*whispers* the people over on Wikipedia is crazy, yo

Yesterday I was poking around on Wikipedia fixing crazy shit in some posts when I decided to go ahead and make an account so I could stop getting the “We’re recording your IP addess for all time!” message. For my username I chose theangryblackwoman because, well, I could. Plus, I was in ABW mode at the time. Anyway, I go away, I come back a few hours later to look something else up and the system tells me I have a message. The message was “There is a discussion over your username here at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names. You may wish to participate.”

WTF?

You mean the username I created 3 hours ago? There’s a discussion about it somewhere? So I click the link and I see this:

What do we do about this one? Acalamari 21:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

em nothing? I take it you’ve asked the user about this name? –Fredrick day 21:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Allow. If a female black user wishes people to know she is angry about something, that seems her business…Acalamari, I really don’t think there’s a need to go out looking for WP:UN violations… WJBscribe 21:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It doesn’t matter if the user is a black woman who is angry. It’s just this could be a name that could cause problems. Even if it was something like “Theangrywhitewoman” or “Theangryasianpeople,” I would still have reported it. Though I might have left it if it had been something like “Theangryorangewoman,” as there aren’t orange people. Acalamari 22:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    • How is it confrontational? The name could be ironic and she could prove to most civil Wikipedian ever. She may be angry about third world debt, or deforestation. But we don’t know because no one has asked her. The user has never had a single edit and may never make one. I don’t see what use is served by blocking her pre-emptively. WJBscribe 22:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I’ve posted a message on her talk page. Acalamari 22:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Disallow – inherently confrontational.Proabivouac 22:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Disallow – from WP:UNNames that promote a controversial or potentially inflammatory point of view and Inflammatory usernames are needlessly discouraging to other contributors, and disrupt and distract from our task of creating an encyclopedia. – I think this user name could potentially fall into these. Though this user name would the vast majority of the time cause no problem, people will be distracted by this slightly aggressive username. Cheers Lethaniol 22:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Allow So, you want to change her name because she’s ‘angry’? So flippin what? What’s she angry about? Is she angry about Wikipedia? Is she angry about George Bush? Is she angry about the weather? Is she angry at me? I don’t know, but if I did maybe I’d feel she’s being confrontational, but I don’t feel confronted because I don’t know what she’s angry about, so I don’t care. I’m angry because I got a parking ticket. I’m AngryAelffin. Am I being confrontational? No, I’m just being silly. Just like this nomination. It’s just silly. Sorry. Aelffin 22:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak allow per WJBscribe. // PoeticDecay 22:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Allow. I don’t see the problem here; the only issue could be ‘angry’ and I would take that as a piece of mild self-deprecation. Sam Blacketer 22:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Allow Not inherently offensive in any way. EVula // talk // // 22:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The main problem is having race and an extreme emotion in one username. It is likely to cause problems, and judging by the reaction here…it’s already generated a lot of discussion. Acalamari 22:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    By your logic, “Thejollywhiteman” is an objectionable username. I think you’re forseeing problems where they aren’t likely to occur. EVula // talk // // 22:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
If this username is so non-problem-causing, why is it creating a lot of heated discussion? Acalamari 22:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
From the comments (1.5 disallows, the remainder allows), it appears the “heat” is less over her name than over the idea of blocking it. Ben 22:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I hope other users realize that I don’t report users here because “it’s fun,” or any reason like that. I report names that I think might cause problems. I did not add this one or the one below because it was funny. It’s not funny to get someone blocked. Acalamari 22:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I think the usernames you have brought so far have been appropriate for discussion. Cheers Lethaniol 22:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    • It would be really, really nice if you would please first discuss your objections directly with the users on their talk pages, and only bring them here if those discussions fail to resolve the problem. Every time I see a redlinked “talk” after the username, I feel an important step’s been skipped. Ben 22:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I’m worried that if I do that and the user then gets blocked, they’ll resort to what I call “vengeance vandalism.” I’m concerned that if I alert a user about their name and they get blocked, they’ll decide to use their IP to vandalize the user pages of the users who decided to disallow their name. I’m not being a coward, I just don’t want a bunch of users to get their pages vandalized because of me. If it was only my user page that was at risk, I would alert the user. Acalamari 22:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Which is likelier to make