Top Mud Sites Forum Return to TopMudSites.com
Go Back   Top Mud Sites Forum > MUD Players and General Discussion > Tavern of the Blue Hand
Click here to Register

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-12-2010, 12:44 PM   #241
Newworlds
Legend
 
Newworlds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Name: NewWorlds
Home MUD: New Worlds
Posts: 1,382
Newworlds will become famous soon enoughNewworlds will become famous soon enough
Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KaVir View Post
When you get people stripping out paragraphs of text from Wikipedia with comments like "Why are we still talking about MUDs in the 2000's?", it can certainly give a negative impression about the attitute towards our hobby.
No kidding. I think Kylotan is still under some impression that Wikipedia has an upstanding editing staff which is entirely bs when you see the obvious anti MUD sentiment. It is obvious to me that someone on that wiki panel is either against MUDs or has their own MUD and is against any other MUD competition. Let's not be naive, this has been going on for awhile now.
Newworlds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2010, 07:00 PM   #242
scandum
Senior Member
 
scandum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 308
scandum will become famous soon enough
Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Newworlds View Post
No kidding. I think Kylotan is still under some impression that Wikipedia has an upstanding editing staff which is entirely bs when you see the obvious anti MUD sentiment. It is obvious to me that someone on that wiki panel is either against MUDs or has their own MUD and is against any other MUD competition. Let's not be naive, this has been going on for awhile now.
If people had been smarter and diplomatically posted on the MUD article's talk page if interested individuals would mind finding proper sources, instead of calling out on TMS and MudBytes for a bunch of meat puppets to get involved the Arctic article would probably have survived the AfD.

On the bright side, new sources were added, so in that light the article can be re-created, though for good form an additional source should be added first.
scandum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2010, 07:01 PM   #243
Lasher
Administrator
 
Lasher's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Name: Derek
Location: Orlando
Posts: 353
Lasher has a spectacular aura aboutLasher has a spectacular aura about
Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Newworlds View Post
No kidding. I think Kylotan is still under some impression that Wikipedia has an upstanding editing staff which is entirely bs when you see the obvious anti MUD sentiment. It is obvious to me that someone on that wiki panel is either against MUDs or has their own MUD and is against any other MUD competition. Let's not be naive, this has been going on for awhile now.
This is what bothered me about this most when we went through the same thing with the Aardwolf listing then the Threshold listing. If you alert people interested in MUDs that the discussion is taking place, you are written off as "soliciting" or "campaigning" (I don't remember the exact term they used). So basically, if you're not in the discussion when it started, your opinion doesn't count because you were "solicited".

So you have a discussion about MUDs vs Wikipedia Policies, where 90% of the people sticking up for the MUDs don't count while these high school kids who live and breathe Wikipedia policies throw them back at you all day long. Anyone showing up to speak on behalf of MUDs is written off even though they are the people who know the most about MUDs.

It's like having a discussion here about Wikipedia and telling the Wikipedia admins their opinions of Wikipedia don't count because they're new and they only joined TMS to take part in the discussion of Wikipedia. Even though they know how Wikpedia works better than anyone else, if they don't know the inner workings of TMS and the entire history of the MUD genre then their opinion on Wikipedia clearly shouldn't count either, particularly if one of their friends pointed out this discussion to them and became guilty of "soliciting".

Looking back the only thing I really regret about that whole thing is how much time I put into trying to fight the delistings. It wasn't worth it, and wouldn't have been worth it even if it had been successful.
Lasher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2010, 04:41 AM   #244
Samson
Member
 
Samson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: United Socialist States of America
Home MUD: SmaugMuds.org
Home MUD: Arthmoor MUD Hosting
Posts: 249
Samson is on a distinguished road
Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kylotan View Post
Why drag this fallacy out yet again? They (which could be you or me) fix things as and when they find them. By definition that means some will get fixed before others. If you had a rule that stated you couldn't possibly fix one page if there existed another page equally bad or worse, then you'd never get anything done. You can't use other bad pages as an excuse to keep your own bad page.
It's hardly a fallacy. It's fact. Wikipedia is filled with junk that shouldn't even have been allowed to stand for an hour, let alone years. The only reason it does is because the admins create the articles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Starblind/DeletionWars
The efforts of inclusionists has largely kept "notability" out of any official policy, with the exception of CSD-A7. It's only fair to note, however, that notability has long been a de facto policy anyway, even if it never becomes official.
One of the admins arguing in the AfD even wrote that, where he openly says notability isn't even an official policy, yet that's the main argument that was being made. It wasn't notable enough. The closing admin must have been blind to this though because he seems to be laboring under the delusion that the AfD was justified due to a lack of verifiability - which was already well established with existing sources.

