User talk:Hm2k/Archives/2010/January

ANI heads up
Please note that refactoring, hiding or deleting other editors comments in AfD debates is unacceptable (removal of personal attacks or vandalism excepted). Please do not refactor, hide or delete comments from AfD debates in future. Mjroots (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "Personal attacks excepted" as per your comment. --Hm2k (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Those weren't personal attacks. Stop refactoring other's comments, period. Issue closed - if you do it again, you'll be blocked. Tan   &#124;   39  17:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Christmas period? I already closed the issue, but others wish to continue to have it open. So be it. They ARE personal attacks. Good day. --Hm2k (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No they aren't. Maybe you should take a break if you think they are, clearly you are being overly-defensive and displaying a ownership attitude over the article. Try asking what the comments mean, assuming good faith goes both ways and I don't see a whole lot on your side right now. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * YES THEY ARE. Read WP:PA, which states "Comment on content, not on the contributor". In the FIRST LINE of the AfD he's talking about me, not the actual content. Further on he comments negatively toward me directly even further. How is that not a personal attack? Ridiculous. --Hm2k (talk) 17:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't care if you think they are. They are not. Refactor again and you'll be blocked, end of story. Tan   &#124;   39  17:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If you really don't care, go away. They are clearly personal attacks, they are comments about me, not the content. I won't refactor, but I'll happily let someone else do it. The never ending story as is life. --Hm2k (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Saying your article was pointy, saying this was done in a cut and paste move is not an attack. Not once does he point you out and insult you. What he is doing is describing why the article should be delted. It's called WP:SPADE. Maybe there is somehting else that you thought ws an attack? These are all policies and darn well cited ones in this case. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

"instead of providing a single source when requested, User: hm2k simply cut and pasted the unsourced content from shell account into this new article"
 * This is a comment on my actions, NOT the content, and is clearly an attempt to discredit me, a personal attack, so I commented it out. --Hm2k (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I have to disagree with you. It's not even close to being a personal attack.  Jauerbackdude?/dude. 17:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As per WP:AN it is a "comment on the contributor, not on the content". I don't see how you can disagree when it's there in black and white. --Hm2k (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. Maybe take a look in the mirror, four or five people have stated it isn't a personal attack. If the consensus is that it isn't a attack, put down the stick, you aren't going to win this one. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 4 or 5 people can be wrong, I've already won, you're on MY talk page. --Hm2k (talk) 17:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Trying to help you avoid a block for disruption. If you want to continue to do so, knock yourself out. The attitude above is pretty troubling though, you consider disrupting wikipedia a win? Let me know how that goes for you.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're not helping. My measurement of win may different from yours. Step away from the drama.--Hm2k (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Clear and calm wisdom almost never helps. In case you haven't noticed we don't care what your perception is because it is wrong. We care what the policies state, you ask about us assuming good faith we explain how the comments aren't assuming bad faith or personal attacks and you continue to state you are correct. Good faith goes out the window when a editor completely ignores what the policy is about, at that point you are only a disruption. Now WP:STICK goes both ways so I'm going to drop mine and hope you see the light, and the true message. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're not being helpful either way. Speak for yourself not we. The policy agrees with me, not you and you're accusing me of ignoring the policy. You already know I am right, leaving you only the morel high ground, which is why you've dropped your stick. Good luck with that. --Hm2k (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've suggested a block for you attitude towards disrupting the encyclopedia. You can comment on the ANI board. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Amusing. You simply couldn't let it lie could you? You're just a trouble maker, go away. --Hm2k (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
"...User: hm2k simply cut and pasted..." is a description of exactly how an edit happened. In what way is this a discussion of an editor? ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 18:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's just out of context. If you read the whole thing, it's an attempt to discredit me. An AfD is no place to comment on my actions, it should be about the content. --Hm2k (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm2k, you're frustrated - someone noted in ANI that you have had other stubs AfD'd as well. Although I'm not an admin, I spent a lot of time in WP:WQA dealing with issues against WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA.  In my humble opinion, you seem to be taking Wikipedia too seriously, and getting upset.  At no point in the AfD did anybody directly attack you - although you feel it was an attempt at discredit, re-read it from a detatched point of view: it's a mechanical description of what was done (the edit).  Honestly...and as noted by the people in ANI who have read the case (and there are dozens)...there was no violation of WP:NPA.  I know that the article is likely to be deleted as well - how you respond to that is going to say a lot about you.  You've been around for at least 2 years, and edited a range of articles.  Drop this one, really.  ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 19:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a clear violation of the key principle of WP:PA, which is "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Nothing you say will change that. --Hm2k (talk) 20:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that phrase does NOT even talk about you - it talks about the ACTIONS taken by you. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 21:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:DENY works well here. The more attention we take to these ludicrous claims of personal attacks the worse the issue becomes. Let's leave him alone to badger every delete vote on the AFD, it will eventually peter out, through deletion or through the editors own actions.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Theserialcomma makes false claims about the actions I have taken rather than discussing the content, thus a personal attack and clearly falls under WP:PA. Perhaps you should read the the policy again if you are still unsure. --Hm2k (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have read and assisted many people under the policy. The ACTION is the EDIT.  As you're unable/unwilling to re-read and let this go, I'm sorry that I can be of no further assistance.  All the best. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 22:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, at least you have agreed that he's commenting on my contributions rather than the content. That counts for something. Thanks anyway. --Hm2k (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "You" does not equal "your contributions". People are welcome to comment on your contributions as they see fit. Tan   &#124;   39  00:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? By that logic, if I said that your contributions were as meaningless as a fart in the wind, that would not be considered a personal attack? Unlikely. PS. "You"? --Hm2k (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I officially end this correspondence with a probably borderline personal attack - you are far too frustrating to try to work with as you refuse to acknowledge logic, reason, and current Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that any further comment refactoring, as previously mentioned, will result in a temporary block. Goodbye. Tan   &#124;   39  00:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So I was right. Ciao. --Hm2k (talk) 00:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Virtual CD-ROM Control Panel
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Virtual CD-ROM Control Panel. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Virtual CD-ROM Control Panel (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I am happy with the outcome of this AfD. --Hm2k (talk) 09:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of List of shell providers
I have nominated List of shell providers, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/List of shell providers. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Theserialcomma (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * At present I have no intention of adding any further comments to this AfD. My position on this is already clear enough. --Hm2k (talk) 09:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Your editing privileges have been suspended indefinitely
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. You were advised that removing other peoples edits, except where they violate policy, is inappropriate. You did so, anyway. Please be advised that you can only "win" when you play by the rules. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Unblock
Reading through some of my recent comments, I've decided that in future:
 * I will be more civil.
 * I will not edit/delete other's comments.
 * I will report drama to ANI.

--Hm2k (talk) 16:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Much more realistic. Put another unblock request up and another admin can then review it. :-) Spartaz Humbug! 16:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I planned on leaving it until tomorrow now, I'll probably stick with that. --Hm2k (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't post anymore drama at ANI. It has enough! NJA (t/ c)  10:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * s/drama/disruption --Hm2k (talk) 16:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Note from blocking admin; per email request I have reviewed the above and would support an unblocking per the outstanding (?) request above. I have suggested the editor re-request unblock, in case this has "slipped through" the listing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Mint (stats)
An editor has nominated Mint (stats), an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. — Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)