someone that angry? Approaching the user directly for a friendly and courteous discussion first, or skipping that step and going straight to other people to get a block placed without such a courtesy? I know how I’d like to be treated. I’ve asked people I’ve worked with, “If you ever have a problem with what I do or how I do it, please let be be the first to know, not the second or third or last. Tell me right away, and maybe I can fix whatever it is before things get too bad.” It’s just such simple directness that can short-circuit gossip and grapevines and stories distorted by multiple relay. Please, Acalamari, start by both assuming and acting in good faith, as though you’re dealing with a reasonable person who may become a valued editor and even a friend. If you’re proved wrong in that assumption, no blame to you. But avoiding such directness, for fear of “vengeance vandalism”, seems to me far more likely to produce that feared result. Either approach may often turn out to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Ben 23:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
It’s unimportant if they vandalized my user or talk page. I’d be more worried if they’d vandalized yours because of me. As for acting in good-faith, I do that, but I’ve noticed that users with problem-causing usernames are often not serious about editing Wikipedia Acalamari 23:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I thank you for your well-meaning attempt to protect my userpage; but if you are really determined to act on my behalf I would much rather you did so by talking one-to-one with the user first than by getting the rest of us to hold an “in absentia” discussion of the user’s name without the user getting to hear about it (let alone comment) until after the fact — or after the block. I wouldn’t want to be treated that way, I don’t want to treat anyone else that way, and I don’t want anyone else to be treated that way on my behalf… even for the sake of defending my dearly beloved and infinitely precious userpage. Much as I appreciate your kind intentions toward me, I would appreciate even more your displaying this same earnest kindness toward the users whose names you feel need amendment. Really, I think they may need that kindness more than I, considering the position they’re in. Please, talk to them about it before you bring it here. Thanks! Ben 03:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Also, may I remind you that no one told Anarcho-capitalism about their username being here, and that user is more active than all of the ones I’ve ever listed here. I assume that user used the “what links here” button on their userpage. Acalamari 00:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
No, Amarkov notified him and he soon responded to that notice, about 1.5 hours after Liftarn created the entry. Note Amarkov’s question to Liftarn in that RFC, “why did you not try to just resolve it with him first?”, immediately before Amarkov notified the user. You are being asked the same sort of question; there’s no double standard in that. Ben 02:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Two wrongs do not a right make. EVula // talk // // 00:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I wasn’t implying that. I was saying that while Ben was going on about me for not alerting users, he hasn’t said anything to the user who reported Anarcho-capitalist here. Acalamari 00:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Because Amarkov had already done so. Why pile on? Ben 02:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
No Amarkov didn’t: apart from a welcome message, that talk page is clear. However, I am not getting into an argument about this. I’ll leave a note on Theangryblackwoman’s talk page with an apology about the username. Acalamari 03:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I posted the diff of “Amarkov notified him and he soon responded to that notice” above, and here it is again; please click the blue text. With regard to “Amarkov had already done so” (said something to the user who reported Anarcho-capitalist here), I quoted Amarkov’s “why did you not try to just resolve it with him first?” from his first response on that RFC itself, higher on this page. Ben 03:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC) … And I think you’ve done well with your note on this user’s talk page. Ben 03:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment there may be problems with any username that links emotions to race/creed/religion, for example if “Thejollywhiteman” edited the Holocaust suggesting it did not exist or if “Theangryblackwoman” POV warred over History of South Africa in the apartheid era. Their user names would then certainly cause offence. These are not the best examples – but you should get the idea. Cheers Lethaniol 22:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Allow Looks fine to me.(says the happy white guy) HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 23:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Allow. I can’t see the problem. Even if the User is in fact a placid white man, I can’t see the problem. –Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Um… I see I was notified after much, much discussion. Thanks, I guess? I don’t understand why anyone would find my username threatening or inflammatory. ABW Theangryblackwoman
  • Allow – I see nothing threatening or inflamatory here. – Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Allow — The Angry White Woman, Sarah 03:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Allow — The word “Angry” in a name does not constitute or even promise angry behavior, just as “Laughing” in a name does not guarantee joviality. — The Insidious Vicious Evil Maniacal Ben 04:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Closing as allow per clear consensus HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 05:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

