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

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

> Help

This forum is for discussing specific Wikipedia editors, editing patterns, and general efforts by those editors to influence or direct content in ways that might not be in keeping with Wikipedia policy. Please source your claims and provide links where appropriate. For a glossary of terms frequently used when discussing Wikipedia and related projects, please refer to Wikipedia:Glossary.

55 Pages V « < 27 28 29 30 31 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Law blocked as an alternate account of the_undertow, Who knew?
Achromatic
post Mon 5th October 2009, 7:16pm
Post #561


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 191
Joined: Sun 16th Dec 2007, 10:32pm
From: Washington State
Member No.: 4,185

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Mon 5th October 2009, 11:58am) *

QUOTE(No one of consequence @ Mon 5th October 2009, 1:07pm) *
They just don't want to be bound by a one-size-fits-all approach and harangued by disgruntled combatants, "Last year in RFAR/Smith[/] you banned Smith for a year but now in [i]RFAR/Jones you are only giving Jones a topic ban." In practice, Arbcom follows precedent all the time, especially with respect to general case principles, although remedies and sanctions tend to be fairly consistent as well.
In other words, they want to be bound by precedent only when it's convenient to them. I think this is called "having your cake and eating it too".

The principle that precedent must either be followed, or distinguished, is one of the cornerstones of equitable jurisprudence in a society based on common-law principles. Wikipedia's rejection of this principle underscores its lack of commitment to equitable governance.


Or, to summarize:

"We don't do due process. Why should we do precedent, either?"
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
CharlotteWebb
post Mon 5th October 2009, 7:23pm
Post #562


Postmaster General
********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,740
Joined: Mon 18th Jun 2007, 2:09am
Member No.: 1,727

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Mon 5th October 2009, 5:37pm) *

BTW, I had no idea they rejected the idea of precedent. That's just stupid, if true.

With precedent would come some consistency of outcome, but based on what I've seen with my own eyes I'd rather choose "inconsistent" over "consistently poor", because the former implies the defendants have a fighting chance. I think the notion of binding precedents would just give the committee the excuse they need to willfully and knowingly repeat the same mistakes when convenient.

QUOTE(Appleby @ Mon 5th October 2009, 6:17pm) *

QUOTE(MBisanz @ Mon 5th October 2009, 7:28am) *

WP One = IRC One
WR One = WP Cool Hand Luke
WR One != IRC One

A clear violation of WP:SYNTH. It's also faulty logic unless you can prove

WP One != WP Cool Hand Luke

This is a common source of confusion, but they are in fact different people. I'm 100% certain sure of this (though I'm not about to prove this in a public forum—others will be less prudent I'm sure).

You might as well be asking someone to prove the user "Guy" here was not "Guy (JzG)" on Wikipedia, or that "Kato" here was not "Cato" on Wikiquote, etc.

I mean... coincidences happen!

QUOTE(Wiki Witch of the West @ Mon 5th October 2009, 6:47pm) *

One guaranteed way to make oneself unpopular with the arbitrators is to know about five dozen arbitration cases well enough to quote them.

Otherwise it's certainly a good way for lawyers to make themselves unpopular in real life. dry.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kelly Martin
post Mon 5th October 2009, 7:31pm
Post #563


Bring back the guttersnipes!
********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined: Sun 22nd Jun 2008, 4:41am
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696



QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Mon 5th October 2009, 2:23pm) *
I think the notion of binding precedents would just give the committee the excuse they need to willfully and knowingly repeat the same mistakes when convenient.
They do that quite well already.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
A Horse With No Name
post Mon 5th October 2009, 7:35pm
Post #564


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

Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,471
Joined: Mon 26th Jan 2009, 1:54pm
Member No.: 9,985



Next time, run a spell Czech! unsure.gif

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name: Mon 5th October 2009, 7:36pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
CharlotteWebb
post Mon 5th October 2009, 7:44pm
Post #565


Postmaster General
********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,740
Joined: Mon 18th Jun 2007, 2:09am
Member No.: 1,727

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Mon 5th October 2009, 7:31pm) *

QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Mon 5th October 2009, 2:23pm) *
I think the notion of binding precedents would just give the committee the excuse they need to willfully and knowingly repeat the same mistakes when convenient.
They do that quite well already.

