User talk:Fussballspieler11

Your submission at Articles for creation

Jordan Older, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

buff bills 7701 01:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Jordan Older

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as Jordan Older, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. The page has been nominated for deletion, in accordance with Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Mindy Dirt (talk) 01:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re:how to upload Jordan Older image?

Hello, Fussballspieler11. You have new messages at C.Fred's talk page.
Message added 03:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

In a nutshell: you'll need to get somebody to take a new image of him. We can't use images that you find on the web, because they aren't under a free license. —C.Fred (talk) 03:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign messages you leave at talk pages

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at User talk:C.Fred, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 03:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks C.Fred Fussballspieler11 (talk) 03:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Jordan Older for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jordan Older is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan Older until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. KDS4444^Talk 05:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Asides

Whether the article mentioned above is kept or deleted, I wanted to tell you that I hope you will continue to contribute to Wikipedia as an editor. Creating your first article can be difficult and challenging— I had my own first article deleted years ago. One of the mistakes I made then was assuming that I knew how to write an article for Wikipedia before I really did. What would have worked much better for me, in retrospect, would have been to have begun by editing a number of articles already written by other editors until I had a well-developed sense of what constitutes Wikipedia notability and how to go about demonstrating it in the context of an article. Having an article, especially your first, even considered for deletion should not dissuade you or anyone else from further contributions here. Please accept the experience (no matter the outcome) as an opportunity to learn how the article creation process works, because it is not as simple or as easy as it might seem at first, and it is worth learning how to do it right...

...Wikipedia tends towards erring on the side of caution when it comes to retaining or deleting articles, and the criteria for notability, though tough enough in their presentation, are actually rather easy to meet in most cases. But they must be clearly met, and any ambiguity in this respect can lead to what you have experienced with regard to the article you created on Jordan Older: an exhausting defense of what may turn out to be a valid stand-alone article. If the format and content of the citations you had used there were more consistently in line with what another editor, such as myself, expected to see and expected to find upon further examination, a deletion discussion might never have taken place. I get no pleasure from nominating an article for deletion: it is time consuming and often ends up being what feels like wasted breath. But I care about the project enough to be willing to take the time to try to sweep out what appears to be cruft so that what is left is legitimate and valid. Learning to sort the legitimate from the illegitimate takes time... Even editors with much more experience than me can still get it wrong sometimes! Good luck on your future edits, and please consider taking my advice to heart re: article creation vs. editing existing articles. There is much less frustration and anxiety on that road. Also: never take any of it personally, and try to never make it personal with anyone else— the high road there will earn you all the respect that you yourself give to the intent of the greater Wikipedia project. KDS4444^Talk 07:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

User:KDS4444 How sweet of you, it sounds like an apology. It should be. Just because it's my first article doesn't mean I am stupid. I am an award winning author and highly intelligent. Your criticism was not a good one. You didn't (couldn't) read the references in foreign languages which you do not speak yet you claim they weren't valid while at the same time mixing them up badly. You criticized each of them, just to fill space to make your unbased complaint seem valid, even though each reference is squeaky clean. Your complaint seems like it's a complaint just for the sake of it; maybe just to pad your Wikipedia experience? You blatantly miss-read reference #4 claiming it was talking about a film festival and it was in German when it was in Swedish and translated into English for you and did not contain any of the words that you claimed (west side story, film festival, etc.) It honestly made me wonder if you were competent and/or paid just to scathe the good name of my subject (I'm not claiming you were paid, just that it made me wonder because my references are so sound and the article is written directly from them.) You tried to say that the 800th most popular web site in all of Brazil (18,000 most popular in the world) was a scam and not reliable. Complete nonsense. If you read anything you should read the rules on Wikipedia that outline clearly the rules for notability for Football Association. Reference #7 satisfies that on its own. No other references needed to establish notability, but I have 9 others just to hammer the nail in completely and 3 other editors have defended the article so far and I'm sure more will be on the way. Please quit trying to look unbiased because its not working. You have an hidden agenda, in my personal opinion. Again just read reference #7 then Wikipedia's own rules for Football Association notability, then rescend your request for deletion of my article and don't try this blindsiding again.Fussballspieler11 (talk) 08:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was the wrong response. KDS4444^Talk 10:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment on my talk page

Hello. I wanted to let you know I read your comment, but I think the appropriate place to address those issues is on the deletion discussion page (where I left a detailed response). Please don't take offense, but I think you should read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles as it gives some perspective on how Wikipedia articles are to be edited. Jogurney (talk) 18:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time again. What specifically do you want me to see? I believe I did paste it on the deletion discussion. Did you check there? Btw. Are you drawing your own line as to what is considered notable or following the Wikipedia guidlines? Fussballspieler11 (talk) 20:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AFD comments

