Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Docu

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 20:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 09:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC).

---

• Docu (talk · contribs · logs)

---

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

Docu (talk · contribs · logs) refuses to follow the WP:SIGNATURE guideline and include a link to either his user page or talk page in his signature, and he almost never includes the timestamp (I haven't viewed every one of his contribs, so it's possible he may have done so at one time). He has been asked multiple times over a more than a year to adjust his signature to comply with the guideline, but he either completely ignores the requests or dismisses them as unimportant or not worth his time. In every instance I could find, he "archives" them by deleting the requests from his talk page.

This is disruptive, and therefore a breach of the civility policy on Wikipedia. Docu has been an editor here for a long time, and an admin for a large percentage of that time, so he must realize how important it is for editors to act in a civil and non-disruptive manner (even more so if you are an admin).

Desired outcome

The desired outcome is Docu consistently using a normal signature with a link to either his user page or his talk page (or both), and with the timestamp as well. Nothing more, nothing less. He knows how to correctly use a signature as evidenced here.

Addendum: As a couple people have brought this up (through various comments and views), I thought I'd address it. This RFC is not seeking to block or desysop Docu (though there are some outside views which have stated that as a potential consequence they would like to see). The desired outcome is stated very clearly and concisely above, so please keep that in mind when offering an opinion here. Thank you.

Description

See above as there's no need to restate it here.

Evidence of disputed behavior

1. [1]
2. [2]
3. [3]
4. [4]
5. [5]
6. [6] (though he manually added the date to two of his responses here)
7. [7] (with manually-added date)
8. [8]
9. [9]
10. [10]
11. [11]
12. [12]
13. [13]
14. [14] (with manually added date)
15. [15] (with full timestamp, but no links)
16. [16] (with manually added date)
17. [17]
18. [18]
19. [19]
20. [20]

Applicable policies and guidelines

1. WP:SIGNATURE guideline
2. WP:DISRUPT guideline
3. WP:CIVIL policy
4. Wikipedia:ADMIN#Administrator_conduct regarding "failure to commmunicate"

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

1. from Rarelibra (12 March 2008)
2. from Gary King (26 July 2008) (rest of conversation: [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26])
3. from Quiddity (6 September 2008) (also [27] and [28])
4. from Exploding Boy (9 September 2008) (also [29])
5. from Adambro (16 September 2008)
6. from Adambro (17 September 2008) (also [30], [31], [32])
7. from RFBailey (17 September 2008) (also [33])
8. from Tbsdy lives (21 September 2008)
9. from JzG (27 September 2008)
10. from TenOfAllTrades (30 September 2008) (also [34], [35])
11. from Reedy (2 April 2009)
12. from Aervanath (3 April 2009) (also [36], [37])
13. from Stifle (20 May 2009)
14. from Edison (20 May 2009)
15. from Treasury Tag (27 May 2009)
16. from Hipocrite (28 May 2009)
17. from Cirt (2 June 2009)
18. from Jayron32 (3 June 2009)
19. from Nihonjoe (17 June 2009)

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute

1. "Archiving" without responding to Hipocrite and TreasuryTag
2. Comment stating he didn't think Quiddity had any problem finding his user page
3. Ignoring inquiry regarding signature (also [38])
4. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive477#User:Docu's signature (September 2008)
5. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive194#User:Docu's signature violates WP:SIGNATURE (June 2009)
6. "Archiving" without giving a real response to TenOfAllTrades (also [39])
7. "Archiving" without responding to Nihonjoe

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute.

1. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
2. Cirt (talk) 22:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Adambro (talk) 22:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
4. Edison (talk) 22:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
5. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
6. Exploding Boy (talk) 02:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
7. ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 06:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
8. Stifle (talk) 08:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
2. Tarc (talk) 22:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
3. This is appalling behavior from an admin. Skinwalker (talk) 23:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
4. Nakon 23:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
5. LibStar (talk) 23:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC) fully endorse, I also recently tried to ask Docu about this with no response [40]
6. I am sad that Docu doesn't want to work together. Sadly I have to endorse this. Basket of Puppies 00:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
7. If WP:NVC weren't a lie this would have been taken care of long ago. Anomie⚔ 00:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
8. I too have asked. The lack of a time stamp is particularly trying. It is also dismissive for an admin to say 'see the history' instead of archiving his talk page (unless he is trying to hide the evidence of the multitude of editors who have queried his signature). It will probably take me some minutes to find the diff in the history as 'what links here' will not work ... Occuli (talk) 01:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC) — User:Tbsdy lives (20 Sept 08), TenOfAllTrades, Andy Mabbett, Adambro, Guy, Occuli (27 Sept 08). QED. His replies are also unsatisfactory. Occuli (talk) 01:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
9. Unconscionable behavior in an admin. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 01:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
10. seicer | talk | contribs 03:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
11.  Sandstein  05:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
12. JPG-GR (talk) 05:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

