User talk:Ice Cold Beer/Archive01

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)[reply]

Thanks. Ice Cold Beer 20:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Will do. Thanks again! Ice Cold Beer 02:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)/[reply]

Thanks. Do I seem to have the problem solved with my most recent nomination "pg=Atayalangal"? will381796 (talk) 07:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Google returns only hits on Wikipedia user talk pages ([1]). l'aqùatique ^talk 05:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just as I suspected. It's either made up or a bizarre cult. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You're welcome. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 17:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

rm NPOV

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Thanks! And remember, 5:00 is just a few hours away! Ice Cold Beer (talk) 18:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ummmmm, beer! -UWMSports (talk) 04:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(cur) (last) 03:15, 11 March 2008 Ice Cold Beer (Talk | contribs) (120,789 bytes) (rv to my last version) (undo)
(cur) (last) 03:14, 11 March 2008 Jc-S0CO (Talk | contribs) (120,833 bytes) (Undid revision 197398194 by 151.141.129.38 (talk)) (undo)
(cur) (last) 03:12, 11 March 2008 151.141.129.38 (Talk) (120,943 bytes) (→Conspiracy theories) (undo)
(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)
(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)
(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)[reply]

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

NuclearUmpf

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

No problem. By the way, the mediation case was closed as unresolvable. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might have a look at this. I think it sums up our situation nicely. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 02:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was great. Thanks for sharing. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

(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))[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

Then we agree to disagree. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 15:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Fair enough. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
    - Fair enough. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 17:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks for this strikethrough. I appreciate the acknowledgement. I just want the article to not have to be changed every time some 'new' "fact" turns up.

If we only put in facts that have really reliable sources and don't try to 'read between the line' in order to 'have a full story' I think the article will settle down and be more stable without needing such vigilance and effort as (it seems to me) is being wasted on the article. Think how much good could be accomplished if we finished the article and moved on to other articles. Anyway, thanks, I appreciate your comments, and your contributions to Wikipedia. It's a pleasure to make your acquaintance. User:Pedant (talk) 06:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'm sorry I gave you that warning in the first place. Total ABF on my part. I would absolutely love it if we could bring that article to FA. It bothers me that it is a FA in other languages but not in English. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

Hello, Ice Cold Beer. It's been exactly 6 months since I welcomed you to wikipedia, and may I say you are doing swimmingly. Keep up the good work, and have a barnstar.

		The Original Barnstar
		For keeping a level head, earning the respect of fellow wikipedians, and all around awesomeness, I award you this barnstar. Have a cold one to celebrate, eh? : D L'Aquatique ^talk 05:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My first one! Thanks for the kind words! Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You earned it, man! L'Aquatique ^talk 06:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pau Gasol Page

Thanks for taking a look at it and seeing what more could be done, it's much appreciated. I have fixed those things, albeit I'm still working on headers and possibly merging and or adding more information, but come take a look at it again and see what else you think should be done! Thanks! Gamloverks (talk) 21:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added more to the 2007-08 part of the article with more of the trade controversy and added some more to the intro, if you happen to go by any Pau Gasol information that can be used, please refer me to it. I'm still looking for information about the earlier seasons for him so hopefully that can be improved. Do you think it is okay using wikipedia articles as a reference? Gamloverks (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I get the chance, I'll go through and do a copy edit. Other Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks a lot! Now I have to go find an article with all the Memphis Grizzlies Franchise Records. Gamloverks (talk) 10:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did find the article, so the Pau Gasol article now has no wikipedia references. I'm going to try to continue working on the earlier years to improve the content. Gamloverks (talk) 14:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I could use some help, my article keeps getting changed worse than the way it was, I'm not good at revising and rejecting edits, can you help me out here? Much appreciated! Gamloverks (talk) 00:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I've improved some more of the things on it, and being a reviewer of articles, I wonder if you could take a look at it again and see what more should be done. ^_^ Thanks! Gamloverks (talk) 19:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Male Unbonding

I've tried to carry out the changes you requested and I now think that the article is good enough to pass. Thanks. ISD (talk) 08:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a minor copy edit on the lead and I'll take a look at the rest of the article tomorrow. I'll let you know then if I think it is good enough to pass. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 09:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the changes you requested. Thanks. ISD (talk) 07:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for passing the article. ISD (talk) 08:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. You earned it. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 08:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rang De Basanti

Hi there! I've addressed the your remaining concerns about the article in your GA review. You might want to have a look at it once again. Cheers! Mspraveen (talk) 14:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! Thanks for passing the GA nomination. Thank you once again for the detailed review and intermediate copy-editing :) Cheers! Mspraveen (talk) 15:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:GA nomination of Over the Edge (1999)

