User talk:George Ho/Mentorship discussions/archive/2012/03

(Resolved) 74.179.215.67
This IP editor has kept an eye on my every edit I make. Now this person is campaigning against me. What can I do? --George Ho (talk) 06:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't do anything at all. Seriously, let admins deal with it if necessary. There will be plenty of eyes on this, now, so you don't need to do anything that will make it more complex. You have done nothing wrong, and have no need to respond. It will be dealt with as necessary. Under no circumstances should you allow yourself to be dragged into any sort of argument like this unless the requests are civil and reasonable. Begoon &thinsp; talk  06:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have reverted his same message in . Is that fine? --George Ho (talk) 06:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I was going to do that, but you doing it is fine, too. I removed another comment on a 2 month old discussion. If you think it's someone socking, then you should say who, but don't speculate, only if you have some pretty good evidence. If you really don't know, then best to say nothing for now. Other than that, he'll just dig his own hole and fall in it if you let him. No need to fall in with him... Begoon &thinsp; talk  06:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I should have said, feel free to remove the other section on your talkpage, or archive it. It's your page - I only responded because I saw it, and that's how I respond to that kind of post. I understand you might not want it there, though. Begoon &thinsp; talk  06:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

(Archived) - Dealing with GSorby and Raintheone
Look at this message:. He told me to stop "commandeering" everything and accused me for discussing images. What can I do? --George Ho (talk) 04:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

What can I do about Raintheone, as well? --George Ho (talk) 04:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

George. Switch off your computer and come back tomorrow. That's very serious advice.

I can't fight battles for you, because no battles need to be fought. If anything needs to be said or done, it will be better done after everyone has had time to cool down. If you can't leave this 'dispute' alone and let it calm down, I can't help you with it any more. Begoon &thinsp; talk 04:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

(Archived) - Being right or wrong? Being smart or stupid?
Well, I had made progress without social interaction with some others. I always wanted to prove that I'm right, so I would feel better and smarter about myself. Being proven as wrong feels humiliating, so would this make me stupid? I have spent time concerning about my rights, wrongs, smarts, stupidity; I wonder if I have progressed that way successfully. --George Ho (talk) 09:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you've identified one of the biggest problems on Wikipedia there, George. I'll give you a bit of a rant on it, but then I have to go afk till tomorrow:


 * Here's what I said to someone else a while ago:
 * ''" it might be best just to work out why we often don't treat people well in general. Current vague ideas include:
 * We rely too much on lawyering around the common "blue-linked" policies and guidelines - in order to "win".
 * Any time there's a "winner", there's probably a "loser" too.
 * Human nature is to dislike others "altering" your hard work.
 * The online nature isolates us all, removing the usual social "clues", and enhancing the "battle game" mentality."''


 * So I guess what I'm really saying is that when we view it as "winning" and "losing", it starts to go wrong. It's not easy, but when you can manage to see it not as "losing" but learning, it gets easier.


 * That doesn't mean I always succeed - nobody does - it feels like winning/losing too often for me, too - but at least I kind of understand why, and that helps.


 * Here's the important thing, though - I never measure people by how many mistakes they make (well, I try not to&hellip;) - far more important to me is how they pick themselves up, dust themselves off, and go about fixing it.


 * Don't let the fact you've had a few issues in one day spoil all your weeks of work. There's nothing stupid about feeling a bit upset if you think you were wrong about something - we all do that. What would be a bit silly would be to dwell on it too much. Begoon &thinsp; talk  10:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

(Resolved) - WP:WikiProject EastEnders
Raintheone and GSorby are against me. Also, in, they do not approve my addition to restored images. Also, I reported GSorby in WP:3RRN, and I nominated both images in WP:FFD, but... this is a mess. GSorby clearly hates me. What can I do? --George Ho (talk) 00:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * If you look at your talk page history, you'll see I posted a message myself saying I was confused about why you wanted to restore the images too. I deleted it before you read it, I think, because I didn't want to interfere too much, so I decided to wait and see what your plan was. So, it wasn't just the EE members who were confused. I then went to bed, and only now I see what happened later.


 * A statement like "Raintheone and GSorby are against me." shows that you are looking at things the wrong way.
 * Raintheone and GSorby oppose reintroducing those images.
 * They are upset that you did it without discussion, and they don't understand why.


 * That's all. Nobody "hates" you.
 * Sometimes people wish you would explain what you are trying to achieve better, because they might have other ideas that would help.


 * I'm going to be honest here:
 * You should have discussed it with the project first if you knew it would be controversial.
 * You should not have reverted your change back in and argued technicalities about FFD.
 * Really, you were edit warring - you know it doesn't have to break 3RR to be an edit war, right?


