User talk:Ice Cold Beer/Archive01

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Hello, Ice Cold Beer, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Please sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

We're so glad you're here! --(L'Aquatique: Bringing chaos & general mayhem to the Wiki for One Year!) 20:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Ice Cold Beer 20:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
You're very welcome. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page or email me (there is a link to my email under the search box when you are on my userpage) if you have questions or need help with anything! --(L'Aquatique: Bringing chaos & general mayhem to the Wiki for One Year!) 20:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Will do. Thanks again! Ice Cold Beer 02:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD formatting

  • Care to be more specific and tell me what I'm doing wrong? Because I am copying and pasting from that website. will381796 (talk) 06:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)/
Thanks. Do I seem to have the problem solved with my most recent nomination "pg=Atayalangal"? will381796 (talk) 07:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for requesting deletion of the 2008 California Artic Storm page. Hari —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsriniva (talk • contribs) 06:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] requesting comment on AfD page

You state that because Time is a major magazine that therefore other major outlets will cover the issue and that therefore it isn't notable.

I don't follow your logic; what other major news organizations covered the controversy? Did you even read the piece in its entirety? Along with the cited sources? If you had read it completely, then you would know that one of the nation's pre-eminent media journalists not only provided scant coverage of the issue, but the coverage he provided was slanted in favor of Klein.

  • You say that it's not notable. How do you rationalize that?
  • You say that it's original research. How do you rationalize that?
  • You say that it's biased. But you don't say in what manner -- much less with any examples -- that it's biased.

Please respond on the RfD page.

--NBahn (talk) 08:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

No thanks. Please don't post indignant and condescending messages on my talk page. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mapleland farms

I've declined the speedy tag you placed on Mapleland farms. The reason is:

About a farm (a place), not the people who run it - not subject to speedy deletion due to lack of notability

For your information, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I wasn't sure if that could be speedied or not. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 08:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oak Ridge Solutions

Ice, I entered my companies existence into Wikipedia. I tried to be objective and avoid any advertising, but I was marked as "blatent advertising". Sigh... Are there examples of company definitions (software companies in this case) which do not violate the "blatant advertising" standard? Orswalterm (talk) 15:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You really shouldn't be editing any articles related to or about your company; it presents a conflict of interest. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 17:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unreasonable flagging of site resulting in deletion

I am the creator of the Hemoglobin (Religion) site, and I am unable to understand the motives behind deletion of it. I am just trying to inform others on the religion that I have lived my life by, and I think it is wrong for you to flag it under the grounds of lacking fact-proving third party sources. I am trying to create a fact-proving source on Wikipedia that you have unfortunately put a halt to. I think you are prejudicial against a Hemoglobism when your peers allow Christianity and Judaism yet flag my beliefs 30 seconds after I post them. So if you could please reply with a reasonable response that will help me understand this detrimental erasure.

UN - Jooms1060 Email - jooms1060@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jooms1060 (talk • contribs) 04:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Nonsensical rants about your supposed religion (I cannot confirm that this so-called "Hemoglobism" actually exists) are not suitable for Wikipedia articles. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Google returns only hits on Wikipedia user talk pages ([1]). l'aqùatique talk 05:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Just as I suspected. It's either made up or a bizarre cult. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Marginal notability

How is Matt Sanchez marginally notable? Did you see the reference section on the article? I quote what I wrote on the Afd page:

marinecorpstimes.com,columbiaspectator.com,navytimes.com, mediamatters.org. He's also appeared on Fox News and other places.

There are many more references in the reference section. How is this "marginal notability" ? No surprise how everyone else as well is pointing out that the person is pretty notable. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 17:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] St. Martin Island-Michigan

I put in some citations in the St. Martin Island article. The island is in Michigan not Wisconsin and it has a lighthouse. Thank you- RFD (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for being understanding about the St. Martin Island article and not going through with its deletion.Thank you-RFD (talk) 13:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 17:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 9/11 CIA-Afghani Theory

What happened to my contribution? It just disappeared, and it says you deleted it? I hope I don't have to appeal your decision to the Moral Majority or anything. Stockpotato (talk) 05:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Read our policy on original research. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My Rfa

I wish to thank you for being supportive of my effort to regain my adminship. Though it was not successful, your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 17:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I hope you try again in the future. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 18:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another RfA

While I appreciate your support for my RfA, I would also appreciate a rationale being added to help explain why you support me even if it is as simple as "I see no reason to oppose." IMHO, the more details you can provide, the better. — BQZip01 — talk 07:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jeemorese

The whole point of the article ended up being the reason it was removed. It's a common term in MMO's - perhaps some day it will earn enough recognition to be placed on Wiki. I've read a lot on Wiki, and I'm really surprised this one was chosen over others I've read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeemor (talk • contribs) 15:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I tagged it for speedy deletion criterion G1, which means that the article was nonsensical. We have standards for inclusion, most importantly our general notability criterion. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] about your talk page vandalism

Yeah, I was about to post the below on AIV.

