Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
74vwBus

Cannot get a returned email from Reviewer

Recommended Posts

Hello, let me first start off by saying I am very grateful for volunteers. I am a volunteer myself for a few things including events and sports. I know how hard it is to give free time. I get it and respect it.

 

What I am puzzled about is why I sent three emails in the past week to my local reviewer to "unarchive" a cache of mine. Last week, after the geocheck debacle, I was unsure what step to take to keep folks from logging a puzzle cache of mine. I was worried that folks were able to get the final coords with the help of the hacked GeoCheck site.

 

Inexperience and worried my cache was compromised, I archived rather than disable. My bad. My fault. That was about 12am...ish last Sunday night. After realizing that GeoCheck was okay, I went to unarchive my cache. I couldn't. So I sent a email at about 2am Monday morning. I didn't expect an immediate response. Even knew as the site guidelines state....it may take up to three days for a response from a reviewer. I patiently waited.(As patiently as I could) Three days passed and no response. Taking into account it's slow season and he does have his own life...I didn't send a second email til Thursday. 4 days after first email. Nothing again.

 

After that email, I saw that he had posted to threads online. He also published a few new caches. My concern then was...how does he have time to respond to threads and publish caches...but not give me a reply of any type to my request.

 

Can anyone please tell me what I can do to have my cache unarchived? I debated just publishing a new cache. But if he won't reply to my emails...he may ignore the cache publishing, too.

 

I just wish I could be told why the cache cannot be made active again.

 

Again....I am very thankful for reviewers and volunteers. Please do not mistake my thread for a lack of appreciation.

Share this post


Link to post

Try waiting a few more days.

Reviewers work the review queue first, that IS their primary responsibility. They may be able to make an occasional post to the forums, but will wait until there's a reasonable sized chunk of available free time to deal with email. I know of at least one who handles email one day a week only.

 

Even knew as the site guidelines state....it may take up to three days for a response from a reviewer.

 

I've never seen this anywhere, and I'm a reviewer? not that I don't believe you that you read it. All manner of info floating around on the site.

 

The service goal is to at least eyeball all new cache submissions within a week. I'm not aware of any time frame for responding to email. It can be a fairly time demanding part of the job.

 

If nothing happens in a couple more days, try another email. Keep it short, something like:

 

"I archived GC5KZX6 in error recently, could it please be unarchived."

 

That's all that's needed, thanks.

Share this post


Link to post

Your series of caches was submitted on Friday afternoon or evening 1/30 with a request for publication on Saturday January 31. I met that, more or less.

 

Then I watched the drama play out on your cache page, leading up to your geocide-ish archival on February 2 ("Not what I had envisioned when I joined this hobby. Sorry. Thanks for the good times.")

 

Nothing in that archived archive note or any of your other deleted notes mentioned Geocheck. But then the emails started coming in, which were off-putting. You have unrealistic expectations of site volunteers, just as you have unrealistic expectations about controlling the actions of other geocachers.

 

I answered your February 1 email about whether you could delete "found it" logs within three or four hours. Your response the next day was to archive your listing.

 

This thread is not related to the "Geocheck.org Hacked" thread; rather, it's closely related to Profbrad's "Geocaching Ethics" thread.

 

Once things have cooled off a bit, I'll unarchive your cache -- but you're not there yet. Reversing impulsive actions isn't as high on my priority list as it is on yours.

Edited by Keystone

Share this post


Link to post

Your series of caches was submitted on Friday afternoon or evening 1/30 with a request for publication on Saturday January 31. I met that, more or less.

 

Then I watched the drama play out on your cache page, leading up to your geocide-ish archival on February 2 ("Not what I had envisioned when I joined this hobby. Sorry. Thanks for the good times.")

 

Nothing in that archived archive note or any of your other deleted notes mentioned Geocheck. But then the emails started coming in, which were off-putting. You have unrealistic expectations of site volunteers, just as you have unrealistic expectations about controlling the actions of other geocachers.

 

I answered your February 1 email about whether you could delete "found it" logs within three or four hours. Your response the next day was to archive your listing.

 

This thread is not related to the "Geocheck.org Hacked" thread; rather, it's closely related to Profbrad's "Geocaching Ethics" thread.

