The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

> Help

This subforum is for critical evaluation of Wikipedia articles. However, to reduce topic-bloat, please make note of exceptionally poor stubs, lists, and other less attention-worthy material in the Miscellaneous Grab Bag thread. Also, please be aware that agents of the Wikimedia Foundation might use your evaluations to improve the articles in question.

Useful Links: Featured Article CandidatesFeatured Article ReviewArticles for DeletionDeletion Review

3 Pages V < 1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Philosophy: remind me not to be so stupid, Who needs experts
Milton Roe
post Fri 6th June 2008, 6:13pm
Post #21


Known alias of J. Random Troll
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined: Thu 28th Feb 2008, 1:03am
Member No.: 5,156

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(darbyl @ Fri 6th June 2008, 4:56pm) *

Don't know about you, but I'd be on the first boat out of Wikiland.

And, for the record; I am very much a populist. But I'm also realistic enough to realize that we have experts in things for a reason. You want to let every chump with an internet connection contribute to the "sum of all human knowledge"? Fine, let them, but don't call it an "encyclopedia." Call it Jimbo's Big Bag O' Trivia and be done with it.

Wow, straw man much, yourself. There is a role for experts in any large project. But it's not the whole role, and not even the major one. In fact, you insist that everything be done by "experts," you let yourself in for a world of pain.

There actually wasn't a fire at Wales Elementary school, because it was never built. Regulations written by experts made it so expensive that all the kids were shuffled off to camps with tents, where they got exposure and dysentery, following which they were sent home for home schooling, following which they didn't get educated at all. The Wales school meanwhile, where every nail and piece of drywall is put in by a licenced architect and checked for code compliance every day by a civil engineer, procedes slowly. Ask again in 2028, the expected date for finishing the main framing. In the old battle for quality vs quantity, our new school, which we tall the Taj, wins hands down. Or will, just as soon as it's ready.

We're glad you visted our hospital where everything is done by physicians, including empty bedpans. Crap, those docs are terrible at starting IV's, aren't they? Who would have thought? But you can thank their guidance for the fact that you have seatbelt and helmet laws, and your food tastes like cardboard because cholesterol has been outlawed. Wow, who would have thought that medicine could be a part of just about everything you do? Have a long, long, long, long life. We hope to see you in a nursing home in 100 years, if you haven't shuffled off from boredom first. What, you say some parts of medical decisions require input from your own values, on which you're the only expert? How dare you. Where's your degree?

And the legislators. How much better society runs now that we've required tham ALL to be lawyers, with a lifetime of studying law! Hell, we used to have just ordinary citizens from all professions making the laws, and what a problem that was. You could understand some of them! happy.gif

This post has been edited by Milton Roe: Fri 6th June 2008, 6:14pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Peter Damian
post Fri 6th June 2008, 6:32pm
Post #22


I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined: Tue 18th Dec 2007, 9:25pm
Member No.: 4,212

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Well there are some subjects it does pretty well, particularly in the 'definite sciences'. It also does well in those subjects which suit themselves to the compilation of lists - e.g. popular music. If I want to find out about some delta blues singer in the 1920's, often hard to source, then Wikipedia is the place.

There are other subjects where it really is abysmally awful, and my own chosen subject is one of those, if not the very worst. Generally speaking, the humanities fare much worse than the mathematical and definite sciences. I wonder why that is. Is it that the geeks invented the internet, and the geeks tend to favour the technical subjects and definite sciences.

I'll look for some examples. Meanwhile, I agree with Milton that it is amazing it can do it at all, in the sense that it is amazing that dogs can walk on their hind legs. On the other hand, dogs do better on all fours.

The list is still there:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dbuckner...hylaughingstock

Some of my favourites:

QUOTE
Wikipedia shouldn't be telling people that Scandinavia is an English-speaking country, that Karl Marx was a contemporary commentator on 1950s politics, that Russell deemed Principia Mathematica somewhat of a success. A reversion war has ensued, understandably I think. I would support locking the page, on a version without the crap obviously. I can see no other way to compel editors to respond to correction of obvious errors on the Talk page rather than just republishing the same errors.