  • This guy is using dynamic IP addresses to circumvent blocks. His comment on my talk page is a reference to a comment I made on a previous address's talk page after it was blocked.

After you read the blurb on my page, I'd appreciate it if you'd remove his comments because I've got to get to bed. (1:30 A.M. here on the eastern seaboard.) Just thought you might like to know. Regards. Thingg⊕⊗ 06:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. At least he didn't call you a "newfag."[2] I don't even know what that means. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Articles for deletion/List of claims made by Zeitgeist, the Movie

  • I just created this page a week ago Friday (Jan 25) and so far I have been the only editor of this page, but I would like to avoid having it deleted in the hope that other editors will collaborate on it with me.
  • I want to let you know that many things have changed regarding this article since you voted to have it deleted.
  • I have fully read and responded to every Wikipedia guideline that I have been referred to,
  • I have modified my plans for the article and changed the way I view the subject in order to fit within those guidelines,
  • I have explained my position and my goals in detail on the AfD for the page,
  • and I have completely blanked the talk page of the article since most of the concerns about guidelines involved the talk page and not the actual article.
  • I am sure you will find that I have made a great effort to contribute to the usefulness and quality of Wikipedia, and that my actions are motivated by a desire to improve Wikipedia and to keep Wikipedia neutral.
  • I believe that the only guidelines my article can still be accused of violating are those concerning "notability" and "lists of random facts" and being that this is such a young article, I urge you to revisit the article, the AfD for the article, as well as the article's talk page, and make sure that you still feel that the article needs to be deleted right now.
  • Thank-you for your time, and I appreciate your efforts in keeping Wikipedia clutter-free!
Sincerely,
VegKilla (talk) 23:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
You can't blank the talk page and you can't strike someone else's comment for no good reason. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] rm NPOV

please motivate on Talk:9/11 — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 21:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Rollback

Hi. I've granted your request for rollback. If you need an help on the tool please let me know! Pedro :  Chat  09:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 09:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your username...

makes me thirsty. I have nothing else to say. Great username. If only it wasn't early afternoon in my time zone. I'm getting all Homer Simpson drooly here.... Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! And remember, 5:00 is just a few hours away! Ice Cold Beer (talk) 18:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Ummmmm, beer! -UWMSports (talk) 04:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 9/11

I saw your report on WP:ANI. I have to say you and user:Haemo have shown a lot more patience in this debate than I could muster. There's only so many times I can rehash the same arguments and policies. Let me know if there's anything I can do to be supportive. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 19:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You might want to go to ANI and voice your frustration. Also, if you can find any diffs that I missed it would be helpful to mention them. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 19:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Done. You caught his post to my talk page, which I think is one of the more egregious offenses, and I only got a light tongue-lashing compared to Haemo. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 21:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Haemo has shown remarkable patience throughout this whole ordeal. I don't understand why such a nice guy has been on the receiving end of so much of the vitriol. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 21:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, he just posted a lengthy response on ANI. If he keeps it up, he'll make our case for us. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 21:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
That's the first thing I said to myself when I saw his response. I also liked his edit summary.[3] Ice Cold Beer (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I didn't wan't to post this on the 9/11 page because that would not have been appropriate, but to tell me that a book written during the thirty days after 9/11, when the pulse of the nation and much information was being given publicly (including the official Bush administration statement), is irrelevent to that article is not only arrogant and illogical, but bordering on treason. Who are You to make assumptions on a book You have never read? Outrageous! 67.165.163.114 (talk)GUAM
I didn't notice this reply until now. Please avoid personal attacks in the future. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 21:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I am replying to your lightning fast reply to my 9-11 Conspiracy sub-section propsal, which took me several long days to pull together. You clearly had not bothered to check out my sources, and if you would have I feel you would have reponded differently. The issue is what is important to me, the facts and evidence, not what's been said between people I don't know in the past. I've been told that Wikipedia is not interested in propganda and is only interested in the truth, and for that reason I trusted that if I wrote a researched, carefully written article with credible sources to support it that at the least it would be read with respectful consideration. I am still under the impression that Wikipedia strives for facts and honesty, and nothing could please me more. Neurolanis (talk) 21:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I've responded on the talk page. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stop trolling me