I find it unfair that you failed the article, without giving it a chance (on hold status) to address the concerns. Which is why I put it up for reassessment.--~S R X~ 00:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I welcome the community's input. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 01:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_the_United_States Inclusionist (talk) 05:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PNC Park GA review

Just a quick question about the review. I revised the end of the "firsts" section, an added a new source. The last sentence (Pitt leads the series 3 games to 1...) however remains unsourced. This is a true statment, see Talk:PNC Park#Re-write, for all the links. However I don't really want to add four citations to the end of that sentence, is there a better way to cite that? I should have time tonight or tomorrow to work on the intro. Thanks for the review! Black ngold29 22:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking that either Duquesne or Pitt probably has some sort of "online media guide" in .pdf format that may contain the history of the series. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Underwood Review

ICB-

A few things about the citations, which were the reason you failed the GA review request... I thought primary sources were good. They are certainly better than secondary sources. I personally know that a lot of the stuff is true without the web, since the founder was my great*4 grandfather (but this is the internet, there is no reason you should believe me -- but honestly, who else would care about this page?). However those web sites are the only place online that you will find that material. Deviled Ham may show up in the Simpsons, but it doesn't have a million fan pages. Some of the sources for B&G are not from the B&G website (and interestingly that article gets some things wrong, and I wonder where they got their material).

As for the unsourced section, that's the part about canning technology and MIT. Whoever started the article didn't know the company name and probably has a canning tech background, but all of that material is from the two books that are referenced on the page, just whoever wrote it up did not cite material specifically, they cited it generally. I don't have the books so I can't make specific cites, but yes, that section is cited to those two books (although I can make that more clear). That is the only section that is not clearly sourced, but you say there are "sections" plural which are not sourced.

Honestly I'm appalled that you have a problem with a primary source in this case. B&G has nothing to gain by changing or embellishing Underwood history, since they were not a part of it. In fact if they were to get it wrong, they would look bad for doing so. Thus they are motivated to make sure it is correct and so are a reliable source.

You really need to explain why you failed the GA nomination, since you are wrong about the sources lacking reliability. If that is your only problem, then, given that you are wrong about it, the article meets GA standards.--Wmjames (talk) 22:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, secondary sources are better than primary sources. If you still disagree with my decision, you may have the good article nomination reassessed. Also, take some time to consider if your familial relationship with the founder presents a conflict of interest. Thank you. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 00:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia makes it clear that reliability is the most important criteria, not whether a source is primary or secondary. The fact that I am a descendent of the founder makes me an expert since this is history that I grew up with. Wikpedia wants experts on subjects. If you could be clear about which sections you think need cites, that would be helpful. I got the Goldblith book and added cites there, but I have to clean up the citation formatting. I added some photos as well. Thank you. --Wmjames (talk) 22:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:PRIMARY, Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. As for which sections need cites, the answer is: all of them. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, reliable sources. Per WP:PRIMARY, "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia." B&G is reliable, and is not Underwood so is secondary anyway. Per WP:PRIMARY, "Secondary sources may draw on primary sources," as B&G has drawn on the original source, the old Underwood company.

"All of them" is neither true nor helpful, as you can see a most of the material was cited, just you didn't like the citation source. Not liking a reliable citation source and a fact needing a reliable citation source are two different things. If you are going to comment on sources, make sure you know what you are doing and give specific, actionable, and accurate comments.

If you feel that B&G is a primary source, you must explain why.

If you feel that B&G is not reliable, you must explain why. "Because they are a primary source" is not a valid reason. You need to verify that B&G has its facts wrong, and you have not done that.--Wmjames (talk) 04:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget this, per WP:PRIMARY, "Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary or secondary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment...."--Wmjames (talk) 04:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I consider this conversation to be closed. You can take my advice or you can not take my advice. The choice is yours. If you feel that my review was erroneous, please take your concerns to good article reassessment. Thanks. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review - Apprentice series

Hi

Can i ask why you recently moved this nomination? I do not believe it to be in the wrong section, as the article for series three is already in the Wikipedia:Good_articles#Social_sciences_and_society, under Television_and_radio_non-fiction section? I simply listed these two nominations under the same section. Please can you explain your reasons? Regards, δ²_(Talk) 00:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like they were in the correct section and I should not have moved them. Sorry about that. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 00:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! In addition, I take it that the articles are not up to scratch, can you provide any more direction as I did not see much difference between series three and series one articles? Many thanks, δ²_(Talk) 01:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The series three article has more content and more sources. The series one and two articles are basically just summaries of the show and nothing else. Therefore, I suggest that you work on expanding the article and sourcing it properly. Good luck with improving the article. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 01:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Casino Night"

