# "Wikipedia Says..."



## Kevin (Jan 6, 2015)

How many times have you seen someone cite wikipedia as if it's a peer-reviewed site containing factual information? I cringe whenever someone cites their source as wikipedia as if that settles the matter. I have been on an anti-wikipedia crusade for years. But people just seem to suck down that koolaid no matter what you tell them. Maybe I should write an article for wikipedia on how inaccurate it is. The problem is, wikipedia says wikipedia is accurate. 

The article below claims that 90% of the health-related articles on wikipedia have inaccuracies and content which contradicts the latest medical research. 90%! And that's just health articles. 

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-27586356

The above article cited the below article as a source - Doc do you subscribe to this journal? 
http://www.jaoa.osteopathic.org/content/114/5/368.full



This was from 2009 . . . 5 years ago:

http://www.bestcollegesonline.com/blog/2009/02/10/25-biggest-blunders-in-wikipedia-history/



This article below touches on just how difficult, and very often "nearly impossible" it is to get errors of fact corrected in articles about your company, no matter how big your company might be. 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120417113527.htm



Harvard university addresses this topic on a page titled: http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k70847&pageid=icb.page346376
*Harvard Guide to Using Sources*
*A Publication of the Harvard College Writing Program*


_Nevertheless, when you're doing academic research, you should be extremely cautious about using Wikipedia. As its own disclaimer states, information on Wikipedia is contributed by anyone who wants to post material, and the expertise of the posters is not taken into consideration. Users may be reading information that is outdated or that has been posted by someone who is not an expert in the field or by someone who wishes to provide misinformation. (Case in point: Four years ago, an Expos student who was writing a paper about the limitations of Wikipedia posted a fictional entry for himself, stating that he was the mayor of a small town in China. Four years later, if you type in his name, or if you do a subject search on Wikipedia for mayors of towns in China, you will still find this fictional entry.) Some information on Wikipedia may well be accurate, but because experts do not review the site's entries, there is a considerable risk in relying on this source for your essays._




This is one of the best articles I've read about why the source is such a clusterfrick http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/520446/the-decline-of-wikipedia/ Here's the opening paragraph:

_The sixth most widely used website in the world is not run anything like the others in the top 10. It is not operated by a sophisticated corporation but by a leaderless collection of volunteers who generally work under pseudonyms and habitually bicker with each other. It rarely tries new things in the hope of luring visitors; in fact, it has changed little in a decade. And yet every month 10 billion pages are viewed on the English version of Wikipedia alone. When a major news event takes place, such as the Boston Marathon bombings, complex, widely sourced entries spring up within hours and evolve by the minute. Because there is no other free information source like it, many online services rely on Wikipedia. Look something up on Google or ask Siri a question on your iPhone, and you’ll often get back tidbits of information pulled from the encyclopedia and delivered as straight-up facts._

So keep citing wikipedia as your trusted source and keep on using that ubiquitous phrase "Wikipedia says" and a few of us will keep doing what we do every time we see those irritating words. We do this . . . .

Reactions: Great Post 1


----------



## SENC (Jan 6, 2015)

Perhaps we should just refer to it as codswallop.com.

Reactions: Agree 4 | Funny 1


----------



## Tclem (Jan 6, 2015)

It js 100% true. I looked up @SENC and this is what it showed. See told you it was true

Reactions: EyeCandy! 1 | Funny 9


----------



## Kevin (Jan 6, 2015)

We need a gross icon. Who was the member that recently said something like_ "I want to unsee that so bad." _

Reactions: Agree 2


----------



## Tclem (Jan 6, 2015)

Kevin said:


> We need a gross icon. Who was the member that recently said something like_ "I want to unsee that so bad." _


Just think ol Henry has to see that every day

Reactions: Funny 3


----------



## Tclem (Jan 6, 2015)

Kevin said:


> We need a gross icon. Who was the member that recently said something like_ "I want to unsee that so bad." _


I think I said something about wearing a thong and they replied that


----------



## DKMD (Jan 6, 2015)

I use Wikipedia quite a bit if I want to look up something quickly... Generally, I looking for something trivial or pop culture related. I have noticed some inaccuracies with medical information, but I rarely use the site for anything that matters.

