User talk:TreasuryTag/Archives/2010/May

My Doctor Who wibble
Just a note to let you know I agree completely that I was out of order to insert a heap of silly wibble into that talk page of an article about a recent Doctor Who episode. I regret especially that your level-headed and very polite reminder led to a personal attack on you by an editor who does not speak for me or any other editor.

For technical reasons my editing ability on Wikipedia is often limited, otherwise I would have gotten around to removing my wibble by now. Please feel free to do so yourself. This comment on your user talk page explicitly authorises you to do so. Tasty monster (=TS ) 14:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the response—I shall remove it now. (I don't blame you in any way for the IP's personal attack, of course, nor for the fact that I can never spell 'opportunity' right!) ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  Not-content  ─╢ 14:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The Doctor Who articles on Wikipedia are, I have it on good authority (Phil Sandifer) of rather superior quality. The work you and other editors do in keeping us on topic is an essential part of our evolved mechanism for maintaining that excellence. Tasty monster (=TS ) 16:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Quick comment
Saw this edit, and I would suggest backing off on the copyright language; the use of the image with the reduced caption (before the change) would certainly qualify within US fair use laws and would be a far cry from copyright violation; it's our NFC policy that would be violated, as there would be (and arguably still isn't, but that's not the issue here) any relevance to the image per NFCC#8. The rerevert was correct of course, just that the edit comment was a bit harsher than it needed to be. --M ASEM (t) 14:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You Die in a fire
I see your ANI comments. Some say to unblock saying blocks are not punitive. You point out a vile comment, possibly even a threat.

I say that we need to behave better in Wikipedia and we need more even standards. The novice user need not worry about the details. It is the admins that should agree on and abide by the details. Such details could be standard length blocks, standard ways of handling threats and rudeness, etc. Otherwise, some people get away with murder and some are indefinitely blocked for nearly harmless stuff. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

As far as threatening to kill by fire, the excuse of it being used on the internet is just an excuse. Try saying bomb in an airplane or a knife to school and there will be zero tolerance. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

re: Section editing
I think you mean that I edit the entire page as opposed to the section? You're right I do, largely because when I edit conflict it goes to the whole page. However your suggestion makes good sense, I shall do my best. :) SGGH ping! 17:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I tried to do it with this edit but it still avoided the section. WtF? SGGH ping! 23:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary
On the contrary, disruptive content can and should be removed from the Reference Desk. We should not tolerate WP:BITEs. I'd suggest, by the way, that you discuss rather than threaten. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * 1. The comment should never have been posted, I think you might agree with that.  2.  Removal of the comment was therefore the right thing to do.  It was a negative to the Reference Desk.  3.  The rules you keep quoting at me are article talk page rules, and the Reference Desk is not an article talk page.  It has aspects of an article talk page, but it is not one.  4.  Take a step back from this disagreement, and look at whether the comment should exist on the Reference Desk.  Clearly, it should not.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, you are the one who started the Wikilawyering by quoting policies at me. I am merely pointing out that you are quoting incorrect policies to try to cow me into submission, which will not work.  You linked to WP:TALK for me several times.  The very first sentence of that article links to Help:Talk page to define what a talk page is.  If you'll trouble to read the first three paragraphs of Help:Talk page, you'll see that "Talk page" means the discussion pages for articles and user pages.  The Reference Desk is not a talk page.  It is a resource for querents.  Does that help?  If you want to quote the rules at me, please find a relevant one.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Shokuwarrior
Yes ... I get the impression, though, that he's trying to do it correctly (at least he included a FUR this time) but doesn't quite understand why when he uploads non-free screenshots they get deleted, when lots of other articles have screenshots; I wonder if it might be worth at least having a go at explaining NFCC to him? Black Kite (t) (c) 21:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw that, but that was a case where he was trying to replace an image that passed NFCC with one that didn't. This time, he's seen an article that doesn't have an image at all, and thinks "what would be a good screenshot"?  OK, he's still failed, but at least he tried.  Tell you what, I'll warn him again, keep an eye on his uploads and if he carries on I'll just WP:IAR delete them to save people the hassle and block him. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Re MfD question
Re MfD question - I am feeling stupid about one point - I was searching around to figure out how to find the size, and there is is right in the history. I hope my response doesn't come across as argumentative - I like to cut contributing editors a fair amount of slack in user pages. -- SPhilbrick  T  15:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Removal of your warning to CalendarWatcher
May I enquire why anyone can come along and revert an admin action that was pursuant to a civility complain at ANI? I see no discussion by the reverter on this page, who I see was recently blocked for saying "Die in a fire, the lot of you".

