Jump to content

Talk:Feces/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Archived discussion

Archive 1, Archive 2

Wow, there is a lot of hilarious past vandalism on this article that I saw in teh History tab. I know it's wrong but it is pretty damn funny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tornados28 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC) I wonder if there should be an additional section Popular Culture, which discusses influences ranging from music (Scat Man) to sexual predilections?

Feces = singular or plurals

I've been reading through this article, and I'm finding several sentences that are worded as if feces is a plural word. I have been changing the sentences to reflect feces as a singular word (since I believe it is). I have looked around the net and I see the word always being used as a singular word. I don't know if there has been a shift in proper grammar, since I hear what I would consider improper grammar in the news all the time. For instance: "The crew are ready to deploy" instead of "The crew is ready to deploy", and "The public have made their decision" instead of "The public has made its decision". While crew and public infer plurality, they are singular words.... one crew (of several crew members), and one public (made of many citizens). I wonder... has there been a shift in what is proper? My microsoft word program does not flag "Feces are stinky." as improper.... perhaps I am mistaken? Eyknough 02:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Where does this come from? Well Everyone know Micheal Ergal, he takes it out of his mouth and outs it in everyones belly while they are asleep at night. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmz231 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Feces is the singular and the plural form. However, I don't think it'd be proper to say "feces are stinky". See http://www.answers.com/feces&r=67 --Vironex 15:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not you, it's the dumbing down of America. Don't go by Microsoft Word or the news for correct grammar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paddling bear (talk • contribs) 14:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree; although microsoft word is generally more correct than news reporters. Reading articles written in Brittish spellings, and using singular words as though they are plural are two things that particularly jump out at me. Not only because they seem improper, but because I want to make sure I'm not the one being improper. :-) Eyknough (talk) 03:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The word FAECES (notice the A in FAECES) is plural, because it is the plural form of the word FAEX in Latin, meaning "an amount of dregs". We would never say "Dregs is"; we'd say "Dregs are". 69.156.14.76 (talk) 21:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC) (UTC)

However, it's a "mass noun", similar to graffiti, in which the singular and plural are interchangeable. May be not strictly correct, but sanctioned by usage. The article is written in American English (see WP:ENGVAR), in which the "a" is elided from the word. --Rodhullandemu 21:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I would not agree about graffiti being used as singular. It is proper to use graffito for a singular item of unauthorised writing on a wall. But you are right that faeces is a plural noun - just like others that never get used in the singular (place names are notable for this - e.g. Athens, Capri).

I agree that "feces" is a mass noun, such as "sand", "water", or "software". A mass noun does not take an indefinite article. 206.53.193.48 (talk) 14:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Human Poop

Seriously, someone did a bad thing by archiving the entire previous discusion on Human feces. Now we have to start over.

Lets Begin.

I vote in favor of restoring the picture of Human Feces back on the Feces page in the Human feces Section. (Preferably, the poop on a plate pic)

ANYONE DISAGREE OR AGREE WITH ME?

Masterhand10(Talk)(Contributions) 22:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree, i never saw the pic, but i really want to! my vote is put it back on!-Unknown


  • There's no need to start over - the archives are there to be read by anyone who is interested. For the record, I disagree - the picture does little except add shock value.--Kubigula (talk) 17:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
BRING IT BACK BABY!! WOO HOO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.67.67 (talk) 01:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • AW Cmon! That shock value is what make this discussion popular.

And About the archives, most noobs wouldnt bother clicking on those links. Anyway, i really liked the Poop on a Plate Picture. (I wish i saved it to my computer) (When i say "I like it" i mean that I LAUGH AT IT AT EVERY OPPERTUNITY! HAHAHAHAHAHA!)

Masterhand10(Talk)(Contributions) 06:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


  • I think the previous comment was dumb. Any living person has, at least once in a moment of its life, saw its own poop. No need for an image of human feces. You're obviously a troll, or profoundly acting like one. gb2/4chan --Sébastien Leblanc ( Talk | E-mail ) 04:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I think the previous comment was dumber. Should we also have no pictures in human because everyone's seen a human? Besides, your accusations memespeak is more reminiscent of 4chan than any other comments here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ar-Pharazôn (talk • contribs) 09:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • A TROLL? lol! Look, I'm not a troll. I just believe that there has to be a better pic. All there is now is a pic of dried up cow manure. That's Bullshit! (pun intended.)

