User talk:Renamed user v08an9234vu/Archive 1

New entry for Eugena Washington
hello, you recently declined my edits to this page, however, I am Eugena Washington personally editing my page as the current information is completely biased and volatile to my career. There is a lot of inof missing and it only highlights one aspect of my life. Please allow me to make changes from Piewashington acount

Piewashington —Preceding undated comment added 20:18, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

New entry for Justin K. Stearns
Hello,

I changed the intro to the article on anti feminism to more adequately reflect the arguments of a modern anti feminist. The article, as it is currently written, lacks any real criticism of modern feminism (I.e. - anti feminism).

Stephenstearns (talk) 12:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of my Wiki Page Gopal Sandu
Kindly explain me the reason why my page was deleted ? Gopalsandu (talk) 14:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

==Why did you revert my corrections to Red Shirts(United States)? I corrected an historically inaccurate pejorative on the entry, which you removed then threatened me with banishment. Who exactly are you, and by what authority do you remove others work and threaten them with banishment?==

Speedy deletion declined: Krishna Kumar Chatterjee
Hello CataracticPlanets. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Krishna Kumar Chatterjee, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There is sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Thank you. ~ GB fan 13:08, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Black Wireless
Hello CataracticPlanets, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Black Wireless, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 cannot be applied to products. If you are interested in learning more about how speedy deletion works, I have compiled a list of helpful pages at User:SoWhy/SDA. You can of course also contact me if you have questions. Thank you.  So Why  08:35, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Upon research, seems Black Wireless is also the name of a company, so A7 could have been applied. However, it is mentioned in List of United States mobile virtual network operators, so redirecting there was a preferable option per the alternatives to deletion part of the deletion policy (ATD), specifically WP:ATD-R. For future taggings, remember that oftentimes entries can be merged or redirect to existing pages instead of being deleted; if so, this is usually preferable and can be done by any editor unless contentious. Regards  So Why  09:09, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feedback, I definitely found it helpful. I'm still quite new at this so it's always good to learn more about the nuances of speedy deletion. CataracticPlanets (talk) 05:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Merging Phytomedicine --> Herbalism
Hello CataracticPlanets. Could you give your thoughts on this merge proposal please? Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 14:19, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Paul Van Dale
Hello CataracticPlanets, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Paul Van Dale, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''notable daughter's article is a merge target. Per WP:ATD, do not tag for deletion what can be handled by editing. If you are interested in learning more about how speedy deletion works, I have compiled a list of helpful pages at User:SoWhy/SDA'''. You can of course also contact me if you have questions. Thank you. SoWhy 07:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Revert of Edits to LVOA-C
Hey, CataracticPlanets! This is zfJames! I just wanted to let you know that it is customary to let users know when you revert one of their edits (see this for the related template). I just thought I'd let you know since I know that I've done that myself several times. :) I would recommend using Twinkle to give a warning (starting with level 1 most of the time—see WP:UWLEVELS for more info) to the affected editor.  Thanks!  - zfJames Please ping me in your reply on this page  (chat page, contribs) 23:46, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

On the so-called chemical attack in Douma.
I believe that my editing was aimed at neutralizing the style of the article. Please note that the "reaction" section does not provide explanations for British, American and anyone else journalists, why the position of any other state can be questioned. In addition, as far as I know, the Guardian's editorial policy is to support the Syrian opposition and the possible intervention of the Western powers to overthrow the Syrian government. The same applies to CNN. 145.255.180.104 (talk) 17:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Our policy at Wikipedia is to represent all points of view, without giving WP:UNDUE weight to any particular side of the story. Thus, the article you refer to covers reactions to and explanations of the attack from various perspectives, as well as the other side's responses to those reactions and viewpoints. If you can find reliable sources for Russian responses to the British/American perspective on the attack, you are of course welcome to add those to the article. But it's not acceptable to delete reliably sourced information from the article simply because you disagree with it or it comes from Western media outlets. CataracticPlanets (talk) 19:12, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Remo (band)
Hello CataracticPlanets, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Remo (band), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Charting in national charts indicates importance/significance (WP:CCSI, WP:CCSI). If you are interested in learning more about how speedy deletion works, I have compiled a list of helpful pages at User:SoWhy/SDA. You can of course also contact me if you have questions. Thank you. SoWhy 07:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