QUOTE
The story of Marxism and Revolution goes all the way back to the French Revolution, where many of the fighters who were more left-wing had lost and the Bourgeois took control. Later in the 19th Century there had been sporadic revolutionary activity throughout Europe. Such was the promise of Marxism to the vast majority of working people that it terrified the politicians and company owners. Along with the French Revolution came major escalations in the activities of secret police. In Russia the Tzar began imprisoning leftists. Many similar actions were taken throughout Europe to quote a well known commentator of that time, "A spectre is haunting Europe".


QUOTE
On the matter raised as to whether the online Stanford Philosophy site is better than wiki, I think most of it would be disallowed here as being Original Research or Essay. So in that sense wiki's philosophy is better. It also has a lot more than Stanford.


QUOTE
As a consequence of the collapse of colonialism and imperialism in the twentieth century, philosophy now is classified according to three major geographical regions, Western philosophy, Eastern philosophy, and African philosophy.


Someone will say "But these things are no longer there, doesn't that prove the system works?". I reply, they were removed by people with formal qualifications, who knew this was nonsense.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Fri 6th June 2008, 6:40pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jon Awbrey
post Fri 6th June 2008, 6:56pm
Post #23


τὰ δέ μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined: Sun 6th Apr 2008, 4:52am
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



It's easy to be impressed with a Wall Of Detail (WOD) in an area that you have studied casually, say, up through the sophomoronic collegiate level. But everyone I've known who looks at an area that he or she has studied in depth comes back impressed that Wikipediots have managed to assemble just about every nøøbish howler, misconception, and urban myth that ever washed up on the shores of any nøøb beach anywhere.

And that includes the math and science articles.

Jon cool.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
darbyl
post Fri 6th June 2008, 7:32pm
Post #24


Junior Member
**

Group: Contributors
Posts: 57
Joined: Wed 10th Oct 2007, 7:36pm
Member No.: 3,453



QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Fri 6th June 2008, 11:13am) *


Wow, straw man much, yourself. There is a role for experts in any large project. But it's not the whole role, and not even the major one. In fact, you insist that everything be done by "experts," you let yourself in for a world of pain.



Good god Milton, did you actually read any of what I wrote? At what point did I "insist that everything be done by experts"? What I was getting at is that experts exist for a reason; and a world that replaces expertise with "consensus" (which is what you get if you map Wikipedia to the world at large) would be a scary place.

Can amateurs provide unexpected and useful insights, absolutely. I'm not arguing that they can't. What I'm arguing is that a work that bills itself as an encyclopedia and that aspires to be the "sum of all human knowledge" cannot be built by a consensus of amateurs. In the end all that model will result in is the average of all human knowledge.

I think that a preferable model would be Citizendium or the model that Britannica is proposing. Gather what wisdom the crowd has to offer, and filter it through professional copyeditors and reputable subject mater experts. Combine that with proper accountability via a legally liable publisher and you have a work that I'd happily use and contribute to.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jon Awbrey
post Fri 6th June 2008, 7:38pm
Post #25


τὰ δέ μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined: Sun 6th Apr 2008, 4:52am
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(darbyl @ Fri 6th June 2008, 3:32pm) *

In the end all that model will result in is the average of all human knowledge.


Strictly speaking, it would be the Lowest Common Per Nom.

Jon cool.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Milton Roe
post Fri 6th June 2008, 7:56pm
Post #26


Known alias of J. Random Troll
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined: Thu 28th Feb 2008, 1:03am
Member No.: 5,156

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(darbyl @ Fri 6th June 2008, 7:32pm) *

I think that a preferable model would be Citizendium or the model that Britannica is proposing. Gather what wisdom the crowd has to offer, and filter it through professional copyeditors and reputable subject mater experts. Combine that with proper accountability via a legally liable publisher and you have a work that I'd happily use and contribute to.

Well, I think we're in general agreement, then. But the devil, of course, is in the details.