 * I know this might sound harsh, but in my opinion the best thing you can do is apologise for getting carried away about the whole thing.


 * It's only a couple of unimportant images on a webpage - why fight about it? Begoon &thinsp; talk  01:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Apologies? what's the use? I did WP:DRV, and then Fastily restored them and then closed the DRV before I woke up. See WP:Deletion review/Log/2012 March 16. --George Ho (talk) 01:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes I know what happened, now. You're actually right that there's no point in apologising just because someone tells you they would. Apologies only work if they are spontaneous. So I take that back. But you did make a mistake edit warring about it. You forgot to slow down and think about what you were doing. Begoon &thinsp; talk  01:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * How did I forget "to slow down and think"? As for these "unimportant images", well... they are educational, regardless of importance. Also, look at Talk:EastEnders; how can you explain GSorby's comments about me? --George Ho (talk) 01:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

GSorby is upset and he's ranting a bit. Everyone does that. He'll calm down.
 * Edit warring is how you forgot to slow down and think - what did your reverts gain?
 * The whole affair is "a storm in a teacup" - they tend to go away when everyone stops arguing about them, or raking over the coals.

So stop it and do something else for now, that's my advice. Begoon &thinsp; talk 01:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Stop what? Right now, I'm discussing about Reg Cox images. --George Ho (talk) 02:03, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

One question: when did we decide it was ok for you to add xfDs again without bringing them here first? Begoon &thinsp; talk 02:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Would violating that demand just once get me blocked again? I don't want to get blocked. I didn't realize that FFD counts, also. What about tagging images for deletion without discussion, such as template:di-disputed fair use rationale? --George Ho (talk) 02:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Technically, yes, any violation could get you blocked, but that's not what I want. I've spent a lot of time on this, and I don't like being defeated.

The point is this, if you'd brought the DRV here, I would have tried to talk you out of it, as my deleted post on your talk page shows. Then maybe all this fuss would have been avoided.

I view it as my failure, in many ways, but I can't watch every edit on Wikipedia, which is why we agreed you'd bring every xFD proposal here until we could get to grips with things. In that, yes I included FFD, basically anything deletion related. It wasn't 100% clear, I guess, so I'll amend it for you when I have time to phrase it. In the meantime, just interpret it broadly as anything deletion related, and if you're not sure, ask. Begoon &thinsp; talk 02:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:files for deletion/2012 March 16 could help. Find "Reg Cox" and my vote to "keep" both images. Well, I withdrew them because Raintheone depicted me as a drama queen. Does it count as violation? --George Ho (talk) 02:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, because you raised an xFD without bringing it here first. But as I said, I don't want to discuss that. The problem is that you have gone from a simple wish to include some images to a huge mess, and it could all have been avoided with some prior discussion. Everything else is just detail distracting from that central point. Begoon &thinsp; talk  02:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What about File:Sharon Grant Prison.jpg and File:Sharon Phil Grant Sharongate EastEnders.jpg? Do they count as violations? What about two DRVs I made: "Simon wicks 2012" and "Reg Cox" images? Are they vioations? --George Ho (talk) 02:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, it seems we need to rewrite the condition, then. Anything that involves opening a discussion on a deletion list, or xFDiscussion list, or a review of any of those things, then the rationale should be discussed here before listing. That was what I originally had in mind, even if my saying xFD didn't fully cover it.

There have been no complaints about PRODs I can see - so those wouldn't be included, unless you were making lots of PRODS that got removed because they were incorrect. Begoon &thinsp; talk 03:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * What about using non-xFD deletion tags, such as "di-disputed fair use rationale"? And orphaned files? --George Ho (talk) 03:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine, unless you're doing it incorrectly, or disruptively. Not acceptable if it looks like you are tagging files that should go to xFD though. An example of what is a huge "no" here would be deliberately orphaning a file so you can tag it as an orphan. Begoon &thinsp; talk
 * Should File:Sharon Grant Prison.jpg have been discussed in the first place, or is there no need? Did I tag it procedurally? --George Ho (talk) 03:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I would always discuss anything that could cause an image currently used in an article to be deleted before acting. You don't have to - but you risk being criticised for not discussing if you don't. With an EE image you should know automatically this risk is greater because of the history there. That's just the way the world is. So, not part of this "restriction", but common sense says discuss, here. Begoon &thinsp; talk  04:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Does this proposal include replacing old image with new image and uploading a new version of the same file page? --George Ho (talk) 03:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You're wikilawyering now. No, it doesn't include that, but if that was done in a way that seemed to be "getting around" the condition, that would be disruptive. Begoon &thinsp; talk

