AfC declines article on nobel prize winner

[Dysklyver]

https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... dia-denied

It's been internationally reported by hundreds of outlets, in English, French, German, Indian, etc.

Bradv (T-C-L) is now being bombed by thousands of angry comments and there is a massive debate all over the wiki, see Donna Strickland (T-H-L) and User talk:Bradv (T-H-L) and User talk:TonyBallioni (T-H-L).

[Poetlister]

It is certainly the case that until the award, Strickland had a far lower profile than her co-winners, but I'd say that she easily passed WP:PROF. How many other Nobel prizewinners did not have articles before they won?

[Dysklyver]

It is certainly the case that until the award, Strickland had a far lower profile than her co-winners, but I'd say that she easily passed WP:PROF. How many other Nobel prizewinners did not have articles before they won?

Since Wikipedias launch, of the 212 Nobel laureates some 69 (33%) had no Wikipedia article when the prize was announced. Of the 48 laureates in physics, 17 (35%) had no article when the prize was announced.

[Poetlister]

It is certainly the case that until the award, Strickland had a far lower profile than her co-winners, but I'd say that she easily passed WP:PROF. How many other Nobel prizewinners did not have articles before they won?

Since Wikipedias launch, of the 212 Nobel laureates some 69 (33%) had no Wikipedia article when the prize was announced. Of the 48 laureates in physics, 17 (35%) had no article when the prize was announced.

That certainly confirms the view that eminent scientists are often overlooked.

Incidentally, I never thanked Dennis Brown for creating Susan Brown (mathematician) (T-H-L) after I raised her absence from Wikipedia. Sorry, Dennis.

[Midsize Jake]

Since Wikipedias launch, of the 212 Nobel laureates some 69 (33%) had no Wikipedia article when the prize was announced. Of the 48 laureates in physics, 17 (35%) had no article when the prize was announced.

Right, I saw that on the Dona Strickland talk page posted by User:KalHolmann (T-C-L). I guess we can probably accept those numbers, but I'd be more interested to have them for just the last 10 years or so - most people didn't have Wikipedia bios in the early days, not just women physicists. (Mr. Holmann did mention "one each in 2014 & 2015," so there have been a few recent cases at least.)

I'd say the main positive takeaway from this is that there are still people in the media who are willing to take WP to task over this sort of thing. This particular case might not be as bad as it looks on the surface, but it still looks bad for them.

[Beeblebrox]

I’m normally not a believer in “automatic notability” but winning a Nobel would seem to automatically confer it.

[Kumioko]

I’m normally not a believer in “automatic notability” but winning a Nobel would seem to automatically confer it.

Yeah this was a no brainer. It just goes to show that AFC is based on the discretion of the reviewer and not on policy necessarily.

[Dysklyver]

I’m normally not a believer in “automatic notability” but winning a Nobel would seem to automatically confer it.

It certainly does that yes.

Most the talk seems to be on how it should have been accepted before she won the Nobel, so that the world media wouldn't be chewing up the Wikipedia "moderators". Much WP:NPROF (T-H-L) debate as well over just how crap the article can be to still be accepted.

And Bradv isn't even an admin, just one of the AFC reviewer types.

[iii]

Are there any enterprising folk active here who can dig up (a) the comments on the draft and (b) the draft itself? I would like to read those and the links are buried in Wikipedia memory holes.

[Kumioko]

I sure hope someone calls them out on that obvious mistake.

[Ming]

Are there any enterprising folk active here who can dig up (a) the comments on the draft and (b) the draft itself? I would like to read those and the links are buried in Wikipedia memory holes.

All there is to work with is this edit declining the draft, which was preceded by exactly two edits creating the article, the only contributions of the editor. The next edit after the decline is the start of updating it after the Nobel announcement, which was overrun because someone went and created the article directly. There's nothing on the draft talk page.

[iii]

Are there any enterprising folk active here who can dig up (a) the comments on the draft and (b) the draft itself? I would like to read those and the links are buried in Wikipedia memory holes.

All there is to work with is this edit declining the draft, which was preceded by exactly two edits creating the article, the only contributions of the editor. The next edit after the decline is the start of updating it after the Nobel announcement, which was overrun because someone went and created the article directly. There's nothing on the draft talk page.

Thanks.

I note that the draft review says that

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject...