Seems awfully clear to me what really happened here. The same systematic purging of this information from a site that can't even make the claim of being encyclopedic with a straight face that's been going on for years now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KaVir View Post
When you get people stripping out paragraphs of text from Wikipedia with comments like "Why are we still talking about MUDs in the 2000's?", it can certainly give a negative impression about the attitute towards our hobby.
This. It explains the mindset there as well as anything.
Samson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2010, 04:46 AM   #245
Samson
Member
 
Samson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: United Socialist States of America
Home MUD: SmaugMuds.org
Home MUD: Arthmoor MUD Hosting
Posts: 249
Samson is on a distinguished road
Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lasher View Post
If you alert people interested in MUDs that the discussion is taking place, you are written off as "soliciting" or "campaigning" (I don't remember the exact term they used).
Canvassing. They accuse you of canvassing. Which is what they did when the Threshold article went up for AfD, and during the course of that debate evidence came to light that the wiki admins themselves were using a secret IRC channel to canvass for people to respond to the debate, and those logs were deemed off limits while posts here were being shoved in everyone's face as clear evidence that we were violating the rules.

The whole place is about as corrupt as a corrupt website can get.
Samson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2010, 06:30 AM   #246
KaVir
Legend
 
KaVir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Name: Richard
Home MUD: God Wars II
Posts: 2,052
KaVir will become famous soon enoughKaVir will become famous soon enough
Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.

I noticed the Video games/MUD task force has a list of commonly cited MUD-related sources along with their reliability.

In the Top Mud Sites section it states that the reviews, forum posts, database listings and vote rankings are unreliable, but that the articles "have some level of editorial vetting and may be reliable, but likely require consideration on a case-by-case basis".

If we could establish exactly what is required to make an article reliable, it might be possible to create sources that are deemed acceptable. This doesn't necessarily mean writing an article about a specific mud - it could be an article about a particular feature, with a few names dropped here and there as notable examples of said feature.

I think most of us accept that Wikipedia is a metagame. But like all games, it has rules, and even the high-level players can only bend those rules so far.
KaVir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2010, 07:45 AM   #247
MudMann
Member
 
MudMann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Europe
Home MUD: Primordiax
Home MUD: Threshold
Posts: 178
MudMann will become famous soon enough
Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.

Ever since the Threshold incident and Wikipedia's rather dubious editorial admin were revealed in all their petty glory, I have just never used it since (Wikipedia). All that incident showed me was how utterly crap the whole concept was and how broken the process for determining if content is worthy. The whole site boils down to power hungry individuals who approach Wikipedia like their own MMO, with guilds and partnerships who squash anyone who dares defend an article with long words and interpretations of rules that suit their own arguments.

The whole incident was in a major article in a UK magazine who basically highlighted just how bad the situation was. However, fortuntly a large chunk of that was dedicated to Threshold itself, which gave them all the notable they needed.

Personally, I dont think its worth the hassle anymore, if someone searches for Artic Mud, they will find it using google, who gives a fig if Wikipedia has it or not. Also, to dismiss sources such as TMS and TMC which predate Wikipedia by huge time factors is laughable.
MudMann is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2010, 07:53 AM   #248
KaVir
Legend
 
KaVir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Name: Richard
Home MUD: God Wars II
Posts: 2,052
KaVir will become famous soon enoughKaVir will become famous soon enough
Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MudMann View Post
Personally, I dont think its worth the hassle anymore, if someone searches for Artic Mud, they will find it using google, who gives a fig if Wikipedia has it or not. Also, to dismiss sources such as TMS and TMC which predate Wikipedia by huge time factors is laughable.
I've actually had a number of players discover my mud through Wikipedia - often first-time mudders, who have none of the preconceptions that usually discourage the veteran players.