Hi, I've made the requested changes on the article, except for one. My reasoning for this can be found on the article's talk page. Happy editing, Mastrchf (^t/_c) 21:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on the talk page. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale has been added. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 01:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Dundies GA review

I have addressed your concerns and believe the article is ready for GA. RedThunder 23:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done with point 4. RedThunder 00:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas H. Tongue GA review

Thank you for taking the time to review the article. I have addressed both issues, please let me know if the re-wording works for you. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I re-worked the part you had an issue with, let me know if that sounds good to you. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xiutwel and 9/11

Hey Ice Cold Beer, check out the section entitled hello on my talk page and inform me at User:Redmarkviolinist/Talkpage2 on how I dealt with the questions that Xiutwel asked me. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}_{Review Me!} 18:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop reverting things that you disagree with

Seriously. You've reverted several passages that I've reviewed that, while obviously strongly opposed to your viewpoint, were not nearly soapboxing. You look like you are doing POV pushes when you have virtually no commentary when removing passages that you aren't even in the discussion of. Its childish.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.90.242 (talk • contribs)

It's not that I disagree with you (whether I do or not I won't say). What I don't like is that you have been making inflammatory remarks with you own personal opinions of George Bush's economic policies. The talk page is for discussing changes to the article. If you want to discuss the article, I won't remove your comments. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 01:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, its good to know that if you deem me worthing of posting in sections that you aren't even participating in I may be allowed to possibly post some information. Thank you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.90.242 (talk • contribs)

You are always allowed to post to the talk page to discuss the article. Just don't take pot shots. That's all I ask. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ANI comment - endorse ban

Hi. I noticed that you wrote "endorse ban" on the Giovanni report. For sake of clarity, given a suggestion has been made that his ban be extended to indef, could you indicate whether you were endorsing the 1 month ban or the idea of an indef ban? Otherwise Giovanni's supporters may kick up a fuss later on the technicality that some people did not make it clear enough. Thanks, John Smith's (talk) 22:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Good point. Done. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should probably point out that the one-month "ban" is not a ban. It is a block. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi ice

Using the same word to define a word is bad prose.

Beer is the common name for beer.

Ice is a hardened form known as ice.

September 11, 2001 attacks were a series of attacks.

We can certainly do better than that! Presumptive (talk) 05:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what the sentence says. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article Review

I have started a review here of the 9/11 article you are welcome to comment. BigDunc^Talk 21:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support...

I used to have fun editing here, now not so much. Sometimes I'd rather have molten hot lava poured down my shorts that to put up with some of the nitwittedness that goes on here. Shrug. RxS (talk) 04:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I don't like it when disruptive editors take pot shots at good ones. Though, I think that is the inherent problem with Wikipedia (and the internet in general)—it's easy to take cheap shots at someone who is thousands of miles away from you. I do hope that the sometimes unpleasant nature of editing doesn't chase you off; you've done an outstanding job on the project. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFA Thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, Ice Cold Beer!

I am grateful for your confidence: My RfA passed by a count of 64/3/3, so I am now an administrator! Of course, I plan to conduct my adminship in service of the community, so I believe the community has a right to revoke that privilege at any time. Thus, I will be open for recall under reasonable circumstances. If you have any advice, complaints, or concerns for me, please let me know. Thanks again! Okiefromokla ^questions? 21:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfB Thank You spam

Thank you for participating in my RfB! I am very grateful for the confidence of the community shown at my RfB, which passed by a count of 154/7/2 (95.65%). I have read every word of the RfB and taken it all to heart. I truly appreciate everyone's input: supports, opposes, neutrals, and comments. Of course, I plan to conduct my cratship in service of the community. If you have any advice, questions, concerns, or need help, please let me know. Again, Thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 08:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PNC Park peer review

Hello again, a few month ago you helped me get PNC Park up to a GA, I am now looking to get it up to a FA. If you have the time, please don't hesitate to add them to the peer review page. Thank you! Black ngold29 02:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

9/11

If you don't like the first sentence, then you should continue the discussion. The result of discussion within the past 13 days was the version I used.