LOLWUT?

One of the references is to Biographies of the OSA which states

This section of the Library provides written biographies of the leading scientists of our industry, including OSA's Past Presidents, Honorary Members, and Award Winners.

Seems pretty significant, secondary, reliable, independent, and published to me.

[The Adversary]

Well, Sjakkalle (T-C-L) deleted the article on Robert Aumann (T-H-L), created and deleted the same day it was announced that Aumann had received the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences (T-H-L)

The deleted work consisted of one line: 'He won the Nobel Prize!' (and the only contributor was 'Jimbo Wales (T-C-L)'))

[Kingsindian]

Aumann is famous for Aumann's disagreement theorem (T-H-L), which shows that two rational people cannot "agree to disagree" if they know all the facts.

Funny corollary: since Aumann is an Orthodox Jew and most people are not, this means that either Orthodox Judaism is the most rational religion or that Aumann is not rational

[Dysklyver]

I note that the draft review says that

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject...

LOLWUT?

One of the references is to Biographies of the OSA which states

This section of the Library provides written biographies of the leading scientists of our industry, including OSA's Past Presidents, Honorary Members, and Award Winners.

Seems pretty significant, secondary, reliable, independent, and published to me.

I agree, I wonder if AFC people realise this. I managed to do AFC for a very limited time (before being kicked out) and it seemed to me that the idea was to try and guess if an article would be speedy deleted or not and accept it if it wouldn't be.

I am pretty sure this should have been accepted.

[Kumioko]

The problem with AFV is that it's completely discretionary. If a reviewer declines one, it's on the submitter to fight it. They aren't generally reviewed, and if the sit there long enough they get speedy deleted. I'm not a fan of AFC, it has its benefits but I don't think the positives outweigh the negatives.

[Eric Corbett]

The problem with AFV is that it's completely discretionary. If a reviewer declines one, it's on the submitter to fight it. They aren't generally reviewed, and if the sit there long enough they get speedy deleted. I'm not a fan of AFC, it has its benefits but I don't think the positives outweigh the negatives.

I've never understood why anyone at all bothers with it.

[Ming]

One of the references is to Biographies of the OSA which states

This section of the Library provides written biographies of the leading scientists of our industry, including OSA's Past Presidents, Honorary Members, and Award Winners.

Seems pretty significant, secondary, reliable, independent, and published to me.

Ming suspects that since she was president of the OSA this was held to be not independent enough to be reliable.

[iii]

One of the references is to Biographies of the OSA which states

This section of the Library provides written biographies of the leading scientists of our industry, including OSA's Past Presidents, Honorary Members, and Award Winners.

Seems pretty significant, secondary, reliable, independent, and published to me.

Ming suspects that since she was president of the OSA this was held to be not independent enough to be reliable.

I sure HOPE that's not the case. This would be akin to saying something like the UN is not independent enough to be a usable source to establish the notability of its secretary general. Rather, I hope that the person just didn't look carefully at the reference and rushed to judgment.

[Dysklyver]

Ming suspects that since she was president of the OSA this was held to be not independent enough to be reliable.

I sure HOPE that's not the case. This would be akin to saying something like the UN is not independent enough to be a usable source to establish the notability of its secretary general. Rather, I hope that the person just didn't look carefully at the reference and rushed to judgment.

The offending busybody has now written a long and detailed review on the subject: User:Bradv/Strickland incident (T-H-L). http://archive.is/tpheH permanent link.

There were three sources provided in the draft: [...] Of these, none were independent as required by WP:NRV and WP:PROF.

Seems for some reason the sources were not acceptable, at least to Bradv.

[Ming]

I sure HOPE that's not the case. This would be akin to saying something like the UN is not independent enough to be a usable source to establish the notability of its secretary general.

This is something of a "notability is sometimes inherited" argument. The argument always goes that while the head of the UN is unquestionably going to attract attention and is therefore notable, the head of a professional society cannot be so presumed, especially since the importance of various groups varies so much.

[Poetlister]

This would be akin to saying something like the UN is not independent enough to be a usable source to establish the notability of its secretary general. Rather, I hope that the person just didn't look carefully at the reference and rushed to judgment.

