User talk:Jseven11

September 2020
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Sexual reproduction has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 17:16, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Sexual reproduction was changed by Jseven11 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.957376 on 2020-09-20T17:15:58+00:00

Men taking over and erasing definitions of female born women
‪GorillaWarfare‬ You are removing women from a “female essence” definition. When little girls look up female essence now they only see male born trans info? May I remind you there is NO “female essence” with out “ Female “ born women! What would do you think would be your point of reference for the Trans women without a female born women? I have added the proper edits to include the origins of the words female and essence and the actual essence of “female” how dare you remove them and remove women from a women conversation to inject your political ideologies! Shame on you. Jseven11 (talk) 18:34, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * First of all, I am a woman, so I'm not sure where this "Men taking over and erasing definitions of female born women" thing is coming from.
 * Of course people see info about transgender people on the page Feminine essence concept of transsexuality—it's specifically about that. When your hypothetical little girls look up "female essence" they will be redirected from Female essence to Cultural feminism, so unless they are specifically looking for information on how it pertains to transgender/transsexual people your concern is unfounded.
 * This has nothing to do with my political ideology, and everything to do with the requirement that everything on Wikipedia be reliably sourced and representative of mainstream academic consensus. Do not try to use Wikipedia to push your own views. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Jseven11 (talk) 18:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know how I can be clearer that the page you were editing was named "Feminine essence concept of transsexuality". If you have forgotten, you can view your own user contributions to confirm. The title of the page is quite clear that it is discussing "feminine essence" as it is relevant to trans topics. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:59, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I apologize I now see the title now. The deception is “Feminine Essence” however when feminine essence is typed in google it goes directly to the trans page definition instead of being directed to the actual search request.


 * Wikipedia does not have control over Google's search algorithm, and the ranking of Google results does not have to do with the ordering of words in the article title. I would suggest you take up your concerns with Google.
 * I would strongly recommend you review Wikipedia's requirements on reliable sourcing and neutral point of view before attempting to edit the page again. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:24, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Are you an employee of Wikipedia? Because that’s complete nonsense and you know it. If you don’t I encourage you to learn more about how Internet works. The way things are titled is a big factor in how it comes up in a search, on all search engines. How often something comes up when a topic is searched also helps push it out to more people. You know this. If you don’t and your a Wikipedia employee you should not be doing this job. Jseven11 (talk) 19:38, 20 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I am not a Wikipedia employee, I am a volunteer editor like the vast majority of editors on Wikipedia. I also happen to be a software engineer by trade, so there is no need to "encourage me to learn more about how the Internet works". If you would like to suggest the page be renamed, the place to do so would be the article talk page or Requested moves. However, I have never seen a page be renamed in an attempt to influence Google search rankings, so I would suggest trying to come up with a policy-based reason (Article titles) to rename the article rather than what you're discussing now. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok thank you. I’d love Wikipedia to be a place that fact based information can be found. This includes anyone being able to search for something and find accurately what they have searched for. So I will definitely look into the links you have sent. This is so disturbing to me. Last I never said anything about “men” erasing female born woman as you suggested above. That being said Women have done a good job at doing that to ourselves. Jseven11 (talk) 19:47, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I just realized I was accurate from the beginning Gorillawarfare there is actually no reference to Female born women because the cultural feminism is a completely different topic that has zero to do with the feminine essence.

There needs to be a page exclusively for females referring to our essence as women. The little girls and other can access immediately when they look up feminine essence. To only have it posted for male born or trans- is absolutely shameful. Who do I talk to about this ? Who actually works for Wikipedia that can fix this extremely important narrative ? Jseven11 (talk) 20:05, 20 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Feel free to start a discussion at Talk:Cultural feminism around why you think Female essence should be its own page rather than a redirect. I would recommend creating a short draft of what you think the page should say, along with the reliable sources you plan to include in the page. You can create a subpage in your userspace for this purpose and then include a link to it in your discussion on the talk page.
 * Regarding your request to talk to someone who "works for Wikipedia", the content of Wikipedia is all determined by its volunteer editing community, not by paid employees. While the Wikimedia Foundation (the organization that is responsible for the English Wikipedia and various other language Wikipedias as well as sister projects like Wiktionary, etc.) does have paid employees to do things like fundraising and software development on the MediaWiki software, they are not involved in actually creating or deciding the content of the encyclopedia. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Then why are you able to remove my edits ? Jseven11 (talk) 20:15, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Do I need to become a volunteer to balance the scales of accurate information. Jseven11 (talk) 20:15, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You are a volunteer—anyone who edits Wikipedia is. However, editors can remove other editors' changes when they are non-constructive (such as your introduction of grammatical errors just now) or not in keeping with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (such as your previous edits which were unsourced). If you disagree with my choice to remove your changes, feel free to dispute them by beginning a discussion at Talk:Feminine essence concept of transsexuality. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:17, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

It’s all so much more clear now even though my edits are fact based from legitimate sources such as dictionary’s that were completed by  linguist and lexicographer or scientific articles completed by the science community that is skilled in biology and creation Ex. All my edits were erased or reverted to old edits. Some of the pages on gender and others have been locked even though information is miss leading and inaccurate. Now I know why, as a queer/homosexual human that identifies as Women your goal is not to actually disseminate fact based information to help society but is to further your agenda. I have absolutely no issues with who a person decided to love share their body with or their chosen identity, I have a huge issue with removing rights of everyone else to facts in an effort to aggressively force a narrative you chosen as fact but is baseless. I see now this publication is not to further education or be a source of learning but rather a weapon in a political cultural war to force change. I can see based on your presumed age you are part of a generation that values cancel culture and winning over what’s right. Now this all makes sense. If they allow you to take over this publication like this, it’s no longer worth my effort because it’s not for the public’s highest good. It’s a way to silence anyone that valueS fact based history, language and science in the event that they don’t agree with the desired of narrative or a extreme political agenda. Jseven11 (talk) 20:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC)


 * If for any reason you decide to return, I strongly suggest you do not insult other editors by implying their policy-based changes are based on their sexuality and highly inappropriate assumptions about their gender. You are really gunning for a topic ban from gender-related topics, but since you will be leaving I see no reason to pursue it at the moment. Thank you for your contributions, and be well. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:49, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

If you were insulted it’s not because I have said anything disrespectful or disparaging about you, your sexuality or Wikipedia but only the actual “reason” you are blocking fact based information and intentionally promoting false narratives based on opinions. Along with misleading searches a

You posted that you self identity as “queer” homosexual. I didn’t make anything up. Personally, I don’t see how what you do in the bedroom has anything to do with who you are or your job. Not sure why it’s posted. I intentionally made it clear that I have absolutely no issues with your life choices. Instead of thinking about the potential harm your resistance to allowing fact based information would cause simply to further your personal agenda, you use what I say defense weapon to excuse complete censorship and freedom of speech. It’s a method of distraction. I have read the actual Wikipedia rules and guidelines nothing I wrote in my edits or to you warrants removal or ban. Your chosen interpretation of what I wrote and the power that’s been given to you allows you to classify my post as you personally see it. Then go to cancel culture to silence facts. This is called Propaganda Censorship. Your playing a very dangerous game that historically has not worked out for the highest good of humanity. Jseven11 (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

There is no need for the public to edit or post if the editors are acting as a Gestapo ish censorship And propaganda for Wikipedia Jseven11 (talk) 21:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)