I would assume that the same is true for other muds, in which case Wikipedia is actually introducing new players to our hobby. This is a "Good Thing", and worth fighting for, IMO.
KaVir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2010, 08:46 AM   #249
MudMann
Member
 
MudMann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Europe
Home MUD: Primordiax
Home MUD: Threshold
Posts: 178
MudMann will become famous soon enough
Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KaVir View Post
I've actually had a number of players discover my mud through Wikipedia - often first-time mudders, who have none of the preconceptions that usually discourage the veteran players.

I would assume that the same is true for other muds, in which case Wikipedia is actually introducing new players to our hobby. This is a "Good Thing", and worth fighting for, IMO.
In that case, I retract my opinion as it is bogus! Not hosting my own game, I dont have statistics to draw on.
MudMann is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2010, 08:55 AM   #250
Aeran
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 208
Aeran is on a distinguished road
Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KaVir View Post
I would assume that the same is true for other muds, in which case Wikipedia is actually introducing new players to our hobby. This is a "Good Thing", and worth fighting for, IMO.
Maybe start collect references that are about MUDs into a thread? I think looking into WP:NOT might also be interesting. E.g what would be required to make TMS/TMC notable?

It might also be a good idea to link MUDs to MMOs. A lot of people know what a MMO is. How many know what a MUD is?
Aeran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2010, 09:53 AM   #251
MudMann
Member
 
MudMann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Europe
Home MUD: Primordiax
Home MUD: Threshold
Posts: 178
MudMann will become famous soon enough
Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aeran View Post
It might also be a good idea to link MUDs to MMOs. A lot of people know what a MMO is. How many know what a MUD is?
Thats a fair point, it is basically two terms that mean the same thing.. its not a link between that is required. MUD's just retains a legacy acronym. Yeah Its catchy, but it is breaking off from the popular whole.

Maybe MUD's need to coin the phrase TMMO, TMORPG etc.

I often refer to my new MUD in forums during discussions as a Text based MORPG, doesnt scare people as much, and youngsters who may have no idea what a MUD is know exactly what I am talking about.
MudMann is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2010, 04:24 PM   #252
Newworlds
Legend
 
Newworlds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Name: NewWorlds
Home MUD: New Worlds
Posts: 1,382
Newworlds will become famous soon enoughNewworlds will become famous soon enough
Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MudMann View Post
In that case, I retract my opinion as it is bogus! Not hosting my own game, I dont have statistics to draw on.
Don't retract it. I don't use them either. Wiki blows like a 2 bit ho. Until they change their administration to professionals instead of these snot nosed punk kids it will always remain a junk site.
Newworlds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2010, 01:52 AM   #253
Parhelion
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Name: Sarah
Location: Tempe, AZ
Home MUD: Ethos
Posts: 71
Parhelion is on a distinguished road
Send a message via AIM to Parhelion
Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Newworlds View Post
Don't retract it. I don't use them either. Wiki blows like a 2 bit ho. Until they change their administration to professionals instead of these snot nosed punk kids it will always remain a junk site.
Regardless of what you, or anyone else here feels, Wikipedia is still a very commonly used "source" for breaking into a topic quickly and semi-reliably: while you can use Google, search engines do not provide a good introduction to ambiguous material (for instance, "MUD" is also dirty water, a mispelling of Mudd, and some sort of art institution). I use it when I need very quick and organized information, such as tables of comparable software, and I have noticed that instructors and teachers have begun linking to particular articles that they link in classrooms because it's a good place to find support material. While you cannot CITE Wikipedia, the articles are often well-cited enough that you can track back their sources to something that can be.

Case in point, you can sit here and boo-hoo all you want about how mean Wikipedia is, but it still draws an enormous amount of traffic that we could use to our benefit, as a community.

The unfortunate thing is that many games attempt to use Wikipedia as an advertising platform, at least on some level, and that is not what it is intended to be. Gasp and be indignant if you want, but at least some of you are posting MUDs up not because of their noteworthiness but because you just want your work to have it's own proverbial front page in the news. In the grand scheme, this hurts us because it makes arguing for games that ARE noteworthy all the more difficult.

