User talk:Hm2k/Archives/2009/August

NPA
WP:NPA is a policy and it states: "Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks." WP:TPO is a guideline and does not apply to removal of personal attacks. Please do not restore personal attacks again. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see the comment is not classed as derogatory. Which part is derogatory? I will be reverting unless you clarify your actions. Abusing policy is unacceptable. --Hm2k (talk) 23:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a personal attack, and it was inappropriate for you to restore it twice. Consider this a formal warning instead of me adding a template message here. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There's nothing to indicates it is a personal attack. You have been warned for talk page vandalism. Don't do it again. --Hm2k (talk) 00:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You've been warned on the talk page. Everyone has been reported to ANI. Regards, MuZemike 00:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your assistance. --Hm2k (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Shell account RFC
Hi, please note that this RFC was not formatting very well on the RFC listing pages. I have taken the initiative before any external comments were added and reformatted/refactored the note into a better listing format. If you disagree with my edit or I have misunderstood something, then would I have no problem at all with you reverting to your original format.—Ash (talk) 07:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ash, thanks for your assistance. I notice since this message the request was replaced by Tothwolf to something that was not neutral. I have attempted to restore and refactor to something more neutral and concise. If you could check and confirm it is acceptable I'd appreciate it. Thanks. --Hm2k (talk) 13:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It is looking quite minimal, which is probably best to avoid further dispute. Anyone wishing to comment can refer to the earlier discussions anyway.—Ash (talk) 14:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Tothwolf has proposed a neutral RFC, I have refactored it. I am hoping it is now meets everyone's approval. --Hm2k (talk) 14:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Note, with regard to archiving, Help:Archiving a talk page suggests that it should be done with consensus. If there is dispute over what should be archived at this point, the default position would normally be to leave it on the Talk page until there is a further consensus to archive.—Ash (talk) 14:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I didn't realise. In that case I don't mind if it's restored. I just considered it surplus to the current dispute. --Hm2k (talk) 15:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

"Icon software" category
Hi, I think "Icon software" is a bit vague for a category name. Shouldn't it be called something like "Icon editing software" or perhaps "Icon editors"? This category could then be a sub-category of Category:Raster graphics editors. Just a suggestion. Laurent (talk) 13:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand your concerns, however software such as @icon sushi isn't an icon editor, it is an icon converter, or icon creator. I felt Icon software covered all grounds. If you have a better suggestion that bares this in mind, I'm all ears. --Hm2k (talk) 13:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that they weren't all actual icon editors. In that case, I'm fine with your suggestion - it's indeed better to choose a more general title. Laurent (talk) 14:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This issue was actually covered here before. :) --Hm2k (talk) 14:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk page
Thanks for that. Seems the script I was using screwed up a bit. :) – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 18:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)