And any living person knows what shit is. This article tells us nothing we don't know about it, its a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.96.67 (talk) 23:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

  • It dosent matter what you say, i still want that poop on a plate pic back on this article.

Masterhand10(Talk)(Contributions)

  • Actually, by internet definitions, you ARE a troll. You bring up useless topics that don't even add to the quality of Wikipedia. You are an excellent example of a troll. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.24.193.33 (talk) 05:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with Masterhand10! There's something about poop on a plate that gets you all wound up inside. Makes your day go a little better. Gives you that zest from within kinda feeling. You know, how when your day sucks or you're just lonely, so you want to see a big picture of poop on a plate. I'm feeling that right now. Uhhh, by the way, who ordered the poopoo platter. Anyone? Came on a plate. Any takers? Tratare 05:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Dude i also agree with masterhand, LOL. Furthermore human feces and animal feces are very different, and thus deserve separate pages. -(do you eat the same food as animals? if you do then you really quote unquote "are a troll" —Preceding unsigned comment added by - anon124.168.115.172 09:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • YEAH! I've got me some suppourters!

Anyone Else? Who likes the idea of having a Piece of Human Poop on a Plate on this article? I'm thinking of making my own, but my poop comes out in a strange log form and dosen't wind up.

Masterhand10(Talk)(Contributions) 00:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
BRING BACK POOP ON A PLATE!-unsigned/anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.227.213 (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, so the picture should be restored immediately. There are no legitimate objections to it, only people saying immature things about the article and not understanding what Wikipedia is support to be. Yes, the picture does add to the article in the same way a kitten adds content to an article about kittens. And the fact that everyone has seen feces before in real life only goes to support the argument that it is not obscene. After you use the toilet, if you turn around and look down do you shutter with disgust? I think not. If there are no objections posted soon the picture should be restoed and placed at the top of the article. 71.201.34.215 (talk) 06:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I'm tired of all this M'Fin poop on these M'Fin plates. Everbody open some windows, I'm about to poop on a plate. i.e. BRING BACK POOP ON A PLATE!!! How could someone ever take POOP ON A PLATE down. POOP ON A PLATE RULES!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.64.24 (talk) 08:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Though I do agree that everyone here has seen it, I think it adds value, and that if it isn't allowed to have a picture of something that we have all seen, I mean, if this is the case, why do they have pictures of humans on the human page?--Mamaluigisover9000 (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Huh?

How come I can't move pages?--  PNiddy  Go!  0 15:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The article was move-protected yesterday due to "perpetual vandalism" by Can't sleep, clown will eat me. He or she may be able to provide a more detailed answer. --ElKevbo 15:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article

One day, I hope to make "FECES" the wikipedia article of the day. What a great day for poop that will be! 216.107.226.196 22:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah! Masterhand10(Talk)(Contributions) 00:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This may be a fun prospect for some of the much younger wikipedians I guess. Jackaranga 01:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I Dunno why, but this entire talk page makes me laugh. Masterhand10(Talk)(Contributions) 04:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Cross references in Feces article

I would think that there should be hotlinks and cross references to "toilet paper" "outhouse" and "composting toilet" all of which have useful (albeit imperfect) Wikipedia articles that relate to the subject matter.

This seems obvious to me, but maybe there is some grander plan that augers against it. Just a gentle suggestion.

I haven't yet signed up for a user name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.198.27 (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Feces#Personal hygiene

That makes no sense. Are toilet tissues and wipes not made for anybody other than campers or babies? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 02:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This Can't Be Right...