The UN Secretary General is mentioned in any number of news stories. There's no problem there with notability. But I did once see an AfD where it was pointed out in a Keep !vote that the subject is a senior university professor, with a link to the University website. It was argued that since he's a professor there, the site is not independent of him and so can't be used to prove that he's a professor.

[Beeblebrox]

The problem with AFV is that it's completely discretionary. If a reviewer declines one, it's on the submitter to fight it. They aren't generally reviewed, and if the sit there long enough they get speedy deleted. I'm not a fan of AFC, it has its benefits but I don't think the positives outweigh the negatives.

I've never understood why anyone at all bothers with it.

Unconfirmed users no longer have a choice. They can create a draft or they can do something else until they are autoconfirmed and then make an article.

[Kumioko]

The problem with AFV is that it's completely discretionary. If a reviewer declines one, it's on the submitter to fight it. They aren't generally reviewed, and if the sit there long enough they get speedy deleted. I'm not a fan of AFC, it has its benefits but I don't think the positives outweigh the negatives.

I've never understood why anyone at all bothers with it.

Unconfirmed users no longer have a choice. They can create a draft or they can do something else until they are autoconfirmed and then make an article.

Here is the catch. Getting autoconfirmed doesn't take much, so anyone who can craft an article, with the necessary attention to policies, foramatting, categorization, template usage, references etc. has probably already edited in the past. So what this turns into is a way for people like Bbb23 to CU all the new editors who show an unusually high knowledge of policy when crafting articles and then accuse them of socking as a DUCK! It's a setup for new users, plain and simple.

[Dysklyver]

You can still make articles via the API without being confirmed (due to a technical bug), but there is an edit filter which will block you if you do, because the Admins noticed.

[Kumioko]

You can still make articles via the API without being confirmed (due to a technical bug), but there is an edit filter which will block you if you do, because the Admins noticed.

I just confirmed that this only applies to the English Wikipedia. Most other projects have not restricted the creation of articles on them through the API.

It's also worth noting that the code for AWB and JWB are readily visible and if you know how to make programmatic changes to the API then you can also probably figure out how to remove the requirement from AWB or JWB to use the Checkuser page (you have to change it in a couple places, but it's easy enough to figure out through some trial and error) You could then create all the articles you want by using AWB, which itself uses the API. It rather amazes me that someone hasn't done this before and used them as spambots. AWB and JWB are both very powerful tools so for the effort of a couple hours of time on a Saturday someone could be spamming "Allah is great" or "James Alexander is not" to thousands of articles across the Wikimedia projects.

[Eric Corbett]

My impression is that Wikipedia relies a lot on "security by obscurity". As you say, it wouldn't take a genius to hack a version of AWB and circumvent its white list of approved users.

[Dysklyver]

My impression is that Wikipedia relies a lot on "security by obscurity". As you say, it wouldn't take a genius to hack a version of AWB and circumvent its white list of approved users.

To run JWB in full bot mode without permission is a piece of cake.

OMG BEANZ

Copy the JWB code to a .js page in your userspace, it will contain a snippet like that below.

Code: Select all

		JWB.sysop = groups.indexOf('sysop') !== -1;
		if (JWB.username === "Joeytje50" && response.query.userinfo.id === 13299994) {//TEMP: Dev full access to entire interface.
			JWB.bot = true;
			users.push("Joeytje50");
		}

Change "Joeytje50" to whatever username you want to use, make sure to also change 13299994 to your user-id, which you can find on xtools.

Also copy User:Joeytje50/JWB.js/load.js (T-H-L) to another .js userpage the bottom line should look like

Code: Select all

mw.loader.load('//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Joeytje50/JWB.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');

Change User:Joeytje50/JWB.js to the name of your userpage. Then save everything and add the loader to your personal js preferences.

JWB will then work the same as normal, but you will have access to full bot mode, normally requiring a bot flag and AWB checkpage listing.

P.s I told some admins this was an issue months ago, the fact no-one has thought to remove the " Dev full access to entire interface. " code from the tool is 100% their fault.

[Kumioko]

I've brought up the issue on both tools multiple times to multiple admins. At some point I suspect they will require 2FA to use these at which point 2 things will happen: It will be slightly harder to use them and less people will use them because of it and it will cause a decline in the number of edits done even more than what is already being seen on the project.

BTW, you could also modify some of the tools on commons to work on EnWP and cause some havoc that way as well.