@Kevin I don't subscribe to that journal... In fact, I'd never heard of it until just now, so I looked it up on Wikipedia.

Reactions: Funny 4


----------



## Kevin (Jan 6, 2015)

If you had time to read the material linked, the Journal of the American Osteopathic Association said up to 70% of physicians and medical students use it.  

And they weren't real happy about it. One article said it's better to consult your physician than to rely on wikipedia. Physicians, you know, that group of guys 70% of whom use wikipedia . . . .

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Tclem (Jan 6, 2015)

DKMD said:


> I use Wikipedia quite a bit if I want to look up something quickly... Generally, I looking for something trivial or pop culture related. I have noticed some inaccuracies with medical information, but I rarely use the site for anything that matters.
> 
> @Kevin I don't subscribe to that journal... In fact, I'd never heard of it until just now, so I looked it up on Wikipedia.


niw we know how to become a doctor. Man I hope the knee specialist I'm seeing Monday uses google

Reactions: Agree 1 | Funny 4


----------



## Schroedc (Jan 6, 2015)

I believe I'm the one who has asked for an "Unsee" button on occasion 

According to Wikipedia the issue with my face is either a really fast growing tumor or one of several jungle fungi..... I think in this case I'll believe my doctor and just keep taking the antibiotics


----------



## Kevin (Jan 6, 2015)

Taylormade said:


> . . . . that's MOSTLY accurate.



You must be reading wikipedia if you believe that. Joking aside, most everyone will tell you they don't agree with most anyone on anything. You go to a party or let's say even a woodworking club etc. and even though you're like-minded group, you'll still not agree with anyone on most issues even including woodworking let alone social, economic, political, scientific, or spiritual views; but they are the exact people writing these articles. But somehow placing them all under a common digital banner makes everyone suddenly believe that somehow, almost magically, they are MOSTLY right or accurate.

I don't get it. Why are they suddenly, magically, 'mostly' accurate now? They haven't changed nor become unbiased geniuses all the sudden, they're the same people you couldn't agree with on most issues at that party or woodturning convention but now you think they're giving mostly unbiased, factual, inerrant info? Amazing. Where are THEY getting this info? . Someone needs to write a wiki article saying that the only people who are going to heaven are the ones that send curly koa to Kevin. It even rhymes. It HAS to be true, and if it gets entered into wiki most will believe it IS true!.


----------



## cabomhn (Jan 6, 2015)

Wikipedia needs credit where it's due. It is a MASSIVE knowledge engine for people looking up information quickly, that is, generally speaking, very accurate. While I'm sure if you pick apart any of their articles you are bound to find smaller inaccuracies, I would argue that if you go over many of the purely scientific articles, the information is very accurate. For example, I routinely use it to double check half-lives, decay chains, etc, because it's something that will not change over time and there really isn't much room for discussion. And if I want to further verify this information, all of the sources at the bottom of the page can be clicked on to see the source of the data and you can further verify the authenticity of it, as well as find more information in peer-reviewed articles that are linked to in the wikipedia article.

I think wikipedia definitely has it's place in the toolbox. I'm not saying if I'm doing engineering work for a company that I"m going to reference it, but when you are looking up basic information that is easily verifiable otherwise, it can be extremely useful.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Kevin (Jan 6, 2015)

Man, it's so disheartening to see such widespread acceptance of such a flawed model.

Reactions: Agree 2


----------



## Tclem (Jan 6, 2015)

Well I AM ALWAYS right so if you need any information just ask me. I can give you adorable health care, lower taxes, money for not working. Wait. I sound like a president or something. Never mind my post

Reactions: Funny 3


----------



## SENC (Jan 6, 2015)

As much as I hate to say this, I'm squarely with Kevin on this one. Stuff I've found on wikipedia has been inaccurate more than accurate... enough so that if I ever follow a link to wiki for something (usually when a google search results in a wiki direct hit and other results look far afield), I now always go searching its sources and look for alternatives. Basically, the only usefulness to wiki in my eyes is in guiding me rapidly to a different way to refine my search.

