How Wikipedia Screws Up an Article

Wikipediocracy blog posts
User avatar
Hersch
Retired
Posts: 3719
kołdry
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:09 am
Wikipedia User: Herschelkrustofsky
Wikipedia Review Member: Herschelkrustofsky

How Wikipedia Screws Up an Article

Unread post by Hersch » Mon Sep 15, 2014 2:47 am

The Hannah Anderson Kidnapping. A detailed analysis by Cornpone T. McGillicutty. Discuss.
“If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.”
Malcolm X


User avatar
Notvelty
Retired
Posts: 1780
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:51 am
Location: Basement

Re: How Wikipedia Screws Up an Article

Unread post by Notvelty » Mon Sep 15, 2014 12:02 pm

Hersch wrote:The Hannah Anderson Kidnapping. A detailed analysis by Cornpone T. McGillicutty. Discuss.
Nahce an' hoal folksey, see.

But then ah be athinkin', jus' shoo'in t' breeze like. May be.. may be the best term in that secondyair para graph might be.. might be "Californee".

Jus' sayin', ma'am. Just sayin'.
-----------
Notvelty

User avatar
Hersch
Retired
Posts: 3719
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:09 am
Wikipedia User: Herschelkrustofsky
Wikipedia Review Member: Herschelkrustofsky

Re: How Wikipedia Screws Up an Article

Unread post by Hersch » Mon Sep 15, 2014 1:56 pm

I think the only people who actually say that are the ones with the see-ment ponds.
“If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.”
Malcolm X


User avatar
Kiefer.Wolfowitz
Gregarious
Posts: 956
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 11:25 pm
Wikipedia User: Kiefer.Wolfowitz
Contact:

Re: How Wikipedia Screws Up an Article

Unread post by Kiefer.Wolfowitz » Mon Sep 15, 2014 2:36 pm

E. B. White wrote:9. Do not affect a breezy manner.

The volume of writing is enormous, these days, and much of it has a sort of windiness about it, almost as though the author were in a state of euphoria. “Spontaneous me,” sang Whitman, and, in his innocence, let loose the hordes of uninspired scribblers who would one day confuse spontaneity with genius.

The breezy style is often the work of an egocentric, the person who imagines that everything that comes to mind is of general interest and that uninhibited prose creates high spirits and carries the day. Open any alumni magazine, turn to the class notes, and you are quite likely to encounter old Spontaneous Me at work–an aging collegian who writes something like this:

‘Well, guys, here I am again dishing the dirt about your disorderly classmates, after pa$$ing a weekend ing the Big Apple trying to catch the Columbia hoops tilt and then a cab-ride from hell through the West Side casbah. And speaking of news, howzabout tossing a few primo items this way?’

This is an extreme example, but the same wind blows, at lesser velocities, across vast expanses of journalistic prose. The author in this case has managed in two sentences to commit most of the unpardonable sins: he obviously has nothing to say, he is showing off and directing the attention of the reader to himself, he is using slang with neither provocation nor ingenuity, he adopts a patronizing air by throwing in the word primo, he is humorless (though full of fun), dull, and empty. He has not done his work. Compare his opening remarks with the following–a plunge directly into the news:

‘Clyde Crawford, who stroked the varsity shell in 1958, is swinging an oar again after a lapse of forty years. Clyde resigned last spring as executive sales manager of the Indiana Flotex Company and is now a gondolier in Venice.’

This, although conventional, is compact, informative, unpretentious. The writer has dug up an item of news and presented it in a straightforward manner. What the first writer tried to accomplish by cutting rhetorical capers and by breeziness, the second writer managed to achieve by good reporting, by keeping a tight rein on his material, and by staying out of the act.”
Kiefer.Wolfowitz (T-C-L)
You run into assholes all day; you're the asshole.

Drowninginlimbo
Critic
Posts: 263
Joined: Sun May 11, 2014 11:52 am

Re: How Wikipedia Screws Up an Article

Unread post by Drowninginlimbo » Mon Sep 15, 2014 2:37 pm

Stay classy, Wikipedia.

User avatar
Zoloft
Trustee
Posts: 13981
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:54 pm
Wikipedia User: Stanistani
Wikipedia Review Member: Zoloft
Actual Name: William Burns
Nom de plume: William Burns
Location: San Diego
Contact:

Re: How Wikipedia Screws Up an Article

Unread post by Zoloft » Mon Sep 15, 2014 7:09 pm

I always have a copy of Strunk and White near me. It is also fun to completely ignore its teachings when you wish to annoy.