When making comments, you should address those who are ocncerned by the comma. By having discussion before reverting in this highly charged article, you become a good wikipedian. By having your own way and reverting it, it is bad. Keep proposing compromises and we all can figure out a fix! Presumptive (talk) 16:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting back is bad. We need to do things slowly in this article. Let's work together to find the solution! Presumptive (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how it works. It is bad form to make a change against consensus and then proclaim that others should not revert for the sake of article stability. You need to get consensus before you make such changes. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 20:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, you made a change that was not a consensus. I am not here to fight you. Will you work toward consensus? I have proposed SIX versions. Won't you propose a compromise rather than sticking to your one version which others (not only me) don't like either. Presumptive (talk) 01:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need consensus to make your change. I was simply reverting to the old version because you did not have consensus. I don't need consensus to do that. I believe the current version is the best of the proposed version so far, so I will not propose a compromise. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

user talk page

The strike out was because that other guy was not being friendly in making all those reports. To avoid confusion, the whole section is removed. Presumptive (talk) 07:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your RFA

Best wishes for your RFA -- Tinu Cherian - 09:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Ice Cold Beer (talk) 16:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have 100 supports as of this posting by me...good show!--MONGO 02:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm pretty blown away by the amount of support I've received. By the way, if you'd like to be nominated for adminship again, please let me know. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship

Congratulations, you are now an administrator - and with an overwhelming majority of editors supporting your RfA! Now is the time to visit the Wikipedia:New admin school and, if you haven't already, to look through the Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide and Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me, or at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Warofdreams talk 09:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! And thanks to everyone who participated in my RfA! I will serve you well. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 09:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on your successful adminship . you may now delete the main page :) Best wishes . I have added {{administrator}} on your page. Hope you wont mind -- Tinu Cherian - 10:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words, and no, I don't mind. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 11:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats!--MONGO 11:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And you're on the list of Times that 100 Wikipedians supported something.--MONGO 11:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just had to do this...

Through all the poems
And AfD diffs
The editing stayed cool
And very entertaining
Now that it's over
The world is a better place
For Ice Cold Beer is now
An administrator

--X! who used to be Soxred93 13:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, ICB! As a congrats present, would you like me to design a userpage for you? L'Aquatique[talk] 00:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fantastic. And thanks a lot for your kind words at my RfA and being the first one to welcome me to this place. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 01:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy a cold beer (or two) with that shiny new mop. Heck, make it a six pack ;-) JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 01:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on your RfA and good luck. Camaron | Chris (talk) 12:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on becoming an administrator! Don't give the editors to much beer

. --Coffee // talk // ark //

Congratulations on your successful RfA! Do everything you're supposed to and nothing you're not! Make sure to check out the new admin school. Good luck and feel free to ask me if you have any questions. GlassCobra 07:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kavindergzb

Re your block notice:

The AIV report was not really accurate -- he was recreating the article. It's clearly a vanity article, but self-promotion does not equal vandalism. I don't see anything I'd call vandalism. Note that all his warnings were given by the same person, over the course of one hour. I urge you to reconsider the block -- I think you pulled the trigger a little fast on this one.

Happy to discuss if you like.

Cheers - Revolving Bugbear 02:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked the user in question, but it's a close call. Note that I didn't block him/her for vandalism though; I blocked him/her for re-creating his/her autobiography. I suspect that the user's contributions were made in good faith, which makes me think that you are probably right. It's my first day on the job, there are going to be a few road bumps (but hopefully not too many)! Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bumps happen. There was arguably room for a block there, but it gave me a bad taste in my mouth because the AIV report was bad. Worse mistakes have been made, and I'm impressed that you were willing to reverse yourself so quickly. - Revolving Bugbear 02:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks re: Alpine-steppe

Thanks for removing the speedy deletion tag. I'll improve the stub as quickly as I can. Sociotard (talk) 00:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 01:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glaucoma Camp

You deleted my article on Glaucoma Camp for reason 7A & Group. I've now read those explanations, but still firmly believe the article should be included for these reasons, which I will add to the article:

1. This is an innovative approach to protecting the eyes of glaucoma patients who fail to take their meds properly and are at risk for blindness in the long-term.

2. Dr. Weinreb is the President of American Glaucoma Society, Director of the UCSD Hamilton Glaucoma Center;Distinguished Professor Chief, Glaucoma Division; Vice Chair, Department of Ophthalmology. He's considered one of the world's leading experts in glaucoma.

3. This project is Dr. Weinreb's idea, based on his experience as a Harvard Medical student with the Joslin Center's Diabetes Camp many years ago. He believes that once Glaucoma Camp takes off in San Diego, it could be expanded throughout the country, into a wider base of medical schools and glaucoma clinics. The potential for patient support and behavioral improvements is enormous.