As for verifiable sources, I know I am working with at least one group that is attempting to publish a website with researched, interview-based, and peer-reviewed articles that would be safe to cite. While the subject matter is a bit concentrated, I invite anyone who's interested in writing to contact me (*cough* ok, plug).
Parhelion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2010, 03:35 AM   #254
Newworlds
Legend
 
Newworlds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Name: NewWorlds
Home MUD: New Worlds
Posts: 1,382
Newworlds will become famous soon enoughNewworlds will become famous soon enough
Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Parhelion View Post
As for verifiable sources, I know I am working with at least one group that is attempting to publish a website with researched, interview-based, and peer-reviewed articles that would be safe to cite. While the subject matter is a bit concentrated, I invite anyone who's interested in writing to contact me.
This is very commendable and I hope this goes very well with you. I hope that you will keep us updated on new information or developments here. It sounds very promising!
Newworlds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2010, 03:58 PM   #255
Samson
Member
 
Samson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: United Socialist States of America
Home MUD: SmaugMuds.org
Home MUD: Arthmoor MUD Hosting
Posts: 249
Samson is on a distinguished road
Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Parhelion View Post
Case in point, you can sit here and boo-hoo all you want about how mean Wikipedia is, but it still draws an enormous amount of traffic that we could use to our benefit, as a community.
An enormous benefit we can't draw on at all if the Wikiscum continue their march toward expunging all information relating to MUDs. It doesn't do a lot of good for them to exist and for us to use it if we aren't even in there at all, yes? Evidence certainly suggests that they're actively trying to remove as much as they can.

Wikiscum actually think the only reliable sources for anything comes from "mainstream" print or television media. Their policies are rittled with digs against all forms of web publishing, which is about as ironic as it gets.
Samson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2010, 06:04 PM   #256
DonathinFrye
Senior Member
 
DonathinFrye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Name: Donathin Frye
Location: Columbus, OH
Home MUD: Optional Realities
Home MUD: Atonement RPI
Home MUD: Project Redshift
Posts: 510
DonathinFrye is on a distinguished road
Send a message via AIM to DonathinFrye
Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.

This is to everyone here, but mostly Lasher and Threshold. It seems obvious to me that TMS is in a unique position (as is TMC) to become a reliable source through articles, as per the MUD Task Team on Wiki. KaVir asked what would need to happen to establish articles as a reliable source.

I would imagine that field experts would need to objectively review games via articles and that the articles would need to be featured on TMS in a non-forum area. How difficult would it be to select a cabal of reviewers to write good, in-depth expert articles on not only MUDs, but other genre-specific material - and then feature them here on the site under a tabbed section that is easily accessed?

I know that I would certainly be willing to write consistent articles for the site and community, in an effort to not only create a reliable resource (which would strengthen the purpose of this site, beyond it being a forum community with an ad-banner/vote system), but to use as an anchor to try to draw attention from other media sites.

Additionally, what of sending press releases to BrightHub to see if any of their paid article writers would be willing to review genre-specific material. Certainly that would also contribute to notability and reach out to new potential users in an effort to expand the size of the community.
DonathinFrye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2010, 06:43 PM   #257
Kylotan
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Nottingham, UK
Home MUD: Abattoir (Smaug)
Home MUD: ex-Jellybean (Smaug)
Home MUD: ex-Dark Chambers (Merc)
Posts: 174
Kylotan is on a distinguished road
Send a message via ICQ to Kylotan Send a message via AIM to Kylotan Send a message via MSN to Kylotan Send a message via Yahoo to Kylotan
Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
It's hardly a fallacy. It's fact. Wikipedia is filled with junk that shouldn't even have been allowed to stand for an hour, let alone years. The only reason it does is because the admins create the articles.
No, it stands because there is nobody systematically checking every single article. You seem to think there's some sort of overarching grand plan to eradicate certain things. I'm sure there are many individual editors on there who have vested interests and so on but you're completely deluded if you think that the existence of many bad articles alongside the deletion of several others means some sort of organised attempt to shut you out. It just means that some manage to fly below the radar for a long time.

I know a guy who had a page up on there for over a year which cited him as the author of a book that didn't exist. It didn't survive for that long because an admin created the article, because one did not. He created it himself as a laugh. It survived solely because nobody noticed that it needed taking down. That's how it goes.

There's no conspiracy. Just a bunch of opinionated editors on one side who only care about their idea of what constitutes 'improving' the wiki and a bunch of mudders on the other who want their largely irrelevant pages on individual games to survive in Wikipedia despite having little to no wider relevance.