 

Once things have cooled off a bit, I'll unarchive your cache -- but you're not there yet. Reversing impulsive actions isn't as high on my priority list as it is on yours.

 

This thread has nothing to do with my ethics thread. I'm not sure on what basis you would suggest that it is.

Edited by Profbrad

Share this post


Link to post

You guys do understand that reviewers can see archived logs on cache pages, right?

Share this post


Link to post

You guys do understand that reviewers can see archived logs on cache pages, right?

Truly amazing. Just for the record, if this Listing were in my territory, I would probably have to decline to Unarchive it based on the violation of turning it into a personal Forum :blink:

Share this post


Link to post

Your series of caches was submitted on Friday afternoon or evening 1/30 with a request for publication on Saturday January 31. I met that, more or less.

 

That is a complete lie. Those five caches were listed on Wednesday, January 29th in the afternoon. I changed the Hidden Date(s) AFTER they were published....as I do with all my caches so that they come up at the top of the Placed list.

 

Then I watched the drama play out on your cache page, leading up to your geocide-ish archival on February 2 ("Not what I had envisioned when I joined this hobby. Sorry. Thanks for the good times.")

 

Yes, I was upset that a cache that I worked so hard to place turned into a battle for FTF. And yes, I have not found a cache since then....wanting to take a break from this "hobby". But I received numerous texts, phone calls, and emails from local cachers asking for it to be unarchived. So, I figured why penalize all for the actions of a few. (as it seems to be your current punishment)

 

Nothing in that archived archive note or any of your other deleted notes mentioned Geocheck. But then the emails started coming in, which were off-putting. You have unrealistic expectations of site volunteers, just as you have unrealistic expectations about controlling the actions of other geocachers.

 

Wow, what a slap in the face. After all the steps I've taken to smooth over your ill feelings towards me by sending you emails inquiring about what I can and cannot do with a cache. You thanked me for those emails. I was simply inquiring if I could publish a cache with code words that would be emailed. I never placed it in a cache description nor tried to impose that rule on anyone. I simply asked you if it was a option. You gave me a answer. Did I argue the answer?? Or did I take the necessary steps to make that cache by the guidelines?

Please do explain my "unrealistic expectations of site volunteers". I.E. I followed all steps and waited 8 days for a response. But yet you are able to give me an answer here within 70 minutes.

 

I answered your February 1 email about whether you could delete "found it" logs within three or four hours. Your response the next day was to archive your listing.

 

Yes, I did inquire about logs being deleted....because I was worried that people would be able to find it via the GeoCheck hacking issue. I archived the cache because I thought the idea of the cache was compromised. Trust me....had I known it was handing the keys back to you, I would have never done that.

 

This thread is not related to the "Geocheck.org Hacked" thread; rather, it's closely related to Profbrad's "Geocaching Ethics" thread.

 

I had and have nothing to due with Profbrad's thread. Did I post on that thread? No. Are they related? Technically, yes. But are they hand in hand...no. It's an insult and ridiculous for you to automatically assume you know all the facts. You made your own assumption and then used your power the way you decided. YES, this is related to the GeoCheck issue. You are wrong in your assumptions.

 

Once things have cooled off a bit, I'll unarchive your cache -- but you're not there yet.

 

How is it that a reviewer has the ability to be a guidance counselor? How do you gauge when "things have cooled off a bit"? Do you have access to our emails where we all worked things out? Are you on our facebook pages to know we've all been communicating and "things have cooled off"? Just interested on how it is that you have the ability to gauge that without having any personal contact with any of us? (I would truly like to know how this is determined by a reviewer)

 

I do Thank You for your volunteer time and efforts. However, your personal feelings have allowed you to make a personal agenda rather than be a unbiased reviewer.

Share this post


Link to post
If nothing happens in a couple more days, try another email. Keep it short, something like:

 

"I archived GC5KZX6 in error recently, could it please be unarchived."

 

That's all that's needed, thanks.

 

That's all I did in my first email. I believe it may have been two or three sentences. The second email is when I added info including why...the GeoCheck issue.

Share this post


Link to post

You guys do understand that reviewers can see archived logs on cache pages, right?

Truly amazing. Just for the record, if this Listing were in my territory, I would probably have to decline to Unarchive it based on the violation of turning it into a personal Forum :blink:

 

Same here. I would also educate the cache owner that you cannot add an additional logging requirement (ALR) after the cache has been published.