At its core, I think the wikipedia idea is rather nonsensical. The hard and fast, never changing, easily verifiable types of things Matt referenced are just that... easily findable and verifiable... I see no need for wiki as a "middleman". The hard to find, arcane, and latest and breaking types of information that should be the wiki wheelhouse are the most inaccurate and unreliable.

Reactions: Agree 3


----------



## Tclem (Jan 6, 2015)

SENC said:


> As much as I hate to say this, I'm squarely with Kevin on this one. Stuff I've found on wikipedia has been inaccurate more than accurate... enough so that if I ever follow a link to wiki for something (usually when a google search results in a wiki direct hit and other results look far afield), I now always go searching its sources and look for alternatives. Basically, the only usefulness to wiki in my eyes is in guising me rapidly to a different way to refine my search.
> 
> At its core, I think the wikipedia idea is rather nonsensical. The hard and fast, never changing, easily verifiable tyoes of things Matt referenced are jut that... easily findable and verifiable... I see no need for wiki as a "middleman". The hard to find, arcane, and latest and breaking types of information that should be the wiki wheelhouse are the most inaccurate and unreliable.


As bad as I hate to say this. I'm with Henry

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## SENC (Jan 6, 2015)

Damn. I must have been wrong. I'm gonna have to rethink my position on wikipedia.

Reactions: Funny 4


----------



## Kevin (Jan 6, 2015)

Tclem said:


> I can give you adorable health care,



Adorable? You mean like this?

Reactions: EyeCandy! 3 | Great Post 2 | Funny 1


----------



## Brink (Jan 6, 2015)

justallan said:


> I want so badly to un-read that.





Kevin said:


> View attachment 67767





Kevin said:


> We need a gross icon. Who was the member that recently said something like_ "I want to unsee that so bad." _



It was something about shaving my back for auction

Reactions: Agree 2


----------



## shadetree_1 (Jan 6, 2015)

Tclem said:


> As bad as I hate to say this. I'm with Henry



Me too! Even if I do have to agree with Tony.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Tclem (Jan 6, 2015)

shadetree_1 said:


> Me too! Even if I do have to agree with Tony.


So Henry agrees with Kevin. I agree with Henry. Joe agrees with me. Next

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Tclem (Jan 6, 2015)

Kevin said:


> Adorable? You mean like this?
> 
> View attachment 68162


See. I do t always misspell. Sometimes I type what I'm thinking

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Kevin (Jan 6, 2015)

Tclem said:


> So Henry agrees with Kevin. I agree with Henry. Joe agrees with me. Next



The people in hell are thanking us for the sudden ice storm . . . . .

Reactions: Agree 1 | Funny 4


----------



## Kevin (Jan 6, 2015)

cabomhn said:


> Wikipedia needs credit where it's due. It is a MASSIVE knowledge engine for people looking up information quickly



Where did you get this notion Matt? It is a MASSIVE collection of inaccuracies disguised as a reliable source, and it's being perpetuated similar to how a ramjet engine works; stop being the oxygen it needs to continue to gain this unprecedented acceleration of misinformation.


----------



## Schroedc (Jan 6, 2015)

I'll agree with somebody here.

The only thing I use it for is occasionally I'll use the "facts" on an article to give me a starting place to do additional research on a topic if I don't know enough on where to look to start with.

Reactions: Agree 3


----------



## Kevin (Jan 6, 2015)

Brink said:


> It was something about shaving my back for auction



I will contribute a very large donation if you allow me to shave your back. My way . . . .

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Tony (Jan 6, 2015)

I'll jump into the pool and agree with Henry, Kevin, Joe and Tony. I think the problem is people nowadays are lazy and want instant gratification and knowledge. They want answers immediately while doing the least amount of work and taking the least amount of time to get them. Dam kids! (OH CRAP!!!!!! I've become my Father!!

Reactions: Agree 2 | Funny 2


----------



## Kevin (Jan 6, 2015)

Tony said:


> I think the problem is people nowadays are lazy and want instant gratification and knowledge. They want answers immediately while doing the least amount of work and taking the least amount of time to get them.



Damnit! You're hired Tony! You said in one sentence, what I would have launched a thousand ships to defeat (the mindset of). I'm going to have to stop calling you Tony.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Tony (Jan 6, 2015)

Kevin said:


> I'm going to have to stop calling you Tony.