And there's no excuse for it (so far)! They ought to quit that shit rather than...

Heh. I guess I've found the dark side of "policy follows practice".
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
LaraLove
post Mon 5th October 2009, 7:58pm
Post #566


Wikipedia BLP advocate
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,741
Joined: Mon 28th Jan 2008, 7:53pm
Member No.: 4,627

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(cyofee @ Mon 5th October 2009, 2:13pm) *

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Mon 5th October 2009, 7:33pm) *

And this proves that GlassCobra and I are the chosen scapegoats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...ernate_accounts


Who else should be desysopped?

Who else? I don't believe anyone should be.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
LaraLove
post Mon 5th October 2009, 8:11pm
Post #567


Wikipedia BLP advocate
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,741
Joined: Mon 28th Jan 2008, 7:53pm
Member No.: 4,627

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Mon 5th October 2009, 3:35pm) *

Haha, you got a shout out. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=318106334
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Apathetic
post Mon 5th October 2009, 8:30pm
Post #568


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 594
Joined: Sun 3rd Aug 2008, 7:36pm
Member No.: 7,383

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(LaraLove @ Mon 5th October 2009, 4:11pm) *

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Mon 5th October 2009, 3:35pm) *

Haha, you got a shout out. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=318106334

editing on behalf of a banned user lawl
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
CharlotteWebb
post Mon 5th October 2009, 8:32pm
Post #569


Postmaster General
********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,740
Joined: Mon 18th Jun 2007, 2:09am
Member No.: 1,727

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Cool Hand Luke)
I have significant involvement with one of a parties who is a regular on ''Wikipedia Review'' such that my my participation could lead to lead to the perception of prejudice.

Hmm... it it reads almost as if as if he is he is doubly prejudiced doubly prejudiced due to due to involvement with both with both parties.

Nah, probably just needs some coffee. Err wait... I didn't mean it like that. dry.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
No one of consequence
post Mon 5th October 2009, 8:38pm
Post #570


I want to stare at the seaside and do nothing at all
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 635
Joined: Fri 23rd Feb 2007, 2:34am
Member No.: 1,010

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Mon 5th October 2009, 8:32pm) *

QUOTE(Cool Hand Luke)
I have significant involvement with one of a parties who is a regular on ''Wikipedia Review'' such that my my participation could lead to lead to the perception of prejudice.

Hmm... it it reads almost as if as if he is he is doubly prejudiced doubly prejudiced due to due to involvement with both with both parties.

Nah, probably just needs some coffee. Err wait... I didn't mean it like that. dry.gif

I wonder what impact Luke's recusing himself from any case involving a WR participant will have on the next elections.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
A Horse With No Name
post Mon 5th October 2009, 8:40pm
Post #571


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

Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,471
Joined: Mon 26th Jan 2009, 1:54pm
Member No.: 9,985



QUOTE(Apathetic @ Mon 5th October 2009, 4:30pm) *

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Mon 5th October 2009, 4:11pm) *

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Mon 5th October 2009, 3:35pm) *

Haha, you got a shout out. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=318106334

editing on behalf of a banned user lawl




It appears that elementary English is not pre-requisite for Arbcom membership. dry.gif

I actually wrote up an article for One on "Law of the Horse" (which he half-jokingly requested) but he never put online. If anyone wants to post it, be my guest -- it is all formatted and ready to run:

'''Law of the Horse''' is a term that was used in the mid-1990s to define the state of [[cyberlaw]] during the nascent years of the Internet’s development as a socio-economic force of information.

