Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Prestonmcconkie

Response to Nekami

I appreciate your thoughtful response. I would just say, to your last sentence, that he has already been given many chances. I'm all in favor of people being given chances. This editor has been politely queried on his talk page about this many times and warned that there might be consequences to continuing his incivility; and the issue was taken to Wikiquette Alerts too. He could have defended himself on many occasions, or agreed to stop his practice, but he chose to remain completely silent, and to keep doing what the same things over and over. At WQA, one respondent stated that his behavior was enough for to justify a block and suggested bringing this here if he didn't respond in a day or two, but I hoped he would simply quit doing this and didn't bring it here right away. When it was clear that he hadn't stopped despite the WQA, I did bring it here. In 6 months he's neither responded nor altered his basic behavior. He's had his chances, and then some. He needs to speak up. Omnedon (talk) 21:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Response to NVO

After looking at the evidence, it is frankly outrageous to state that there are "no civility violations here". This editor's edit summaries are rife with rudeness, profanity and personal attacks. Further, this is not just colorful language; he insults the specific editors who have written the text which he edits by calling them names and swearing at them. For example, here he makes an offensive suggestion aimed directly at the writer of the words he edited. I see no evidence that his comments are somehow directed at the community at large; but even if they were, it is still rude and offensive and unacceptable. What you describe as "colorful language" has no place in edit summaries. To quote WP:CIVIL, "A behavioral pattern of incivility is disruptive and unacceptable, ..." This is clearly a behavioral pattern, as he has done it for months in the face of requests from several editors to stop and/or respond. Even a WQA failed to elicit any response or change. His behavior is indeed disruptive to Wikipedia. Omnedon (talk) 22:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps NVO's statement is irony or sarcasm? To see literally scores of unprovoked, profanity-laced insults thrown at other editors and respond by saying "no civility violations" is an unsupportable view. If that's not uncivil, then nothing is. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 00:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that the edit notes are clearly in violation of WP:CIVIL, however the way NVO's message reads it does not appear sarcastic, and I honestly have to say that it is a bit disturbing to actually read that as a note of support or defense, and might even give cause for some eyeballs to be kept on his edit notes as well. Srobak (talk) 03:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No sarcasm at all. It's all a matter of personal threshold to what others say (separate from what they do). NVO (talk) 08:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Policy dictates civility. If you don't consider insulting and demeaning someone to be uncivil, you're free to hold that opinion, but I'd venture to say it's not a view shared by many editors. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 12:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

People do have different thresholds of offense; but that is not the issue here. This editor is clearly exhibiting uncivil behavior again and again, and Wikipedia calls for civility for many reasons (not least of which is that we are to collaborate here). Civility is not optional. Omnedon (talk) 18:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with NVO. Incivility is more about attitude to individuals rather than words used. Prestonmcconkie's comments are directed more at the text than the editors. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain how comments like "We can do math, jackass" or "It WAS a freaking event, you moron!" are somehow not directed at editors... He often attacks other editors in this manner and has done so for a long time. Omnedon (talk) 13:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I have not seen the diffs but I would guess that the first remark is directed at an unnecessary calculation that was included in the text and the second at a grammatical error. It is just a style of speaking intended as a mild chastisement to careless editors. I notice in the second quote he has limited himself to a minced oath. Are you objecting as a matter of principle, in which case I would question whether it is a principle worth fighting over, better to get back to improving Wikipedia, or are you really offended by this, in which case chill a bit, I am sure he means no harm. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? "Jackass" and "Moron" are not styles of speech/speaking, any way you slice it. As far as chastising - WP:CIVIL very clearly prohibits that, even to the throngs of well-deserving vandals and there are pretty steep punishments for doing so, so what makes you think it is ok for someone to do that to an actual, contributing, good faith editor whom they likely have no other attachment to or interaction with? Sorry - that excuse is a poor one, and either way still does not fall within the guidelines of civility. The edit summaries are there for a specific reason and are to be used in a specific method, as illustrated by the WP:Edit Summary article. Srobak (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Martin, you say you have not seen the diffs, yet you are willing to make guesses and reach conclusions about his intent. Please examine the evidence; you will see that these two examples are not isolated incidents but part of a long-standing pattern. Civility matters; do you disagree? Omnedon (talk) 16:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course civility matters and, strange as it may seem, I am not in any way advocating incivility. On the face of it, and to some degree in reality, Prestonmcconkie is being uncivil but I see this as pantomime incivility along the lines of Grumpy old men or Statler and Waldorf of the Muppet show. Don't take it too seriously. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, by winking at bad behavior, that position does advocate incivility. (Or at the very least it undermines civil discourse by dismissing rude, hurtful behavior as somehow amusing or endearing.) Huwmanbeing ☀★ 21:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