Please do not post walls and walls of text as you have done here - now reverted - it adds nothing to the discussion and in facts take away from it. Feel free to make your point but please do not repeat yourself again and again and please do so in a concise, clear manner. Giant Snowman 22:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

→Are you an admin? Do you have the power to delete my comments? Put them back "or else" :D Fussballspieler11 (talk) 22:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL LionMans Account (talk) 22:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

→ What are you trying to say? Notice the :D its a smile meaning I was joking... Anyway, you're censoring my free speech. Plain and simple.Fussballspieler11 (talk) 22:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Civility is a policy that all editors on Wikipedia are expected to follow. Editors are not allowed to run roughshod over the rules; administrators are absolutely authorized to revoke the editing privileges of users who refuse to abide by the rules. Further, as a private website, there is no right to free speech on Wikipedia (see WP:Free speech for a detailed explanation). —C.Fred (talk) 00:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

—→ C.Fred All I know is that I spent a long time doing research. About 1 hour to copy and paste over 200 search URLs that mentioned my subject over about 1 decade. These were posts from his fans (or anti-fans) on the most popular soccer forum in the world. I also did some other research and responded to a absence of negative argument someone made by saying that because we can't find MORE then my statements are false. The is an invalid proof like saying "just because I can't find it, then it must have never existed" this is the whole case of the deleters and it's not logically valid as far as I know. Given I am not some kind of classical logic expert. I could also say I don't see C.Fred so he must not exist. Or I don't see the little man behind the curatin in the Wizard of Oz so he must not exist. I think you get my point. Anyway, my comment was deleted. I wasn't behaving uncivily I just said a simple comment and posted a lot of data, each line was unique and had vital information proving my subjects fame (although not as a valid reference) just as a proof. Most would agree that anyone who has over 200 posts on said forum over the span of a decade, and even after retirement they still keep posting about him, must be notable. Of course one can always put their head in the sand (not you), but others seem to be ignoring some clear conclusions. Oh well. And I apologize if I came across as uncivil but I don't think I was as uncivil as the deleters who keep poking fun at my writing and my subjects reputation by using words like "few minutes" and "amateur" when none (zero) of his teams he ever played after the age of 20 were amateur. They did this over and over again and its akin to the popular kids on the play ground taunting the new kid and so forth... Anyway I've given up on this article and its clear, just my personal opinion, that someone has an agenda. Just look over the other soccer player articles and you'll see that a large portion of their links don't work and many played only in the very lowest fully pro league that my subject played in and never higher like the Brazil A or Paulista A or were called into a National Team/Dream Team camp. As a soccer fan I see a huge injustice and my mind is boggled. I'm past anger and now just laughing at this. Thanks for being impartial on this. And again I apologize for any energetic writing I may have passed. I will also answer your question about the tampered/changed Wikipage that lists the fully professional leagues. What happened was the format changed. It's still there, same leagues, but they deleted the defunct league category as far as I can tell and that was one of my main links and now it doesn't work so its a blow to my articles defense and a plus to the deleters because it makes me look crazy when I say click here to see the list of the leagues and now it just goes to the top of the page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Fully_professional_leagues this link used to have a defunct leagues section that I based most of my defense upon and what do you know, its gone today. In short this link used to work http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Fully_professional_leagues#Defunct_Leagues and now it doesnt. Thanks again for your time and energy.Fussballspieler11 (talk) 06:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

...for your apology. With regards to WP:GNG, it states on that page quite clearly what is needed, basically a number of reliable, independent sources which cover the subject in great detail - passing mentions are not enough. Giant Snowman 08:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

—————————→You're welcome. I respect your rights to disagree but I did my own research and found your claims to be false. WP:GNG clearly states that NFOOTBALL is independent of the WP:GNG.

Although my subject has mutliple reliable, independent sources. 1) feature in editor reviews Futebol Interior 2) you can see several on his Facebook page 3) Feature about his agency in PV News (half of the article was about my subject), although all of this... it's not needed as clearly stated here at WP:GNG:

A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.

A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right.

So clearly the NFOOTBALL is enough to pass my subject on notability even though he has starred in many national and International tv commercials, has over 200 blog posts over a decade of time 10 years or more after he retired, his own film festival, on and on and on... It baffles me as to why anyone would think he isn't notable.

Als you can't use reliable, independent sources, non editor reviewed sources to make invisible claims of the negative arguments. Just not logically provable. I'm not sure if you understand this concept?

You can't #1 use a private blog database that has no accountability or editor review as your evicence

You can't #1 say I can't find him so your valid sources that do find him are wrong, simply makes no sense

You can't argue other stuff while banning me from arguing other stuff.

You can't delete my comments supporting (not proving) notability while claiming he is non notable.

Ask yourself, why was the page deleted right when his film festival received a hostile takeover attempt by possible mafia?