Call me Bubba if it makes you happier, that's what my family calls me. Oh hell, then you'll think I'm from Mississippi too!

Reactions: Great Post 1 | +Karma 1


----------



## cabomhn (Jan 6, 2015)

Kevin said:


> Where did you get this notion Matt? It is a MASSIVE collection of inaccuracies disguised as a reliable source, and it's being perpetuated similar to how a ramjet engine works; stop being the oxygen it needs to continue to gain this unprecedented acceleration of misinformation.



I'm not trying to argue that Wikipedia is a 100 percent reliable source, but in my opinion to say that Wikipedia has no use whatsoever is just as wrong as to say Wikipedia is a reliable source. 

My opinion as Wikipedia being a good site for quick reference is due to continuously checking info found with textbooks and known sites in the science and math field and it matches the quick reference from Wikipedia. So for my purposes, it is useful. This doesn't mean it's useful for everyone. When I'm trying to quick reference a differential equation that I already have known in the past, I can quickly find it on Wikipedia and know if it's accurate or not. If you use it with a questioning attitude, it has it's benefits. It really depends on what you are using it for.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Kevin (Jan 6, 2015)

cabomhn said:


> My opinion as Wikipedia being a good site for quick reference is due to continuously checking info found with textbooks and known sites in the science and math field and it matches the quick reference from Wikipedia.



Matt, Henry addressed that in a way you of all people should understand since you're in the midst of you learning (and hopefully academic) apogee (or close to it). The periodic table isn't something that's easy to screw up. "Wikipedia" is probably okay for that unless you get a saboteur (even "wikipedia" admits they have no defense against them) writing an article about it or editing one that may unfortunately already exist on that black hole of a site. If your generation continues to perpetuate this fallacy that "wikipedia" is good for _"a quick reference" _then what are we going to be left with? And may I ask you Matt, what is _"a quick reference"_? Does it have any relevance to accuracy? Why shouldn't we embrace _"Quick sloppiness"_ as "okay" too (as long as it is quick. *And easy*)?

These truly are things you should consider. And finally answer me this Matt, who is "wikipedia"? I use italics every time because you cannot tell me who the hell is in charge. Who is in even in charge of peer reviews? No one. Did you read a single thing *I* wrote? No. Because I am one guy with one opinion that you personally know, so you don't give much credence to me. But if I wrote an article on wiki under a pseudonym about something you needed a reference for, in order to complete a research paper, you would use it against me even if I was the phantom professor you turned it in to.

Reactions: Great Post 1


----------



## TimR (Jan 6, 2015)

Here ya go, if Wikipedia wasnt enough...
https://www.wiktionary.org


----------



## Kevin (Jan 6, 2015)

TimR said:


> Here ya go, if Wikipedia wasnt enough...
> https://www.wiktionary.org



Get a life. Too.


----------



## GeauxGameCalls (Jan 6, 2015)

Ah I might as well agree with them too! Jonathan your next!


----------



## Schroedc (Jan 6, 2015)

We could start a new site and call it wikiwood.com

Reactions: Funny 3


----------



## Kevin (Jan 6, 2015)

Taylormade said:


> ...*It's supposed to be self-policing and if you don't cite a reasonable source, your edits or comments get flagged and deleted*. ...



That's absolute codswallop.


----------



## cabomhn (Jan 7, 2015)

Kevin said:


> Matt, Henry addressed that in a way you of all people should understand since you're in the midst of you learning (and hopefully academic) apogee (or close to it). The periodic table isn't something that's easy to screw up. "Wikipedia" is probably okay for that unless you get a saboteur (even "wikipedia" admits they have no defense against them) writing an article about it or editing one that may unfortunately already exist on that black hole of a site. If your generation continues to perpetuate this fallacy that "wikipedia" is good for _"a quick reference" _then what are we going to be left with? And may I ask you Matt, what is _"a quick reference"_? Does it have any relevance to accuracy? Why shouldn't we embrace _"Quick sloppiness"_ as "okay" too (as long as it is quick. *And easy*)?
> 
> These truly are things you should consider. And finally answer me this Matt, who is "wikipedia"? I use italics every time because you cannot tell me who the hell is in charge. Who is in even in charge of peer reviews? No one. Did you read a single thing *I* wrote? No. Because I am one guy with one opinion that you personally know, so you don't give much credence to me. But if I wrote an article on wiki under a pseudonym about something you needed a reference for, in order to complete a research paper, you would use it against me even if I was the phantom professor you turned it in to.