The term first gained prominence in a 1996 cyberlaw conference presentation by Judge [[Frank H. Easterbrook]] of the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit]]. Easterbrook, who was also a professor at the [[University of Chicago]], later published his presentation in the University of Chicago Law Review as ''Cyberspace and the Law of the Horse,'' in which he argued against the notion of defining cyberlaw as a unique section of legal studies and litigation.<ref>{{cite news | author =Amy Harmon | title =The Law Where There Is No Land; A Legal System Built on Precedents Has Few of Them in the Digital World | publisher =The New York Times | date =March 16, 1998 | url =http://www.nytimes.com/1998/03/16/business/law-where-there-no-land-legal-system-built-precedents-has-few-them-digital-world.html?pagewanted=2 | accessdate=2009-09-25}}</ref> Easterbrook cited [[Gerhard Casper]] as coining the expression “law of the horse,” and stated that Casper’s arguments against specialized or niche legal studies applied to cyberlaw:
<blockquote>
“...the best way to learn the law applicable to specialized endeavors is to study general rules. Lots of cases deal with sales of horses; others deal with people kicked by horses; still more deal with the licensing and racing of horses, or with the care veterinarians give to horses, or with prizes at horse shows. Any effort to collect these strands into a course on 'The Law of the Horse' is doomed to be shallow and to miss unifying principles.”<ref>{{cite news | author =Frank H. Easterbrook | title =Cyberspace and the Law of the House | publisher =University of Chicago Law Review | date =1996 | url =http://www.law.upenn.edu/fac/pwagner/law619/f2001/week15/easterbrook.pdf | accessdate=2009-09-25}}</ref></blockquote>

Easterbrook’s theory was challenged by [[Lawrence Lessig]], a professor at [[Stanford Law School]], in an April 1997 article ''The Law of the Horse: What Cyberlaw Might Teach.'' Lessig’s article, which was first presented at the [[Boston University]] Law School Faculty Workshop, argued that legal perceptions and rules would need to evolve as the cyberspace environment developed and expanded.<ref>{{cite news | author =Wired News Staff | title =Newly Appointed 'Special Master' To Probe MS Issues | publisher =Wired Magazine | date =December 11, 1997 | url =http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/1997/12/9118 | accessdate=2009-09-25}}</ref>
<ref>{{cite news | author =Bret A. Fausett | title =Hooray RIAA | publisher =Dr. Dobb’s Journal | date =February 12, 2003 | url =http://www.ddj.com/architect/184411637 | accessdate=2009-09-25}}</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Computer law]]
[[Category:Cyberspace]]



(Mod note) Removed code that broke the thread. -Derktar

Sorry about that, Derktar. wacko.gif

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name: Mon 5th October 2009, 8:56pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Milton Roe
post Mon 5th October 2009, 8:51pm
Post #572


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(No one of consequence @ Mon 5th October 2009, 1:38pm) *

QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Mon 5th October 2009, 8:32pm) *

QUOTE(Cool Hand Luke)
I have significant involvement with one of a parties who is a regular on ''Wikipedia Review'' such that my my participation could lead to lead to the perception of prejudice.

Hmm... it it reads almost as if as if he is he is doubly prejudiced doubly prejudiced due to due to involvement with both with both parties.

Nah, probably just needs some coffee. Err wait... I didn't mean it like that. dry.gif

I wonder what impact Luke's recusing himself from any case involving a WR participant will have on the next elections.

And as a side note, this nifty background HTML tag is going to make WR lots more colorful. Ripe for abuse!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Abd
post Mon 5th October 2009, 9:06pm
Post #573


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,915
Joined: Tue 18th Nov 2008, 10:52pm
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Mon 5th October 2009, 1:37pm) *
BTW, I had no idea they rejected the idea of precedent. That's just stupid, if true.
Depends on what the purpose is. The purpose is to prevent the formation of any settled "law," to allow actual practice to be superior to policy. And the purpose of that is to empower the "masses," in theory, which, as is well know, means empowering the active core, the oligarchy which is known to always form per the Iron Law. The absence of law means that the mob is in charge, and the mob can block reform. Until the general "public" wakes up and asserts its power, it will remain helpless, because only a few editors who see the problem will act at any one time, and the massing power of the mob can overwhelm them.

Now, this is an extreme description. In fact, there is some level of deliberative process on Wikipedia, but it's unreliable and easily overcome by mass reactions.

The problem with "practice over policy" is that it's possible to deliberate policy, to document and find a settled consensus, based on careful and thoughtful examination and experience, at least temporarily. Actual practice, involving hundreds or thousands or more editors, isn't amenable to deliberation, because the discussion size becomes impossible. Hence there is ArbComm, which can in theory deliberate and make policy decisions, but it is confused about its own role. Does it "represent" the community, or is it an "instrument" of the community through which the community deliberates? Can it make policy? Or is its only role to express and apply "actual practice"?