[BrillLyle]

The Donna Strickland entry was initially poorly sourced and as a BLP had a lot of problems.

AfC / the review process is not about helping editors do a better job. It's just punitive. It's like hoping to make spaghetti in a collander. It will work only if you stop up all the holes.

What really grosses me out looking at her page and the horrendous talk page is I'm pretty sure few if any women have edited Strickland's entry. Even if I was allowed to edit there's no way I would participate. It's a circle jerk of penises 1000%. A lot of men editing a page on a now notable woman. Sigh.

Things will never change on Wiki until it's people telling their own stories, women doing more editing, especially of women subjects, people of color, people from diverse backgrounds, etc. And the subject matters need to start to shift away from sports, porn stars, and Simpson's characters to less biased / gendered interests.

But if all the editors and the community are mostly white men, this will never happen. And for all the lip service to addressing these biases, women editors are becoming thinner on the ground. I wanted to fix all this. That's no longer possible.

But really, I did BLPs all the time. If I would've had 3 hours with the entry I could have established notability. It's not that hard if you do it a lot. The editor didn't have enough skills or understanding about establishing notability.

[BrillLyle]

FFS, I was able to establish notability of Katherine Maher, and she's borderline -- and that's being kind in assessing her notability.

[Anroth]

AfC / the review process is not about helping editors do a better job. It's just punitive.

You clearly do not understand the meaning of the word punitive, or you genuinely think that AFC is about punishing people for daring to create articles. AFC is about exerting a minimum of quality control so new articles are not complete shambles. Given the amount of utter crap that makes it on anyway, anything that mitigates the flood is bonus.

women editors are becoming thinner on the ground.

Citation needed. (I will ignore the blaming of white men for the moment)

[Midsize Jake]

women editors are becoming thinner on the ground.

Citation needed. (I will ignore the blaming of white men for the moment)

I still think it's because they're all a bunch of preening narcissists, but it's easy to see how lots of women would have a hard time separating the "preening narcissist" characteristic and the "white male" one, especially among the Wikipedia user community.

I do agree that "punitive" is too strong a word for the "Articles for Creation" page/process, but it does have fewer syllables than "horribly condescending."

[Anroth]

I do agree that "punitive" is too strong a word for the "Articles for Creation" page/process, but it does have fewer syllables than "horribly condescending."

At best 'brusque and unwelcoming to new editors'. AFC is rarely condescending because most of the time its a tickbox exercise that is relatively easy to pass. If you dont tick the boxes, your article doesnt pass. The majority of AFC reviewers rarely put more thought into it than that, as its meant to be a process for minimum standards, not a quality review. If you want actual condescension, head off for a FA/GA review.

[iii]

But really, I did BLPs all the time. If I would've had 3 hours with the entry I could have established notability. It's not that hard if you do it a lot. The editor didn't have enough skills or understanding about establishing notability.

Yeah, but part of this buy-in is totally arbitrary and part of the toxic Wikipedia culture that would be better to dismantle instead of working with it. it is simple to tell that the article subject is notable from the decent work the "low-skilled" article writer had done. By the somewhat arbitrary standards Wikipedia has developed over the years, that's not good enough, apparently. And there's no good reason for that except protecting the turf.

[Eric Corbett]

But really, I did BLPs all the time. If I would've had 3 hours with the entry I could have established notability. It's not that hard if you do it a lot. The editor didn't have enough skills or understanding about establishing notability.

Yeah, but part of this buy-in is totally arbitrary and part of the toxic Wikipedia culture that would be better to dismantle instead of working with it. it is simple to tell that the article subject is notable from the decent work the "low-skilled" article writer had done. By the somewhat arbitrary standards Wikipedia has developed over the years, that's not good enough, apparently. And there's no good reason for that except protecting the turf.

It's the job of the creator of the article to make the case for notability, nobody else. And in this case the creator signally failed to do that. There's nothing arbitrary about that.

You might well argue that rules for notability are arbitrary though.

[Ming]

AfC / the review process is not about helping editors do a better job. It's just punitive. It's like hoping to make spaghetti in a collander. It will work only if you stop up all the holes.

Yes, let us not forget this. The whole point of the process wasn't so much article improvement as it was to stem some of the flood of badly-written promotional crap. For WP political reasons this had to be cast as helping people write decent articles, but there has never been much interest in actually doing that.