Well, in my opinion, a quick reference is something that you already have learned from other sources previously and just need a refresher on some smaller non-critical aspect to the problem. Like I mentioned, if I need to just double check something that I already have an idea of what it's supposed to be beforehand, it is quick to look up something, and if you actually knew it prior to, you'll know if what you're looking at it correct or not. I'm not suggesting to use wikipedia as your primary source of education about things, simply stating that if can be a useful tool. 

I know what you're getting at, and I'm not saying you are wrong. I have no idea whatsoever who added the information I am reading on wikipedia, and honestly, who wrote it is much less important to me than if I know what I am reading is correct. Just as much in the sense that I have no clue who the 50 grad students are who wrote my textbooks under the guise of some professor's name, with little back-end checking of the information inside. You might be surprised about how many mistakes you'll find in any college-level textbook, which are things that in theory should be very precise and thoroughly reviewed before publishing. In the end, you as an individual are really the only person who can determine what the truth is.

Like I said before, a very useful aspect of wikipedia is the list of sources they give over any given topic. There are many good links given in most main wikipedia articles to peer-reviewed journal sites that you can go look at yourself. But, those sites don't always appear in the first 5-10 pages of search results, so I can go through and check out a bunch of legitimate sources for some topic all on one wikipedia page, and I can determine on my own whether or not they are a.) good sources, and b.) relevant to what I am trying to figure out. This aspect is a useful tool to me when used appropriately, it may not be to others, and that's fine.

Another thing is that there aren't many good (free) alternatives for the public, in my opinion. Brittanica, a commonly trusted source, has been proven to be just as inaccurate as wikipedia with as many false pieces of information. Which again, doesn't mean that a source like Brittanica is useless, just means that you have to proceed with caution and use sound judgement without just blindly believing what anything on the internet says. Just because something is "peer-reviewed" doesn't mean it's perfectly accurate either.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Kevin (Jan 7, 2015)

Matt, that's a very well written explanation of your feelings on the matter and I appreciate you taking the time to write it. I think you speak for the majority of the folks out there. I'm not under any illusion that anything is perfectly accurate but I'll stick by my opinion that wikipedia is a step backward, even though "it's free".

Reactions: Thank You! 1


----------



## Mike Mills (Jan 7, 2015)

I may have inspired this thread by stating my elevation (see other thread) came from Wikipedia.

_"It is a MASSIVE collection of inaccuracies disguised as a reliable source,"
_
A google search for "harriburg, nc, elevation" yields 2,200,000 results. So which one is the correct one?
Maybe the listing of senior homes has the best data, or cub scout pact 173, or...
Should Google, Bing, or any other search engine should be completely discounted as they are all grossly inaccurate?
The entire interned is a massive collection of inaccuracies; it is also a massive collection of accurate and useful data.
If I ask which lathe chuck is the best I may get five answers. Four have to be wrong but all may be correct based upon an individual viewpoint.
IMHO if you keep a healthy dose of skepticism and remember all data, on the internet or not, is just one opinion then it is useful.

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 1


----------



## barry richardson (Jan 7, 2015)

Wikipedia Says; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilting_at_windmills

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Kevin (Jan 7, 2015)

Scott when I said it was codswollop, I was referring to your trust that wikipedia exerts much if any control or "policing" over the content of the articles that people (anyone who wants to write one) write. We just disagree on that point is all - I think their claims of "policing" content are exaggerated to put it nicely.



Taylormade said:


> Out of curiosity, do you also hate Craigslist?


No, and it's an irrelevant comparison for obvious reasons. "Hate" smacks a bit of inflammatory and sensationalistic. 




Taylormade said:


> ...what would you do besides immediately take down Wikipedia?