Revolutionaries classically called upon the oppressed masses to rise up and throw out the oppressors. It was backwards, in fact, because rising up and tossing the oligarchy simply opened up an opportunity for a new oligarchy, which the masses were unable to resist, for it appeared at first that it represented them. To move around this hazard, it's necessary that the masses organize for communication only, not for power.

The essential organizational problem is the same as the essential political problem: how can large numbers of people communicate, find consensus, and act coherently -- which means efficiently as well as effectively. How can this be done while avoiding the Scylla and Charybdis of excessive volatility and noise, leading to paralysis and thus vulnerability to crowd behavior, which often is like a dumb and vicious beast, on the one hand, or fascism or heavy central control, on the other?

Before it can be done, it's necessary that enough people recognize the problem. That's difficult enough for one day! Or one year, probably! Most people readily fall into the habit of considering that the problem is the bad guys, the corrupt, the incompetent, you know, them. Get rid of them, and things will be fine. Not.

Consider the current arb cases. Where in these cases is the attempt to find an inclusive consensus? It seems to be all about judging a contest, where the winners will be vindicated and the bad guys punished. ArbComm does attempt to find some internal consensus, usually, though that attempt can also be notably absent. But it seems to do this, too often, only to "settle" a dispute without actually resolving it. People usually misbehave for a reason. Unless the reason is addressed, the misbehavior will return, with or without a new face or new name.

I find it very dangerous that ArbComm allows normal dispute resolution to be bypassed, and one of the consequences of this is that disputes come to ArbComm not being well defined much beyond "He's bad!" "No, she's bad!" This makes questions large and complex, and deliberative bodies have learned, over the centuries, to avoid those without first engaging on small questions.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
LaraLove
post Mon 5th October 2009, 9:07pm
Post #574


Wikipedia BLP advocate
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,741
Joined: Mon 28th Jan 2008, 7:53pm
Member No.: 4,627

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Mon 5th October 2009, 4:32pm) *

Nah, probably just needs some coffee. Err wait... I didn't mean it like that. dry.gif

OMG, I love this website.

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Mon 5th October 2009, 4:40pm) *

QUOTE(Apathetic @ Mon 5th October 2009, 4:30pm) *

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Mon 5th October 2009, 4:11pm) *

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Mon 5th October 2009, 3:35pm) *

Haha, you got a shout out. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=318106334

editing on behalf of a banned user lawl

It appears that elementary English is not pre-requisite for Arbcom membership. dry.gif

I actually wrote up an article for One on "Law of the Horse" (which he half-jokingly requested) but he never put online. If anyone wants to post it, be my guest -- it is all formatted and ready to run:

<article>

I would post it, but I'd surely be banned before I got back from class tonight.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
A Horse With No Name
post Mon 5th October 2009, 9:17pm
Post #575


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

Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,471
Joined: Mon 26th Jan 2009, 1:54pm
Member No.: 9,985



QUOTE(LaraLove @ Mon 5th October 2009, 5:07pm) *

I would post it, but I'd surely be banned before I got back from class tonight.


No prob, Lara. Nonetheless, this shows the ironic stupidity of Wikipedia -- for all of the commotion about the scapegoating of yourself, GC, Jayron and Law/TU, the core mission of "building an encyclopedia" and "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" turns out to be a bunch of horseshit.

This article relating to cyberlaw won't go online -- not because it stinks (it doesn't) or because it is incorrect (it is not), but because of who wrote it. It shows the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is really a private club, with a clique deciding who can play and who has to stay outside. That is emetic at a moral, ethical and intellectual level.

Next time anyone claims that Wikipedians should be focusing on "building an encyclopedia," give 'em a smack in the chops -- and ask them what they've done to write an encyclopedia. Because you don't build an encyclopedia - you build a house, a car and a better mousetrap, but you don't "build" a reference text. wink.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Milton Roe
post Mon 5th October 2009, 9:27pm
Post #576


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(Abd @ Mon 5th October 2009, 2:06pm) *

The essential organizational problem is the same as the essential political problem: how can large numbers of people communicate, find consensus, and act coherently -- which means efficiently as well as effectively. How can this be done while avoiding the Scylla and Charybdis of excessive volatility and noise, leading to paralysis and thus vulnerability to crowd behavior, which often is like a dumb and vicious beast, on the one hand, or fascism or heavy central control, on the other?