(Resolved) - Andrew Dixon
I know that you want me to stay away from computer for tomorrow, but I'm staying away from EastEnders dedicators, images, and articles until tomorrow. While I was reducing numbers of pages from my watchlist and keeping pages that need inspection, I looked at "Andrew Dixon" article. It must have infringed these: and. Can I tag this article with ? --George Ho (talk) 07:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course you can (I haven't checked it, though - I'm assuming you're happy it is definitely a copyvio, and about which way round the copyvio is etc.) I only wanted you to leave the EE stuff alone for a while, so thank you for deciding to do that. Begoon &thinsp; talk  07:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

(Resolved) - Two non-free images in Ryan Lavery


May I tag them with ? They both add nothing to educate readers about Ryan Lavery, fictional character of All My Children. Actually, I did tag one image with di-disputed, but I reverted because I was close to violating the agreement. Would this hurt the mentorship agreement? --George Ho (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Explain to me how the inclusion of these images differs from the Taxi-Jeff Conaway scenario we had earlier. I'm not saying it doesn't differ - I just want you to explain it to me. In a sentence or two only, if possible, please. Begoon &thinsp; talk 02:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * One image shows a romantic scene of Ryan and Kendall's passion, and the other shows Ryan at his bicycle helmet. Both are screenshots of scenes and not necessary; neither increases understanding of Ryan Lavery, as long as the infobox photo exists, and fails WP:NFCC #3a and #8. Actually, Jeff Conaway photo is totally different, so we may put that aside. --George Ho (talk) 02:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You didn't answer the question. Begoon &thinsp; talk  02:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know the implication of the question. But, if I know what the question is, the answer: Jeff-Taxi image is a one-person image that may increase understanding of Jeff Conaway, depending on a reader's understanding of Jeff Conaway. These two stills are unnecessary, as image in Kendall Hart exists, and there is no critical commentary related to the helmet image. --George Ho (talk) 02:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I simply wanted you to explain the difference. Why, for instance, don't you consider whether the content/rationale could be improved to support the inclusion(s), as you were in favour of at Jeff Conaway? I'm not being deliberately difficult here - I'm genuinely interested why you view them with a different "end result" in mind. Begoon &thinsp; talk  03:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * One time, I tried to include a photo of Arthur Fowler and Pauline Fowler together in the "Pauline Fowler" article. I did discuss it, and EE dedicators said that it doesn't increase a reader's understanding, as separate images of Arthur and Pauline exist. So this could be the same for Ryan/Kendall image.


 * Well, to put it this way, Jeff Conaway is a real person and had different appearances over the years. I added the non-free image because I figured, before some adjustments, text and image balance together. The Ryan's helmet still image, however, doesn't increase educational understand of Ryan Lavery. It may or may not imply Ryan's upcoming accident, but the still image is beneficial for only personal use, not educational. Did I explain enough? --George Ho (talk) 05:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you. The fact that the Conaway picture is in the actor's article does make it a bit different. It's helping to show how the real person looked at different points in his career. If there are other character images already for these characters, then that's very relevant too. The EE precedent is relevant, too - but always remember that one precedent doesn't make a rule. I agree that current non-free image policy and practice would probably consider these images excessive as currently used. Begoon &thinsp; talk  08:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Replying to uploader
Ok - now the politics:
 * 1) Who is/are the uploader(s) of these images?
 * 2) Have you had previous disputes with this/these user(s)?
 * 3) Have you had previous issues nominating images related to this show for deletion?

If you answered yes to #2 or #3, is there anything else you think it might be wise, or polite, to do before tagging the images? Bear in mind not all established users like being templated. Begoon &thinsp; talk 02:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * No to #2 and #3 about Flyer22, uploaded of these images, and All My Children, unless this could help:.


 * Skier Dude notified Flyer22 with notification template, and Flyer22 removed it. --George Ho (talk) 02:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, but nevertheless: is there anything else you think it might be wise, or polite, to do before tagging the images?.
 * What, for instance, would you do if the uploader was User:Fastily or User:Begoon?
 * Or, to look at it another way, what would you like me to do in that situation if the uploader was User:George Ho? Begoon &thinsp; talk  03:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * If uploader is either Fastily or Begoon, tough call. To ease tensions, discuss first, and tag with "db-g7" if uploader no longer wants non-free image in only article consisting an image. Well, about me as uploader, look what happened to . I made edit warring because that person did not talk to me, and is resulted. --George Ho (talk) 03:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Lol. Then maybe it's a good idea to treat everyone as if they are me or Fastily. :-)
 * Seriously, it's not a bad idea to assume all users with more than a few edits are deserving of the same treatment. That's the basis of WP:AGF. Of course, sometimes you know otherwise about a user, and AGF is not a suicide pact, but it's a good, default position.