Are you going to do anything about this? Tony  (talk)  06:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not actually an admin, but I've undone the removal anyway. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  senator  ─╢ 06:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks; perhaps you should become one. Tony   (talk)  06:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

TT, that wasn't vandalism; the user in question had already been warned/notified of the AN/I proceeding. We generally try to avoid multiple warnings for the same incident. --Ckatz chat spy  06:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, fine. But you still don't remove others' comments. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  assemblyman  ─╢ 08:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, it was a duplicate warning; FYI, given the user had no previous blocks, it would have been better to for you to use a level one or level two warning instead of jumping straight to level three. --Ckatz chat spy  09:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, fine. But you still don't remove others' comments. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  senator  ─╢ 10:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Gordon Brown
Just a hint, when three different established editors add in the same info in the space of a few minutes then it probably is true ;-) Or you could have just turn on the tv.... they're talking about nothing but that right now. But hey, no hard feelings :) Mathmo Talk Cheers 16:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * replied :) Mathmo Talk 16:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Removing an image from an article while a related ffd closure is under review
Howdy. Would you be willing to allow this image to stay in this article at least until is closed?--Rockfang (talk) 08:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd even be willing to add a caption as well.--Rockfang (talk) 08:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If you add a caption which makes it ostensibly meet the NFC, then of course, yes. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  secretariat  ─╢ 09:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for replying. I've decided to just say "screw it", and step away from that file, article, and drv.--Rockfang (talk) 10:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Very wise! ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  cabinet  ─╢ 10:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, it is not because I agree or disagree with the nfcc issue. It is just because I don't care about the image period.--Rockfang (talk) 10:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * OK—I wasn't going to judge you! ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  belonger  ─╢ 10:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

(archive-now) ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  belonger  ─╢ 10:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 13:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Amy Pond image
Following the BRD sequence, I've initiated a new discussion at Talk:Amy_Pond. Feel free to contribute. Exxolon (talk) 16:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Graham Bartram
Hello TreasuryTag. The source is the latest issue of the journal of the Flag Institute, "Flagmaster", issue number 134, page 3. ISSN 0142-1271. Editorial Offices: 44 Middleton Road, Acomb, York, United kingdom YO24 3AS.--Banderas (talk) 19:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Huhne
The most recent livetext update at BBC about Huhne says, "0912 We now think that Lib Dem Chris Huhne is going to hold the title of Energy and Climate Change Secretary in the new cabinet." That is hardly confirmation that he will have that role. -Rrius (talk) 08:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Vince Cable
Thanks for your source of the information about Cable using the title "Dr", even though he's a PhD "outside academia". You could have just made the edit yourself, of course - but then I wouldn't have been alerted to the fact that there's one more pompous ass in the world. RomanSpa (talk) 16:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, of course I didn't mean you. Obviously from context I was talking about Cable. :-) RomanSpa (talk) 17:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