Share this post


Link to post

My ethics thread makes no mention of any local history and is simply not relevant. I'm not sure why Keystone is trying to connect them.

Share this post


Link to post

Your series of caches was submitted on Friday afternoon or evening 1/30 with a request for publication on Saturday January 31. I met that, more or less.

Oops, I see now that I mixed up this request with the same CO's last request, which WAS sumbitted one day prior to the requested publication date. He archived that listing because I didn't publish it at the "correct" time.

 

I regret the error in my memory. The caches that are the subject of this thread were submitted on January 28 for publication on January 31. I did not see them right away because, during the week, I was at an offsite business meeting.

Share this post


Link to post
If nothing happens in a couple more days, try another email. Keep it short, something like:

 

"I archived GC5KZX6 in error recently, could it please be unarchived."

 

That's all that's needed, thanks.

 

That's all I did in my first email. I believe it may have been two or three sentences. The second email is when I added info including why...the GeoCheck issue.

 

As has already been mentioned, dealing with the review queue is top priority. For those reviewers who are also moderators, posting here may also take priority over email. Normally email questions and requests are more involved than a simple cache review, so I too often place those at a lower priority than reviewing, moderating, work, family and geocaching.

 

In this case, the archival was a knee jerk reaction to a found log that the cache owner didn't care for, so I would probably sit on the unarchive request for at least a few days, probably longer, to make sure emotions have settled.

Share this post


Link to post

You guys do understand that reviewers can see archived logs on cache pages, right?

Truly amazing. Just for the record, if this Listing were in my territory, I would probably have to decline to Unarchive it based on the violation of turning it into a personal Forum :blink:

 

Same here. I would also educate the cache owner that you cannot add an additional logging requirement (ALR) after the cache has been published.

I did just that, in lengthy emails prior to and after publication. The second of those emails had essentially the same content as my posts in Profbrad's "Geocaching Ethics" threads.

 

It is my personal policy not to make forum posts that include quoting the contents of geocacher emails sent to me privately, but those interested are invited to read my replies in Profbrad's thread.

Share this post


Link to post

For the record...I did not add any ALR after the cache was published. Nor did I try to. I asked Keith via email if I could delete a log if some one was able to work around the GeoCheck link. He said no.

 

Not that it matters since you three somehow know my thoughts...and pack mentality is at full steam....but I did archive the cache in the hopes to lock it from being "found" til I came up with a way to make sure that the GeoCheck was not giving codes. Keep assuming....that's your right. But you are wrong.

Edited by 74VWbusFamily

Share this post


Link to post

For the record...I did not add any ALR after the cache was published. Nor did I try to.

 

You posted a note on 02/01/2015 saying:

...if anyone logs the final before logging the first four, I will delete the log

 

By definition, that is an ALR. While I understand why a cache owner may want to prevent people from finding the final of a series without finding the others, if they logged the physical logbook then it stands as a find. Any restriction on doing so is an ALR. I assume you deleted this note after Keystone replied to you.

Share this post


Link to post

For the record...I did not add any ALR after the cache was published. Nor did I try to.

 

You posted a note on 02/01/2015 saying:

...if anyone logs the final before logging the first four, I will delete the log

 

By definition, that is an ALR. While I understand why a cache owner may want to prevent people from finding the final of a series without finding the others, if they logged the physical logbook then it stands as a find. Any restriction on doing so is an ALR. I assume you deleted this note after Keystone replied to you.

 

A scare tactic and nothing more. All this took place after the discussions of the Geocheck being compromised. That was a Note...not added to the cache description. Which would have been removed when the GeoCheck site was back in order.

Share this post


Link to post
I regret the error in my memory. The caches that are the subject of this thread were submitted on January 28 for publication on January 31. I did not see them right away because, during the week, I was at an offsite business meeting.

 

Man...leaving out details to mold the events to your liking....that's almost lawyer like.

 

I didn't drop the caches out of the blue. I had been in discussion with you for weeks leading up to that day. I listed them Wednesday...you published them Saturday. Where's the issue?