"Seemed less than neutral"
Hi, whoever you are! Can you please explain why my recent edit to "Northern Cyprus" seemed less than neutral for you? What exactly did you find offensive about my edit? Please provide adequate explanation, and then remove other person's posts. History cannot be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N236ik (talk • contribs) 19:43, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, N236ik. I removed your edit because it appeared to me to be a violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, which you can read at WP:NPOV. Specifically, your edit claimed that Northern Cyprus is "an internationally un-recognized entity", when in fact it is a partially recognized state, having been recognized by at least one UN member state. Your edit also stated that the international community considers Northern Cyprus to be illegally occupied. This is a claim for which we would need to see a citation from a reliable source before it could be included in the article. In general, on controversial topics such as these, it is best to seek consensus from other editors on the talk page before making unilateral changes to the article. Also, because we take neutrality very seriously at Wikipedia, it's best to avoid editing articles in areas about which you have strong personal opinions and convictions. Remember that Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for your own personal opinions. CataracticPlanets (talk) 19:59, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry for bringing you into the position of changing my edit due to it being "less than neutral" according to you. Thanks for clarifying all those details for me above. Regarding "Northern Cyprus", its declaration is condemned and deplored by the United Nations, since 1983. I have included a source in my edits, so that people can see the official UN Resolutions documents and prove to you as well that it was NOT my personal opinion, but was cited from a reliable source. Thanks for your understanding! — Preceding unsigned comment added by N236ik (talk • contribs) 21:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Adam
I know the article has an ad or a promotion, but I can't tell where this promotion or publicity is. If I'm not English, can you help me spread that again? Mohamed Walid (talk) 10:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not sure which article you're referring to. CataracticPlanets (talk) 23:33, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Why did you delete my contribution
Greetings I have one very simple question for you and that is why did you delete my contribution of the word stole???? I was referring to the simply defined definition of a cyclinder object which holds up something. I am defiantly offended as in case you didn’t notice I was doing a public service for people (like yours truly) who use this website for many great purposes I mean seriously what I’df you were at a construction site and a guy told you “quick grab the stole” but you unfortunately didn’t know what the word stole was so and there was no definition on your phone so the one million dollar building collapsed? Kind of a bad example but it still deeply ally’s to my point Please help me to bring back my the word thousands of people’s life could depend on it. Thank you -alex

Realquacktaped (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I reverted your edit because you did not cite a reliable source. CataracticPlanets (talk) 00:07, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

adam help
Can you help me remove the upgrade and retrieve the article? Please do it. !! Mohamed Walid (talk) 01:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you may be referring to the article Adam afara which I tagged for speedy deletion and which was subsequently deleted. If you would like to retrieve the information in the article so you can attempt to make further improvements, you will need to contact the administrator who deleted it. Please also make sure to read our page on creating your first article at WP:YFA, which will help you avoid common mistakes that often lead to articles being deleted. CataracticPlanets (talk) 02:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

time out
Thank you, that you make away the bad picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IMPOTUS (talk • contribs) 21:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Barnabus & Bella proposed deletion
I oppose the deletion of Barnabus and Bella. Currently, the article is a stub and not noteworthy, but I have every intention to expand it in the coming days. Your reason for proposing the deletion is “non-notable student film”. While it is a student film, is is of some notoriety among Latin schools. It is also already linked to in Contemporary Latin. The film also was one of the first to feature Remy Nozik, an actress with important roles in movies like “The Next Three Days”. For those reasons, I will be removing the deletion proposal from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyatt Stanton (talk • contribs) 02:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, glad you will be expanding the article. Please make sure that there is significant coverage of the film in independent, reliable sources, and that you cite those sources within the article. Our policy for determining whether a film is notable enough for its own Wikipedia article can be found at WP: NFILM, please make sure you read and understand it. CataracticPlanets (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Article now being discussed at Articles for deletion/Barnabus & Bella. Sam Sailor 08:50, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018
Wikipedia specifically states that any material used that is based on tabloid news and is potentially libelous should be removed. That information was inaccurate and libelous. I will be reporting the author to the notice board so please revert my change until further notice — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esplanade47th (talk • contribs) 01:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I have no idea what information or change you are referring to. CataracticPlanets (talk) 01:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Rollback granted
Hi CataracticPlanets. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3ACataracticPlanets enabled] rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback: If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Widr (talk) 16:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
 * Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback should never be used to edit war.
 * If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
 * Use common sense.