When someone acts uncivilly toward others (overtly and repeatedly)

But Wikipedia is a written medium and all communication is done by words. Words are used exclusively as a means of communication here. Attitudes can only be conveyed by words in this medium. Do you think he expresses a good attitude when he calls someone a moron or a jackass? Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 13:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I think he uses insults with a certain underlying humour that is evident from the words he uses. If he really gets that wound up about minor grammatical and other errors then the joke is on him. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

You might want to give a read to his own response down near the bottom of this talk page. Personally, I don't think WP is a place for him to exercise his therapy and I am not the resident psychologist on staff today. Srobak (talk) 16:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that "moron" is an insult, and I do not think that it is WP:CIVIL to insult other editors.

Perhaps someone who subscribes to the "all the cool guys insult each other" adolescent mentality will have a different opinion, but mine is that calling another editor a "moron" is unacceptable incivility. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Response to DESiegel

You clearly spent some time analyzing this, and came up with some good results; thanks for your efforts. I agree that if his edit summaries were non-offensive, there would be no problem; but that's not where we are. The only part I would question is your last sentence, in which you suggest that perhaps he has stopped doing this because he has been now questioned about it. I understand what you are saying, and if this was the very first time this had happened, I might believe it, or at least be prepared to believe it. In fact, though, he has been queried about his conduct again and again and again over many months with no effect. Two editors questioned him on this back in October 2009, and he said nothing and persisted. I questioned him on this in January 2010, and he said nothing and persisted. Even after this was taken to WQA, he still said nothing and persisted. After the WQA he stopped for a while, which is suggestive; but he did not stop permanently and returned to his pattern. At least three times over several months he has ignored requests to stop; and even now he continues to say nothing. All of the evidence indicates that he will continue to do this. An assumption that he will stop now would be more than just hopeful speculation; it would also run counter to the direct and substantial evidence we already have. Omnedon (talk) 22:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

What a tragic irony. Such a great copyeditor with such command of the language and its nuances and he says not a word in his defence. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 22:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

One is forced to wonder what he could say. "It's appropriate to call people morons, idiots and dipsh*ts because..." I certainly agree it'd be nice if he was willing to participate in the conversation, but the many unanswered posts about this on his talk page suggests he'll continuing to ignore the community. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 01:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

We are here to build an encyclopedia full of excellent articles. We should not be using the edit-summary fields to engage in warfare of words. Edit summaries are here to inform people of the details of our good faith attempts to add meaningful information into the articles. Edit summaries should not be used as boneyards of editors' reputations. And that cuts both ways. The editor who leaves uncivil summaries doesn't look good either. His reputation suffers as a result of his negative evaluation of his fellow editors. He is not gaining any brownie points within the editor community for maligning other people, that's for sure. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 01:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I quite agree that he ought to engage the community, and has not done so. I quite agree that he obviously has the command of language needed to make his points in a less offensive way, and has yet to consistently do so. Even the summaries that are "non-offensive" in my classification are often acerbic and less than friendly. As for whether he has seen fit to silently reform, i don't know and I surely don't guarantee it. I merely note that he has made no offensive edit summaries in the last 3-4 days, for what that fact (and it is a fact to date) may be worth. I also note that the vast majority of his edits are removing or improving sub-standard prose, often in fact quite poor prose. Proper summaries for such edits would perhaps rarely be all that friendly, and I suppose dealing with such could sour anyone's disposition -- indeed it may take something of a curmudgeon to be a high-class copyeditor. One of the most trenchant critics in the SF field was known widely (including by himself) as "Sour Bill" Atheling (the critical alter ego of James Blish). But Sour Bill attacked work primarily, though he did often make comments like "What was Author So&S thinking to write this" and "I blame editor such and such for buying this". For the matter of that, Mark Twain's "Fenimore Cooper's Literary Errors" was not exactly civil. ("But this rule is flung down and danced upon in the Deerslayer tale", and "Cooper had no gift of observation.") but neither of these men was working as part of a collaborative project, either, and neither resorted to flinging profanities at the objects of their dislike. DES ^(talk) 05:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You're quite right that he hasn't been offensive for the last few days. He has made several edits during that time (without any edit summaries), so he is clearly active in Wikipedia and must be aware of this discussion, as I alerted him to it on his talk page. I would just reiterate that after the WQA he stopped misbehaving for over a month, and I had hoped he would stop permanently; but he didn't. In a way, his silence is doesn't surprise me -- because how could he possibly defend the disputed behavior? I presume this is at least one reason why he says nothing, but of course I don't know; I can't help but think that it's also partly about thumbing his nose at the system. Omnedon (talk) 13:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I acknowledge DES's well taken literary examples and Omnedon's thoughtful points and I wish to add that when building an encyclopedia we put the best of our efforts toward adding information as best we can. If behind the facade of a beautifully written article lies a jungle of insults, all stacked in the article's edit history, like a pile of bones of besmirched reputations, what does that say about us as a community? Is this a roman galley where we toil as slaves at the beat of a drum? Or are we free men, free to make mistakes without fear of recrimination and insults? And if behind the facade of our articles, in the edit history section, lies so much fear and recrimination, then our articles suffer as well. Because, although they externally appear nice, the system that produced them allowed such hardship to be endured. It is therefore reflecting bad on the system as a whole. It can also cause the attrition rate of our editors to increase because this kind of criticism tends to drive people off the project. This must be rectified. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI: Mythdon indef blocked

