no connection to the subject. If I misunderstood the upload instructions, that was an honest mistake. I don’t have anything further to add regarding the file. Deeuu (talk) 09:19, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible. Cullen328 (talk) 09:44, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) FYI metadata is like a fingerprint - it consists of technical information about a file, confirming where/when/how that file was generated.

If you say "X" and the metadata for the file you've uploaded says "Y", others will usually go off the metadata and trust that "Y" happened.

The only alternative explanation is that the file metadata was somehow falsified, which is obviously very concerning as it's a file that you personally uploaded to this website from your computer/phone. Blue Sonnet (talk) 12:02, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't appreciate the attempt to pretend that you have been asked about details of your private life. That's obviously an attempt to evade legitimate scrutiny. You have been asked about your involvement with the subject only insofar as it affects Wikipedia. That would be a professional involvement, even if it were an unpaid one. You have been more than happy to stand on your alleged credentials in the past, e.g. as "an academic who used to teach postmodernist Queer Theory". (Not that it matters, but I very much doubt the veracity of that.) You showed a blatant disregard for the privacy of others when you vandalised an article about a trans person. This newfound respect for the sanctity of privacy, at least when it can be applied to yourself, reeks of DARVO and you should know that we are not stupid enough to fall for that. If you are to have any hope of staying on Wikipedia then these silly games need to stop although, to be honest, I think it may already be too late for that. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:43, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to appeal, you can do so using the unblock wizard. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:17, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]