July 2018
I got your msg. re: police brutality. As all my brief points were supported by multiple citations (including ABC news), there was nothing "non-neutral"-just statements of COURT documented facts. If you cannot be more specific in your critique, kindly restore the page as I put much thought, efforts and work into it. The goal, as you can see is to end police brutality. I hope you don't have an issue with factually addressing/preventing this future social injustice. Urssjp.1 (talk) 11:28, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Our goal here at Wikipedia is not to advocate for or promote a given point of view, but to build an encyclopedia which is written neutrally and fairly represents all points of view. When you say that "the goal is to end police brutality", it sounds like you are saying that you are editing here with that goal in mind. This is not the way an editor should approach things, regardless of how passionately they may feel about a given subject. The edits you made were indeed sourced, but they nonetheless were not neutrally phrased and did not reflect the encyclopedic tone we strive to adopt here. Of particular concern for me were the following two sentences: "The primary cause of police brutality is ignorance", and "As of 2018, the only proven way to effectively combat police brutality is to convince an attorney to file a class action lawsuit in Federal court after the assault has occurred." I do not believe that the sources you cited actually make these claims, but even if they did, we would need to balance those claims with what other sources say about the causes of and solutions to police brutality. In its current form, the article describes multiple potential causes of police brutality, as well as multiple possible solutions. The sources disagree on what the causes and solutions are, so that disagreement is reflected in the article. Even if you find a source that says that police brutality is primarily caused by ignorant cops, you can't just add that wording directly into the article as a statement of fact, since the other sources we have cite other causes. You would say something like "Ignorance among police officers has been cited as a primary cause of police brutality", with a citation. This is what I mean by an encyclopedic tone. CataracticPlanets (talk) 12:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate the semantics RE: Encyclopedic tone. The semantics of tone is far easier to debate than the validity of content; so I am still encouraged to contribute to our encyclopedia with your watchful eye governing the unfolding proceedings of new contributors...When a rogue cop is finally fired after ten years and 14 documented complaints (how many undocumented?) it took a major price tag to dismiss the operator-anything less was not going to dislodge that bad apple-as evidenced by the police chief, mayor's and DA's reactions. So, the article explains exactly what it took to get the guy off the force and address the sub-topic of the article:solutions to American Police Brutality-a class action lawsuit. It is the only proven thing to get a bad cop fired; complaining doesn't work. As far as "balancing the claims", there are multiple theories given as to causes and solutions-with no one trumpeted as "the only one". Ignorance underlies all other causes in my opinion. Anyway, I will adjust the tone as per your recommendation. Thank you for the feedbackUrssjp.1 (talk) 12:33, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Your latest edits to the article are much better. I hope you will continue to make positive contributions here at Wikipedia! CataracticPlanets (talk) 21:31, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

New Cosmo Restaurant edits
You have removed my changes to Cosmo Restaurants page, but I removed these points because they are inaccurate, libelous and under the defamation laws they have also been printed with malice - probably by a competitor. None of the 'facts' on the hygiene section are accurate - the restaurants in question were not connected to Cosmo the group, although one was housed in the same building a Cosmo restaurant had FORMERLY owned and one was called Cosmo - but did not belong to the same group and was not allowed to continue trading under this name. I would like to update this page with fresh and accurate information, but I need the hygiene section to be taken down until I can replace it. Please can you re-instate my edit so that I can update the page with accurate and legal information as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarah Cosmo (talk • contribs) 12:32, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I have removed the paragraph relating to the restaurant in Swansea, as the source there does state that the restaurant was no longer owned by Cosmo at the time of inspection. Looking at the sources for the restaurants in Tunbridge Wells and Coventry, I don't see any similar issues, so I have kept those paragraphs for now. Do you have any sources that could back up the claim that these restaurants weren't connected with the parent company? If so, point me to them and I'll make the change. I can't just take your word for it though - we have to go by what the sources say. CataracticPlanets (talk) 12:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

DNA thing
DNA thing is a highly controversial topic.

