User talk:TreasuryTag

TreasuryTag is currently, or is going to be, away from Wikipedia, between April 14 and April 19, 2009, and may not be able to respond immediately to queries. He may, however, edit a little unless he's using the splendid Wikibreak enforcer.

Just to fix the formatting...

Picture of the day

Hoher Göll

Photograph credit: Jörg Braukmamm

• Archive
• More featured pictures

cease communication

Do not place talkbacks on my talk page, I watch all pages I edit. I am not interested in your comments or any dialog with you. μηδείς (talk) 19:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, did you just post, "I am not interested in any dialogue with you," on my talkpage? ╟─TreasuryTag►condominium─╢ 19:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Civility on Articles for deletion/Terry (Fawlty Towers)

Hello TreasuryTag, I’m a relatively new user so I’ve been working my way around Wikipedia doing all sorts of different things (so far I’ve written an article, spent some time patrolling recent changes, voted on Featured Picture candidates and so on). Most recently I’ve been looking at the AFD process. Everything I’ve seen so far on Wikipedia so far has led me to believe that your conduct at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terry (Fawlty Towers) was very poor. The following are the reasons why I think this (they’re also up on the archived debate):

1. You were uncivil: you demanded that one editor answer your questions, you suggested that if they did not answer your questions their opinion would be dismissed by the closing administrator. You demanded ISBN numbers from another (I think you also threatened them with some sort of tribunal.)

2. Your berating of editors didn’t stop in the AFD discussion, you chased one user across Wikipedia (see this diff link) to let them know that they had not, in your opinion, followed correct procedure. What was particularly antagonistic here was that you dressed up your dressing-down of this editor as a ‘Welcome to Wikipedia’ message: an antagonistic manoeuvre as this editor is not new to Wikipedia.

3. Your Wikilawyering was unbearable, and it seemed to me that the article you were linking to (such as WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:NOREASON) is an essay, not policy. I think Wikilawyering is fine in the AFD process, insofar as it is used to discuss why ‘’you’’ think the article should be deleted or kept. The problem with your attitude to it was that you challenged other editors with points of (non-)policy, which was aggressive to say the least.

It may be the case that you’ve had skirmishes with the editors concerned in the past, or maybe you believed here that you were educating editors as to the protocols of the AFD process, but I’m afraid all you ended up doing was antagonising them, and making Wikipedia just that little bit more hostile. I think the greatest shame was that whilst I agreed with your AFD nomination, you made the AFD environment toxic and unfriendly. I think after making AFD proposals in the future you should leave it to the closing editor/administrator to decide the merits of editors’ comments and votes. TehGrauniad (talk) 00:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)