Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hullaballoo Wolfowitz

In order to remain listed at 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 &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 18:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



''Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page.''

Statement of the dispute
''This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.''

Desired outcome
''This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.''

Description
Repeated pattern of wiki-bullying, reversion without discussion, giving users silent treatment.

Evidence of disputed behavior
I'll just copy what I said at ANI:


 * Removing a "verify credibility" tag, calling my addition of it "baseless" when the site in question is plainly a fansite
 * Constantly hounding me at AFD, often calling for completely out of process "speedy keeps" that don't meet any criterion of WP:SK
 * Constantly blanking even good faith comments that I make on his talk page
 * Constantly undoing redirects that I make, suggesting that I discuss them, no matter how uncontroversial
 * It's been going on since September:
 * "speedy keep" (September 18)
 * "speedy keep…purposefully disruptive" (September 24)
 * "disruptive nomination" (September 27)
 * "Once again, we have a completely uninformed nomination of a major song by a major songwriter, possibly the worst since the Dead Flowers AFD." (September 29)
 * "trout slap the nominator for wasting other's time by frivolously renominating" (October 10)
 * "trout slap the nominator for acute and chronicnoncompliance with WP:BEFORE" (October 14)
 * "aggressive deletion posturing is clearly disruptive" (October 17)
 * He undid my closure of the Reggie Young AFD once I withdrew and closed it, saying that the closure was "disruptive".
 * Back in September, he kept reverting my redirection of Big Time Rush discography even though 100% of that article's content was already at Big Time Rush (band). I asked him repeatedly why he thought I should discuss what seemed like an entirely non-controversial redirect, and he also remained silent. (The article was then taken to AFD, where the consensus was to redirect.)

As someone pointed out in the ANI thread (see WP:ANI), Hullaballoo has a history of bullying other editors. To quote: "This editor continuously bullies, constantly criticizes the work of others while contributing nothing of his own, and refuses to discuss with any editor whose opinion differs from his own…Hullaballoo is adding sourcing that TPH thinks inappropriate? Well, Hullaballoo repeatedly removed valid sourcing that I added, when it backed-up facts that he did not want to see on Wikipedia. He would claim sources such as the Los Angeles Times were "unreliable" or "Wiki-mirrors" and edit-war them out beyond 3rr. Comparing Hullaballoo's actions between me and TPH we see a consistency not in Wiki-philosophy, but only in his techniques of Wiki-bullying. And whenever his actions are brought up for review, guess what happens? The victim's history is instead reviewed and criticized."

Another editor commented that a WQA would be fruitless since one filed in September (see here) just went nowhere.

tl;dr: It's clear that Hullaballoo has a history of wiki-bullying not just me but other editors as well, and this has apparently been going on for over a year. We need to stop dancing in circles and just get to some sort of conclusion — namely that Hullaballoo is being extremely uncooperative. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * ETA: More recently, he has falsely accused me of BLP violation on Talk:You_Ain't_Goin'_Nowhere. I still don't see how "Doesn't seem to have any sort of credibility" is a BLP violation. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 17:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Applicable policies and guidelines
WP:3RR, WP:BRD (outright refuses to discuss changes, saying "I said so in the edit summary" at best), WP:ATTACK (saying that my edits to his talk page are "paranoid ranting").

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute
I have made several replies on his talk page to ask why he disputes my edits, and not once has he ever responded.

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute

 * User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
 * I have had a similar history of repeated disputes with this user, usually involving edit-warring and refusal to discuss, and I know of several other editors who have as well. This goes back over a year at least. Will prepare a statement and evidence. Dekkappai (talk) 20:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Presumably TenPoundHammer.
 * Added by NuclearWarfare to ensure that this RFC isn't deleted for lack of certification even though two users wrote the statements above. Please remove and delete this page if I am incorrect. NW ( Talk ) 03:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Confirmed. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 17:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

 * -- Cirt (talk) 09:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * -- Reyk (talk) 09:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * -- Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 18:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

View by certifier Dekkappai
''moved from Outside views section as this is a view by a certifier. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)''