It's that way also with society, which is why I brought up the matter of seatbelt laws, other safety regulations which make too expensive to create many things that life is even MORE unsafe WITHOUT, and "folly, doctorlike, controlling skill," even in hospitals. I think that last made Shakespeare wish for restful death. And the problem of having every judge be a lawyer dressed in a black robe. Can't some of them be ordinary people dressed in black robes? In fact some are in the US, but this practice is waining. sad.gif

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Fri 6th June 2008, 6:32pm) *

There are other subjects where it really is abysmally awful, and my own chosen subject is one of those, if not the very worst.

You'd be amazed how many people feel that way. It's not quite so bad for me, but this is partly due to some effort on my part (he said modestly).
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Fri 6th June 2008, 6:32pm) *

Generally speaking, the humanities fare much worse than the mathematical and definite sciences. I wonder why that is. Is it that the geeks invented the internet, and the geeks tend to favour the technical subjects and definite sciences.

It could also be that people still haven't got the gall to mess with a mathmatical article when they know no math at all.
QUOTE
As a consequence of the collapse of colonialism and imperialism in the twentieth century, philosophy now is classified according to three major geographical regions, Western philosophy, Eastern philosophy, and African philosophy.

biggrin.gif tongue.gif This my favorite of your quotes, but I thought this was pretty much standard politically-correct lore now, at ye liberal Ivy League university? Now that colonialism and imperialism have collapsed, you know....
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Peter Damian
post Sat 7th June 2008, 7:25am
Post #27


I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined: Tue 18th Dec 2007, 9:25pm
Member No.: 4,212

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



The problem is not so much the average person (and I am a great believe in the wisdom of crowds, so long as the crowd contains a few average people).

The problem is that few average people are going to contribute to (say) an article on philosophy. So the debate gets polarised those known almost nothing of the subject, but who lack the self-awareness required to tell them they know nothing, i.e. cranks, and genuine experts (but generally the sort of expert who gets a kick out of belittling well-meaning but ignorant cranks).

You can find countless examples of this in the usenet forum sci.logic. For example here

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.logic/b...8a96bfd6b8a8af#

Where someone called 'elsiemelsie' claims the Zermelo-Frankel set theory is 'inconsistent'. I don't know who elsiemelsie is, but the nature of his claim rather suggests he doesn't know what he (or she, probably he) is talking about.

Immediately the guy called 'George' comes back. I know George quite well (as a contributor). George in fact does know his stuff, but he is extremely belligerent. Note the excessive use of capitals and strident tone. I haven't looked further down the thread but it is usually not long before he descends to obscene language and poisonous abuse (this is why George would not be allowed on Wikipedia). The style of his contributions are indistinguishable from the cranks, indeed, far worse. But he does in fact know his stuff. He gets a kick out of insulting people.

There was another guy called Torkel Franzen, a distinguished writer on Godel who used to frequent that space also. His style was much more subtle than George, and Torkel was very clever at drawing cranks in then hitting them with something in a way that would cause the informed onlookers to laugh silently at the poor victim. Sadly Torkel died last year, the usenet world is a lot poorer without him. Although sometimes I felt his subtle style was almost crueller than George.

So there you have it. Cranks whose main incentive is to prove their idiosyncratic views. Experts who are motivated by cruelty and intellectual sadism, and the deeply felt need to belittle and make fools of those in whom intelligence and education are lacking.

[edit] Oh joy, they still haven't taken his site down at Lutheran university. Here is Torkel's excellent guide to trolling. I have taken a copy for posterity.

http://www.sm.luth.se/~torkel/eget/net.html


QUOTE
[...] your aim as a major nuisance is to establish intellectual contact with your[...] opponent, opening his eyes to certain facts or difficulties. If your opponent is a very reasonable person, he will quickly see the point of your queries or criticisms and adjust his thinking to the extent necessary to take them into account. Fortunately, such reasonable people are rarely encountered in news. Instead your opponent, even if by no means a loon or sectarian, will either fight tooth and nail to avoid having to admit to any mistake or defect in his reasoning, or else, his idea of a good time being as warped as yours, happily continue arguing just for the sake of argument.


