User talk:Reginus Paulius Gryphus

Protocol[edit]

Next time you want to make an edit which you can reasonably anticipate would be controversial, please discuss it on the article's talk page beforehand. Thank you. DS (talk) 03:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that a woman is a woman and that this woman has stated that she is a woman couldn't be further from controversial. You may need to be domesticated back into the realm of reason to understand something so atomically reasonable. Reginus Paulius Gryphus (talk) 07:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't pretend to be stupid. Given that there was a commented-out warning in all caps saying "DON'T DO THIS"(which I know you saw, because you deleted it), you can reasonably anticipate that doing it anyway would be considered controversial. A simple post to the talk page - "look, this source says that Stodden is using she/her again, so unless someone has a really good reason not to within the next 24 hours, I'm going to switch the article back to that" would be enough. And then after 24 hours, an edit summary of "per talk page". Nobody could argue with that.

This is a group project. Showing that you're willing to stay within protocol for achieving consensus is important, otherwise the whole thing would become even more of a chaotic mess.

You don't have to keep participating on Wikipedia, but you'll get better results this way. DS (talk) 20:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DragonflySixtyseven They haven't paid any attention to this warning, in fact it seems they've defied it. See [[1]] with the edit summary "'Fixed grammar - Gender dysphoria is a serious illness and no one should use pathologies for political purpose. News and opinion articles, as well as the entertainment industry, are not reliable sources for mental health issues." Which looks like a BLP violation as well. Doug Weller talk 07:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BLPN#Emma D'Arcy - is the edit summary a violation of BLP?[edit]

Doug Weller talk 07:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CT alert for gender related issues[edit]

You have recently made edits related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them. This is a standard message to inform you that gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Doug Weller talk 07:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely as not being here to build an encyclopedia, as per your comprehensive userpage indications including abuse of editors. 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 ~~~~}}. Bishonen | tålk 08:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen

"Bishzillablocked with roaring. Bishonen | tålk 08:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)."

It is worthless powertripping parasites like you that sabotage any chances to have good things, such as a nexus of truthful and academically neutral information. To see an issue in such a based, informed and proven statement like "gender dysphoria is a serious illness and no one should make light of such pathologies" is pure fanatism.

You may not agree with the truth, but to say I'm not here to built an encyclopedia is just one more lie to what I'm guessing is a long list of lies. We just don't have the same vision nor definition of what an encyclopedia is.

In anycase, you are a sick individual and I see that like many, you elected Wikipedia as your asylum. Good for you, good for you. I'll happily leave you and your little friends play with this abomination and farce you call an encyclopedia. ;) Reginus Paulius Gryphus (talk) 11:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for proving you live in a racist climate change denying fantasy world. But you aren't here to build Wikipedia or you wouldn't have said "This false encyclopedia is a cesspool of the lowest kind of humans, people without any principles, morals and faith. I encourage anyone to find alternative to this cancer and, if they find one, to help it grow as much as possible", so don't pretend you are. Doug Weller talk 13:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller Racist? Thank you for proving that you are stupid and uneducated. And giving your low IQ, I can't expect you to understand what is my purpose here. You can interpret it anyway you want it, all you are doing is seeking to confirm your bias and what you want to believe, because differences that oppose your worldview scare you. You are not seeking the truth and facts, you are just a zealot made of the same clothes as the KKK, Brown Shirts, and other types of extremists. Instead of accepting the facts, you'd rather change them so you feel better. If that's not a pathology of the mind, I don't know what is. You are a sick individual. Reginus Paulius Gryphus (talk) 13:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are funny. Yep, Yale is known for graduating low IQ individuals. And any idiot can get a Masters degree from the University of London. You simply think anyone who disagrees with you is stupid and uneducated. That's true ignorance. I will leave it at that, please do throw more insults around so that people know you for what you are. I could easily delete all this and block you from using this page, but I'd rather leave it here. Doug Weller talk 14:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller Sherri Ann Charleston. Need I say more? You are using sophistry, you lost the argument. Were you half as educated as you pretend to be, you'd know better than to use sophistry. And your gaslighting is not fooling anyone — you're the one pretending there's more than 2 genders and making light of gender dysphoria as if it wasn't a severe delibitating illness. That makes you the most ignorant between the two of us, and by far. Reginus Paulius Gryphus (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]