What the hell, people?? Not only is there someone who has the time to look at every new account created and get upset about their usernames, but he’s actually defending his knee-jerk-ness with extremely inflammatory and, need I say, racially charged language. Simply because of my username I am likely to be a vandal and to cause problems. Others mark me as inflammatory and confrontational and “needlessly discouraging to other users” as well as disruptive.

I say again: What. The. Hell.

A few hours after the drama began, it was over. You can see the final discussion here and how many people came forth to say “Allow the name and quit being a jerk” to the OP. I clicked his name and discovered that he’s a HUGE Christina Aguilera fan and is very, very, very proud to be one of the most prolific correctors on Wikipedia In fact, he claims that “I have better contributions” than… others? It seems like some people are deeply involved in Wikipedia. And some of those people are freaks.

Anyway, I can keep my angry black name. I will now scourge the ‘pedia with my angry black editing.

47 Responses

  1. What in the world? Some people have too much time on their hands. You better work that username over at Wikipedia. *snap*

  2. What if…what if she photoshops herself in an article punching a white woman? Wikipedia would fall apart!

    Some people need to hit that little power button on their CPUs and familiarize themselves with natural sunlight.

  3. I find Acalamari’s user name offensive to squid.

  4. [...] it okay to be an angry black woman on Wikipedia? Or is Wikipedia just for bland white men … or people pretending to be bland [...]

  5. haha, this is just too great. People can be such retards.

  6. [...] ABW found her name the subject of an extensive discussion. Read all about it in her post “the people over on Wikipedia is crazy, yo.”I hope that Acalamari’s activities on Wikipedia will henceforth be thoroughly [...]

  7. “Inherently confrontational?” Give me a break. It’s only “inherently confrontational if you have a problem with black women ever being angry. Sorry, ABW, but only white people are allowed to be angry (not for one minute am I buying that “I would have had just as much of a problem with theangryasianpeople” nonsense).

    What a bunch of douchebags.

    What if…what if she photoshops herself in an article punching a white woman? Wikipedia would fall apart!

    And then the earth falls into the sun and life as we know it is OVER!!1!

  8. can you do some angry black hair petting while you’re at it?

  9. yeah. that’s pretty crazy. we know wikipedia is a dramafest, but that’s just…something else.

  10. I must say, someone on Wikipedia is very unautonomous and feels easily threatened.

    For myself, I’m tired of this sort of coercive censorship, especially when it’s the common citizen (or in this case ‘netizen’) doing it – proof again of my adage that Amerikkkans need no Big Brother, they do it to themselves and each other.

    Ugh.

  11. Wow. Where to start. First, I’m with Sylvia — the over-editor with the Vitamin D deficiency is clearly the center of the problem; I’m sure he’s overcaffeinated and needs some calcium and yoga to soothe his nerves.

    (In the meantime, however, because it’s people like this who are the types who grow up to make policy recommendations to stay in Iraq way past the sell-by date, he needs to sit in the corner and have his editing toys taken away.)

    Things like this just make me want to sign in there with handles like “anotherangryblackwoman.”

    But that would just be the end, wouldn’t it? Because everyone knows that more than one person of color congregatin’ means they’re plannin’ a rebellion and a takeover, and no more Black People would ever be allowed to edit Wiki. Ever.

    So toast to Tallulah — ‘specially since looks like none of the rest of us can come over and hang, you bettah WORK that username.