220.80.195.226 (talk) 14:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Assuming you're referring to my reversion of your edit on Han Chinese, I reverted it because the content looked reliably sourced to me, and you didn't provide a reason for your removal in your edit summary. If you have an issue with the sources, or you'd like to discuss further why this is a controversial topic, I'd encourage you to start a discussion on the article talk page. CataracticPlanets (talk) 14:45, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Ron Hevener
Mr. Hevener is a controversial author and you are publishing commentary and links to stories that were not accurately researched. This could result in readers assaulting Mr. Hevener or causing him harm and personal injury. This is far from neutral reporting. Mr. Hevener was not present at the trial and was never sentenced. Your article makes it appear that Mr. Hevener didn't take this matter seriously and that is not true. The links you are connecting to don't reveal that Authorities never seized any animals from Mr. Hevener's personal care and they never questioned or doubted his treatment of the pets at his home. You are publishing information that is biased. You are reporting on animals that were cared for by other people -- not by Mr. Hevener, himself -- at a property he did not even own or live at. You may be linking to stories that hit the news, but you are publishing material that is inaccurate, one-sided, and it is not balanced. We believe the mention of these legal matters, and linking to these sources, is intended to harm Mr. Hevener's reputation and his personal safety. Please remove your biased information regarding Mr. Hevener's legal matters, especially when there was no sentence and the matter, for all practical purposes, is closed.

Adelia Audi 22:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)Adelia Audi (talk)
 * - I see that other editors have attempted to explain the relevant policies and reasoning on your talk page. I just want to emphasize that if you feel that there is an issue that still needs to be addressed, the place to raise your concerns is at the biographies of living persons noticeboard, WP:BLPN. Continuing to make the same edits to the article will probably result in a block for edit warring. CataracticPlanets (talk) 21:49, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I endorse deletion of my page Uniform Force
Thanks for mentioning the already existing article Uniformed services. I fully endorse deletion of my page Uniform Force (already deleted). Regards.JC Bills (talk) 05:13, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

== This is a balanced view that happens to be accurate given the diversity of the Occupy tradition. Please cite one argument made that isn't the real world interpretation of Occupy movement? Why do you allow a clearly biased portrayel of People for Bernie to stand??? I want to debate point by point. I think if you actually allowed Occupy Wall Street diverse voices in rather than a small coterie of people to define what an organization is-- you will find they aren't what they say they are. ==

The People for Bernie Sanders (also known as People for Bernie) is nominally a grassroots movement which arose to support the candidacy of Bernie Sanders during the Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016. However, their regionally shared conception absent the general ferment of the national occupy movement has led to an obvious perversion of the spirit and expression of the Occupy movement’s ideas, purposes and practices. Whereas, nationally, the Occupy Movement provided contentious democratic forums and havens both physically and psychologically for people experiencing solidarity in ways relative to local communities, given those local peculiarities, there were seemingly infinite possibilities, setbacks and successes. That said, the People for Bernie, independent from the official campaign but largely dependent and subservient taking military style directives from the main campaign in practice was largely organized via social media and grew to over 1 million followers on Facebook. Indeed, founded by a small coterie of veterans of Occupy Wall Street, People for Bernie became a not so critical organizing force for Bernie’s support during the 2016 US Presidential Campaign, including coining the hashtag #feelthebern which had virtually zero impact on organizing and possibilities beyond offering the reminder of the commodity branding of politics that so defines the modern American political era. The People for Bernie are known for writing self-congratulatory things about their accomplishments while shifting the spotlight off of the many defining organizing drives nationally that had nothing to do with their organization and would have occurred with the same fervor if this pet advocacy riding the wave of one man’s popularity never existed. In fact, the People for Bernie habitually delete contrary messages on their sites to control messaging which is also a violation of the Occupy tradition. If one takes the Occupy conceptions, tradition and history seriously, how does one exactly define what a progressive is given the numerous incompatible ideologies that carry such a mantle (i.e. neoliberal “progressives” vs. other ideologies with a non-neoliberal bent). Linked to other progressive groups like the National Nurses United and Democratic Socialists of America, People for Bernie was not recognized for its role in mobilizing Sanders supporters but only by people in hierarchical organizations with a dull sense of grassroots activity and certainly not for innovations. Innovations happened in state after state without any input from this coterie of people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.28.82.56 (talk) 22:57, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a soapbox for your own personal political opinions. Wikipedia articles summarize what reliable, verifiable sources say about a given subject. It is not acceptable to remove this sourced content from articles and replace it with unsourced political rants like the one you posted above and copied to The People for Bernie Sanders. CataracticPlanets (talk) 00:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Rants?
Excuse me, so if you just put a citation in, the People for Bernie Sanders who do not follow the occupy model as experienced by those familiar with the group... It is not a bad or good thing that they don't follow the occupy model. So they cite a biased source that says they do. You allow that as objective. I injected language talking about the real world and you call this bias. Explain to me one example, they gave on there that was indicative of the general variety of the Occupy movement nationally. Or to even have an accurate general definition linking all the variety groups together. I actually have a precise definition that does link all the occupy movements. I would challenge you to find Occupiers nationally that read that definition and have much of a problem with it. In fact they would say I was being generous to the Occupy movements. Whereas this group engages in a fake romanticism. I would go point by point but you write it off as a rant??? This is how democratic debate works with wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.28.82.56 (talk) 00:46, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Also, are you at all familiar with the Bernie Sanders campaign? They run it with military style directives. It isn't grassroots. I have direct experience. Sanders talks about the grassroots but the reality of politics in America is brand centered, phone calls, canvassing with orders coming from above. Please inform me, since you degraded my input as a "rant," as to how that emulates the Occupy model? Winnie Wong in fact demonstrates my points exactly because how she behaved is totally in line with what I experienced with People for Bernie and the Bernie Sanders Campaign. What citations would you like for something that isn't even historical yet? So spare me this crap about you caring about neutrality. I will grant you that different points of view exists. So can I create a criticism section and I welcome a democratic disagreement in that section. if someone has a problem with what I write about the reality we witness. I would love to have a dialogue with them and learn from them. You moderator if we can call you that just insult people when you see fit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.28.82.56 (talk) 00:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 2 things: 1. I am not a "moderator". I am an ordinary Wikipedia editor just like you, with no special privileges. 2. You can create a criticism section, but only if it contains information that is based on citations to reliable sources. It cannot contain any of your personal opinions or any facts that are not cited to reliable sources. CataracticPlanets (talk) 20:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Good job
(I stumbled here because you rightly added tags to Mental health in the United Kingdom). Good job responding to the IP above. That has to be the longest section header I've ever seen and I've not even tried to get through the walls of text. Kudos for keeping cool and replying straightforwardly. Looks like you've been doing good work in anti-vandalism for the last few months too, so thank you. &rsaquo; Mortee  talk 21:33, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Racism in South Africa
Hi Cataractic, I hear what you are saying. Perhaps it's best to check the citations and leave well sourced content in place and remove content that is either uncited or doesn't tie in with the references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AsyncKomms (talk • contribs) 22:02, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Rebuttle
Hi! You just left a message on my talk page. Allow me to respond. Wikipedia is, as you said, edited by people with a "wide variety" of opinions but if we are going to be intellectually honest, most of these people are left-leaning since websites such as Wikipedia, twitter and Facebook tend to attract young, left-leaning individuals. This is fine if such people are just observing and posting personal things, but when it comes to the authorship of articles and information on a "neutral" site, it prevails problematic. I am a centrist in politics generally speaking, and will edit biased articles that are biased to the right such as candidates in various races. Several months ago, I edited Vox's article to say expressly they are left winged. This was reverted. I reverted it back. They reverted it back again. I asked why. They told me I didn't provide sources so I went back and added one. They told me it was "biased" so I added three more. They reverted this edit and warned I could get suspended. I am getting sick and tired of this left-winged harassment on this site so if you will please leave me alone, I would appreciate it. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlobalPoliticalCulture (talk • contribs) 20:04, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The message on your talk page was left by me two months ago, and was a good-faith attempt to inform you of Wikipedia's policies. That you would characterize such a message as harassment reflects poorly on your ability to assume good faith and work collaboratively with other editors to build a better encyclopedia. CataracticPlanets (talk) 21:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I love how you respond to me AFTER you blocked me. Of course your actions are harassment! You attempted (and succeeded) in silencing my voice on wikipedia. You are not informing me of wikipedia's policies, you are manipulating wikipedia's rules for your own political agenda. With all due respect, you should review your biases on this website and either scale back your activity or change how you edit. GlobalPolitcalCulture (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 15:48, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You were blocked by, not this user, and that for good reason (POV-pushing, disruptive editing, ...). Now that you have come back from your block you still keep doing the same stuff and blaming other people for reverting your illegitimate edits. If you refuse to anyhow engage in civilised discussion surrounding your edits or the info you want to convey, WP:NOTHERE definetly applies. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 16:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I have blocked this editor for a second time. AGK &#9632;   16:30, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Pagonis

 * Wikipedia does not engage in matters such as the "they/them" debate wikipedia ist free of any bias. --92.74.233.30 (talk) 15:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)