Before it can be done, it's necessary that enough people recognize the problem. That's difficult enough for one day! Or one year, probably! Most people readily fall into the habit of considering that the problem is the bad guys, the corrupt, the incompetent, you know, them. Get rid of them, and things will be fine. Not.


Indeed. No sooner does the animal farm get rid of its exploitive farmers, than a bunch of pigs that were no problem before, get up on their hind legs and start to act more human.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Guido den Broeder
post Mon 5th October 2009, 9:28pm
Post #577


Senior Member
****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 425
Joined: Thu 19th Feb 2009, 7:31pm
Member No.: 10,371



QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Mon 5th October 2009, 10:40pm) *

I actually wrote up an article for One on "Law of the Horse" (which he half-jokingly requested) but he never put online. If anyone wants to post it, be my guest -- it is all formatted and ready to run:

'''Law of the Horse''' is a ...


Done. tongue.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Appleby
post Mon 5th October 2009, 9:53pm
Post #578


Member
***

Group: On Vacation
Posts: 167
Joined: Wed 9th Sep 2009, 2:45pm
Member No.: 13,585



QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Mon 5th October 2009, 8:23pm) *

QUOTE(Appleby @ Mon 5th October 2009, 6:17pm) *

A clear violation of WP:SYNTH. It's also faulty logic unless you can prove

WP One != WP Cool Hand Luke

This is a common source of confusion, but they are in fact different people. I'm 100% certain sure of this (though I'm not about to prove this in a public forum—others will be less prudent I'm sure).

I'm not suggesting for a moment that they're the same people, just pointing out that there's a gap in the logic.

QUOTE

You might as well be asking someone to prove the user "Guy" here was not "Guy (JzG)" on Wikipedia, or that "Kato" here was not "Cato" on Wikiquote, etc.

Or indeed that someone here is the same person as a user of the same name on Wikipedia. Surely you can't confuse Cato and Kato. Next you'll confuse Jayvdb and Jayjg! Actually, Cato is an admin on the Norwegian Wikipedia.

http://nn.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...1&username=Cato

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Mon 5th October 2009, 8:35pm) *

Do you mean "one of a parties" and the repetitions? Not actually spelling errors.

This post has been edited by Appleby: Mon 5th October 2009, 10:04pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Noroton
post Mon 5th October 2009, 9:58pm
Post #579


Senior Member
****

Group: Inactive
Posts: 382
Joined: Fri 13th Mar 2009, 1:20am
Member No.: 10,759

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Mon 5th October 2009, 4:40pm) *

I actually wrote up an article for One on "Law of the Horse" (which he half-jokingly requested) but he never put online. If anyone wants to post it, be my guest -- it is all formatted and ready to run:
Added by somebody else, deleted, re-added with explanation on talk page and on an admin's page. All done. (You missed a footnote, but good article.) Now I'm late for dinner.

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

This post has been edited by Noroton: Mon 5th October 2009, 9:58pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Deodand
post Mon 5th October 2009, 10:04pm
Post #580


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 153
Joined: Fri 21st Aug 2009, 12:04am
Member No.: 13,085



QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Mon 5th October 2009, 7:56pm) *


QUOTE(Deodand @ Mon 5th October 2009, 2:33pm) *

The page move led to the decision to go to arbcom. This is acceptable. The idea that the user in question just went "he won't move a page, lets get him desysopped as punishment" is not acceptable. I found the IRC log of the PM, btw; starts:

01[12:26] <Ironholds> just a ping that I'm setting up a talkpage discussion now (in case you were doing the same and we'd ec)
[12:26] <The_Law> thats funny because i don't give a fuck about you
[12:27] <The_Law> i will pwn u every time. and that sucks.

Kind of undermines the idea that Ironholds went "waah, he won't move my page! Blam goes his Mighty Tools!"


It would be helpful if we were all working from the full log and not selected sections that may or may not be out of context.


That was literally the first section of the log. I don't have permission to further distribute it, nor methods unfortunately. I'm sure Ironholds would completely fail to see the irony if I was to blab the logs to all and sundry tongue.gif.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

55 Pages V « < 27 28 29 30 31 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 1st 8 14, 1:41am