Why was it hoaxed minutes after I wrote it? When it had 10 new refs and a completely new article that didnt even list exaclty the same teams. Just not plausible that this is realistic.

Why are some editors so involved, your talking a 6 year involvement here, and using minimizing words like "he played a few minutes" and "amateur" none of his teams were amateur and he played more than a few minutes, even at age 35.

Why the 25+ editors wanting to comment on it when he's not notable.

Why do you say he "barely" passes NFOOTBALL as if your emotionally charged comment that minimizes his reputation (like the other suspicious editors) changes the facts that HE PASSES NOTABILITY !!!!

Think about it. Also have a great day and remember I respect your right to disagree but also expect you to play fair and give me same respect and show my subject respect by not trying to minimize his reputation by using diminutive words to describe his career. Fussballspieler11 (talk) 20:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your posting style

Hi, I don't have any comment on the article at AfD but one comment I will make is with regards to your posting style. There is an accepted posting style on Wikipedia with regards to indenting. This is through the simple use of 1 or more colons depending on who you are replplying to. For example:

Comment A

Comment B in reply to Comment A

Comment C in reply to Comment B

Comment D in reply to Comment A

Comment E in reply to Comment C

If you edit this section you will see how the colon structure works. If you wish to add in paragraphs, it is a simple matter of adding in an extra colon after a carriage return. For example:

Comment A

Comment B paragraph 1

Comment B paragraph 2

Excessive use of colons as you have done in the AfD and the ANI makes for very disruptive reading and is difficult for others to follow. Indenting exceeding 5 or so colons can be reset by using the outdent template which will do the following.

Comment A

Comment B

Comment C

There is no hard rule that applies here, it is based entirely on common sense.

My final point is in regards to the addition of large amounts of material to your posts. For that I highly recommend you read WP:TLDR. Too much text in one post often makes others ignore your points as "too long, didn't read". Keeping your points brief and succinct is better than generating huge walls of text, which many will ignore; it's much like being lectured. If you feel that what you are posting is highly relevant but necessitates lots of text one technique is to use hatting. As an example

I have placed in here huge amounts of text that is relevant to my point
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
text and more text

Hope that is helpful to you. Blackmane (talk) 09:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

————————> Thanks for the lecture my friend UserBlackmane.Fussballspieler11 (talk) 21:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: More research finds...

Hello, Fussballspieler11. You have new messages at C.Fred's talk page.
Message added 21:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Our interactions

I've tried my hardest to avoid this but I've finally lost my patience with you...please do not post on my talk page again, and please do not notify me again (i.e. do not link to my Username anywhere). Your attitude absolutely stinks, and you have done nothing but patronize and belittle myself and others. If you post at my talk page again, I will interpret it as trolling and will revert immediately. If you attempt to post after that first (and only) revert then I will block you for harassment. I didn't want it to come to this but you refuse to listen to the large number of editors who have tried to help you; it's like talking to a brick wall (actually, that would be easier) and I simply give up. Giant Snowman 21:43, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

or what? (little joke there)

I gave you the benefit of the doubt and even apologized after making my first complaint about you.

You're caught in a lie my friend, like a debate checkmate and you can't get out of it.

1) you voted to delete my article

2) you deleted and banned multiple comments

3) you have (twice) lied about the WP:GNG rules even to the point of pasting them then interpreting the meaing of the word "or"

4) you have criticized my logic and reasoning to me and others

5) and now since you're publicly proven wrong you're lashing out and using nasty words attacking my person "stinks, patronize, belittle, trolling", even after I apologized and gave you the benefit of the doubt after my first complaint.

6) you're threatening me with action that is abuse of your power, I simply am point out where you are obviously wrong, should I ignore obvious truths and meanings of rules? You're trying to lie about the WP:GNG rules.

7) misrepresenting the whole situation by saying that others are trying to help me by ganging up on me under your flag to delete my article, that is not a help

I will probably make another complain but I will ask another admin like User:C.Fred to do it for me because I dont want you to ban me or "revert" or "block" me.

It seems you know you are wrong and lied and now are fearful of me telling others.

Shame on you. I still repsect your right to disagree and delete my article but I will not stand by while you lie to me and misrepresent the Wikipedia rules for your own ego or abuse of power.Fussballspieler11 (talk) 21:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Back at ANI. Giant Snowman 22:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2013

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 hours for continual disruption on AFD. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Fussballspieler11 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I need to be able to 1) respond to my 1st complaint about GiantSnowman and give evidence 2) Make a new complaint about GiantSnowman abusing his power and trying to trick me by lying about the Wikipedia law 3) I need to be able to defend my article 4) I was blocked by a friend of GiantSnowman because I got GiantSnowman in a red handed flat out lie... GiantSnowman has been misleading meand other less experienced Wikipedia editors for 2 days now and I need to be able to report it and make sure he doesn't abuse his power more and delete my article. It's clear he has an agenda and is lying. He closed my first complaint before I could give evidence and now re-opened it but only after blocking me, making sure I wasn't able to defend myself or give evidence as to why he should be banned for lying and abuse of power. He's pretty tricky and doing everything he can to get my article deleted including lying to me. Fussballspieler11 (talk) 23:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