  12. Acalamari is sixteen, and is already living a life of loud desperation on the Internet.

  13. “Whiteypedia” they should call it.

    They seem to have this whole cryptofascist ‘purity of essence’ thing going on over there, and maybe they should stop it, now that we’ve noticed.

    Folks can’t be cryptofascist if their fascism is exposed now, can they.

  14. Gullybogan, who is We? And I doubt its all Whiteypedia…I admit there is something odd about her name, but Wikipedia is notorious for overreacting about these matters, AND all matters actually.

    I think you need to stop jumping the color card. For all you know Acalamari is a black male.

  15. Omigod. What’s with all the discussion and all the categories? LOL. Are the stakes really so high that people vandalize each others’ Web pages? I had no idea.

    And I agree with rockmara that the two Black people rule probably does apply and you’ve exceeded the one angry Black woman rule at Wikipedia, so you better go over there and work it.

  16. Oh, for fuck’s sake.

    That is all.

  17. Monday-Morning-Challenge-Authority Reading

    The Angry Black Woman: *whispers* the people over on Wikipedia is crazy, yo

  18. OMFG. That’s utterly insane.

  19. Good grief. Is there nothing people won’t make drama out of?

    I think this one gets points for being meta, though; he’s caused drama because he’s worried people will cause drama because drama has been caused, hence causing drama, hence causing drama.

    Impressive, you must admit, if hugely misguided… ¬¬

  20. Retarded. A handle that inane only makes you easier to spot for people who will need to go behind you and correct your assertions that Africans were flying around in spaceships, or that Cleopatra was black.

    Or: “Girl, you iz better auf widdout ‘dem.”

  21. Okay. Theseus, while I have no issue with the concept of free speech, you’re bordering on being excessiely rude. If you want to find yourself punished, keep going. If you’d like to engage me in honest debate, just let me know.

    ABW

    P.S. While I would never claim that Cleopatra was black, I’ll just bet you don’t know what she was. No looking it up – dazzle me with your mind.

  22. A redheaded Macedonian princess is where most scholars come down on the matter. I don’t have a problem with that particular analysis.

    You’re right, I was rude without having been provoked, and your mature response to my poking is noted. I shouldn’t have written that when I wasn’t sure of whom you were.

    In my (meager) defense, I was “sure” you were someone else who knows me well enough to absorb such punishment:

    http://theblacknationalist.com

    Nice blog,

    Theseus

  23. erm, no, don’t know those people. Though now I may hang out over there. I like the idea of black seperatists as long as I can still download the latest episode of Heroes.

    How do they know she was a red head? Didn’t they wear those wigs all the time and such?

  24. The webmaster over there is a very interesting black nationalist/businesswoman. I am a white nationalist, so we have lots in common–except she’s wrong about most everything =]

    nationalistplanet.com is her forum.

    Wigs as we know them didn’t come about until the 17th century or so. The Egyptians had hats they used to keep their heads from burning in the sun. Cleopatra Philopater is said to have had reddish auburn hair. There’s a pretty good representation of her at wiki:

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

    It’s your average “Classical Greek” look. Most contemporary Greeks display a different phenotype because of the Persian and Semitic (among other) influences.

    There’s not much supporting it, or destroying it, and it’s just my hunch, but most of the Classical-Era statues look Germanic to me.

  25. Fantastic post. A great read, thank you!

  26. I was involved in that discussion. It was meant as more of protection than a form of discrimination. There are some pretty extensive policies on what usernames are allowed. As well, being that username is the name of this site, it would also be fail the username policies.

  27. Sarah, the thing I find most funny about yours and other wikipeople’s reactions to this is that you’re trying to treat the incident as if it exists in a vacuum. But as I have learned in my short time being involved with Wikipedia, this is just one thread in the tapestry. There’s a lot of drama on the wiki, and there are much precedent for drama surrounding black people. Taken alone, this is just an example of wankery, but it doesn’t stand alone. We may not have you, personally, to thank for that, but we do have the community you’re a part of to thank.