My avatar is sometimes indicative of my mood:
  • Actual mug ◄
  • Uncle Cornpone
  • Zoloft bouncy pill-thing


User avatar
Notvelty
Retired
Posts: 1780
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:51 am
Location: Basement

Re: How Wikipedia Screws Up an Article

Unread post by Notvelty » Tue Sep 16, 2014 3:18 am

Zoloft wrote:I always have a copy of Strunk and White near me. It is also fun to completely ignore its teachings when you wish to annoy.
Strunk and White is very good to absolutely necessary advice for communicating with a certain set of people; for others, it ranges from adequate to appalling. It would be wrong to say that they completely ignore the primacy of the audience, since the audience for which they write was essentially the only audience for written work in the era in which they wrote.

Heck, they don't even follow their own advice on matters that are "given".

For example:

Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but that he make every word tell.

—"Elementary Principles of Composition", The Elements of Style


Sixty-five f'ing words and far too many syllables to say what could have been covered with an abridgement of the first sentence and the last 4 words.
-----------
Notvelty

User avatar
Zoloft
Trustee
Posts: 13981
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:54 pm
Wikipedia User: Stanistani
Wikipedia Review Member: Zoloft
Actual Name: William Burns
Nom de plume: William Burns
Location: San Diego
Contact:

Re: How Wikipedia Screws Up an Article

Unread post by Zoloft » Tue Sep 16, 2014 3:57 am

Strunk wrote: Omit needless words.

My avatar is sometimes indicative of my mood:
  • Actual mug ◄
  • Uncle Cornpone
  • Zoloft bouncy pill-thing


User avatar
TungstenCarbide
Habitué
Posts: 2592
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2012 1:51 am
Wikipedia User: TungstenCarbide
Wikipedia Review Member: TungstenCarbide

Re: How Wikipedia Screws Up an Article

Unread post by TungstenCarbide » Tue Sep 16, 2014 4:34 am

Zoloft wrote:
Strunk wrote: Omit needless words.
with you brother
Gone hiking. also, beware of women with crazy head gear and a dagger.

User avatar
Bielle
Gregarious
Posts: 546
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2012 6:35 pm
Wikipedia User: Bielle
Wikipedia Review Member: Bielle

Re: How Wikipedia Screws Up an Article

Unread post by Bielle » Tue Sep 16, 2014 5:14 am

Notvelty wrote:
Zoloft wrote:I always have a copy of Strunk and White near me. It is also fun to completely ignore its teachings when you wish to annoy.
Strunk and White is very good to absolutely necessary advice for communicating with a certain set of people; for others, it ranges from adequate to appalling. It would be wrong to say that they completely ignore the primacy of the audience, since the audience for which they write was essentially the only audience for written work in the era in which they wrote.

Heck, they don't even follow their own advice on matters that are "given".

For example:

Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but that he make every word tell.

—"Elementary Principles of Composition", The Elements of Style


Sixty-five f'ing words and far too many syllables to say what could have been covered with an abridgement of the first sentence and the last 4 words.
I am not quite sure how the first sentence ("Vigorous writing is concise.") could be abridged and still mean something.

User avatar
lonza leggiera
Gregarious
Posts: 569
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2012 5:24 am
Wikipedia User: David J Wilson (no longer active); Freda Nurk
Wikipedia Review Member: lonza leggiera
Actual Name: David Wilson

Re: How Wikipedia Screws Up an Article

Unread post by lonza leggiera » Tue Sep 16, 2014 6:42 am

Bielle wrote:
Notvelty wrote:
Zoloft wrote:I always have a copy of Strunk and White near me. It is also fun to completely ignore its teachings when you wish to annoy.
Strunk and White is very good to absolutely necessary advice for communicating with a certain set of people; for others, it ranges from adequate to appalling. It would be wrong to say that they completely ignore the primacy of the audience, since the audience for which they write was essentially the only audience for written work in the era in which they wrote.

Heck, they don't even follow their own advice on matters that are "given".

For example:

Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but that he make every word tell.

—"Elementary Principles of Composition", The Elements of Style


Sixty-five f'ing words and far too many syllables to say what could have been covered with an abridgement of the first sentence and the last 4 words.
I am not quite sure how the first sentence ("Vigorous writing is concise.") could be abridged and still mean something.
I took the abridgement Notvelty had in mind to be something like "Vigorous writing makes every word tell"—i.e. an abridgement of the first sentence and the last four words, as he stated.
E voi, piuttosto che le nostre povere gabbane d'istrioni, le nostr' anime considerate. Perchè siam uomini di carne ed ossa, e di quest' orfano mondo, al pari di voi, spiriamo l'aere.