[Eric Corbett]

AfC / the review process is not about helping editors do a better job. It's just punitive. It's like hoping to make spaghetti in a collander. It will work only if you stop up all the holes.

Yes, let us not forget this. The whole point of the process wasn't so much article improvement as it was to stem some of the flood of badly-written promotional crap. For WP political reasons this had to be cast as helping people write decent articles, but there has never been much interest in actually doing that.

The overall quality of articles on Wikipedia is probably improved by having less badly written rubbish, but I agree that AFC was never really about helping editors.

[Poetlister]

FFS, I was able to establish notability of Katherine Maher, and she's borderline -- and that's being kind in assessing her notability.

You're not exactly going to run into as much opposition from hardcore Wikipedians on the notability of the WMF CEO as you are on a professor, even a male one.

[Poetlister]

Back in May, Wikipedia rejected an entry on optical physicist Donna Strickland because she wasn't famous enough. Yesterday, she won the Nobel Prize in Physics. (The two male physicists with whom she shared the prize did have Wikipedia pages.) A scroll through the history tab of Strickland’s page, which records the progress of her recognition in real time, “feels like a metaphor for a historic award process that has long been criticized for neglecting women in its selection, and for the shortage of women’s stories in the sciences at large,” says The Atlantic.

Nature

Links to

The Atlantic

[iii]

But really, I did BLPs all the time. If I would've had 3 hours with the entry I could have established notability. It's not that hard if you do it a lot. The editor didn't have enough skills or understanding about establishing notability.

Yeah, but part of this buy-in is totally arbitrary and part of the toxic Wikipedia culture that would be better to dismantle instead of working with it. it is simple to tell that the article subject is notable from the decent work the "low-skilled" article writer had done. By the somewhat arbitrary standards Wikipedia has developed over the years, that's not good enough, apparently. And there's no good reason for that except protecting the turf.

It's the job of the creator of the article to make the case for notability, nobody else. And in this case the creator signally failed to do that. There's nothing arbitrary about that.

You might well argue that rules for notability are arbitrary though.

Yes, I understand that the rule of Wikipedia are set-up to allow rather less-than-professional researchers make snap judgments. As is a common refrain here, this is not best practice for how one would want to run an encyclopedia.

[Eric Corbett]

Yes, I understand that the rule of Wikipedia are set-up to allow rather less-than-professional researchers make snap judgments. As is a common refrain here, this is not best practice for how one would want to run an encyclopedia.

That's not what I said.

[iii]

Yes, I understand that the rule of Wikipedia are set-up to allow rather less-than-professional researchers make snap judgments. As is a common refrain here, this is not best practice for how one would want to run an encyclopedia.

That's not what I said.

Good job! It's what I said. Thanks for appropriately quoting me.

[BrillLyle]

AfC / the review process is not about helping editors do a better job. It's just punitive.

You clearly do not understand the meaning of the word punitive, or you genuinely think that AFC is about punishing people for daring to create articles. AFC is about exerting a minimum of quality control so new articles are not complete shambles. Given the amount of utter crap that makes it on anyway, anything that mitigates the flood is bonus.

women editors are becoming thinner on the ground.

Citation needed. (I will ignore the blaming of white men for the moment)

Yo. I don't know you but really don't appreciate the insults or tone here.

I know what punitive means. I think the AfC process in essence punishes newbies and people who naively or stupidly go that route in creating articles. Creating articles is the hardest thing you can do on Wikipedia but newbies always start there. At editathons for years I encouraged newbies to improve existing articles, and gave them concrete ideas on how to do that, just simple things that would get them used to adding facts to a page that were missing, adding citations where there was a {{cn}} tag, etc.

But AfC doesn't do that. It's a checklist like many have said. It is punitive versus constructive. It's not, as others have said, a way to learn how to fix stuff. It's lazy and unhelpful. Instead of assigning the editor an editing co-hort, or giving people examples, or hopping onto the draft and showing the newbie what would be helpful, the system is set up to mass shut down content. It's flawed at its concept for everyone but those running the process.

Please don't ignore the blaming of white men. After today I'm in a mood. I blame white men. You all are in charge, on Wikipedia, and elsewhere. You can all go jump in a lake.

