| Revision as of 17:22, 31 May 2005 editSamaritan (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,988 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:02, 23 July 2005 edit undoJ M Rice (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,704 edits What a mess!Next edit → | ||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| :Agreed, and so moved. :) ] 17:22, 31 May 2005 (UTC) | :Agreed, and so moved. :) ] 17:22, 31 May 2005 (UTC) | ||
| == What a mess! == | |||
| Some dolt seems to have just strewn scraps and let them land willy-nilly, throwing the chronology completely out of wack. There's also big mis-info. I've tried to fix it, and maybe others can add more about the Condé Nast years. This mag deserves better. — ] 21:02, 23 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:02, 23 July 2005
shouldn't this be vanity fair (magazine)? --jacobolus (t) 05:30, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed, and so moved. :) Samaritan 17:22, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
What a mess!
Some dolt seems to have just strewn scraps and let them land willy-nilly, throwing the chronology completely out of wack. There's also big mis-info. I've tried to fix it, and maybe others can add more about the Condé Nast years. This mag deserves better. — J M Rice 21:02, 23 July 2005 (UTC)