To my knowledge, I first encountered Hullaballoo in July 2009, and my experience at that time set the pattern for our future interaction. His project at the time seems to have been a mass-removal from all articles on adult models of claims that the subject was known for the size of her bust. Apparently it's a "BLP violation" to claim that a model with a big bust is known for her big bust, unless that claim is extensively cited. They might sue us. So, at the article on Sora Aoi, which I was watching, he removed "who is best known for her large breasts". I reverted, pointing out that sources throughout the article justify this claim. he reverts, I revert, and he reverts. Finally, I add a cite to a source (already in the article) with a quote specifically stating the obvious. The cited source is http://movie.walkerplus.com/, a mainstream, reliable Japanese source. Since it's in Japanese, I even provided the exact text and a translation: "蒼井そらさんは、155cmと小柄な体にGカップのバストで大人気のアイドル ("Miss Sora Aoi, a petite, 155cm tall idol popular for her G-Cup bust"). Anyone who thinks that would lay the issue to rest has not interacted with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. After biding his time for a year, in August 2010 he revisited the article and removed the cited claim, stating "claim not properly supported by cited source; other ref reqd". By this time, I was sufficiently sickened of the time wasted with Wiki-bullies like him, and with Wikipedia's tolerance of this sort of behavior, that I just observed it with mild bemusement, and left the project.

Another encounter comes to mind: The edit history of Felicia Tang of late Sept-early Oct 2009 shows classic Hullaballoo behavior. While he has the article up for AfD, he repeatedly interferes with attempts to improve the article. Here he places a "Refimprove" tag on an article sourced (at the time of tagging) to KTLA News, CBS News, Pasadena Star-News. After the inevitable edit war when his edits are reverted (this time over the inappropriate tag), he takes the unusual step of instigating a discussion on the talk page. His position, without evidence, is that these reliable news sources are mirrors of Wikipedia. During the discussion, the Los Angeles Times is added to the sourcing, and is also, without evidence, labeled "unreliable", and a Wiki-mirror.

The edit history of The Seven Minutes (film) - July 2 - July 4, 2010 shows Hullaballoo repeatedly removed sourced information. The information was that the film attracted attention due to the nude appearance of a certain actress. Hullaballoo removes Google news cites and then removes cites to specific articles with quotes from the actress. This eventually leads to the article's protection, and then a ridiculous level of over-sourcing this one small bit of a generally poorly-sourced article to quell his alleged concerns. (Russ Meyer known as "King of the nudies?" nine sources for that potential BLP violation...)

Long anticipating some sort of RfC on Hullaballoo, I was prepared to make a "Deletionism is fine, to an extent, but..." statement. I had planned a statement on how insulting it is to devoted contributors to be constantly nit-picked and to have sourced content repeatedly removed by an editor who has apparently never contributed any content. However, looking through some of Hullaballoo's encounters with TenPoundHammer is very surprising. Though in my encounters with him, he has been pedantic to the point of absurdity in removing sourcing and citations, with TPH he takes the exact opposite stance. He repeatedly reverts, without discussion, TPH's concerns about sourcing, "notability", etc. There is no consistency except in the edit-warring, and the refusal to discuss or compromise.

A quick look around Wikipedia shows that I (on the "Inclusionist" side of the spectrum), and TenPoundHammer (on the "Deletionist" side), are not the only editors with whom Hullaballoo has created difficulties.


 * July 2009: "To all editors/ Hullaballoo situation" several editors are troubled by Hullaballoo's actions, and consider opening an RfC. Some relevant quotes: "Saving a page- Hullaballoo again" Hullaballoo seen to be Wiki-hounding and bullying, leading at least one victim to make alleged "personal attacks" which Hullaballoo promptly reports. More discussion related to this situtation: "How many constructive, helpful and kind editors does this make that have abandoned the site because of one person? One person! Is Hullaballoo an employee of Wikipedia or something?... I just can't wrap my head around how this guy gets by with the little bit of behavior I know of... Should I expect him to scrutinize each and every attempt I make on this site?"


 * September 2009, a situation with Hullaballoo edit-warring without discussion: "I came to Hullaballoo in good faith to ask why he was repeatedly deleting citations in this article. He responded by blanking my comments and issuing personal insults. I see he is back to his old tricks again."


 * July 2010: 9to5 – Days in Porn Rather than tagging for sourcing, he simply removes a list of interviewees from an article on a film; He is reverted. Rather than discuss, Hullaballoo reverts, instigating an edit-war; After an editor takes up the task of sourcing each name, Hullaballoo Again deletes the list; a third editor reverts Hullaballoo Hullaballoo again blindly reverts.