Please let me know what else I can do to re-establish this article. Or at least retrieve my text, since I didn't print a copy before it was deleted. Many thanks, in advance. - Jherndon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.162.79 (talk) 06:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to assert notability with verifiable information. This means using reliable sources to backup the information within the article. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, working on it. Dr. Weinreb has been out of town all week. Thx for your help. --Jherndon (talk) 23:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should have mentioned this earlier, but you need to determine whether or not you have a conflict of interest. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 23:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Request

User:Dravecky is knocking out some of the unnecessary disambig pages and he forgot to move the talk page from Talk:WCST (AM) to Talk:WCST. To make that move, could you please delete the current Talk:WCST page, please? Thanks...NeutralHomer • Talk 06:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much :) Take Care and Have a Great Fridany...NeutralHomer • Talk 07:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from me as well. - Dravecky (talk) 07:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Azalga‎

Hi
You redirected Azalga‎ to Microsoft Amalga. I had thought about that too, but actually found no indication that this is really a useful redirect. Google certainly doesn't think so. I'm all for redirects, but those two topics don't seem to be connected.
Cheers, Amalthea^Talk 08:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've deleted the redirect. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 15:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks. --Amalthea^Talk 16:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotecting History of the Jews in Poland

Could you also unprotect Holocaust in Nazi-occupied Poland which was protected during the same mediation? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning for no reason

I was given a warning for no reason by a user. Is this allowed in wiki? For the warning, i was told i deleted information without putting a reason in the history section. I have placed many reasons in the history section, making the warning a lie. It should be against wiki rules to antagonize other editors for no reason, and then whine that their response is unacceptable

Musicmogul09 (talk) 22:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that other editors were unhappy with the reasoning provided in your edit summaries. Additionally, I was extremely unhappy with your calling another editor a "dumbass". Don't do that. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 00:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bomsalam

You have blocked the relative of a BLP subject that was trying to fix the article. I seriously suggest unblocking and telling them about the our COI policy, offering up an apology and being generally sensitive about the whole thing. It's generally a bad thing to block BLP subjects and relatives. I'm not sure if you are online right now, but I will unblock if you haven't replied in 20-30 minutes. John Reaves 00:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 00:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. John Reaves 00:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Declined speedy

Hi Ice Cold Beer. Your decline speedy action without reason is noted here. It may help to provide an explanation. Thanks. Suntag (talk) 15:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like there were sources provided which made me uncomfortable with speedy-ing it. Try AfD of prod. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 15:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That should help focus the discussion. Suntag (talk) 15:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

If you want to copy User talk:Anthony Appleyard#How to AfD, then do so. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That's not a bad idea for my userpage. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 18:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pungeon Crawler AfD

I thought it was previously deleted according to the article's deletion log (that's why I tagged it as G4). MuZemike (talk) 23:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G4 only applies to articles deleted as a result of a deletion discussion. That article had been previously deleted via WP:PROD. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 23:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scissor Sisters Day

First, congratulations on your recent successful RFA. Second, I did not think that Scissor Sisters Day was a speedy candidate though it probably should have been. That's why I first sent it to AFD. It looked like "something made up in school one day" which is usually AFD's territory. Anybody for {{db-Bullshit}}?

BTW, can you take a look at NORDOR? Its creator is removing valid speedy tags from it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another admin nuked NORDOR before I could get to it. I deleted Scissor Sisters Day under A1 because I have no idea what a "Scissors Sister" is (and neither would anyone else who read the article). Thusly, there was no context. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 00:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your userpage design

Well, I have some spare time while I wait for my lemon bars to cook (ahh, baking) so I figured I'd get a start on your userpage. You're going to like it a lot, methinks. ;D
L'Aquatique[approves|this|message] 22:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmmmmm, lemon bars. Thanks for putting it together for me! Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With both lemon bars and ice cold beer as my inspiration, this is my first draft: User:L'Aquatique/sandbox2. Now, if you could tell me what parts you like, what parts you don't like, if you really secretly hate yellow, etc, I can perfect it. L'Aquatique[approves|this|message] 04:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I love it. The only change I'll suggest is that I would like to replace "Sandbox" with "Recall" at the top. Thank you so much for putting this together. Your effort is much appreciated. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User with most poems in RfA award

		The Original Barnstar
		Here you go! Congrats on your RfA! ≈ Mind storms Kid 01:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RiL3Y