    At any rate, you might deny that the language used during the discussion was racially charged, but that doesn’t make you right.

    “As well, being that username is the name of this site, it would also be fail the username policies.” I guess I’m supposed to feel threatened now?

    *snick*

  28. First off, I am not sarah. Second off, I agree there is alot of drama on wikipedia, there is no question about that. I however disagree that your sterotyping of the drama around, “black people” is false. There is drama no matter who you are. Most people dont have pictures and have no idea anyways? However, In my experiences regarding these matters, I think you are dragging this out into an issue that is nothing. It has nothing to do with being racially charged or discriminatory and I think you are seeing things because you want to. About being feeling threatened, I have absolutley no problem with you, just the username. If you changed your username to a more appropriate username, or even if you needed help doing such, I would be more than glad to help you.

  29. Not-Sarah, I actually never said I was being discriminated against. I believe I characterized the whole thing as ‘craziness’ not ‘discrimination’ or even ‘racism’. I said that racially insensitive language was used (which is was) and that a lot of asusmptions were made about what I might do based on my name and supposed personality. None of that is untrue.

    Also, there IS a lot of drama around black people at Wikipedia. If you don’t know about it, that’s really not my fault. That doesn’t make it untrue. And again I say, as I said to you elsewhere (or maybe to someone else since you insist on not identifying yourself – punk) that just because drama happens all over wikipedia for many reasons doesn’t mean drama doesn’t happen to spcific people for specific reasons. one of them being ‘black stuff’.

    You can have a problem with my username all you like. It was voted okay by others. And the fact that it’s the name of this website is irrelevant for many reasons.

    1 – I’m not using it to promote this or any other website called ‘angryblackwoman’ (of which there are a few, and many others with similar names). The only reason people know that this website is connected to my username is because acalamari was doing vanity searches. No where on wikipedia have I connected the two.

    2 – There are several people on wikipedia whose usernames are the same ones they use on livejournal or journalfen or blogspot or other message boards. Some of them even have the same username as the name of their website! GASP! But it’s not an issue because folks are allowed to use “longstanding Internet pen names” according to wikipolicy. My name counts as such.

    I don’t plan to change my username because now it’s a matter of principle.

  30. “Not only is there someone who has the time to look at every new account created and get upset about their usernames”

    There are user name requirements at Wikipedia to prevent unnecessary problems. It’s unfortunate that Acalamari’s mistake caused you distress, but people are routinely asked to change their usernames if they don’t meet the criteria. It would have been a better decision to ask you on your talk page first, but I think it’s been blown out of proportion. Acalamari makes a mistake, so people at Wikipedia are crazy? Okay.

  31. Update: I just popped over to a userpage on wikipedia because I noticed I was getting a lot of hits over there. This gives new meaning to commenter Sean Burke’s observation:

    Acalamari is sixteen, and is already living a life of loud desperation on the Internet.

    Good-ness.

    At any rate, lee, acalamari wasn’t the only one bringing the crazy on that thread. And judging from what I see going on in several Talk pages, my assessment was right on. Also, I find it funny that you all came all the way over to this blog to harass me. Why not just vadalize my Talk page? Isn’t that what you folks do?

  32. If what I said was harassment, then I’m not sure what you’d think was acceptable. It’s okay to badmouth Wikipedia as long as no one rebuts your argument.

  33. Let me start over. I mean no ill will. Acalamari was wrong; I agree with your assessment of that isolated situation.

    Your posts on Wikipedia seem sensible and level-headed (even in response to the incident) – not the impression I got from the blog post above.

    I don’t intend to debate what happened, because I too agree that it was a silly incident. Sorry to have disrupted your blog.

  34. The difference between the responses I made on wiki and what i say here or in blackfolks is that this is my space and I set the tone here. On wikipedia, i’m in a public space, and I adjust my tone accordingly. Also, wikipedia doesn’t seem to be the place to bring up issues of racial insensitivity. It’s not the place to have *this* discussion. Wouldn’t you agree?