BBC election music
I added another answer to your question. If you're anything like me, you'll have taken the Ref Desk off your watchlist by now... it tends to swamp the thing... Matt's talk 16:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (archive-now) ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  UK EYES ONLY  ─╢ 20:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Lawyering
You are very funny. You just wrote "I hope that you will not delete others' messages from the RefDesk again", forgetting that in the very previous paragraph, the line you cited is in a section called "When removing or redacting a posting" &mdash; a guideline on how to remove posts in a decent manner. I agree wholly about the guideline not to modify others' posts; I have no quarrel with that; but removing others' posts is definitely sometimes appropriate, and I believe my action was appropriate. Obviously some others disagree &mdash; there are levels of bad posts, and the disagreement is where the line to remove is at. I'll bring it up on the RD talk page. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No, you are picking and choosing, and trying to bully me into submission while citing individual sentences that seem to back you up; but it makes no sense in context. We remove posts from the RD all the time.  Anyway, I've started a thread on the RD talk page.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That was a Party Election Broadcast from the Labour Party – ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  inspectorate  ─╢ 17:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Your question really baffled me, because it honestly looks to me like 100% psychological projection. To answer the question, yes; because I am pointing out that your behavior is, I think unacceptable.  Your very first comment on my talk page was in maximum combat stance, a big threat to "report" me if I didn't immediately submit; and you repeated the threat twice.  This is pure bullying and intimidation, and it is your behavior that is not the behavior of a respectful editor collaborating with other editors.  How about having a conversation about it on the talk page like everyone else, instead of repeated threats?  I found this all very disrespectful; and though I could understand writing messages like that to a vandal or troll, to try to scare them away, I am not one of these.  You didn't like that I removed another user's post &mdash; I get that, really, and you weren't the only one; but why the threats and attempts at intimidation and bullying?  What purpose does that serve?  The removal was not some crazy outlier notion, as you can see that there are others who supported the removal.  I think if you claim to be interested in collaborating, you should cut down on the net.cop stance about 90%.  We do not exist to serve the rules; the rules exist to serve us, and it's more useful to utilize logic when trying to convince another editor, rather than threatening "I'm going to tell on you."  Comet Tuttle (talk) 06:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * (archive-now) ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  UK EYES ONLY  ─╢ 20:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Reference desk
I hope my responses haven't offended you over at the humanities reference desk. I certainly have interacted with you a lot, and I don't mean you any offense. My responses on the minor legal question is only to highlight, truthfully, that civil liberties are based on a legal system's law, and I don't think most people recognize where and the extent to which those systems exist. If I'd make a mistake in my legal rationale, or if your experience is different, please tell me so, but I'm trying to be as factual as possible without delving into a research project on the subject. I invite your comments. Thanks. Shadowjams (talk) 09:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (archive-now) ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  UK EYES ONLY  ─╢ 20:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah
I guess you're too quick for me... ;) Theleftorium (talk) 17:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (archive-now) ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  UK EYES ONLY  ─╢ 20:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

A930913/930913
After a lengthy conversation on the IRC channel, myself and User:PeterSymonds agreed and switched the blocks on A930913 and 930913 (i.e. 930913 is now under a block, and A930913 is now unblocked). I think per Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive614 some bug in the MediaWiki software is not allowing him to even log in under the moved 930913 account (since it's all numbers). In any case, there's no abusive socking going on, and he should be allowed to freely edit now under A930913. I believe Nihonjoe (perhaps some of the other bureaucrats are also aware of this) is aware of this situation as he commented on that ANI. Just wanted to give you a heads up. Thank you, –MuZemike 14:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (archive-now) ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  UK EYES ONLY  ─╢ 20:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Doctor Who (series 5)
Re: I think it is? - Disclaimer: I prefer t'other, Radio Times version It's not quite true. It's the premise of the episode but it's revealed that both "dimensions" are bogus. Incidentally, I prefer t'other version because the main point (IMHO) was Amy and her decision (Rory or the Doctor), but I wouldn't revert on that basis alone.

Cheers! TFOWRpropaganda 17:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly my point, that's why I changed it, and of course we are completely right, the old description was nothing to do with the episode really. Good man, I like you. Dr. J (Talk).