1. I attempt to keep my comments on talk pages consistently formatted, indented and in sequence, add relevant links and date/time when necessary. All my comments clearly identifying me as the one who made it (no need to check the user page to see if there is a difference between the name on the signature and the user name).
2. Yesterday I left three notes on 日本穣's talk page. Each time, this gives 日本穣 a link "(last change)". With this link 日本穣 sees who made the comment and when. I don't see how 日本穣 would need an additional link to identify who made the comment.
   日本穣 added a link to my user page before his first comment.
   On my successive comments, while avoiding to discuss the underlying question, 日本穣 went on to issue additional warnings about the problems he had with my subsequent post. It's not clear how there could be any additional problem. Obviously 日本穣 doesn't have to discuss his TfD closing any further, but if 日本穣 was really interested in discussion as seems to signal his warning, he should do so. Yet, 日本穣 even requested on my talk page that I return to fix the signature [41] (BTW 日本穣 = User:Nihonjoe)
3. Following the comments last September, I made an attempt to discuss WP:SIG at its talk page. This was so thoroughly disrupted by another editor that I had to withdraw from the discussion. I don't recall that this lead to any consequences for the other editor though.
4. I have some problems to respond to LibStar's comments and I don't think I can provide him with any user specific guidance or intervention. I would probably have a COI if I would do so in the future.
   While I initially thought that he made interesting points, e.g. on #List of ambassadors, subsequently I came across his comments elsewhere (also mentioned there) which looks to me as if he would be arguing two opposing points of view at the same time.
   Rather than attempting to discuss the underlying issues, he seems drawn to flood my talk page with his comments (unfortunately initially I did respond to some of this, but subsequently ask him to mention each point just once). He even continues after he presented an excuse (which I accepted) and starts all over.
   He seems to use a similar approach with other people who happen to disagree with him on some question at one point of a time.
   Personally, I don't think a comment like the one I mention here is acceptable and he shouldn't really expect any additional answers from me. Still, he continues to flood my talk page (and numerous other people's talk pages).
5. Personally, I think a signature where the link "talk" leads to any other page than the user's talk page is misleading. This doesn't seem to draw any comments on users' talk pages though. It's even being used by administrators that try to provide others guidance on signatures.
6. LiquidThreads should bring everyone a standardized comment format for talk pages.

• Docu (talk · message · contribs · global contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · user creation · block user · block log · count · total · logs · summary · email | lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · spi · socks | rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp | current rights · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) | rights · renames · blocks · protects · deletions · rollback · admin · logs | UHx · AfD · UtHx · UtE)
• Date: June 18, 2009
• Time: 08:30
• [ verify]

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside views

These are summaries written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

Outside view by Viridae

This is what I wrote last time it came up on ANI. I stand by it now, (though without the blocking bit yet - let the RfC run its course)

Screw it, I'm sick of these threads. Before anyone says the lack of a proper signature isn't a problem, it undoubtedly IS a problem if so many people are complaining about it. And it will continue to be a problem until it is changed (and this endless cycle of complaints about it will continue) Lack of a link to the user or talk pages and lack of a time stamp is downright inconvenient for everyone who wishes to contact him, and given that he is an admin, it should be relatively easy for all users, not just experienced ones, to find his talk page without having to navigae there the hard way. He has never given any explanation whatsoever for the lack of a link and timestamp - and honestly a suitable explanation hasn't been apparent to anyone commenting on the issue before. One pigheaded admin shouldn't be the source of so many issues over something so bloody trivial. We wouldn't tolerate that from any non-admin. Either he changes it or he is blocked until it is changed. Simple answer. ViridaeTalk 09:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Viridae^Talk 23:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
2. Cirt (talk) 23:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
3. ^LeaveSleaves 23:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
4. Agree, block him until he complies. Admins are expected to display exemplary behavior, so it doesn't matter that it's just a guideline. Cla68 (talk) 23:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
5. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
6. Not sure about the blocking part, but this really is getting ridiculous. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
7. Except with respect to Docu's not having offered an explanation; as UncleG observed in the most recent AN/I thread, Docu, if long ago and only once, did address the issue directly. The explanation, though, is utterly unsatisfactory, and so I join fully in the final analysis here. Joe 23:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
8. EdJohnston (talk) 00:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
9. I didn't want my email account linked with Wikipedia, but I'm an admin, so I have to. Which is as it should be. Admins should be helpful and easily contactable. There's no reason that I can see for him to have his sig this way other than making a point. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
10. Any "newbie" insisting on this behavior would have been blocked as disruptive long ago. Anomie⚔ 00:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
11. T'Shael, Lord of the Vulcans 00:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
12. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
13. not sure about blocking, but his behaviour is really incorrect and stubborn. Enric Naval (talk) 01:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
14. kotra (talk) 01:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
15. LibStar (talk) 01:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
16. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 01:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
17. Occuli (talk) 01:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
18. seicer | talk | contribs 02:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
19. Enough is enough. Tarc (talk) 02:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
20. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
21. If even a few people say they have trouble communicating with someone, it is, prima facie, true, or the issue would not be raised. It is any editor's responsibility to address this. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
22. This is basically signature trolling at this point. Times change. Get with the program.--chaser (talk) 04:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
23.  Sandstein  05:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
24. JPG-GR (talk) 06:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
25. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
26. Daniel (talk) 07:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
27. Stifle (talk) 08:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Outside view by Baseball Bugs