Women editors don't survive the community's toxicity. I don't see a gender breakdown of editors but I am pretty sure that the retention is lower for women than men, especially because there are so many gaping jackasses on Wikipedia and Wikidata. Also: It's a (slightly) tech community, so it's not a stretch to assume both whiteness and maleness.

[Dysklyver]

/me jumps in a lake.

[Anroth]

Yo. I don't know you but really don't appreciate the insults or tone here.

In the words of JT, cry me a river.

I know what punitive means. I think the AfC process in essence punishes newbies and people who naively or stupidly go that route in creating articles.

Right, so you do not actually know what it means. Punitive means they get punished for taking an action. The AFC process does not punish newbies for creating articles, the ability of new and unconfirmed editors to not create articles at all in mainspace is a result of years of verifiable utter dross being created. Prior to AFC the first a new editor would hear of problems would their shitty article being PROD'd or speedied.

It is punitive versus constructive. It's not, as others have said, a way to learn how to fix stuff.

Its not intended to be, although the feedback they get from a declined draft is more than they would under the alternatives.

It's lazy and unhelpful ~~~ the system is set up to mass shut down content. It's flawed at its concept for everyone but those running the process.

As has been explained, its designed specifically to shut down awful content from hitting articlespace. That is its purpose and its very good at it. Its not flawed for doing what it is supposed to do.

Women editors don't survive the community's toxicity.

Plenty do. Plenty of female editors also contribute significantly to the toxicity (as anyone who is interested in Horses finds out pretty quickly). Ask poetlister about the ratio of toxic female editors as a fraction of the female editor total, compared to the ratio of the toxic male editors to the male editing numbers.

[Poetlister]

I know what punitive means. I think the AfC process in essence punishes newbies and people who naively or stupidly go that route in creating articles.

Right, so you do not actually know what it means. Punitive means they get punished for taking an action. The AFC process does not punish newbies for creating articles

Does submitting an article to AfC make an editor more likely to suffer at the hands of nasty admins and checkusers? If so, it is indirectly punitive in that they are more likely to be punished.

[Anroth]

I know what punitive means. I think the AfC process in essence punishes newbies and people who naively or stupidly go that route in creating articles.

Right, so you do not actually know what it means. Punitive means they get punished for taking an action. The AFC process does not punish newbies for creating articles

Does submitting an article to AfC make an editor more likely to suffer at the hands of nasty admins and checkusers? If so, it is indirectly punitive in that they are more likely to be punished.

Thats just as likely as when not going through the AFC process - granted thats more difficult these days for new editors, but any new article that showed up out of the blue by an editor with very few edits (prior to AFC) was jumped on by the COIN crowd anyway. TBH by admin standards, 'nasty' ones dont hang out at AFC given its a time-consuming, boring repetitive job with little opportunity to exert their authoritah... They tend to hang around high-profile contentious areas where everyone can see it when they decide to be unpleasant. The current push to label feminists as bigots who dont buy into the transgender activist ideology is an area to watch if you want to see some complete nasty pieces of work.

[Dysklyver]

I know what punitive means. I think the AfC process in essence punishes newbies and people who naively or stupidly go that route in creating articles.

Right, so you do not actually know what it means. Punitive means they get punished for taking an action. The AFC process does not punish newbies for creating articles

Does submitting an article to AfC make an editor more likely to suffer at the hands of nasty admins and checkusers? If so, it is indirectly punitive in that they are more likely to be punished.

Actually in my experience publishing an article via AFC makes it less likely that an admin will ever see the draft, non-admin AFC reviewers will ensure it stays hidden in the Trash namespace, um I mean draft namespace, so that editors who have better things to do will never need to see it.

There's no logic to czechusers really, except that they enjoy fishing trips to RfA. There's a massive backlog at SPI most days, so hardly a shortage of material for them to deal with. I have no idea if they fish at AfC, and to be honest they would do better to fish at WP:PERM, cause that's where the socks will always end up sooner or later.

They are utterly incompetent anyway, my last sock was attributed to a different sockmaster for some reason I cannot explain. I was like, oh duh... lol.

[Bezdomni]

There's no logic to czechusers really

Imagine Volunteer Marek's dismay upon reading this Mr. Desklover. Next thing you know, we'll have the EEML in for our periodic checkup.