Share this post


Link to post

I won't bore you with what I had going on in my life last Wednesday, Thursday and Friday while your caches were awaiting review. Instead, I will in the future adhere strictly to the listing guidelines when evaluating your cache submissions:

 

Submitting a Geocache Listing

 

Placing a large number of geocaches to be published on the same date requires advanced planning.

 

Submit the cache listings at least ten days in advance of the requested release date. Post a Note to Reviewer on the cache listings requesting that the caches be published on the date specified. Reviewers will strive to accommodate reasonable requests.

 

For small numbers of caches (1 or 2) please note that seven days is the expected service goal for the initial review. An email is sent to all cache hiders to remind them of this when submitting their cache.

Edited by Keystone

Share this post


Link to post

I won't bore you with what I had going on in my life last Wednesday, Thursday and Friday while your caches were awaiting review. Instead, I will in the future adhere strictly to the listing guidelines when evaluating your cache submissions:

 

Submitting a Geocache Listing

 

Placing a large number of geocaches to be published on the same date requires advanced planning.

 

Submit the cache listings at least ten days in advance of the requested release date. Post a Note to Reviewer on the cache listings requesting that the caches be published on the date specified. Reviewers will strive to accommodate reasonable requests.

 

For small numbers of caches (1 or 2) please note that seven days is the expected service goal for the initial review. An email is sent to all cache hiders to remind them of this when submitting their cache.

 

Thank You for confirming that you cannot fulfill your job as an unbiased reviewer...but instead, will turn this into a personal vendetta.

Share this post


Link to post

For the record...I did not add any ALR after the cache was published. Nor did I try to.

 

You posted a note on 02/01/2015 saying:

...if anyone logs the final before logging the first four, I will delete the log

 

By definition, that is an ALR. While I understand why a cache owner may want to prevent people from finding the final of a series without finding the others, if they logged the physical logbook then it stands as a find. Any restriction on doing so is an ALR. I assume you deleted this note after Keystone replied to you.

A scare tactic and nothing more. All this took place after the discussions of the Geocheck being compromised. That was a Note...not added to the cache description. Which would have been removed when the GeoCheck site was back in order.

Whew! Thanks for clearing that up. It's so tough to know when people are serious or not on the internet.

Share this post


Link to post

Let's see if someone from the outside understands this situation. What I gather so far:

 

Cache Owner submits a cache wanting it published almost immediately and their Reviewer can't oblige as desired, so Cache Owner places archival note of

This cache was not published as the CO requested. Sorry
Were their other requests when you asked for this one to be published?

 

Days later, Cache Owner submits some caches and a Bonus Cache requiring finding a code in the four regular caches to retrieve the clues to solve for the coordinates to the Bonus Cache. Cache Owner archived the Bonus Cache (published on the same day as the news breaks about the geocheck site having been hacked) and has deleted several Notes and other comments from the cache pages of the four caches and the archived Bonus Cache - including one on the Bonus Cache which threatened to delete Found It logs from those who didn't log other caches before logging the Bonus Cache.

Cache Owner posts to forum complaining about Reviewer not replying to emails.

Replies with explanation of situation by Reviewer and advice from other Reviewers.

Reviewer reply parsed by Cache Owner.

Reviewer quotes guidelines and states that he will follow them as written.

Accusations by Cache Owner of unfairness and retribution follow.

 

Did I miss anything?

:drama:

Those of on the outside would LOVE to see all the deleted cache logs and emails between the Cache Owner and Reviewer. All the 'evidence' in the open for all to see might clarify things. I know this will not happen, and respect why that is the case, but I'm sure it would be 'interesting'.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, it would be interesting for everyone to see archived cache logs and the texts of private emails. Some of the cache logs have been quoted (as they were intended to be public at one time). I won't quote private emails unless their contents are misstated by someone else.

 

But insofar as the publicly available record says, your summary was pretty good.

 

One tiny correction: see my earlier post about mixing up a publication request on one day's notice with a group of caches submitted on three days' notice (but not reviewed by me until I returned from an offsite business meeting that lasted four days). Those two incidents were separated in time by more than one month. Once again, sorry for that one mis-statement.

Share this post


Link to post

I have no issues at all with publishing archived logs or posts. I stand by everything I have said.