 * August 2010: "User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz refusing to discuss in relation to the use of BLP cleanup template" "The main issue here is should an experienced editor be able to revert other experienced editors three times without any discussion?... I've been asked/told not to post on his talk page anymore, I'm not going to defy him and notify him of this report..."

In conclusion, Hullaballoo seems to believe his position on any content is absolutely correct. He seems to become personally attached to his edits, incapable of judging whether a reverting editor has a valid point, and incapable of compromise. He invariably reverts without discussing. Even if his view is 100% correct, his edit-warring and refusal to discuss puts off other editors, prevents their learning, and can drive away potentially good editors. More than one editor has felt, after first encountering him, that he has followed them and based his editing behavior on past interaction. Hullaballoo should not be allowed to revert any reversion of his edits without first discussing and gaining an understanding/compromise/"consensus" from other involved editors.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Dekkappai (talk) 22:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC) [Note: Moving my statement here. I'm also unfamiliar with how these things work and put my "statement" above, which is really "outside view" in relation to TPH's dealings with HW]. Dekkappai (talk) 17:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) -- Cirt (talk) 16:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) I do not recall interacting with HW personally, but the above history, which is well substantiated, is typical of other self-appointed members of the WikiCommittee for the Propagation of Virtue. No matter how stringent the sourcing, they always have something to object to on articles about sex, porn stars, etc., and always from the high horse of WP:BLP. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) I was there. Why should I have had to provide such extreme oversourcing for one easy-to-verfy fact?  He would not accept one or two or three... and then and even with his very limited particpation in that discussion, he simply abandoned the discussion when facts and sources and consensus was contrary to his wishes. His unwillingness to communicate and sense of WP:OWN when one does not agree with him are increasingly worrisome.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:07, 18 November 2010 (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.'' ''

I believe the certification of this RfC is improper and incomplete. The dispute that TPH has with HW is separate from the several past/now current disputes that HW has with Dekkappai even though they are of a similar nature. I was actually involved in the dispute that HW had with TPH in that I found TPH's behaviour uncivil in responding to HW's right to WP:BLANKING so I had reverted TPH at least twice   and warned him about edit warring.. I get it. You two don't like each other. However certification by an outside person to the dispute is improper.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Outside view
''This is a summary 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 Collect
HW clearly has civility issues. The claims of "stalking", however, are not sufficiently proven, and it appears that his positions on the AfDs were generally supported by others. HW should take this RFC/U as a reminder that editors do look at the language used in posts and edit summaries, and he should be more prudent in his use of language.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Collect (talk) 12:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Vodello (talk) 21:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Epbr123 (talk) 23:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) PhilKnight (talk) 00:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 00:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 00:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 7)    DGG ( talk ) 04:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Cube lurker (talk) 15:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) With reservations. See talk page for explanation. Dekkappai (talk) 17:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 10) Pretty much sums up my opinion of HW to a tee. He's a great vandalism fighter, know procedure and policy well and is probably a net positive to the project... once you get past that civility issue. Tabercil (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 11) —  Ancient Apparition  •  Champagne?  • 6:12pm • 07:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 12) Endorse, per Tabercil. David in DC (talk) 17:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 13) Endorse per Tabercil. Continued violations of WP:CIV and unwillingness to communicate are worrisome.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by Cyclopia
(I refer here only about what reported by Ten Pound Hammer) As far as I can see, HW was absolutely spot-on on each comment. Practically all the AfD's diffs linked by TPH ended up as nearly unanimous keeps. HW simply stated how and why the articles should be kept with cogent arguments and language was nearly always pretty civil, even if harsh at times. There is no evidence of hounding; anyway I'd say that keeping an eye on an editor like TPH with a penchant for hardly meaningful AfD nominations is more beneficial than bad. If anything, this RfC shows problematic behaviour from Ten Pound Hammer, in not only repeatidly failing WP:BEFORE and dismissing notability criteria, but also complaining of conspiracies by other editors when simply rethinking the approach to AfD would be much more useful. I recommend no action taken on HW for what is reported here by TPH, and I recommend TPH to voluntarily and temporarily disengage from AfD nominations.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1)  Cycl o pia  talk  23:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) I looked through TPH's complaints, and was about to write the same thing, but Cyclopia did it for me. The very first AFD link there, for Taral Wayne starts with TPH being unable to verify the subject's Hugo nominations... without looking on the Hugo page. I can fully understand HW's frustrated response. In some of the subsequent links, HW gets a bit stronger than I'd like, but looking at them all at once, I can see HW's frustration growing due to the cumulative effect. Defending articles from careless AFDs is a good thing. --GRuban (talk) 04:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) This is consistent with the outside view above. Defending from the exceptional careless AfDs  TPH is in the habit of making (possible more frequently than his good nominations) is very useful, but it should be done more temperately, in spite of the annoyance.    DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Cube lurker (talk) 15:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) None of the AfD comments seemed either particularly unreasonable or wildly at odds with the views of other editors. On the contrary, as stated by Cyclopedia, TPH has a tendency towards making the occasional fairly questionable AfD so HWs actions don't seem particularly out of place.-- K orr u ski Talk 11:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by Cherryblossom1982
I try to avoid "wiki-drama" and I haven't had much in the way of direct dealings with HW but I have witnessed first-hand the claims set out above and so endorsed them. Eight hours later, HW started a series of edits at Akiho Yoshizawa, a page I created. He made 13 separate deletions on that page and then went on to Mihiro, another article I have written, and made a single (so far) deletion there as well. I don't think this can reasonably be considered coincidence and it goes far beyond "civility issues" and imprudent language. I can only take this as blatant intimidation, bullying and an attempt to stifle free expression here at Wikipedia. Is this the kind of community we want?