Thank you for the message you have just left on my talk page. I was not involved in any kind of misconduct as you well know. I am fully aware that you left the message for no other reason than to intimidate me. You are not welcome on my talk. Do not troll me again. Do I make myself clear? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ireneshusband (talk • contribs) 20:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted you to know that you are close to breaking the rule. In the future, I will be sure not to extend that courtesy. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] needed

Dear Ice Cold Beer/Archive01, I need your input on Talk:9/11#March 10 changes concerning the text for inclusion we are discussing.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 02:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

  1. (cur) (last) 03:15, 11 March 2008 Ice Cold Beer (Talk | contribs) (120,789 bytes) (rv to my last version) (undo)
  2. (cur) (last) 03:14, 11 March 2008 Jc-S0CO (Talk | contribs) (120,833 bytes) (Undid revision 197398194 by 151.141.129.38 (talk)) (undo)
  3. (cur) (last) 03:12, 11 March 2008 151.141.129.38 (Talk) (120,943 bytes) (→Conspiracy theories) (undo)
  4. (cur) (last) 03:11, 11 March 2008 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs) (120,833 bytes) (rv // It's also on Bush allowing the bin Ladens to fly away, it even has 911 in the title, and "you can't distinguish between Saddam and Al Qaeda when you talk about the war on terror.") (undo)
  5. (cur) (last) 03:06, 11 March 2008 Ice Cold Beer (Talk | contribs) (120,789 bytes) (rv. that film is about the war in iraq.) (undo)
  6. (cur) (last) 03:04, 11 March 2008 67.165.163.114 (Talk) (120,833 bytes) (Additional Film) (undo)

Please motivate your deletions on the talk page or in the edit summary. I assume you just forgot having wikistress or something, but it would be very uncivil to intentionally not motivate your reverts.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 03:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

When you say motivate, I think you mean discuss. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NuclearUmpf

Very interesting. Thanks!Ultramarine (talk) 05:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hai thar.

I was wondering if you could please stop by here to offer some insight on the edit war consuming the 9/11 page. Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 01:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] request your input in a consensus survey re 9/11

Dear Ice Cold Beer,

At Talk:9/11#defining consensus I started a survey to get a better picture on how editor's opinions are varying with respect to the following statement:

"The current form of the 9/11 article is at odds with the WP:NPOV policy, and the proposed inclusion of the fact that Michael Meacher alleges the US government of willfully not preventing the attacks, would make the article better, in stead of worse.

I would appreciate it when you could take a look.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 17:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration

Saw the case, thanks for the notification. I've been traveling the past two weeks and haven't kept up with the Mediation page, but I gather it's stalled. I think that was evident from the outset, since the two groups were fighting over interpretations of policy. I'll drop a statement in a couple of days when I have a little more time. Thanks though for taking the initiative on this. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 22:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. By the way, the mediation case was closed as unresolvable. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
You might have a look at this. I think it sums up our situation nicely. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 02:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
That was great. Thanks for sharing. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page.

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK § 19:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 19:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

Edits such as this one violate our policies on civility and personal attacks. Please refrain from using such language in the future. Thanks! Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

(1) How so? (2) If policy re: consensus can be violated, can't the civility one also? Or do we pick and choose which are violatable and which are not? Fill me in! Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC))
And (3) Why are you deleting my post that contains valid questions? What policy does that violate? Lemme know. Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC))
No, you can't ignore our policy on civility. I reverted your post to ANI because you removed a dead discussion from the archives and then personally attacked other editors. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
OK. I see what you mean! Thanks! Hmmmmmmmmm ... civility is a pretty broad and general term. Would it be considered civil for one editor (hypothetically, let's say, you) to just go in and remove / delete the posts of another editor (hypothetically, let's say, me)? Or is that considered uncivil, as well? That is, if I personally and subjectively feel that someone's post violates civility, I can go in and simply delete it just like that, without myself then being accused of incivility? Am I correct? Wow, Wikipedia is so confusing. Need your help here. Please explain this to me. Thanks in advance! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC))
This last comment is not civil. I think that if you read the policy you will see why. And, no, I do not think that I was acting in an uncivil manner by removing your edit to ANI. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but. You have clearly avoided my question altogether, silly! I am not asking what you think. I am asking what is the scenario if I think it is uncivil? You see? Just like, say ... maybe I did not think my post was uncivil, and you did think so. See? We can both see things differently! And what you think isn't the final answer, simply because it's what you think! Right? So, back to my original question, then ...? What say you? Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC))
Then we agree to disagree. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 15:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quick question