Hi. Just letting you know RiL3Y sent me a message now via YouTube saying "Oii, Oii Dickhead, Stop bLOCKIN mE fROM tHAT wIKIPEDIA sHITT". Just letting you know especially since he/she is requesting to be unblocked. I have blocked the person and really couldn't care less. Have a great day. :) SEO⁷⁵ ^[talk] 07:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't decline the unblock request, but I've placed a note on the user's talk page notifying the admin that considers the unblock request. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skytap

Ok, thanks for checking. WikiScrubber (talk) 08:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 08:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Eb ii and EB II

Hi there. I just wanted to change the redirect that displays on Europa Barbarorum if you type "Eb ii" or "EB II" from "Eb ii" to "EB II" as the latter is, in fact, the correct abbreviation. Either redirect would, I believe, pick up someone typing "Eb ii" or typing "EB II", which is why I wanted the now redundant Eb ii to be deleted. It's a similar situation to you typing "Ebii"; the EBII redirect still picks it up. Thank you for your understanding. It Is Me Here (talk) 09:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, brain fart on my part. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 09:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Llewelyn Lewis

Hi - First time Wikipedia user here. I added an article on Llewelyn Lewis. Its noted as Ice Cold Beer deleting it. I've obviously done something incorrect, would you mind explaining to me. Satchmotaylor (talk) 22:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Elle[reply]

Yes, I speedily deleted the article under WP:CSD#a7. I have added a message to your talk page which should help you out with your article writing. Please let me know if you need any further help from me. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Mendez

Hello, Ice Cold Beer ...

Happy Editing! — 72.75.117.122 (talk · contribs) _{23:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)}[reply]

The article needs more reliable sources and the image could do with a better image summary (see WP:IUP). If someone nominated the article for deletion, it would probably be deleted based on the article's current form. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, again ... the WP:SPA 71.36.192.70 (talk · contribs) has contested the PROD and re-introduced inappropriate external links (the one from Lane Bryant says that she is 116 years old!) ... will you please take it to AfD? Thnx! — {User|72.75.98.105}} _{03:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)}

Done. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christina Mendez. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woo thanks

Just like to say thanks for all the admin work you have done since your rfa :) (especially the last speedy block on aiv) ^^. Keep up the good work! ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 08:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Ice Cold Beer (talk) 08:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will say this also ^^ thanks for re deleting 4main ^^. Its as if your the only admin online at this time :O *hands out barn star of thanks* ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 08:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Chavez

Hi, the article Hugo Chavez does not categorize him as Marxist. Since being a Marxist and Marxist-Leninist is not same, is he Marxist? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hardly an expert on Hugo Chavez, so I'm not sure I can comment thoughtfully. As for the article, I'd say that we should categorize him as reliable sources do. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 09:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Page Atomsmith

It was for people to know about it. I just wanted a page on my favorite molecular modeling program. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Syntheticalconnections (talk • contribs) 14:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed a welcome message on your talk page which should help you write better articles in the future. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 16:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Palace Community Association

Hi - Could you give me more of an idea of what you are looking for to show the CPCA as notable? Or should this be a stub rather than a full article? Many thanks DegasG (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my message on your talk page. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 16:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dulas Ltd page deleted?