The operative word is Guideline. If you want to make a signature a requirement, make it a Rule. As long as it remains only a Guideline, pushing this issue amounts to harassment. Is it annoying? Yes. But you can always go to the history and click on his talk page. Two keystrokes. Big deal. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
2. --M^ask? 23:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
3. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
4. Absolutely. We don't need a rule for this.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
5. Pzrmd (talk) 00:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
6. Agreed. This RFC has the stink of a witchhunt. I notice several of the editors who endorsed this RFC were recently in disputes with User:Docu over several so-called "bilateral relations" articles at AFD.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

   Most of the editors commenting in this RFC have been totally uninvolved with bilateral articles. For the record, yes I've been involved in bilateral AfDs. LibStar (talk) 03:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

7. It would be good if this much effort was put into dealing with the abusive admins. Acalamari 01:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
8. Certainly annoying, but seriously... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Outside view by Xeno

Docu is a talented, hardworking, & helpful administrator. However, his non-standard sig use makes it difficult to enforce the signature guideline as users point to his signature use and complain that we don't enforce it consistently. As such, I urge him to begin using a signature with at least one link and a timestamp when posting on pages other than his talk page.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. –xeno^talk 23:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
2. Also endorse this one. Not using a sig is petulant and contrarian, as well as dickish, but seriously, we need to stop beating a dead horse here. Yes, it's wrong, no, its not worth all this drama. -M^ask? 23:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
4. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
5. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 00:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
6. Good idea. The easiest way out of this drama is a simple sig change; that's all. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
7. It's a guideline. Not a rule. But guidelines make people's lives easier. If Docu continues to dare to be different, that should be the end of it. Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
8. Enric Naval (talk) 01:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
9. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 01:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
10. Occuli (talk) 01:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
11. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
12.  Sandstein  05:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
13. IMO people shouldn't be making such a big deal out of this, but Docu could easily resolve much of the dispute by simply linking to his userpage. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
14. Fine with me. As long as his current sig does not disrupt the process by impersonating someone else or inserting spam, as long as it identifies this and only this user, I would not really care. But he should listen to the majority too. NVO (talk) 05:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
15. Stifle (talk) 08:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Outside view by wangi

Lets not forget that WP:SIGNATURE is a guideline and that user preferences allow a great many different format signatures to be used. Many of those are in fact even more confusing to determine the actual link to the user and talk pages. In many cases a simple "bare bones" signature is much more helpful and less disruptive to the flow of discussions. The page history contains a link to the user's details. Also I would disagree with the implication that blanking ones own talk page is disruptive - it is an indication that the comment has been read and also an optimal way to archive.

If it is desirable to have a link to talk and user pages on each talk page comment, then it should be considered to make this a policy and remove the configuration options which can lead to confusing signatures being used by many.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. wangi (talk) 23:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
2. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Although I don't agree about the possible policy. Pzrmd (talk) 04:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Outside view by Libstar

Whilst I agree with Xeno about Docu being hardworking, I do not regard him as helpful as I would expect from an admin. See these 2 exchanges regarding his non identification of being an admin [42], [43]. This strongly relates to his attitude to not allow easy communication with users as reflected in his signature. Everyone should refer to the policy Wikipedia:ADMIN#Administrator_conduct regarding "failure to commmunicate".

