`:Sorry you are plain wrong.  See comments on the talk page of the article, at ANI and also on your talk page    ::OK that would be 2 editors in the previous dispute and 1 editor for the dispute now, not a consensus from the previous dispute. And if it was the consensus then why are we even having a DRN right now for the image? ::But again for the nth time, 3RR is not subject to whether or not you're right.    :::Very true and you trapped Widescreen with that between the two of you last time.  I'm not that naive.   You are also making misleading statements.  Its not clear that we have a DRN for the image. You have added a comment to the DRN but that is it.  See the quotes on your talk page (and I have also placed them at ANI): the image idea was also rejected.  Now DRN cannot resolve the issue but the clear consensus (three to zero) was that text was enough.  THat is the default position until you can change it.  As I say I am dubious about the text as well, its not balanced but I will address that next week.    ::::I never ``trapped`` anyone nor forced Widescreen to edit war nor did I say there's a consensus for the image, what I said was there was no consensus not to include the image (which you mistakenly think there was even though one of your citations is from the current dispute) in the last one. If there was, we wouldn't be having the DRN righy now. ::::That aside you already violated 3RR and by not reverting the violation.    :::::If you check the comments I summarised on your talk page you will find your wikilawyering over images and tables was covered.     `