Note the bit in bold, which kind of bears out the point I was making above.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sat 7th June 2008, 7:32am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Peter Damian
post Sat 7th June 2008, 5:16pm
Post #28


I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined: Tue 18th Dec 2007, 9:25pm
Member No.: 4,212

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Fri 6th June 2008, 8:56pm) *

This my favorite of your quotes, but I thought this was pretty much standard politically-correct lore now, at ye liberal Ivy League university? Now that colonialism and imperialism have collapsed, you know....


You laugh, but this just appeared on Talk:Philosophy today:

QUOTE
We have one introductory statement from the UK one there at the moment, one US suggested by above and ideally we should add in from from Asia. --Snowded (talk) 12:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] While I was looking through the WP:NPOV, which is actually quite good, and dates back to the Sanger days, I found this little gem:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...99&oldid=315183

Though it doesn't really help me in arguing with someone who wants to balance citations between US, England, France, Japan, China, Amazon rainforest &c on an equal basis. At that point, I simply have to give up, admit I was insane to try at all.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sat 7th June 2008, 5:23pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Peter Damian
post Sun 8th June 2008, 4:35pm
Post #29


I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined: Tue 18th Dec 2007, 9:25pm
Member No.: 4,212

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Is getting stranger. One particularly belligerent editor wants to delete the introduction altogether and replace it with a selection of different citations on the nature of philosophy. I reply here

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ed_introduction

that in no other of the flagship articles like history, politics &c is this approach used. His argument, which is actually more sensible, is essentially that any synthesis or balance between sources is original research, and that Wikipedia cannot possibly do better than a published, peer-reviewed source. I'm beginning to see where he is coming from. Quite.

[edit] You are going to ask, why have I come back to this house of horror when I am mad too, and when I said I wouldn't. The answer is, it's like those horror movies or dreams where the actor sees the door, and you think 'no, don't open the door, don't open it'. You know what is inside is going to invovle something very scary, or probably something much worse like axe-murderers, disembowellment, torture, supernatural creepy things. But, no, the guy/woman goes inside. Why are human beings so foolish?

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sun 8th June 2008, 4:38pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jon Awbrey
post Sun 8th June 2008, 4:46pm
Post #30


τὰ δέ μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined: Sun 6th Apr 2008, 4:52am
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Peter,

This is your reminder.

Let us know if you need another one.

Obligingly yours,

Jon cool.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Peter Damian
post Sun 8th June 2008, 5:03pm
Post #31


I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined: Tue 18th Dec 2007, 9:25pm
Member No.: 4,212

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Sun 8th June 2008, 5:46pm) *

Peter,

This is your reminder.

Let us know if you need another one.

Obligingly yours,

Jon cool.gif


Thank you Jon perhaps I should have listened to you all along.

What I actually need is one of those places like they have down the road from us. It's called the Priory and they take these rock-star people who have some addiction usually to booze or white powder and for a vast sum of money they wean them off the addiction in a few weeks.

For a smaller sum of money, preferably for free, could someone start a Wikipedia detox?

I think you have to start these courses by admitting you really want to stop, and that it is bad for your life, and that you will be a better person without the pills/booze/powder/Featured article or whatever.

I suppose I still have this problem that I hold a tiny ray of optimism that progress can be made in some way. I can see that I am wasting an afternoon of the sunniest day in England arguing with someone who really hasn't the faintest idea about the subject he is trying to write an article about. Why?

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sun 8th June 2008, 5:04pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jon Awbrey
post Sun 8th June 2008, 5:08pm
Post #32


τὰ δέ μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined: Sun 6th Apr 2008, 4:52am
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 8th June 2008, 12:35pm) *

You are going to ask, why have I come back to this house of horror when I am mad too, and when I said I wouldn't. The answer is, it's like those horror movies or dreams where the actor sees the door, and you think 'no, don't open the door, don't open it'. You know what is inside is going to invovle something very scary, or probably something much worse like axe-murderers, disembowellment, torture, supernatural creepy things. But, no, the guy/woman goes inside. Why are human beings so foolish?


I know — let's split up …

Screek ! Screeek !! Screeeek !!!