  35. I will actually defend Acalamaris actions. He did not post the name at the vandalism page for a block on site username violation, and, if he were an administraot he probably would not haev blocked you. Acalamari had a concern that he wanted a second opinion. The page he posted it on is named, “request for comment/username” or something of the sort. He took it through the right venue, and in my opinion, the appropriate outcome was reached.

  36. Chris,

    First of all, none of what you said is in dispute. This whole issue isn’t about whether acalamari took the ‘correct’ action. It’s about 1) his motivations for taking said action and 2) the language he and others used during the discussion. The Wiki policies are not in question here. True, there are some digs at the community as a whole, but you haven’t addressed that in your diatribe.

    Second, if acalamari had taken any of the above actions you named, he would have been wrong. There’s a thing going on now with someone (or their bot) preemptively blocking a bunch of usernames and folks correcting that. Had acalamari blocked me, it would have been for no good reason. My name doesn’t violate any rules.

    Third, are you STILL whining about this? Dude, get over it and move on. The rest of us have.

  37. Well, a.) you got my name right! b.) I would like to clarify my comment on acalamari. I said he would “not” have blocked you, not blocked you, and that is why he chose the appropriate venue. c.) I respectfully disagree with you on his intentions but I will agree that it is a bit out of hand and kind of crazy there! and d.)Thanks for taking the time to discuss my concerns here, your time was much appreciated.

  38. Hahaha! I love you, dude! You’ve discovered exactly the reason why Wikipedia and the people who invented it should be charged for warcrimes. “What war?” you ask? The war of the mind, of course. All the globo-corporations are fighting for piece of your mind a la “1984″ and we’re giving it to them generously… for FREE!

    Wikipedians are some of the dumbest pieces of scheit this side of the Twilight Zone and even some intelligent people get suckered into it from time to time, only to discover that they’ve inadvertantly entered an online insane asylum.

  39. With all this serious talk about the validity of the name “angry[black/white/green/asian]woman”, I think we owe ourselves a laugh (at Wikipedia’s expense of course):

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

  40. Didn’t you read Acalamari’s apologies? Acalamari apologized on your talk page to you. Aren’t the apologies good enough for you?

  41. wikiuser, see the last paragraph of comment #36. Thank you.

  42. I think it is important to have as many different people editing Wikipedia as possible. I too have perceived a resistance to black studies perspectives on the site, which the Cleopatra debate reflects.

    From a minority viewpoint, there are many gaps in Wikipedia that existing contributors lack the expertise to fill in.

    Check out the entry on reparations for slavery. It is poorly edited and lacks sources. I went there looking for information about the debate, and found an extensive paragraph about “paramour rights” jammed in the middle of it, which is totally off topic as far as I can tell. If it isn’t, a connection needs to be made between the two.

    This page serves the subject poorly. Please check it out.

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

  43. The entire username discussion process has been nominated for deletion.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names

  44. very interesting, but I don’t agree with you
    Idetrorce

  45. [...] not insignificant number of people who are ignorant about race and actively hostile to non-whites. I discovered just a tiny slice of this mere hours after creating an account there, and not much has happened in the meantime to dissuade [...]

  46. i HATE people on wikipedia. They are like completely OCD with their insane rules – 24/7 constantly changing back (correct) edits I have made. I have a masters degree on a topic that was not correctly described there in a small article. I made 1 change and it was like the atomic bomb went off. I had people calling me out for “vandalism” and posting crazy shit on my talk page and telling me i forgot to sign with ~~~~ and to be WP:CIVIL and WP:somebullshit. I have no idea how they raised so much money with all the drama and hystrionics on that thing. It’s unfortunate google’s algorhythms always pick up wikipedia entries for everything because that site is a mess.

  47. here is the discussion thread on wikipedia for saartje bartman

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 148 other followers

%d bloggers like this: