IMO his or her correspondence style is that one finds on a partisan blog, not one that conforms with the wikipedia's policies and procedures. He or she has been blocked three times, most recently on February 232007, for one week, for violating wp:npa.
His or her correspondence with me have been, without exception, abusive.
I have urged them, in each of my replies, to make a greater effort to conform to wp:civ, with no apparent success.
After reading it, I can't see how it applies to any of the categories I started.
I believe I have already addressed the concerns in this policy guideline, in sufficient detail to match the civility and seriousness with which HH is bringing to the table.
So, I did not get around to replying. I don't think I owe anyone an apology or explanation for not replying to an uncivil correspondent, who doesn't address, or acknowledge, the points I have tried to make.
Instead of addressing my questions, and the points I raised, on the talk page, HH nominates all the subcategories for deletion.
The only explanation HH makes is that the categories are "just silly". IMO this is not a meaningful explanation, not when I had shown patience in trying to address his concerns in spite of his rudeness. IMO a violation of wp:civ and wp:not#wikipedia is not a battlefield.
HH did not show me the usual courtesy of giving me a heads-up that he was nominating these categories for deletion. IMO a violation of wp:not#wikipedia is not a battlefield.
HH levels the ugly accusation against me that some of my contributions constitute "spamming". This is a violation of wp:npa.
I dispute that adding an image of the trailer where the Tribunals sat — to articles about Guantanamo captives who attended their Tribunals — constitutes spam.
HH links to another comment I made elsewhere, with a mocking comment, and without explaining what, if anything, it has to do with the viability of these categories.
No, contributing to the wikipedia is not my job. I am a volunteer just like everybody else.
This is the second time HH has suggested I have done something that requires administrator intervention. As with the first instance, he does not say what act I committed that requires administrator intervention. If he or she truly felt I was doing something that violated a wikipedia policy he should assume good faith, and give me a civil, serious, specific heads-up. Sarcastic hints like this, IMO, are another form of personal attack.
I deserved a heads-up when he or she nominated the categories for deletion. I figure HH deserves a heads-up that I have asked for advice about our interaction.
In General HH uses the rhetorical device of refraining from actually saying, specifically, the nature of his concern.
Instead he uses mockery and sarcasm, in ways I believe are a violation of the wikipedia's goals and ideals.
(An earlier version of this timeline incorrectly stated the HH did not add the tags that trigger a watchlist entry for those who use the categories. That was incorrect. I regret the error.)