Jon cool.gif

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey: Sun 8th June 2008, 5:14pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Sun 8th June 2008, 5:10pm
Post #33


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



I have the perfect solution for you, Peter. Jimmy Wales is a noted expert on matters Philosophy -- let's just nominate him to write the final article then permanently lock it!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Moulton
post Sun 8th June 2008, 9:54pm
Post #34


Anthropologist from Mars
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,220
Joined: Mon 29th Oct 2007, 9:56pm
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670

WP user page - talk
check - contribs






Philosophy According to Phistophicles
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Peter Damian
post Tue 10th June 2008, 6:17pm
Post #35


I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined: Tue 18th Dec 2007, 9:25pm
Member No.: 4,212

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Update: some information on a fellow editor of the Philosophy article here.

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=106999
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Peter Damian
post Sat 14th June 2008, 12:01pm
Post #36


I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined: Tue 18th Dec 2007, 9:25pm
Member No.: 4,212

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Now very much losing it here

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=219268311
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
wikiwhistle
post Sat 14th June 2008, 1:46pm
Post #37


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,928
Joined: Mon 26th Nov 2007, 2:17pm
Member No.: 3,953



QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sat 14th June 2008, 1:01pm) *


I somehow didn't realise they unblocked you, I'm glad to see it. smile.gif Don't you intend to stick around there? smile.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Sat 14th June 2008, 2:47pm
Post #38


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sat 14th June 2008, 8:01am) *

Look, Petey D., the sooner you realize that one of the main purposes of Wikipedia is to be a forum for youngsters to just yank the intellectual chains of old-school intellectuals, the better you'll be able to handle these frameworks they're setting down before you.

I'm quite serious. After reading your diff, I'm certain there's at least several undergraduates forwarding it around, saying, "Look, we've totally got him now. He's going nuts!"

Greg
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jon Awbrey
post Sat 14th June 2008, 6:12pm
Post #39


τὰ δέ μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined: Sun 6th Apr 2008, 4:52am
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(thekohser @ Sat 14th June 2008, 10:47am) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sat 14th June 2008, 8:01am) *

Now very much losing it here:

Talk:Philosophy


Look, Petey D., the sooner you realize that one of the main purposes of Wikipedia is to be a forum for youngsters to just yank the intellectual chains of old-school intellectuals, the better you'll be able to handle these frameworks they're setting down before you.

I'm quite serious. After reading your diff, I'm certain there's at least several undergraduates forwarding it around, saying, "Look, we've totally got him now. He's going nuts!"

Greg


Greg has nailed it. When I was a kid all we had was spitballs and paper airplanes. Now they have Wikipedia. But the game is the same. People who get tossed out of class the second day into an undergrub course now have a place to go after drops-&-adds to take out their frustrations with impunity. I suppose it keeps them out of the gun shops. For a little while.

Jon cool.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Peter Damian
post Sun 15th June 2008, 7:42am
Post #40


I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined: Tue 18th Dec 2007, 9:25pm
Member No.: 4,212

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(thekohser @ Sat 14th June 2008, 3:47pm) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sat 14th June 2008, 8:01am) *

Look, Petey D., the sooner you realize that one of the main purposes of Wikipedia is to be a forum for youngsters to just yank the intellectual chains of old-school intellectuals, the better you'll be able to handle these frameworks they're setting down before you.

I'm quite serious. After reading your diff, I'm certain there's at least several undergraduates forwarding it around, saying, "Look, we've totally got him now. He's going nuts!"

Greg


Except the main irritant is not an undergraduate - he is one of those change management gurus who for some reason has an interest in philosophy. He has even written an article about himself on WP here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Snowden


QUOTE(wikiwhistle @ Sat 14th June 2008, 2:46pm) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sat 14th June 2008, 1:01pm) *


I somehow didn't realise they unblocked you, I'm glad to see it. smile.gif Don't you intend to stick around there? smile.gif


I've been unblocked for some time. Completely rewrote and finished 'Medieval Philosophy' and contributed a few more fresh articles. I stupidly ignored the unwritten rule that you don't touch the 'Philosophy' article itself, which is a well-known crank magnet. The article used to be cited amongst academic philosophers as a reason not to take Wikipedia seriously.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

3 Pages V < 1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st 9 17, 3:07am