WP:NOTTHEM. And everything else Bwilkins links to below. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I'm sorry ... did you just claim I'm a "friend of GiantSnowman"?? Please re-read WP:GAB, WP:NOTTHEM and WP:EBUR, plus the 5 pillars of Wikipedia before you type another word. The only person abusing anything is you abusing the rules that you agreed to when you signed up to this private website (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt abuse any rules. Why else would you block me out of the blue? I caught GiantSnowman in a lie and I am not the only one who agrees. I also don't need your lessons. I am perfectly capable of reading, but when someone lies and tries to trick everyone else into thinking that GNG supersedes NFOOTBALL then they deserve to be banned, not me. I will not stand down when somoene else is lying to my face. I did nothing wrong. He deleted my comments that proved him wrong, he tricked me and others into thinking that GNG superseded NFOOTBALL when it clearly states that their is and "or" relationship. I knew something was up when my article was labeled hoaxed in just a few minutes after creation. And now he's going on vacation for a week, howe convenient. He won't be near the Internet and won't be able to answer anything about his lies until my article is deleted. (Protected User:GiantSnowman: Persistent sock puppetry ([Edit=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (indefinite))) And it also says something about sockpuppetry on his history. I can't tell if thats him or someone he's accusing. But something is "up" with that guy. I would like him banned for life.Fussballspieler11 (talk) 23:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason he blocked you without any prior interaction is because AN/I exists as a forum to get input from administrators who have not been previously involved in the issue and let them take any administrative action if they feel it is necessary. Bwilkins felt your conduct was inappropriate—was disruptive to the AfD process—and blocked you for the duration of it. I don't work with Bwilkins on an everyday basis, but we cross paths enough that I respect his judgment as an administrator, and his his judgment, it was necessary to block you to prevent further disruption to the AfD.

To be blunt, you have not won any friends with the attacking tone of your comments to other users. You've also not listened to constructive criticism about keeping your AfD comments focused on the article and short. I checked the history of the AfD today, and you added about 25,000 characters worth of text. In other words, in what is supposed to be a conversational-style discussion, you wrote an eight page paper today.

So, I don't buy that you were blocked out of the blue. If anything, the administrators gave you a lot of leeway before you were blocked. —C.Fred (talk) 01:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth pillar Wikipedia does not have firm rules: Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. Their principles and spirit matter more than their literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making an exception. Be bold, but not reckless, in updating articles and do not agonize about making mistakes. Every past version of a page is saved, so any mistakes can be easily corrected.

This is obvious. Wikipedia is just a school yard where the bullies rule. Your guidelines are just circular logic to confuse the newbie editors to thinking that site is real. I'm seeing that is nothing more than a glorified Yelp. Anyway I did nothing wrong. I even apologized after he deleted my comments. He even deleted a short comment. He then called for a 2nd admin (but he already was the 2nd admin) I then caught him in a lie and thats when I got banned. Because I caught him in a lie. But because of the circular logic in your guidelines and pillars I get banned for complaining:

1) if someone abuses you then be calm and report him (but you will get blocked)

2) if you are blocked then request an unblock (denied because of rule 1 above)

that's circular logic and its just meant to confuse people into thinking there is something legitimate going on here and you guys know it And I could care less if you ban block or delete my electrons, its just a silly website big LOL Fussballspieler11 (talk) 23:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you are not listening and continuing with personal attacks including accusations of lying, as well as demanding an incorrect intrepreation of the rules should get someone else blocked, have resulted in your talk page access being revoked for the duration of your block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, reading WP:FREESPEECH may be of interest given some of your comments on ANI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive Editting

This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. 131.62.10.30 (talk) 21:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need to stop. The article was deleted by the consensus of many editors. You plead your case, and the closing admin didn't agree. Drop the stick and move on the greener pastures. 131.62.10.30 (talk) 21:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

I have blocked you indefinitely, because your edits since your last block expired demonstrate to me that you have no intention, or ability, to edit Wikipedia in a constructive manner. Your massive "wall of text" posting at WP:EW was completely inappropriate. If you appeal this block, any administrator may unblock you without further reference to me but you will have to satisfy them that your future contributions will be a net positive to Wikipedia. Bencherlite ^Talk 21:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gender records

Wanted to be clear that I am a "he", not a "she", not that I would have minded being a "she", but fate turned out otherwise and I got both an X and Y chromosome, with which I am happy also. Figured I'd lift the veil of mystery. Although my userpage already says all of this. Anyhow. That's all. Dude. KDS4444^Talk 04:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]