User avatar
Bielle
Gregarious
Posts: 546
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2012 6:35 pm
Wikipedia User: Bielle
Wikipedia Review Member: Bielle

Re: How Wikipedia Screws Up an Article

Unread post by Bielle » Tue Sep 16, 2014 6:45 am

lonza leggiera wrote:
Bielle wrote:
Notvelty wrote:
Zoloft wrote:I always have a copy of Strunk and White near me. It is also fun to completely ignore its teachings when you wish to annoy.
Strunk and White is very good to absolutely necessary advice for communicating with a certain set of people; for others, it ranges from adequate to appalling. It would be wrong to say that they completely ignore the primacy of the audience, since the audience for which they write was essentially the only audience for written work in the era in which they wrote.

Heck, they don't even follow their own advice on matters that are "given".

For example:

Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but that he make every word tell.

—"Elementary Principles of Composition", The Elements of Style


Sixty-five f'ing words and far too many syllables to say what could have been covered with an abridgement of the first sentence and the last 4 words.
I am not quite sure how the first sentence ("Vigorous writing is concise.") could be abridged and still mean something.
I took the abridgement Notvelty had in mind to be something like "Vigorous writing makes every word tell"—i.e. an abridgement of the first sentence and the last four words, as he stated.
You may well be right: "Vigorous writing is concise and makes every word tell."

User avatar
Notvelty
Retired
Posts: 1780
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:51 am
Location: Basement

Re: How Wikipedia Screws Up an Article

Unread post by Notvelty » Tue Sep 16, 2014 11:22 am

Bielle wrote:
lonza leggiera wrote:
Bielle wrote:
Notvelty wrote:
Zoloft wrote:I always have a copy of Strunk and White near me. It is also fun to completely ignore its teachings when you wish to annoy.
Strunk and White is very good to absolutely necessary advice for communicating with a certain set of people; for others, it ranges from adequate to appalling. It would be wrong to say that they completely ignore the primacy of the audience, since the audience for which they write was essentially the only audience for written work in the era in which they wrote.

Heck, they don't even follow their own advice on matters that are "given".

For example:

Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but that he make every word tell.

—"Elementary Principles of Composition", The Elements of Style


Sixty-five f'ing words and far too many syllables to say what could have been covered with an abridgement of the first sentence and the last 4 words.
I am not quite sure how the first sentence ("Vigorous writing is concise.") could be abridged and still mean something.
I took the abridgement Notvelty had in mind to be something like "Vigorous writing makes every word tell"—i.e. an abridgement of the first sentence and the last four words, as he stated.
You may well be right: "Vigorous writing is concise and makes every word tell."
"Write concisely and make every word important."

The rest is pompous nonsense.
-----------
Notvelty

User avatar
thekohser
Majordomo
Posts: 13406
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: How Wikipedia Screws Up an Article

Unread post by thekohser » Tue Sep 16, 2014 2:18 pm

"Write concisely."
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."

Anthonyhcole
Habitué
Posts: 1120
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 3:35 am
Wikipedia User: Anthonyhcole

Re: How Wikipedia Screws Up an Article

Unread post by Anthonyhcole » Tue Sep 16, 2014 2:58 pm

thekohser wrote:"Write concisely."
:D

User avatar
Poetlister
Genius
Posts: 25599
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
Nom de plume: Poetlister
Location: London, living in a similar way
Contact:

Re: How Wikipedia Screws Up an Article

Unread post by Poetlister » Tue Sep 16, 2014 6:32 pm

thekohser wrote:"Write concisely."
"Be terse." - shorter words!
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche

User avatar
Zoloft
Trustee
Posts: 13981
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:54 pm
Wikipedia User: Stanistani
Wikipedia Review Member: Zoloft
Actual Name: William Burns
Nom de plume: William Burns
Location: San Diego
Contact:

Re: How Wikipedia Screws Up an Article

Unread post by Zoloft » Tue Sep 16, 2014 6:35 pm

Poetlister wrote:
thekohser wrote:"Write concisely."
"Be terse." - shorter words!
"Cut."
The above was the only critique on a story I handed in for a creative writing class.