 * I think I might be inclined to post a little message like

. They might still not be thrilled, but at least you're being open and helpful there. Begoon &thinsp; talk 03:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Hi MrUser, I noticed these images which you uploaded: File:..., File:... in this article: .... Do you think they are excessive, under NFCC#xxx? If not, can you think of some way we can make the rationale work with the content, to avoid them being tagged for ? --sig--"


 * Ok - I saw what you added, and it's ok - but the tone was the important thing, and instead of what I was trying to do with the tone, which was "I noticed this, what can we do about it?", you've kind of ended up saying "Unless you come up with a reason why not, I'm going to tag these". That's the kind of subtle difference that often makes all the difference to the recipient, in terms of how they "take" the message. [and please wait until we've finished discussions before taking actions - otherwise the discussion becomes like this...]. Begoon &thinsp; talk  04:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Like I stated on my talk page: No, I agree [with deleting them], George. I've been here since 2007, and, as such, you have to remember that some of my early editing was not in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines (especially in 2007) and that some policies and guidelines have changed (even if slight). I still make mistakes here and there, like we all do, or WP:Ignore all rules at other times, but my editing is now usually in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I don't edit soap opera articles the way I used to (you've seen some of my better work), and I don't edit soap opera articles much these days at all, really. The images were uploaded in February 2008, when I was still inexperienced with Wikipedia's image policy. Feel free to delete them, of course. Flyer22 (talk) 16:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. The discussion came here, and I thought it would be nicer to leave you a personal message instead of a horrible template, or nothing at all, per WP:DTTR. You should see some of the license nightmares I uploaded a few years ago, we all did that. Thanks again. Begoon &thinsp; talk  00:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

(Resolved) Talk:List of The Price Is Right pricing games
That discussion has been dead since September 2011. I must close that proposal after your response. What can I do? --George Ho (talk) 08:03, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ask an independent admin or respected user to close it. It's got some support. I can't do it, I'm involved with you. I wouldn't have had any opposition to your starting that discussion, anyway, so the point is moot. Anything else that's already in progress should just be allowed to run its course - you don't need to dig everything up and "fix" it. Begoon &thinsp; talk  08:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * + Ok, I certainly can't close it for you now: . Begoon &thinsp; talk  02:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * If you still haven't had any luck, Merge says " If necessary, one may request that an administrator who is not involved to close the discussion and make a determination as to whether consensus has occurred; such a request for an administrator to close the discussion may be made at the Administrators' noticeboard." - although I think the correct place for that is the Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure "sub"-noticeboard now. Begoon &thinsp; talk  13:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

(Resolved) - Nominating images in Wikimedia Commons
What happens if I have nominated images for deletion in Commons, not English Wikipedia? Do they count here? --George Ho (talk) 00:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * No. But because deleting images at Commons can affect articles here, you need to exercise the same care as you would here. Keep up the same level of communication with other users as you need to here. Begoon &thinsp; talk  02:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

(Resolved) - Couples image


I had a discussion in WP:MCQ. ww2censor said that a photo of two fictional characters together fails one or two criteria of WP:NFCC: Minimal use and contextual significance. This situation is not like Taxi–Jeff Conaway image; that image and article text do balance. There is already an article: Holden Snyder and Lily Walsh. The person who added, not uploaded, these photos in these single-character articles was Casanova88. I don't know what to say to Casanova88. To be honest, I'm not sure about how each image meets #8. If deletion is not the answer, then I don't know what is the answer. By the way, the uploader has been inactive since 2009; I checked the contributions log. --George Ho (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * They are good quality, promotional pictures. I like them, and if they were free I would have no problem saying they should be included.
 * If they are non-free though, then they might be excessive, bearing in mind what else is there.


 * I haven't checked if all the images we have of this couple are non-free.


 * My suggestion: a discussion at the Soap Opera project. You've got lots of images of this couple and some are non-free. You need to decide which ones to use where, without breaking the non-free rules. You need to consider things like what an awful image the one on Holden Snyder and Lily Walsh is etc.