 * Uh, Dr J, that wasn't my point. My point was that your edit stated "... are travelling between two dimensions" (incorrect, as it revealed at the end - and to be honest I'm not sure "dimensions" were ever mentioned) and "One is real, the other is fake" (again, incorrect, as is revealed at the end).
 * The Radio Times version was careful to be as vague as possible while remaining accurate. Your version was more detailed, but in its detail lost accuracy.
 * Cheers, TFOWRpropaganda 15:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (archive-now) ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  UK EYES ONLY  ─╢ 20:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 19:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * (archive-now) ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  UK EYES ONLY  ─╢ 20:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

If you had any more tawdry quirks, you could open up a tawdry quirk shop!
You should already have my email; it's the same as when you last emailed me :) Sceptre (talk) 17:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Result of the 3RR complaint
Please see the result of this 3RR complaint: WP:AN3. The situation indicates that one or both parties might have lost their temper. Surely we can do better than that. Negotiation is usually one of the options, and it could be worthwhile. EdJohnston (talk) 23:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Orphan Tagging
I'm sorry to see that you've joined the orphan taggers on NRHP articles. Policy is very clear,
 * "...only place the orphan tag if the article has ZERO incoming links from other articles." (bold and all caps included in original)

Since all NRHP articles have at least one incoming link, placing the tag on them is against policy. It also upsets those of us who believe it says to the naive reader that the article is somehow less worthy than others.

If this happened simply because AWB did it, note that AWB has an option: Options > Restrict orphan tag addition to linkless pages Or, you can simply turn off AWB Auto taggging. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 11:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for letting me know, I'll use the AWB option. I just never imagined that it would tag linkless pages otherwise! ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  secretariat  ─╢ 11:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Jacob Qirqisani
I just noticed your AWB edit of Jacob Qirqisani that changed "sect" to "etc." which is less than fully useful. I've reverted it for the moment, assuming you might try again. If not, I'll pick up your other fixes and put them back again. All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, dear, I'm very sorry about that! Should have picked it up. I'd best stay away from that page, please do clear up any outstanding mess I made! ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  Lord Speaker  ─╢ 14:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem at all: I'll redo as appropriate.
 * Many thanks for the quick response. –Syncategoremata (talk) 14:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

List of Unicode characters in the Yi syllables block
Just letting you know that your recent edit to List of Unicode characters in the Yi syllables block incorrectly changed a number of Yi syllable romanizations to English words. Please be careful not to miscorrect foreign language words to English, thanks. BabelStone (talk) 16:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

You appear to have become eligible for a barnstar

 * Ah, thank you very much. It's not been enjoyable (although being compared to Richard Nixon was an unexpected highlight!) so I'm glad that at least someone's appreciated it! Best, ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  quaestor  ─╢ 09:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