This sentence is pretty funny, but probably not true: "Other paper products were also historically used (before the advent of flush toilets), most notably the Sears catalog" 24.177.139.100 (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

That was my first inclination too but it is sourced. Also, if you try a google search for "sears catalogue as toilet paper", you can come up with quite a few results. It looks to be legitimate, at least for rural areas. MatttK (talk) 07:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
It comes from the introduction to Uncle John's Bathroom Reader, IIRC. Lumberjake (talk) 05:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
during the constant Soviet tp shortages, we used to use Pravda. We had to cut out all of the pictures of Party members before we could wipe though- just in case the KGB had an informant in the toilet. This made for some very messy trips to the bathroom. The light bulb shortages did not help one bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.151.201 (talk) 03:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's true. You used to have to wrinkle it up really good, over and over, and it would end up being soft. Took forever to make a page soft, so you tried to make one page do the trick. 71.204.49.76 (talk) 23:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Synonyms

There are many synonyms for feces. Several of them are slang, such as "dookie" or "poop" or "dung", but they are commonly used. These synonyms should be listed somewhere in the article. Synonyms are normally placed in brackets in the first sentence, such as in Defamation (vilification, slander, and libel). I have noticed that these types of edits have been reverted in the past and just wanted to make sure there was a concensus on this before proceeding.

Neelix (talk) 18:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

"Dung" isn't slang. But go for it. (I predict a deluge. Er... a shitstorm...?) FiveRings (talk) 00:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Sears catalogue as toilet paper

If it is to be said that this was the most widespread notable non toilet paper product, can we get some better sources? Thanks, --nyc171 (talk) 00:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

uses

I wanted to link the civet coffee page as a good example of uses of feces besides fertilizer and fuel, but didn't know how to make internal wiki links, would someone fix it please?--Paddling bear (talk) 14:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I tried to fix that.You put "[[example]]" marks around the internal word to "wikify" it--nyc171 (talk) 19:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey! Aren't feces used to track diets of animals too? --DSWikipediaNerd (talk) 23:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

should this article mention Mr. Hankey from South Park in a possible Shit in Popular Culture section? - -[The Spooky One] | [t c r] 15:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Dog poop

somebody needs to get rid of that disgusting picture of dog poop. its just friiging gross. everybody knows what dog crap looks like. It would be nice if people picked it up when they walked their dogs. Erockjake (talk) 23:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)erockjake

I agree. That needs to be taken down, TODAY. Allhailthetv (talk) 02:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Gee. So horseshit doesn't bother you, and cassowary shit doesn't bother you, and earthworm shit doesn't bother you, but dogshit does? Human responses are fascinating. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Who said it doesnt bother me? I just think the s**t is gross. and dog poop smells really bad and in certain areas it is a finable law for people who do not pick up their dog's waste. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigjman123 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Although you may find pictures of feces disgusting, Wikipedia is not censored and should not be censored. There are pictures of other things one might find disgusting, obscene, or whatever all over Wikipedia. Let's tell it how it is. Asoer (talk) 09:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

slight correction

Some one should add the word "light" after ultraviolet where it references kestrels using their preys feces to locate them. Ultraviolet by itself is not necessarily referring to the UV light spectrum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.105.131.199 (talk) 09:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT.--Atlantima (talk) 19:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Excessive Vandalism

Can people please keep a lookout in this page, there is exsessive vandalism. To the vandals: wikipedia is an invaluable recource, please do not make it crap (excuse the pun...) theologist101 —Preceding undated comment added 18:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC).

Worms in the Feces

I suggest a section about worms, or other things found in the feces that are abnormal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.182.78 (talk) 01:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

A section about abnormal stuff could be useful. For now, I've added pinworms as an example of a parasite under ==Human feces==.Asoer (talk) 09:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I hope...

That no one here wasn't expecting vandalism... sorry there are some immature people.--n00b —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.60.54.195 (talk) 06:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Singular

There's a point made in this article about feces being a plural noun. But it's often used in singular form throughout this article. This isn't correct is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.171.243 (talk) 04:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

This is addressed both above and in the article itself. The word 'Feces' is considered to be both singular and plural. 86.135.31.128 (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Image

Is the caption for the horse image necessary? People can think for themselves. Well, umm, most of the time, anyways. And don't gimme any horseshit (I didn't make this comment just to say that...really!) about providing for the people whose browsers don't display the pics or whatnot. They shouldn't be browsing WP while at school/work anyway. Do people not have brains these daze? --Kaizer13 (talk) 02:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Mistake - should be corrected.