After an ANI on Mythdon, his account was indef blocked [1]. FWIW. NVO (talk) 08:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but I am not familiar with the case. How does this relate to the present case? Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 20:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that since Mythdon has been blocked and he had provided some input in the discussion on the project page, he is using the fact of the block to invalidate and discredit Mythdon's input on the matter. Whatever reason he was blocked - I disagree and think his input is actually perfectly valid, but am happy to re-sig his contribution as my own if NVO would prefer. :) Srobak (talk) 20:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the details. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 20:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

"re-sig" someone else's signed contribution? not the best course of action. Perhaps you meant co-signing ? What I do prefer is having more editors' speaking on the case. If anything discredits this RFC, it's the thin voter base. NVO (talk) 06:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Re-sig, co-sign - whatever need be. Point is you were trying to invalidate Mythdon's points because for whatever reason he was blocked (strange that it came out of thin air according to his talk page, but that's another issue). Blocked or not the points themselves are valid and accurate, and strongly mirror my own points. As for there being a "thin voter base" - you do know that axe swings both ways, right? You are the only person who seems to believe that there is not an issue here - nevermind the fact that this is not a vote, but an RFC that happens to have an 8:1 ratio of contributors who see a problem with how civilly he handles his edits. I would venture so far as to say that the lengthy list of cited incidents speaks well enough on its own as to his disposition where a truckload of people saying "I agree" wouldn't be terribly necessary.Srobak (talk) 13:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you please speak for yourself rather than invent strawman characters? Another bit of advice: please check WP:TALKNO and WP:TALKO which follows it prior to "re-sig"ning other people's statements. NVO (talk) 06:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok - consider this your opportunity to clarify your intent in creating this section and your initial contribution to it. Without clarification it is inconsequential and holds no bearing on the topic at hand. Also give a read to facetious before getting bent out of shape. Srobak (talk) 23:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Lack of response

I just spent some time going through his talk page, and while he has had a couple of discussions with a couple of other users - he has not responded a single time to any of the notices of civility, harsh language, etc etc. Quite obviously he simply does not care about consensus or following the guidelines for WP, and his lack of participation and response here only goes to further that point. I would levy a paycheck against him cooling his jets as a result, and think he has been given plenty of "one more chances". Time for action. Srobak (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. While incivility is certainly the biggest problem, Preston's repeated (and continuing) unwillingness to discuss or even to acknowledge others' concerns is the runner-up. As WP:Discussion points out, "talking to other parties is not a formality; it's an imperative to the smooth running of any community." Huwmanbeing ☀★ 20:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

So ban the dude. It bugs me that everyone gets mad at the fellow for not getting bogged down in this kind of thing instead of focusing on what is supposedly the issue at hand (incivility). The alternatives are obvious, here; there's really no need to trump up the additional charge of "Not paying enough attention to me." J.M. Archer (talk) 21:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok clearly you mis-understood the point of me bringing up the lack of response. I could give a rip less if he paid attention to me. What I think everyone has wished for him to do is to pay attention to his own behaviour and take the steps necessary to rectify it, as it has been pointed out by numerous other individuals. To date - and to the effect of the point - his lack of response and his continued demonstrated behaviour indicates no desire to rectify the situation. Not sure why you feel that merely acking the endless complaints, nevermind actually addressing the issue equates to "getting bogged down" vs. ignoring it and continuing on his way. Srobak (talk) 23:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