 

The archived logs by me have been quoted above. The other archived logs are the ones that include a couple finders arguing on my cache. Did I delete them? Yes. I didn't want the arguing on the cache logs. I was not involved in their argument.

 

The cache that Keith refers to that I archived on 12/13/14 was because I had planned that for our 12/13/14 group to be able to enjoy a 12/13/14 placed cache that we would have been able to find on our travels that day. It didn't work out. My exact archive post is quoted above. "This cache was not posted as requested" Why does it have to be a bigger issue than that cache didn't work out as requested. Did I leave a big rant? No. I simply posted the above and archived the cache because it indeed did not work out to be published as requested. I did send an email asking the guidelines so I would know in the future. End of story. That was a 12/13/14....almost 60 days prior to this incident.

 

What you saw was Keith grasping for straws to make me look bad. Mission accomplished....sorta.

 

With Keith's accusations and needling...it seems as if I archive on a normal basis. Completely untrue. I have 986 finds and 85...errrr...84 caches placed. This was one incident and has been blown way out of proportion.

 

My OP has been answered as to why my cache was not and most likely will not be unarchived.

 

Thanks to the one poster who did see the big picture.

 

(last post)

Edited by 74VWbusFamily

Share this post


Link to post

Who's this dude "Keith"? He seems to know a whole lot about this.

 

-- Dave

Share this post


Link to post

Keystone - As I intimated, I realize that the emails and other deleted posts can't (and likely shouldn't) be made public. And, maybe my summary didn't explicitly state the month-plus difference in the two instances, as I misstated it as "days later". My apologies as perhaps all the sour grapes had affected my perception.

 

74VWbusFamily - Your "big picture" and the one I see must be different.

Share this post


Link to post

WOW! This thread makes me want to sign up to be a reviewer today!

 

I can't speak about all the reviewers here but I can say that Nomex has been awesome. One of my most memorable instances with him was making our first Wherigo cache. I made the whole thing up but the final location was blocked. I changed the whole thing and it was also blocked. If you have made a Wherigo there is a lot of work involved in setting it up. I was kind of frustrated with picking out the final location as it was massively blocked with puzzle finals in the area it had to be. He said I could email him the final location I had planned and he would let me know if it was OK or not. I felt bad to keep bothering him as the next 3 or more places I picked out were also blocked but he was right there to let me know almost instantly and never complained about it at all. Finally one place was OK and I only had to fix up the cartridge that one more time. It would have been crazy if he had not stepped up and given that extra effort to help us out.

 

Anyways my point here is it is better to have a good relationship with your reviewer then the one that is starting here. We put out a lot of caches and in no way am I saying there has not been many caches Nomex has not been able to publish for us. We always understand and work it out with him or whatever reviewer is looking at it. If we had been rude to him do you think he would have gone out of his way to make sure our Wherigo was published with as little effort from us as possible. I doubt it. I consider him a friend in this game for all he has done for us and wish he was closer to go find some of our caches as how cool would that be.

 

Oh and yes I know there is the possibility that Nomex will read this later and think who the heck is the WarNinjas. :)

 

I have met one of our other reviewers and he was really cool. And yes the next day when I put out a cache to be published he made us change it. I don't think it is as personal of a thing as the OP thinks.

Share this post


Link to post

I have an idea here; I think the reviewer in question should do what he gets paid to do, regarding the OP'S caches. Keystone, you're a volunteer right? :ph34r:

 

 

Although not my reviewer, from what I've seen since I've been on the forums, I tend to take any complaints against any of the reviewers or moderators(or both) in this thread with a grain of salt. If they where really that bad, I don't think they'd still be doing it.

Edited by T.D.M.22

Share this post


Link to post

I have an idea here; I think the reviewer in question should do what he gets paid to do...

 

Ummmm...no, not quite, and I do believe there is a difference between being a Volunteer vs. being a doormat (i.e. being called a liar in post #7)

 

Although I have the utmost confidence in Keystone's ability to step back and resolve the issue objectively (once again, post #7 would normally have resulted in some sort of sanction in most cases), it might be best if the OP took the issue directly to Groundspeak for a final ruling.

 

Thanks for the kind words WarNinjas.

Edited by Nomex

Share this post


Link to post

I've already indicated that I will unarchive the cache after a cooling off period plus a dialogue about additional logging requirements, log deletions and reviewer response time expectations. In large part, this thread and the "Geocaching Ethics" thread have provided that opportunity for dialogue.