Under Cattle there is an term listing as "Figuratively – bullshit"

This is incorrect. The term "bullshit" is actually a corruption of the Old French boul or boule meaning nonsense or deceit. This evolved to the Middle English verb bul or bull meaning to mock or deceive, which dates from 1530s. (Concise Oxford Dictionary), The latter part of the word is a scatalogical intensifier that came into use only in the early 20th century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoKing (talk • contribs) 16:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Composition details

I think some information on the actual composition is necessary. I'm currently trying to work out what can be produced from a combination of human waste and elements which are already available on the moon, and this article doesn't really tell me much about what is actually in feces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.15.169 (talk) 16:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

album graecum

see: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Album_graecum 71.114.180.207 (talk) 22:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request

{{Edit semi-protected}} Japan was Sinicized before 1000AD it was Westernized in the late 1800's to 1900's. The article should read Westernized, not Sinicized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.174.40.112 (talk)

Done Thanks, Stickee (talk) 05:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the "animal feces" section, in birds of prey the "droppings" are called "mutes". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.188.131 (talk) 16:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

hi

there is an external link will leads to smellypoo.com, and it says its educational and aimed at children. i clicked on the link and it was an advert site! 202.154.138.141 (talk) 03:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Less USA-bias please

Please balance it out with more spellings of it as 'faeces' rather than asserting USA hegemony. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.75.138 (talk) 06:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, as a British English user I agree it looks "wrong". However, Wikip(a)edia's policy is that no particular variety of English is "correct": please see WP:ENGVAR for an explanation of this. The way we deal with it is to keep each article internally consistent, and to keep it in the variety in which it was first established: please see WP:RETAIN. This article was established in American, and so it has the American spelling consistently throughout, except of course when explaining the etymology and alternative spellings. Richard New Forest (talk) 09:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

no humans?

Resolved

Why is there no human poop? This is an outrage! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.149.183 (talk) 04:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Patience. You'll have a chance to see some soon. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Still see none. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.6.137 (talk) 00:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
If you've gone a month without seeing human poop, find a doctor. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Decomposition

Why don't we have any information on the topic of decomposition of fecal matter? Actually, I couldn't find any references to rates of decomposition and ultimate outcome of decomposed fecal matter (rock?). Loloyd (talk) 10:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

It's a bit circular, but the reason we don't have any information on decomposition is that so one has added verifiable information on decomposition. If you find any, please do add it. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Human Feces Color Correction

I was reading the part about human feces and I noticed an error.

It says that the brown color of feces is due to a combination of bile and bilirubin and that a baby's feces is initially yellow/green from the bile, but becomes brown due to the addition of bilirubin. This is not exactly correct. Bilirubin is yellow (it's why people with jaundice often have a yellow tone in their skin; the liver quits working and bilirubin is no longer secreted in the bile and begins to accumulate in the body). Feces is brown because bilirubin is converted to stercobilin (which is brown) by the bacteria in the gut.

Also, (and it's been about 3-4 weeks since I lectured on this, so I'm unsure of this, but) if I'm not mistaken bilirubin is secreted as a different compound which is green and results in bile's green color and that compound is what gets converted to stercobilin. So to say Baby's feces is greenish-yellow and not brown because they are not disposing of red blood cells and therefore not excreting billirubin is likely incorrect. In fact, erythrocytes (Red blood cells) wear out after roughly 120 days (or 3 months). Since the gestation time for a human fetus is typically 9 months, It stands to reason a baby is certainly secreting bilirubin at birth. A more likely explanation for why a baby's feces isn't brown is that a baby doesn't have any bacteria in its gut and therefore isn't producing stercobilin from the excreted bilirubin.