No; I think my initial statement above was unclear. Hopefully I can resolve that, but (no snark intended) I'm not sure what you mean by "acking," and so I'm not certain of how to interpret what you wrote above. J.M. Archer (talk) 19:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI In this context i think "acking" is short for "acknowledging". DES ^(talk) 01:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems, given Preston's refusal to engage, that the stated goal of this RfC is impossible. That leaves me with the impression that there is another, unstated goal, to which I alluded. I did not mean to imply that such a goal would be inappropriate, nor that addressing concerns regarding this editor would be "getting bogged down." I meant only that any editor interested only in working on an encyclopedia might see any distraction from that effort as such. It's just that, (again) given the lack of communication from the other party, this seems like a checkpoint in pursuit of some other goal. Effort here seems intended to strengthen evidence in some later effort.

This may in fact be a matter of policy--of having to do X and Y before proceeding to Z, which may be the most appropriate in the end; that sort of thing is probably over my head.

J.M. Archer (talk) 19:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh--and I'm sorry for the insult caused by my first response. It wasn't my intention to belittle this effort. I only have an instinctive aversion to punishing someone for doing literally nothing (that is, for not responding rather than necessarily ignoring). My automobile registration was recently two months delinquent, so maybe that's why I'm so sympathetic. :) J.M. Archer (talk) 19:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

An RFC is indeed a normal step before banning someone for continued incivility, but generally the hope is that things won't need to go down that path. Given the response below, I am now much more hopeful that an amicable and appropriate conclusion can be reached than i was. DES ^(talk) 01:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Preston's own comments

I was impressed by DESiegel's summary. Obviously 79 times out of 300 being offensive is a heavy proportion. I thought I only did it occasionally.

I'm being counseled for anger in my real life right now and have been advised that "working on the little things" is the most effective way to gain mastery over big things. I consider being annoyed by bad writing to be a little thing, to which I obviously have been overreacting. This has given me much pleasure. But not of a kind that builds character. So I'd like to have the chance to deal with my "bourgeois suffering," as Pema Chodron calls it, and continue editing but without being offensive. It's uncomfortable to resist flinging insults because that's what I'm used to, but it would exercise the better side of me to make edits while giving clinical, civil edit comments.

In other words, please gimme another chance. --Preston McConkie ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

How could you be unaware of the trouble you were causing when so many called you on it over so many months? Why did you ignore them? Omnedon (talk) 13:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of the past, would you be willing to accept a "Civility parole" in which you agree not to make uncivil edit summaries, and to accept sanctions should you violate this promise? The exact details can be worked out, but such "paroles" are IMO much more effective when the subject accepts them with a healthy impulse toward change, rather than having them imposed against his will.

As I said elsewhere it is my view that your edfits have been of significant benefit, so I would like you to continue making them with, as you say "clinical, civil edit comments." DES ^(talk) 01:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I think "edit summaries" is too vague and should include all incivility. I've been quiet as I've been involved with a kerfluffle with this user (and is, quite literally, the only kerfluffle I even remember while on Wikipedia) and didn't feel comfortable chirping in. However, personally, I think it goes beyond just the edit summaries and he doesn't understand how to interact with others during a disagreement. Previously, the user and I got in a skirmish over, of all things, graham cracker crust. Despite the fact that I said in multiple locations I was going to drop it and ended up blanking the convo on my talk page to stop it as best as I could figure out, the user reverted it. Even more, the user then copy/pasted the convo to his talk page here (which I technically could not revert, despite the convo occuring 100% on my page). Again, he never responded to warnings about his civility except with more incivility. It's up to y'all though; I haven't had a run-in with Preston since then (thank goodness), but I figured I'd bring it to attention. I'm bowing out again because, honestly, dealing with this user frightens me and I'd just rather avoid as much as possible with them; I just thought you ought to know. --13² 05:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, the terms can be worked out. While that incident, standing on its own, would not IMO approach block or RFC levels, it is part of the issue. What I am after here is Preston McConkie's agreement that the price of "another chance" is a promise to abide strictly by the civility policy, and the agreement of others here that such a promise, backed by an editing restriction, will deal with this matter for now. DES ^(talk) 12:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Thirteen squared, I would agree that there is more to this than just edit summaries -- for example, there are things like this which was questioned with no response or result. Recently, though, the edit summary situation has been the most visible symptom of the problem and most of the direct evidence of strong incivility comes from there. I would point out that in his only response here so far, he doesn't even go so far as to apologize; and I find it bothersome that it took this much poking and prodding to elicit even that response. Frankly, I'm skeptical; he certainly knew he was offending people because he was told about it over and over. I think it's far more likely that he simply realized he was nearing a ban, and decided that he needed to engage at least a little bit. I don't think we need editors like him. That said, if he agrees to be both civil and responsive, and if strong sanctions would result if he stepped out of line again, then that might work. Omnedon (talk) 13:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Preston, some suggestions that might help your case. Concentrate on wit and humour in your posts and edit summaries. Do not use words that people might find offensive. Respond (politely) to comments on your talk page and others. The occasional apology would be good at times. It would be a pity to lose your copyediting skills just because some people do not have a sense of humour. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Concentrating on putting wit and humor into edit summaries would be a poor use of anyone's energy. Such summaries are merely meant to indicate in a clear and very concise way the change that was made. Also, people's senses of humor have nothing to do with this matter, since it relates to insulting behavior, not comedy. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 11:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Martin, this is not about humor. It's about civility, and civility is not optional. Preston has not just gone "a bit too far", nor does he simply use "colorful language"; rather, he has gone way over the line and has been extremely offensive to other editors, over and over. As Huwmanbeing points out, edit summaries are for describing edits and nothing more. Omnedon (talk) 13:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