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 06:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) This example of aggressive bullying about sums it up. Tarc (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Exactly the type of behavior I've encountered with Hullaballoo many times. It is bullying and the fact that it goes on with impunity drives away contributors. (note also that, though I don't think I worked much on this one, Akiho Yoshizawa is an article which falls under my area of editing interest). Dekkappai (talk) 17:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Further note: Revision history of Ryōko Mitake shows the same thing going on at an article I did start. If I were to revert any one of these deletions with giving my reasoning as a longtime prolific contributor, it would be ignored and the deletion immediately re-reverted. If I were to give my reason for disagreement with the deletion and request discussion, it would be ignored. Because this behavior is tacitly rewarded (HW is far more likely to be made an Admin because of this behavior than he is to be blocked), I have found it pointless to contribute here. Dekkappai (talk) 20:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) -- Cirt (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Varlaam (talk) 23:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) —  Ancient Apparition  •  Champagne?  • 6:12pm • 07:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) -- Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) -- Testales (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by Cube lurker
I've seen many examples of content conflict added by User:Dekkappai. There are primarily about the use of certain sources in articles BLP's about porn performers. There seems to be a lot of discussion on the editor involved, but I'm not seeing a comprehensive discussion on the serious question. Are these sources acceptable for a BLP or not. I'd suggest some sort of content RFC or noticeboard discussion. Until that issue is settled it appears that we have two users in a dispute that covers a specific subset of articles, as opposed fo some of the accusations that have been made.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) (As writer) Cube lurker (talk) 18:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by Testales
I have hesitated to respond here as it will lead to nothing as always and I guess most people here know that too including the user in question who does not see the RfC as important enough to even respond a single time. On the other hand that is not really surprising as Hullaballoo Wolfowitz that never seeks for discussion, I will give examples below. The reason why I now want to add some words is that Morbidthoughts seems to be trying to simply declare that RfC as beeing invalid by calling it "improper" and "incomplete" (what ever that means other than HW's is statement missing and maybe the desired outcome too).

The initial claim is "Repeated pattern of wiki-bullying, reversion without discussion, giving users silent treatment.", I can only sign that, it's not more and not less. It's not that he would ever obviously violate a "rule" with intention, he just "bends" them to a degree that I would expect they were not intended to be used. It is also not a single event, it is more his general behaviour and activities. Here are some typical examples of how he acts:


 * Repeated reverting simply because he can. In this case I re-added and re-worded facts that the subject said personally in a documentary which I especially got to verify the original claims that were removed by HW. But as he never saw it, it apparently can not be a valid source.


 * here is another edit war, HW against several other editors who are of the conviction that for models "whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance'" it is valid to keep a small NFC image under Fair use - in accordance with WP:NFC. At no time was Hullaballoo Wolfowitz trying to discuss this on any talk page. Only when finally forced he dropped a single statement and that was it.