Hi, I see you deleted the page I created for Dulas Ltd. I felt they were worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia as they supply about 70% of the world's vaccine refrigerators to the WHO and are the longest-running renewable energy company in the UK (many more recent and less well-known companies have pages). The factual information on the company was all verified when they won an Ashden Award. Could you tell me which bits of the article were a problem, and if it could go back up with changes to make it acceptable? Thanks. AshdenAwards (talk) 09:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted for being a blatant advertisement. If you would like me to copy the article into your userspace, I would be happy to do that. However, the article was written like a puff piece, so I would suggest that you start over from scratch. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 16:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, please copy it to my user space, and I'll have another go.AshdenAwards (talk) 08:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HI, I've had another go at it from scratch, I've put it on my user page: User:AshdenAwards. Could you tell me if you think it's acceptable in it's current form before I create the article? Thanks.AshdenAwards (talk) 13:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page stalker here ("I'm trying to quit!"): You've done a good job getting rid of the puffy parts, but unfortunately there's still a problem: there's no claim to notability. This is hard to do, I know, but you have to find a way to tell us why this subject is important, without sounding like a used car salesman. You mentioned earlier that this company supplies 70% of the fridges to the WHO, etc etc,- that's a pretty good claim to notability. If you can find a reliable source to back up that factoid, definitely add it to the article, along with any and all neutral and well sourced information you can find. The more the merrier. Thanks for your patience! L'Aquatique[parlez] 23:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good thing someone is watching this page, even if it isn't me. AA, I didn't see that you had replied until just now, so I apologize for the lack of response. What L'Aquatique says is correct; you need to establish notability before you move the page back into the article space. Also, if/when you do move the article, please use the "move" button and do not cut and paste. Thanks! Ice Cold Beer (talk) 23:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, that's a bit tricky - I've met the senior management at Dulas and that they have 70% of the global vaccine fridge market is from them, but I have no reason to believe this is isn't true, and our judging panel at Ashden Awards is formed of the kind of people who can check up on this kind of thing (Oxfam, Practical Action, etc.). However, I don't know if it's quoted as a figure in some independent online source - Dulas are pretty modest and tend not to brag about things like this, so I only know because I have talked to them personally - hence I didn't include it in the article, even though it would give the "notability" required.... But if I do manage to get this sorted out, how do I go about moving a *portion* of my user page to a new article? Or perhaps can you tell me where to get some help on this? Thanks.AshdenAwards (talk) 20:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that sort of information needs to be verifiable. When you think that it's ready to be an article again, you just need to use the "move" tab at the top of your userpage. If you need my help please let me know. Thanks, Ice Cold Beer (talk) 20:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boonyaratvej

The content of BOONYARATVEJ has been disputed because it was stated that the subject was "copied from a dictionary", I deny this. The word Boonyaratvej is a Thai surname, and unlike western surnames they are unique and can not be used by any other Tom, Dick & Harry etc. the surname was bestowed upon us by the King of Siam, I am about to write an autobiography on the origins of the surname, ancestors and the family tree from past to present. Pitanu (talk) 06:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I disagree that the article was copied from a dictionary. I deleted it for another reason. Please take a look at the message I posted to your talk page. It has some tips for writing articles. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from User talk:Ice Cold Beer/Recall

This comment was originally left on User talk:Ice Cold Beer/Recall.

Hello,

I recently submitted a page on Wikipedia for FUEL the CURE, which you recommended for speedy deletion yesterday. FUEL the CURE is a legitimate organization that was established this year to raise money for various philanthropic causes. For example, all proceeds from the first event go to the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, which was listed as a source on the page. FUEL the CURE has also filed for Section 501(c)(3) to be legally recognized as a not-for-profit organization.

If you look through Wikipedia, you will see thousands of not-for-profit ogranizations listed such as United Way, Oxfam, Goodwill Industries and so many more. Granted, these are all enormous organizations that raise billions of dollars a year, but the intentions are all the same. I don't think a smaller charitable organization should be dismissed simply because they are not able to raise as much money as those that have been given the opportunity to grow throughout the years. Many times, this is how a great organization starts. Having said that, there are also thousands of small not-for-profit organizations listed on Wikipedia and many are not that different from FUEL the CURE. If you visit this page you will see a list of all of the not-for-profit organizations in the US alone. This page is just one of many examples of smaller not-for-profit organizations that are very much like FUEL the CURE.

I understand that you are doing your job as an administrator to weed out posts that are not valid or credible. If this were a for-profit company that simply posted something on Wikipedia to get some more web visits to increase sales, I would completely understand the motion to delete. However, this is an organization (soon to have not-for-profit status) that is attempting to get people involved in a good cause to raise money for and awareness of issues affecting so many people, and there are many more on Wikipedia just like it.

On a final note, I just posted this page a few days ago and added an 'under construction' tag because I was in the process of editing it with more notable sources and additional detail about the organization itself to give everyone a better idea of what it is. I believe this post should have been given ample time for construction.

Could you please re-consider your position towards this post?

Thank you. Sbair6071 (talk) 16:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved by J.delanoy ^gabs _adds @ 16:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An organization's motives do not affect their inclusion on Wikipedia. I have placed a welcome message on your talk page which should help you write your article more effectively. If you would like me to copy the deleted version of the article into your userspace, I can do that for you. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 20:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block of MacLachlan College

You just banned my school (seeing as I reported it to WP:AIV). I was just wondering if you could change it to {{schoolblock}}, as this would inform the students much more.

Thanks!