More recently

Take a look at Preston's more recent contributions. They show significant change in terms of edit summaries- I think he's made an effort to improve a lot, and it's worked. Anyone else? DES? Omnedon? ALI ^{nom nom} 01:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Well I guess it is more polite and informative, which is a good thing. I stll think that it is a pity to see an editor's natural style suppressed in this way (not that I wish to support incivility, you understand) but I wish Prestonmcconkie the best of luck in his new incarnation. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

There's no way to know for sure; remember, after this was taken to Wikiquette Alerts in January, he stopped his offensive behavior entirely for over a month before starting up again. As for his "natural style" of badmouthing people, it is certainly no pity that it should be suppressed. Omnedon (talk) 12:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Hm. Well, there's been no problem since this RFC, and he's been very active as of late. I think he's clearly worked to improve. Preston's not a vandal, he doesn't tread quietly after warnings and then start up again. ALI ^{nom nom} 17:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has stated that he is a vandal, and I will certainly state positively that he is not a vandal; but what you describe is exactly what he has done in the past. The evidence is clear. As I stated before, after the WQA he did "tread lightly" for well over a month before returning to his pattern. On what basis do you say he doesn't? He has only to say here that he realizes his past behavior was unacceptable and that he intends to stop; but he has not done so. Omnedon (talk) 19:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

On what basis do you say that he has not stopped -- at least for now?

"He might start again" is not the same thing as "he continues without stopping." WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I never said he has not stopped. I'm saying that he has stopped and started before now when he has been questioned about it. Perhaps he has stopped for good; but the whole point of this process was to try to accomplish that very thing. If he has stopped and won't start again, fine; but that has not been his pattern, and we can assume nothing from his present behavior either way because he refuses to engage. Omnedon (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Really? Then how am I to interpret your statement immediately above, "he intends to stop; but he has not done so"? A reasonable person does not understand "he has not done so" as meaning "he has done so". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

You mis-read. I have already acknowledged that he has stopped for now. What I said above was, "He has only to say here that he realizes his past behavior was unacceptable and that he intends to stop; but he has not done so." In other words, he has not made a clear statement of that sort. The single statement we have from him is vague and insufficient at best, and even that seems to have been provided only grudgingly after much discussion by others. Omnedon (talk) 22:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

ALI: The contribution history shows that Preston had a period of civility after the last warning, then resumed his previous behavior. This justifies skepticism. All we can really know for sure is that he's doing better now. Time will tell if the improvement is permanent. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 22:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Why not leave this RFC open indefinitely. This way this positive behaviour may be helped to last a long time. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 04:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI

This diff regards a mid-2009 response by the user regarding this topic. So he has/did have some engagement at one point contrary to the RfCs statement. Probably already been brought up. --SGGH ^ping! 15:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The RfC, created in March, is correct in stating that Preston ignored other editors' concerns and had avoided engagement on this matter for several months. The posting you cite, in the middle of last year, does nothing to invalidate that. The diff is actually somewhat damning, since it makes it clear that Preston knew his behavior was wrong, but continued it regardless. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 12:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)