We've had Kavir saying he's "actually had a number of players discover my mud through Wikipedia", which is all well and good, but not at all what Wikipedia is there for. Yet I can't help but think that is why several of you are all so angry about it - you want it to be a source of traffic to muds in general, and who cares if there's virtually no useful information on those pages?

Scandum and Parhelion have it exactly right. Wikipedia is a great site on the whole when used for its intended purpose - getting an overview of a subject and finding further sources to be able to dig deeper. You can say what you like about the editors but on the whole it's no less accurate than a normal encyclopaedia for the most commonly read articles. However, like a normal encyclopaedia, it's not there to provide poorly-sourced pages about fairly trivial things, like individual instances of a forked game code base. What might be more appropriate is a summary page with links to external entries on mud-specific Wikis. But there's little point everybody on here whining about the admins or the rules. Wikipedia is what it is, like it or not, and you have the choices of putting articles on there that are well-cited and which are useful information for everybody, or choosing not to and seeing them get deleted.
Kylotan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2010, 07:25 PM   #258
DonathinFrye
Senior Member
 
DonathinFrye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Name: Donathin Frye
Location: Columbus, OH
Home MUD: Optional Realities
Home MUD: Atonement RPI
Home MUD: Project Redshift
Posts: 510
DonathinFrye is on a distinguished road
Send a message via AIM to DonathinFrye
Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.

For me, the community's presence on Wikipedia is about two things:

1) Maintaining a record of an extremely unique and important phenomenon in gaming (and the internet's) history.

2) Increasing the relevance of of MUDs despite the ever-increasing shift to advanced graphics for MMOs. Why is this important? Because I think that most of us in the community feel that there are features and gameplay elements that exist on MUDs that other online games would do well to strive for achieving. Because I think that when the time comes for MMOs to be some form of virtual reality interface, they will play more like MUDs and less like the graphical MMOs of today. Because I think that there are a lot of gamers out there who would be drawn to this genre, if they just knew more about it.

MUDs aren't irrelevant. They are over-looked by the majority of gamers out of a lack of media and lack of understanding what they are. When someone asks why we are still talking about MUDs in the 2000s, it burns me up. Why do we have articles on Mancala and Go? Because sometimes, older games get something right, and there is both enjoyment and a lesson to be learned from them.

I'm ranting a bit, but I think that arguing against the notability of individual games that have achieved a level of notoriety within their own genre is a straw-man argument, and I think that arguing against the notability of MUDs is only possible because they are an ancient (by today's standards) form of internet game that has never been well-documented outside of the internet (as opposed to ancient board games, or other comparable genres).

The obvious answer to me, as opposed to starting a new site, is to take the best resource sites that exist for MUDs and to incorporate documentation in the way of source articles; this isn't just for Wikipedia, but the continued survival of the genre on Wikipedia will help to make sure that this niche in gaming history won't be forgotten in one-hundred years. Perhaps in the distant future, game enthusiasts will still have lessons to learn from MUDs. If nothing else, they are an interesting chink in the history of online games.
DonathinFrye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2010, 04:39 AM   #259
Samson
Member
 
Samson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: United Socialist States of America
Home MUD: SmaugMuds.org
Home MUD: Arthmoor MUD Hosting
Posts: 249
Samson is on a distinguished road
Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kylotan View Post
Wikipedia is a great site on the whole when used for its intended purpose - getting an overview of a subject and finding further sources to be able to dig deeper.
Therein lies the problem. Wikipedia ceased being about the intended purpose very shortly after it went online and people started flooding it with all manner of junk. And I mean junk. Not just some 15 year old kid's narrowminded viewpoint of gaming.

Anymore when doing Google searches if I see a Wikipedia hit (and they come up for literally anything these days) I don't even waste my time. They long ago forgot what their purpose was and it's really just the meta-game to them now.
Samson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2010, 02:02 PM   #260
Newworlds
Legend
 
Newworlds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Name: NewWorlds
Home MUD: New Worlds
Posts: 1,382
Newworlds will become famous soon enoughNewworlds will become famous soon enough
Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonathinFrye View Post
The obvious answer to me, as opposed to starting a new site, is to take the best resource sites that exist for MUDs and to incorporate documentation in the way of source articles;
I like this idea even though I am unsure how it would affectively help in the case of Wiki.
Newworlds is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Style based on a design by Essilor
Copyright Top Mud Sites.com 2014