 

I do not feel that anything said in this thread against me requires any further action apart from my stating that future cache publication timeframes ought to follow what the Listing Guidelines say. Thanks to the kevlar flak jackets issued to us by Geocaching HQ, the rest is just noise that will fade out. I hold no "vendettas" against either the OP or Profbrad; to the contrary, they hide "really good caches" under my personal definition as a player. This recent series by 74VWBusFamily, for example, puts the finder on five hikes in the woods on five separate mountains. Wish they were closer to me!

 

So, the only appealable issue is the speed with which the unarchival will take place. I don't think that's a winning issue based on the facts here, but the CO is welcome to exercise that right.

Share this post


Link to post

I have an idea here; I think the reviewer in question should do what he gets paid to do, regarding the OP'S caches. Keystone, you're a volunteer right? :ph34r:

 

 

Although not my reviewer, from what I've seen since I've been on the forums, I tend to take any complaints against any of the reviewers or moderators(or both) in this thread with a grain of salt. If they where really that bad, I don't think they'd still be doing it.

 

Ever heard of say a School Teacher with Tenure? What, you didn't think I was going to let the thread turn into a reviewer love fest, did you? :lol:

 

I've seen some drama in my almost 12 years, and this ranks right up there near the top. As a matter of fact, much of the other drama I have seen was also in Keystone's review area. I don't think I've ever seen a "cooling off period", but I think it's a very good policy.

Share this post


Link to post
I don't think I've ever seen a "cooling off period", but I think it's a very good policy.

I'd prefer a "cooling off" period to a time out/lockdown, or a possible bannination.

 

--Bill

Share this post


Link to post

I have an idea here; I think the reviewer in question should do what he gets paid to do,

 

After this thread I think they should get paid double or maybe even triple what they are getting paid now!

Edited by WarNinjas

Share this post


Link to post

Ive sent emails to past expert geocachers Creekfalls90, Team Lagonda, and Coldgears to provide expert opinions and to iron this out. Hopefully we will hear something soon.

Share this post


Link to post

Ive sent emails to past expert geocachers Creekfalls90, Team Lagonda, and Coldgears to provide expert opinions and to iron this out. Hopefully we will hear something soon.

 

Team Lagonda rang a bell, and it appears it was because I actually found one of their caches before the Geocide. Me, I just emailed trackinthebox for guidance. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post

74VWbusFamily, given the attitude you've displayed here, is it any wonder why people might be hesitant to jump at your beck and call? Honey works better than vinegar, you know...

 

The entitlement is strong with this one...

Share this post


Link to post

Sometimes Reviewers don't reply to e-mails because the sender unchecked the "I want to send my email address along with this message" box. If the cacher really wants a (quick) response, s/he will make it easy for the Reviewer to simply click "reply" then have to click to the cacher's profile and then send an e-mail from there. Making it easy to reply also keeps the entire "conversation" thread in one e-mail chain rather than scattered through a bunch of e-mails that say "Cacher X contacting Reviewer Y from Geocaching.com" and "Reviewer Y contacting Cacher X from Geocaching.com."

Share this post


Link to post
74VWbusFamily, given the attitude you've displayed here, is it any wonder why people might be hesitant to jump at your beck and call? Honey works better than vinegar, you know...
Even ignoring the attitude, when someone generates a lot of churn in your workflow, it's natural to stop pushing yourself to respond to their requests. Sure, you'll meet your SLAs, but you learn that the odds are good that a different/conflicting request will arrive soon, rendering the previous one irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks Mr Yuck, forgot all about that one.

Good times. :)

 

You have to click the "see forum posts by this user" link for trackinthebox. It was the worstest meltdown ever. Not saying, mind you that 74VWBusFamily had a "meltdown". Just a single pretty major drama incident. :)

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks Mr Yuck, forgot all about that one.

Good times. :)

 

You have to click the "see forum posts by this user" link for trackinthebox. It was the worstest meltdown ever. Not saying, mind you that 74VWBusFamily had a "meltdown". Just a single pretty major drama incident. :)

 

I went back and read some of that again... mind boggling! :blink:

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

×
×
  • Create New...