Users who endorse this summary:

1. LibStar (talk) 23:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
2. I was involved with the second exchange above. The difficult communication and refusal to answer when asked if he is an administrator is more concerning to me than the signature issue. Drawn Some (talk) 00:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Cirt (talk) 00:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
4. T'Shael, Lord of the Vulcans 00:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
5. kotra (talk) 01:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
6. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
7. I would've signed on for xeno's, but "helpful" is just impossible to swallow. Tarc (talk) 02:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
8.  Sandstein  05:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
9. ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 06:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
10. Stifle (talk) 08:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Outside view by Pzrmd

Docu has been an established admin before (if not everyone) almost everyone here had even heard of Wikipedia. He has signed this way for years, and suddenly a bunch of trendy new cliquish users/officers (Clarification just for TenOfAllTrades: Not everyone involved is a trendy new cliquish user/officer) decide they don't like it, and harass him nonstop about it, even suggesting s/he should be blocked. What if Docu were to unblock him/herself? Are we going to strip Docu of adminship? Docu has made over 90,000 edits, and certainly deserves to sign in an unconventional way. Calling it "appalling behavior" is just…weird. This is probably the most absurd RfC I have ever come across. Pzrmd (talk) 00:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Pzrmd (talk) 00:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
2. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
3. An indefinite block or a desysop over his signature seems excessive. I find the really flashly signatures more annoying. Acalamari 01:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
4. If they've got an issue with the user's fitness as an admin, then they should make the issue about that; not about "breaking" a non-existent rule. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
5. Fully agreed. It is annoying, but it's not a big deal. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Interesting that Pzrmd also has copied Docu and signed the same way, [44] and [45]. LibStar (talk) 07:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Outside view by Xymmax

1. The editor's chosen means of signing complies with the primary purpose of WP:SIGNATURE - others are able to determine the account to which the edit should be attributed.

2. Information such as time and date is recorded by the software for those who are interested. Nothing requires an editor to advertise such information with every edit made.

3. It appears that when the editor has chosen to link his/her signature, it has been done by manually typing the wiki links. (Has anyone noticed an edit in which this user even used a tilde? Is it possible his/her keyboard varies from the one commonly used in western countries?)

4. None of the diffs provided reflect an instance in which it is claimed that an unlinked signature stopped anyone from actually contacting this user.

5. Despite all the talk about links, I can't help but think that there is only one for which this discussion is destined. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done}
2. Agree with 1-4 (though re #2, timestamps make threads easier to follow). And yes, re #3, Docu has commented elsewhere that they have a non-standard keyboard that takes some combination keystroke. –xeno^talk 02:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Ya. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Outside view by Seicer

I'm tired of these threads regarding an administrator whose RFA gives no confidence towards his administrating abilities. Quite frankly, the signature issue is one bit of the problem. There are greater issues to deal with as well, such as a repeated pattern of rude, disconcerting and anti-social behavior that is unbecoming of an administrator, and a refusal to answer reasonable questions. He has also been found through consensus, to have abused his administrative powers in an impartial matter where he had a conflict of interest, and has closed numerous AFDs in a biased manner.

His signature leaves me little desire to actually contact Docu or have any form of communication. If he chooses to make himself unavailable, then we -- as a community -- have the right to ignore any of his unsigned statements as nonsense. seicer | talk | contribs 02:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Cirt (talk) 02:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
2. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Edison (talk) 03:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
4. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 05:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
5. LibStar (talk) 05:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Outside view by Juliancolton

Is this RfC about Docu's method of signing his posts? If so, this RfC is unjustified in my opinion. Yes, it's annoying, but it's hardly "appealing" or "disruptive". Other involved editors are blowing this way out of proportion, and I agree with Baseball Bugs in that this is bordering on harassment. We have plenty of abusive admins; Docu is hardly one of them. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. But I don't want to say it's annoying; it would weaken my case. Pzrmd (talk) 06:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Outside view by LeaveSleaves

I see a simple problem here: There is no signature. And that's what makes this more than a WP:SIG issue. Had there been a signature, there would have been a timestamp at the least and we could argue if this is acceptable under the guideline. I can understand a person's tendency to find a way around a rule (or a guideline for the matter), but to simply ignore it for no valid reason is completely inappropriate and unbecoming of a respected user, admin or otherwise. And I also can't understand the arguments other users are making that you can check the page history and see who made the comment. If that's so, then why am I signing this post and why are you signing your posts? I'll tell you why: because we consider that as our responsibility, as any other user should. And shirking it for no apparent reason should not be accepted. ^LeaveSleaves 06:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. LibStar (talk) 06:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC) well said
2. Cirt (talk) 07:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
3. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 08:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Outside view by

Users who endorse this summary:

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.