I'm not good at writing concise statements (obviously), nor do I know how to properly cite things. This is why I haven't edited the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.70.112.45 (talk) 20:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting point, could you post references here to make it easier for someone to update the article. Jonpatterns (talk) 11:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Misleading photo

The photo that is titled "Horse Feces" is actually a pile of straw with probably some feces mixed in. While cow feces is "continuous", horse feces is "quantized", meaning that it consists of individual oval shaped lumps - all of approximately the same size. You need a better photo. There are some available online. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcrply (talk • contribs) 11:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

How about editing the caption to state it is a mixture of Feces and straw Jonpatterns (talk) 11:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 January 2012

Please change: In Islam, washing of the anus with water using the left hand is part of the prescribed ritual ablutions. To: In Islam, washing of the anus with water using the left hand (not necessarily a bare hand) is part of the prescribed ritual ablutions.

The left hand is used to hold the water, paper, wipe etc. that one intends to use to wipe the anus and water is required to be used at some point (usually after) for "purity". Years ago a bare hand may have been used (before wipes, paper etc.) but this is a very uncommon practice now.

122.102.100.177 (talk) 06:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

✗ Not done — Your explanation is slightly confusing, but the request is not extremely relevant because the main article for the section in which you wish to change is Anal cleansing. As long as the blurb is correct it does not need to be changed, but you are welcome to edit the other article. If you have a reliable source for this change to be made (as required by policy for potentially controversial changes), please reopen the request. — Jonadin(talk) @ 03:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Dog feces

It is disappointing that this article has so little about dog feces and its proper disposal, and the legal issues of leaving unbagged or bagged dog feces on the sidewalk, and health issues with dog feces. Perhaps I will do some investigating and add to this article. --DThomsen8 (talk) 16:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Doody Services

I would of liked more information on dung and dropping cleaners. With regaurds to cat feces, the ammonia from the them is very dangerous is mixed with the wrong cleaning agent. 208.91.137.58 (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC) james jessee April 22, 2012 2:37 pm

Ammonia is a product of the decomposition of mammalian urine. Yeah, sure, if you save up a few gallons, dump in a bucket of bleach and concentrate the fumes, you might have a problem. Of course, if you're doing that, you already have a problem. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

Image of butterfly on the top of the article states "Cyclosia papilionaris enjoying bird droppings". Can a butterfly really enjoy eating? Suggest change to "consuming bird droppings". 124.148.212.93 (talk) 09:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence that butterflies have no capacity to enjoy something? I don't think enjoy vs consume makes any real difference in the context of this article of course, but I don't see any reason to adopt an anthropocentric view that 'lower' life forms are not capable of feeling emotions. That is pretty 19th century thinking anonymous. Djapa Owen (talk) 12:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
While you are welcome to continue this discussion at your convenience, please do not re-activate the {{edit semi-protected}} request unless you have a specific request to edit the article. —KuyaBriBriTalk 13:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Assuming butterflies can "enjoy" something is anthropomorphizing. We know they consume it, we do not have any indication there is "enjoyment". (We say "The cat jumped onto the chair" because that's what the cat did. We do not add in assumptions that the cat made calculations based on body mass, gravity and air friction, though it is "anthropocentric" to assume cats cannot handle high school level physics calculations.) - SummerPhD (talk) 13:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone ever heard the term cloaca before?

First sentence? is that the same as arse?Sevendigits (talk) 17:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

That term is linked in the article: (cloaca). It's kinda like a "3 in 1 anus" :)) TMCk (talk) 22:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Whoopie redirects to feces?

This may be vandalism because I was unable to find a connection between "whoopie" and feces on any other web information resource. 16:00, 18 May 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.248.146.33 (talk)

Ha!

"Non-human animals" obviously. Animals are good at one thing in particular; lions are courageous etc. but human talents vary from person to person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.86.250 (talk) 16:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect Link Location (I'm new and can't edit this article myself, sorry).

I noticed that under the "Gut Flora Transplant", subheading, the "Hippos", link redirects to this page, rather than the correct Hippopotamus page; here , this link is also not followed by a comma as it should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skeletalclown (talk • contribs) 13:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Coprolite, fossilized feces

At the moment the article doesn't mention Coprolites or fossilized feces at all, I may work it in myself if I can figure out how to work it in. If anyone feels they can do a decent job go ahead. It deserves at least a few sentences somewhere.  Carlwev  15:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Feces/Archive_3&oldid=1136722129"