 * I later took this NFC point in question to a discussion on the policy page as it actually should be obvious and if ignored in practice it would be contradiction. Well the 3-4 people who apparently own that policy page meanwhile did not see a contraction in deleting NFC content in such cases while at the same time having a rule that says something different and they were furthermore of the opinion that it is enough to have an image of a former model when she or he is 95. I am not commenting further on this outcome, the point a want to show is what Hullaballoo Wolfowitz' action here was. He did not even join the discussion (which alone would be surely no problem) but instead his action was this. I had used that article of a former Miss World as a simple example that images of a grandma would make no sense here. But instead on commenting somewhere in the discussion arround, the only thing that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz did was the removal of the 4 years old image in the example article just right after it was mentioned and while the discussion was still ongoing. So I seriously doubt that HW motives are here to improve the Wikipedia.

I will stop here, just a bit searching or looking on his talk page will bring up similiar situations as mentioned in this RfC. It is known that some editors get easily heated up when their work on articles is simply reverted over and over again without any other communication than revert/deletion summaries. This even more if the reverter's motives to improve an article by reverting or removing details are questionable. I have Hullaballoo Wolfowitz never seen adding any sources or replacing existing sources with better ones. Well, there is no rule that requires him to do that. But imagine there were from start on only people who are used to critize what other people build or destroy their work - who would actually have build up the wikipedia, up to a level that even allows such massive deleting? I think the Wikipedia currently has a little problem with hostility especially against new or unexperienced editors with bascially an attitude like "''It's their problem to add something perfectly written and optimal referenced if they don't want to get reverted". Aside from that if one looks closely at Hullaballoo Wolfowitz' activities often patterns become visible in his deletion/reverting, there is a undeniable impression that he tries to "punish" people by destroying their work. The more somebody goes to oppose him, the more they get deleted by him while he himself not even produces anything that could be deleted.

This is exactly what this RfC is about, to verify if this is not just an impression of a user who has issues with another user but instead a general behaviour of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz which can be observed by an outside viewer. If you look at his "contributions" you first see that he is highly active, deletions/reverts occur often in the frequency of single minutes which can make one wonder, if he even checked that always thoroughly. His name looks like having meaning similiar to "Chaos Dwarf" and indeed if you look at the history he went right from start on to delete material. It is obvious that he had quite some experience from before. I would not be surprised if he had or even has another account where he actually added material and contributed new information and the new account was just made to "play" it that hard way and hence that name.

One of the editors who get easily upset to a degree that is considered as incivility is obviously Dekkappai and while I not think that the tone he used - beeing an ex-editor now - especially on the discussion page is helpful here, I can understand his frustration and I doubt that over the time it is of an avantage to loose editors like Dekkappai. Yet just because of Dekkappai's harsh appearance this RfC should not simply be reduced to two users having personal issues with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz.

Due to the sheer mass, I am not in the position to fully evaluate the work of Hullaballoo Wolfwitz but when I check it, I can in fact see the points that justify the deletion in most cases if the guidelines and policies are very strictly interpreted. That is the formal point and probably also the base of Tabercil's summary. On the other hand the Wikipedia also needs room to grow, if you remove everything which is not perfect from start there is hardly potential for improvement. That alone is already somewhat problematic, to find the fine line between still accepting something and removing it as unacceptable. But it becomes really a problem if behind such deletions/reverts is another reason than to improve the project. Based on activities as in the given examples and together with HW usually refusing even to discuss things, one can come to certain conclusions. Therefore an RfC to hear what other editors say about this or to find out whether this is indeed not only a dispute between two editors with different views, that is only justified. If in the end there is really only good faith behind everything what he does, maybe Hullaballoo Wolfwitz should simply read this little essay. Though I have a hard time to assume that here.

Let me finally say that I find it a bit strange that certain editors revert on Hullaballoo Wolfwitz' talk page what other established editors have added with him not even responding. I also doubt that this is helpful for communication problem that he may have - on intention or not. At least I have respect for other people's talk pages and would never come to the idea to delete/revert there anything unless it's obviously vandalism.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Testales (talk) 20:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Dekkappai (talk) 23:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by ExampleUsername
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

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.