My avatar is sometimes indicative of my mood:
  • Actual mug ◄
  • Uncle Cornpone
  • Zoloft bouncy pill-thing


User avatar
Jim
Blue Meanie
Posts: 4955
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 10:33 am
Wikipedia User: Begoon
Wikipedia Review Member: Jim
Location: NSW

Re: How Wikipedia Screws Up an Article

Unread post by Jim » Tue Sep 16, 2014 7:09 pm

Zoloft wrote:"Cut."
The above was the only critique on a story I handed in for a creative writing class.
I remember when I was a teenager reading an early anthology of Asimov work from the 40s/50s. "The Early Asimov", I guess.

In the book, Asimov intersperses the actual stories with commentary on the writing process, discussions with his publisher, Campbell, the wait to see if his story was accepted, how many cents a word he'd get, and how it would be received - and what it was like to be a "penniless" author.

At one point he has a story accepted and published in a magazine and goes away on holiday.

He's desperately worried about reception, and magazine sales, but isolated. (no email, twitting, this is the old days)

So he sends a telegram (paid by the character, remember) consisting of "?",
and receives the reply "!"

Even if it wasn't true I liked the anecdote, and it has stuck with me.

Hex
Retired
Posts: 4130
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:40 pm
Wikipedia User: Scott
Location: London
Contact:

Re: How Wikipedia Screws Up an Article

Unread post by Hex » Wed Sep 17, 2014 3:55 pm

Zoloft wrote:
Poetlister wrote:
thekohser wrote:"Write concisely."
"Be terse." - shorter words!
"Cut."
"✂"

Thanks Unicode!
My question, to this esteemed Wiki community, is this: Do you think that a Wiki could successfully generate a useful encyclopedia? -- JimboWales
Yes, but in the end it wouldn't be an encyclopedia. It would be a wiki. -- WardCunningham (Jan 2001)

Newyorkbrad
Gregarious
Posts: 511
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2012 11:27 am

Re: How Wikipedia Screws Up an Article

Unread post by Newyorkbrad » Wed Sep 17, 2014 7:03 pm

Jim wrote:
Zoloft wrote:"Cut."
The above was the only critique on a story I handed in for a creative writing class.
I remember when I was a teenager reading an early anthology of Asimov work from the 40s/50s. "The Early Asimov", I guess.

In the book, Asimov intersperses the actual stories with commentary on the writing process, discussions with his publisher, Campbell, the wait to see if his story was accepted, how many cents a word he'd get, and how it would be received - and what it was like to be a "penniless" author.

At one point he has a story accepted and published in a magazine and goes away on holiday.

He's desperately worried about reception, and magazine sales, but isolated. (no email, twitting, this is the old days)

So he sends a telegram (paid by the character, remember) consisting of "?",
and receives the reply "!"

Even if it wasn't true I liked the anecdote, and it has stuck with me.
The Early Asimov is superb, but the anecdote (apparently true) involved Victor Hugo and Les Miserables.

User avatar
Jim
Blue Meanie
Posts: 4955
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 10:33 am
Wikipedia User: Begoon
Wikipedia Review Member: Jim
Location: NSW

Re: How Wikipedia Screws Up an Article

Unread post by Jim » Wed Sep 17, 2014 7:35 pm

Newyorkbrad wrote:
Jim wrote:
Zoloft wrote:"Cut."
The above was the only critique on a story I handed in for a creative writing class.
I remember when I was a teenager reading an early anthology of Asimov work from the 40s/50s. "The Early Asimov", I guess.

In the book, Asimov intersperses the actual stories with commentary on the writing process, discussions with his publisher, Campbell, the wait to see if his story was accepted, how many cents a word he'd get, and how it would be received - and what it was like to be a "penniless" author.

At one point he has a story accepted and published in a magazine and goes away on holiday.

He's desperately worried about reception, and magazine sales, but isolated. (no email, twitting, this is the old days)

So he sends a telegram (paid by the character, remember) consisting of "?",
and receives the reply "!"

Even if it wasn't true I liked the anecdote, and it has stuck with me.
The Early Asimov is superb, but the anecdote (apparently true) involved Victor Hugo and Les Miserables.
Shakes head vigorously. Wow. If so, I have completely mixed up my memories of two things and mangled them together...

I think you're probably right though, because it rings a bell now you say that. It was probably in my "Guinness Book of Records" as 'shortest correspondence' or something.

At the time, as a teenager, both of those were things I read avidly. My memory circuits must be failing. :crying:

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Edited to add:
Yup - Brad 1 Jim 0

Victor Hugo (T-H-L)
According to some accounts, the shortest correspondence in history is said to have been between Hugo and his publisher Hurst and Blackett in 1862. Hugo was on vacation when Les Misérables was published. He queried the reaction to the work by sending a single-character telegram to his publisher, asking "?". The publisher replied with a single "!" to indicate its success. The Quote Investigator website investigated the claim and concluded that it is probably fictional.