 * You need to consider how we can best, according to our rules, make use of the range of images available, free and non-free, on the various articles involved. That needs input from others. Begoon &thinsp; talk  03:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

(Resolved) - File:Little Dancer of Fourteen Years.jpg
This file was discussed at. It was uploaded as free-to-share, but the source proves that this file is possibly non-free. To complicate matters, the uploader has not been active ever since only two contributions, according to the log. There is no point to notify that uploader. I don't think WP:PUF helps at all, as many images are deleted without further debate. What else can I do? --George Ho (talk) 08:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * So you think it might not be PD because the photograph is recent, and that gives it a new copyright? If so, do you think there would be a problem creating a FUR for it as a non-free file? I guess that depends if a free photo is available?
 * Of course, we could just ask the museum for permission via email, and put it through OTRS, couldn't we? WP:GLAM ought to know about this kind of thing - you could ask there. Begoon &thinsp; talk  09:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * My value: I don't put rationale for someone else's work. That would be making up the mess he made. The uploader/adder was responsible for uploading/adding the image like that. I can't ask the museum for him, and I don't know which museum either. Can I tag it with right now? --George Ho (talk) 10:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course you can. I'm not going to tell you not to - but I will try to help save it if what you do puts it in danger of deletion. It's a useful image, and deleting it because you "don't want to clean up someone else's mess" is not the approach I'd usually expect from you, George. If you don't want to clean up the "mess", fine, leave it for someone else to clean up.

Why should wikipedia be deprived of a useful image just because the uploader did something wrong which we can try to fix? Begoon &thinsp; talk 10:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Done that recently. Oh, yeah. Almost forgot: there is already File:Degas-dancer.jpg. --George Ho (talk) 10:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, ok - in that case, sorry - but the fact that you have a free image to replace it with is kind of relevant enough to mention in the first place&hellip; I was half way through typing a response asking if you'd searched for one. If the article ends up with a replacement image, go ahead and tag with my blessing. There are some horrible moire patterns on the "not free" one anyway. I don't know what "Done that recently." means, though&hellip; Begoon &thinsp; talk  10:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll rephrase: "Done that minutes ago..." By the way, that actual free image is already present in relevant articles. --George Ho (talk) 10:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I see now - it's in the gallery on the page with the "not-free" one. No problem then, in this case, now we have all the information. One more question, though - would you still have wanted to push ahead with the tagging and subsequent possible deletion without a replacement image, or making an attempt to save that one? It's ok to say "yes" by the way... Begoon &thinsp; talk  10:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Depends on your approval/permission of my deletion proposals on images. To be honest, for Wikipedia, law is law. Attempting to save an image is difficult for many reasons, such as obscurity of author's permission, work royalties of an author, and obscurity of sources. Replacement... gee... I tried replacing GSorby's screenshots with or without permission, but he puts history first. Well, let's have it deleted first; then, if you want it undeleted, request it in WP:REFUND, adjust the page as non-free, and make sure that WP:NFCC is followed for every rationale'. What do you say? --George Ho (talk) 11:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I say that's unnecessary. We don't delete files because they are tagged wrong. We fix the tags.
 * That's what should happen to it if you xFD it anyway, unless it "slips through the net" because nobody notices - and that can be a problem.
 * In this case, if you look at the image in context, and read the accompanying content - if this was the only image available, and not-free, given that article content, the FUR practically 'writes itself', it's so straightforward. Begoon &thinsp; talk  11:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Just a note - I'll be offline now until tomorrow - you can this as resolved, if you like, or leave it for me, if you prefer.  Begoon &thinsp; talk  11:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

All right about the "unnecessary" thing. Anyway, let's check this image's stance as "non-free". Per WP:NFCC, I don't think that image stands a chance, even with a creative angle, if it were used in Little Dancer of Fourteen Years, which has two free-to-share images. It could be used well in Edgar Degas article, just as you and I did with the 1970s image in Jeff Conaway article. However, the non-free image needs to meet WP:NFCC #3a (minimal usage) and #8 (contextual significance).

How does this image meet #8? The article discusses the sculpture, but how much amount of discussion? Sufficient enough for an article?

How does this image meet #3a? I don't know, even with the free-to-share image with a different angle. However, there is already a free image of the same sculpture, so would a non-free image violate #3a? --George Ho (talk) 11:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It doesn't meet any of those criteria. It's not free. There is a free replacement.
 * If there wasn't a free replacement (or prospect of one) it would be a perfect candidate for being a non-free image, and that's what we were talking about. [well&hellip; I was, anyway&hellip;]


 * Sorry George, I think I confused you. When you started the discussion you didn't say there was a free replacement, so I said this was worth saving as non-free with FUR. ( If there were no other images of this statue available it would easily meet #8 in the context of that article).


 * Then you told me there was a free replacement, so I said fine, tag away - but I asked you if you would still have wanted to tag if you couldn't find a free replacement.


 * As far as I can see, we're finished here... Begoon &thinsp; talk  11:29, 25 March 2012 (UTC)