Not that it matters too much, but would you please explain to me why you think that this edit is not trolling? Thanks, Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It is the difference between someone disrupting deliberately, intentionally or not. And since he has made very good contributions on his way then he still can be misidentified as a troll. I am dealing with his behaviour. Thanks. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 07:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] talk:September_11%2C_2001_attacks

Wikipedia talk page policy does NOT allow you to delete someone else's comments. Please refrain from doing so. That said the comment was wholly appropriate. The archives discuss a link to a page with what the slight majority consider to be conspiracy theories and what the major minority in the US and the majority in the rest of the world (picking and choosing be it may), consider the truth. I was asking for the constantly referenced link of the alternative truth! And there is nothing to nip at in that. Lostinlodos (talk) 13:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not the case, actually, per this, I can remove comments that are not relevant to improving the article, and the comments that I removed were far from helpful. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 15:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
As per this, my comments were relevant as I was requesting the internal link (which was not on the article main page at the time I requested, covering the other version of the day's events; an issue directly related to the article and one that should be included in the titled article as without it it violates NPOV. As of my posting this morning, it appears that the link was re-added between my relevant post asking for it and the time I posted this notice for violating talk-page editing guidelines; and as such have not readded the request as it has already been answered. I'll leave the remainder of the comments for the debate regarding the blatantly obvious NPOV violations further up the talk-page. Lostinlodos (talk) 18:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
You edited the talk page in a sarcastic tone that was unlikely to start any real discourse. Furthermore, you were disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Please don't do that again. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 19:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] apology for my incivility

You and I just don't get on. And I know that's not likely to change in a hurry. But neither of those facts justifies what I wrote at the 9/11CT arbitration evidence page the other day. Considering how this whole dispute started out as one about the nuances of particular words, I am surprised to find myself agreeing with your choice of words when you called it a "bizarre rant".I was simply stressed out and couldn't stand it any more. I still feel very stressed out, but this time I will find other ways of dealing with it than posting unacceptable material like that. ireneshusband (talk) 22:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks you for your gracious apology. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Don't fret

I wouldn't worry about being called names. The evidence looks histrionic and insubstantial in my opinion. --Haemo (talk) 21:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. I know that it's being done to bait me and is in no way solid evidence, but I still feel the need to defend myself. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 21:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Further to this, any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, "impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to the events of September 11, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." The full remedy is located here.

For the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny 15:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neologism "Brothership"

I prodded that article shortly after you had not realising the author had contested it and removed your tag because I couldn't work out a CSD criterion either. As you now know I've listed it at AfD. Be well, :) X Marx The Spot (talk) 07:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it doesn't fit in any of the CSD categories, but I'm sure that the AfD will be closed early as a snowball delete. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate behaviour

" In a 2008 arbitration case administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user working on articles concerning the September 11, 2001 attacks. If you engage in further inappropriate behaviour in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. Thank you. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC) "

Would you mind providing a link to this alleged inappropriate behaviour, or explain what policy you believe I have violated? User:Pedant (talk) 07:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Not a problem. Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks is full of instances of you ignoring policy and trying to push an agenda. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 08:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Ice Cold Beer: as you are not an administrator, it is not a good idea for you to be giving out arbitration case warnings. Seek the attention of an uninvolved administrator (WP:AE is the recommended forum) should the arbitration case need enforcing. GRBerry 14:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
    • From reading through the talk page again, it looks to me that Pedant is attempting to include the majority minority viewpoint, that represents depending on which survey you read between 30% and 50 of Americans, into the article in order to remove the point of view conflicts that the current article is inundated with. Cheers to Pedant for his work on trying to reach consensuses to some degree in fixing an article that at the moment is nothing but a half-truth an a MAJOR violation of multiple Wikipedia rules. Lostinlodos (talk) 17:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Completely ridiculous, GRBerry. It does not matter that I am not an administrator. Administrators are not higher class citizens than other users. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 10:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Had you done a good job of issuing the warning, nobody would much care in this case. (Although in most ArbComm cases involving discretionary sanctions there is an explicit requirement that the warning be issued by an administrator to be effective, I don't find that requirement in the language of this case.) But you failed to tell the user what aspect of their conduct was a problem - even after they explicitly asked you - and thus accomplished nothing. You wasted time and irritated another user, instead of getting something done. If you are going to try to take on expanded responsibilities, learn to do them well. There are other things that you should have done to do the job well, but you did the job so poorly that I'm not convinced the warning was well issued and I'm not going to clean up the mess for you. GRBerry 13:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)