User avatar
thekohser
Majordomo
Posts: 13406
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: How Wikipedia Screws Up an Article

Unread post by thekohser » Wed Sep 17, 2014 7:55 pm

Newyorkbrad wrote:The Early Asimov is superb, but the anecdote (apparently true) involved Victor Hugo and Les Miserables.
Brad's a big fan of Javert... a fanatic cop in pursuit of punishing an ex-convict who served his time and is merely trying to live an honest life after a couple of post-prison mistakes. Eventually, Javert recognizes that the lawful approach is also the immoral one, as it is immoral to command that a decision is always final and is not subject to reconsideration or appeal.
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."

Newyorkbrad
Gregarious
Posts: 511
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2012 11:27 am

Re: How Wikipedia Screws Up an Article

Unread post by Newyorkbrad » Wed Sep 17, 2014 8:35 pm

thekohser wrote:Brad's a big fan of Javert... a fanatic cop in pursuit of punishing an ex-convict who served his time and is merely trying to live an honest life after a couple of post-prison mistakes. Eventually, Javert recognizes that the lawful approach is also the immoral one, as it is immoral to command that a decision is always final and is not subject to reconsideration or appeal.
If you think that accurately describes of my philosophy on Wikipedia (or in life), you are as wrong as it is possible to be. If anything, I've been criticized on-wiki for perceived excessive leniency toward disruptive editors more than anything else. I've certainly supported any number of second, third, fourth, and nth chances.

User avatar
thekohser
Majordomo
Posts: 13406
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: How Wikipedia Screws Up an Article

Unread post by thekohser » Wed Sep 17, 2014 8:52 pm

Newyorkbrad wrote:
thekohser wrote:Brad's a big fan of Javert... a fanatic cop in pursuit of punishing an ex-convict who served his time and is merely trying to live an honest life after a couple of post-prison mistakes. Eventually, Javert recognizes that the lawful approach is also the immoral one, as it is immoral to command that a decision is always final and is not subject to reconsideration or appeal.
If you think that accurately describes of my philosophy on Wikipedia (or in life), you are as wrong as it is possible to be. If anything, I've been criticized on-wiki for perceived excessive leniency toward disruptive editors more than anything else. I've certainly supported any number of second, third, fourth, and nth chances.
It's nice to hear about those second, third, fourth, and nth chances, Brad. Will you ever give me a first chance to hear the specific reason why my travel plans were abruptly halted, and my ability to earn an income interfered with, on May 30th?

Now, where's that e-mail from you to me, on May 29th? Ah, yes -- here it is! You said...
"The decision is final and is not subject to reconsideration or appeal."
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."

User avatar
Midsize Jake
Site Admin
Posts: 9872
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:10 pm
Wikipedia Review Member: Somey

Re: How Wikipedia Screws Up an Article

Unread post by Midsize Jake » Wed Sep 17, 2014 8:58 pm

Newyorkbrad wrote:If you think that accurately describes of my philosophy on Wikipedia (or in life), you are as wrong as it is possible to be. If anything, I've been criticized on-wiki for perceived excessive leniency toward disruptive editors more than anything else. I've certainly supported any number of second, third, fourth, and nth chances.
That's not quite what he said, though. The real question is, do you have any Javert posters on your bedroom walls? Do you own any of his CDs, or DVDs of his live shows? How about other Javert merchandise, like T-shirts or baseball caps? Are you a registered user on one of the many online Javert fan-forums?

Maybe you have your own Javert blog, like javert.com (though that one does appear to be more focused on women's sportswear at the moment).

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31484
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: How Wikipedia Screws Up an Article

Unread post by Vigilant » Wed Sep 17, 2014 9:02 pm

Image
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Kiefer.Wolfowitz
Gregarious
Posts: 956
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 11:25 pm
Wikipedia User: Kiefer.Wolfowitz
Contact:

Re: How Wikipedia Screws Up an Article

Unread post by Kiefer.Wolfowitz » Wed Sep 17, 2014 9:44 pm

Newyorkbrad wrote: [....] I've certainly supported any number of second, third, fourth, and nth chances.
Nice to hear!
:banana:
Kiefer.Wolfowitz (T-C-L)
You run into assholes all day; you're the asshole.

Post Reply