A brief History of Time (Travel)
Following your comments that Shannon Sullivan's website, http://www.shannonsullivan.com/drwho/ is not a reliable source as per WP:RS, I think its worth noting that several pages seem to excessively rely upon it. Dalek (Doctor Who episode), School Reunion (Doctor Who), The Trial of a Time Lord, The Two Doctors, The Brain of Morbius, List of unmade Doctor Who serials and films and The Fires of Pompeii. Many other pages also use it for one or two references. As you seem to the person to ask, does any action need to be taken to remove this material based solely from this source? AlexanderJBateman (talk) 14:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I make no comment on any pages, but would simply note that it is very, very obviously a self-published source. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  quaestor  ─╢ 14:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So given that the source is self-published, what would be your advice on how I should then proceed with regard to the aforementioned pages? AlexanderJBateman (talk) 14:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You should check exactly what information the source is being used to support (I see from some of them that it's just dates that episodes aired, etc., in which case it's not so much controversial to use it as just handy, so that sort of thing is generally acceptable). If you see any unique or unusual claims being supported by it, read the relevant Shannon page in case it lists a source of its own. Failing all that, delete the material and source, and post on the article talkpage to explain what checks you did and how they failed.
 * That's only my advice, though! (You might find this helpful: a list of all pages that link to the Shannon website!) ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  draftsman  ─╢ 14:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's very helpful. AlexanderJBateman (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Mass nominations
Hi TreasuryTag. I left a comment here at the MfD. I've also just been reading your talk page editnotice which talks about making "the whole site more pleasant and productive". I'm repeating my question here about whether you approached Richard Arthur Norton first with your concerns about those pages and images before nominating them for deletion? I only looked in your user talk page edits, so I may have missed something you posted elsewhere, and am asking you here first what happened here. Carcharoth (talk) 04:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * To be honest, no, I didn't approach him first, for two reasons. A)From his past record of blocks for copyright violations, mass page-move vandalism and the fact that he was an experienced editor who knew WP:WEBHOST and flagrantly ignored it, I couldn't foresee any negotiations having any constructive outcome; and B)Nothing he could do could change the fact that his pages are against WP:NOTMEMORIAL etc., there was nothing to discuss.
 * I should also note that approaching him first or not is an issue about my behaviour – on which we may have to agree to disagree! – which shouldn't affect the status of any content I've nominated for deletion: those issues should be decided on their independent merits alone. Best, ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  Captain-Regent  ─╢ 07:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It is possible that if the wider community were asked the consensus would be that it is still best to make an initial approach first, even if you think it won't work (several editors have agreed with me that your approach wasn't the best one here, and I think you should listen to what they are saying). Could I at least ask that you consider in future approaching an editor on their talk page first if you find yourself in the situation of making a mass nomination like this? It doesn't take long, and it helps keep things calm around here. And of course this is separate from the status of the content nominated for deletion - you are experienced enough to know we both know that. Ending on a less testy note, thanks for the link you left on my talk page - I've followed image copyright on and off for several years now on Wikipedia, and it is an endlessly complex and fascinating area, but one where I wish the discussions were less confrontational. Carcharoth (talk) 04:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Mongolia AfD
Glad to see from the AfD that we're still talking. :-) Sorry i went a bit OTT on the ANI board, i hope you saw i backed off a bit before the thread closed. By a strange coincidence you've inspired me to an idea that might really help, I wasnt stalking you btw, I made the inspiring find while searching for sources for the Mongolia article. It will all become clear what i mean in a moment. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure quite how nervous I should be about this... ;) ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  Regent  ─╢ 18:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I am curious as well. -- Cycl o pia talk  19:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The sarcasm is not helpful. You're treading very close to a line on civility, here. If you hadn't marked it explicitly as such, I would be issuing a block right now. As it is, please consider this a final warning: try to keep your contributions polite, focused on the matter at hand, and phrased in ways that are not likely to fan fires. Thank you. Shimeru (talk) 20:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A block? For that? ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  directorate  ─╢ 21:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If it weren't for the explicit tag? Yes.  These bilateral AfDs have grown steadily more acrimonious.  A fair portion of the debate in one recent one was focused on other editors, rather than on the article.  This one was starting to head the same way -- already there's been an editor describing all of those whose opinions differ as "ignorant."  I'd rather not see that continue to happen.  If I need to warn people to stay on topic and keep their tone constructive, then I will.  If I need to block people who can't or won't do that, then I will. Shimeru (talk) 22:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that my tone was brusque, though I must admit that I don't see where the explicit tag comes into it? (And thanks for warning Richard Norton, by the way, hopefully it will take effect.) ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  belonger  ─╢ 22:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 04:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

What is the hurry?
Why are you fighting to get the new Amy Pond image rush deleted? The RFC is running and has some time to go and the image MUST be available so that participants can refer to it so they can make an informed judgement. At the moment it looks like you are trying to short-circuit the RFC to get your preferred result. Leave the image alone, if consensus concludes the current one is to be kept, it can be deleted after that. Exxolon (talk) 12:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In answer to your questions, I refer you to the very clear explanation that I provided. Which part of it do you not understand? ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  person of reasonable firmness  ─╢ 13:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I hadn't read that message when I posted this one. I'll respond shortly over at the talkpage. Exxolon (talk) 13:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Your edit to Bede
You recently made a semi-automated edit to Bede that changed the name of the Anglo-Saxon monk Wicthed to Witched. In fact, his name was Wicthed. Please do not change spellings of proper names unless you have a source to verify the change you intend to make. Sorry if I sound snippy, but a month ago someone else made the same change using the same software. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry! ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  quaestor  ─╢ 17:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

RE: Norton
Gwen Gale (who is everywhere these days!) has already given him a final warning. One more will result in a block. SGGH ping! 19:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)