I wouldn't take it down. I think many people if King for a day would rule with an iron fist and force their will on others but that's not my style. I'd just share my feelings that it's a bad idea and perhaps get a little more exposure than I'm getting now. I might be tempted to confiscate your wood though for some of your outlandish comments . . . . .

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## kweinert (Jan 7, 2015)

Tclem said:


> Well I AM ALWAYS right so if you need any information just ask me.



Just ask his wife . . . :)

Reactions: Agree 2


----------



## Mike Jones (Jan 7, 2015)

It occurs to me that when a person makes an argument, such as the one that Kevin has made regarding Wikipedia, such person must not have fully appraised themselves of the various pertinent and material facts surrounding the subject, and has voiced (apparently strongly held) opinions on the matter based upon less-than-complete examination. 

A good way to come to a better understanding of Wikipedia....and the way that it works to provide reliable information (that is often not readily available in any other format or compendium)....would be to become a contributor.

Becoming a contributor to Wikipedia requires a bit more time and effort than the time and effort expended writing a post such as those posted here (on this one topic). The experience of publishing to the world, through Wikipedia, would provide a much better insight into how Wikipedia can be utilized. When your own work goes out into the world, every statement made, and every citation used, comes under a watchful, and oft-times critical, eye.

The more that one contributes to Wikipedia, the more that one can appreciate, and thereby pick and choose information that is useful, ...and not.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tclem (Jan 7, 2015)

I just ask my wife. She knows all

Reactions: Agree 1 | Great Post 1


----------



## Brink (Jan 7, 2015)

I hereby, by royal decree, rename Wikipedia. It is now known as Brinkipedia.

All hail your chimp overlord!

Reactions: Funny 4 | Way Cool 1 | Creative 1


----------



## Tony (Jan 7, 2015)

I think that Wikipedia in and of itself is not the large problem here. I believe the "big picture" problem nowadays is the attitude of "They said it on TV/the Internet, it must be true". I don't believe that Wikipedia should be taken down, nor do I have a solution to make it better. I just think that people should not blindly believe anything read on there. The ease with which information is put out into the world is the crux of the problem I think. Back in the Old Days, (I really have become my father I guess!), It took much more effort to publish a book, magazine article, etc. so people were more careful about getting their facts correct. Also, I think more people were ready to call BS on anything that was suspect. Now, not so much, you just type it in and post it. I'll get off my soapbox now.... Tony

Reactions: Agree 2


----------



## JR Custom Calls (Jan 8, 2015)

My favorite quote seems applicable here... 

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet" - Abraham Lincoln

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 3 | Funny 1


----------



## Kevin (Jan 8, 2015)

This thread shows how someone can share their general opinion on a topic, and a small percentage of the population are going to take your opinion as a personal attack, as if you singled them out in some way. Reminds me the Ford v Chevy mentality. 

_My opinion is Chord is better. 
You're crazy! Fevy rules!
Well it's only my opinion.
Your opinion is WRONG! You don't have a right to have that opinion! _

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Tony (Jan 8, 2015)

Reminds me of a saying my HS football coach and Principal used to say, "Opinions are like a..holes, everybody's got one and most of them stink ".

Reactions: Agree 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Tclem (Jan 8, 2015)

Well I am the sexist, smartest, richest man alive and I know because I googled it and my picture showed up. Or maybe that is just @SENC opinion of me

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## SENC (Jan 8, 2015)

Tclem said:


> Well I am the sexist


Says a lot when you can't even get self-aggrandizement right.

Reactions: Agree 1 | +Karma 1


----------



## Tclem (Jan 8, 2015)

SENC said:


> Says a lot when you can't even get self-aggrandizement right.


Lol man I can not spell anything and quit using words I can't spell.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## SENC (Jan 8, 2015)

Tclem said:


> Lol man I can not spell anything and quit using words I can't spell.


I'm glad you've stopped using "sexiest", you didn't need to use it any way.

Reactions: Agree 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Kevin (Jan 8, 2015)

SENC said:


> I'm glad you've stopped using "sexiest", you didn't need to use it any way.



I'm staying out of this. I have no opinion. I'm not here.

Reactions: Like 1 | Sincere 1


----------