SpK (talk) 18:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 18:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TRF

Hi, It seems that you just deleted an article that I created. Today is my first day on wikipedia and I was surprised that my article was deleted within minutes. I found a reference to TRF in 2 articles, and I simply wanted to provide a definition for what it was. Why was it deleted? I would love to hear you explanation. I always thought that it is supposed to be a democratic process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sacredsacredyou (talk • contribs) 05:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I deleted it because it did not properly assert notability. I left a message on your talk page which gives you tips for avoiding having your content deleted in the future. Please let me know if you need my help. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks for erasing my IP address. Crackthewhip775 (talk) 02:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More Active

How would one go about becoming more active/noticed in the wiki community? Clearly there is more to it than making quality edits. WhoIsJohnGalt? (talk) 04:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Making many good edits, especially in the project space, on good/featured articles, or in the project space. Fighting vandalism also helps. Out of curiosity: why do you ask? Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just looking to get more active in the community here, probably with the economics portal type stuff. Thanks!WhoIsJohnGalt? (talk) 22:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa!

That was speed-of-light deletion on KoG! You rule!

<-Here!

←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Get to know me!} / _{Talk to me!}←at≈:→ 07:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you can help...

...with this article. Wena keeps rm the COPYVIO tag; logged out to edit anon. (S)he has violated 3RR (I think). Deleted the warnings I gave him/her on their talk page. A little help? Thx! ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Get to know me!} / _{Talk to me!}←at≈:→ 07:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted and blocked. By the way, the article was only a partial copy of the url you provided. It was a verbatim copy of another website. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 08:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. When it first started, it was a full copyvio. He/she got smart and reworded a few things. I just didn't know what to tag it, so I just left CV on it. Thanks again for the awesome speed! ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Get to know me!} / _{Talk to me!}←at≈:→ 08:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Wena24

Hey, I accepted this user's request for an unblock. The user appears to now understand why they were blocked, and have promised not to violate copyright again. I explained that further copyright violation/other disruption may result in a longer block in the future. Hope that is okay. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 06:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm cool with it. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks. Cirt (talk) 07:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Country Music

Do you get the feeling that the country music wikiproject is kind of dead? I've seen no activity there for months now. I'm almost tempted to MFD it, seeing as the founder and several other major contributors are no longer editing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 12:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think "dormant" might be a better description. It can always be revived, so there's not really a good reason to bring it up for MfD. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 21:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The S.S. Tipton

I may have been unclear with my speedy deletion request. Therefore, I was wondering if you could re-create an article that has been previously deleted through the deletion process (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The S.S. Tipton) and not fix any of the issues proposed there. If that's not enough for speedy deletion criteria, then I'll take it to the formal deletion process. --haha169 (talk) 03:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can re-create such an article, but only if it is substantially different from the article that was deleted. In this case, the article that was deleted was about a television episode; this one is about a fictional boat. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I seem to remember that it was the same thing. Never mind then, I'll just take it to the formal deletion process. --haha169 (talk) 04:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Tripathy

Could you salt the page to? It keeps coming back. Thanks. Whispe ring 03:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The disruption is being caused by one user. If it continues, we can just block that user and there will be no reason to salt. I've left the user in question a warning. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And that's why I'm not a admin that is a much more elegant solution. Whispe ring 04:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's back. Whispe ring 04:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...and deleted. User given final warning. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Williamlovesleslie Keeps adding the deleted article to Category talk:Indian actor stubs, I keep reverting it but I don't want to break 3RR. Whispe ring 03:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've indef blocked him. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Amino Acids

Perhaps The Amino Acids should be salted? It was created an deleted before, and it doesn't look like the group is going to become notable anytime soon. Everyme 04:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that there's quite been enough disruption yet. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, but what's the downside? Everyme 06:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like protecting articles unless it's absolutely necessary. This is a wiki, after all. Additionally, in the highly unlikely circumstance where this band becomes notable, I'd like the page to be unsalted. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pages can be unsalted at any time and I'd say it's far more likely that this gets recreated at one point than the band ever becoming notable. But ok, not my department. Everyme 06:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KeyCreator

I restored this & userfy'd it.. While the page needs work before it can survive in article space, the software package is fairly well known in the industry (albeit, known by it's former name of CADKEY). I was in the process of declining the csd when you deleted :-o --Versa geek 05:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dwayne Perkins Delete?

I'm not sure how to use this exactly but i don't understand why you deleted me. I used other comedian's pages as a guide and I did not have any blatant soliciting. I have seevral accomplishments i feel are noteworthy. Also, it was a working page but you deleted it before I could even get my feet under me. Please reverse your stance. I only typed truthful things and I tried to make it as objective as possible. It seems you deleted me because you don't know me. Well based on your logic it seems you should be deleteing most of the entertainment pages. Dwayneperkins (talk) 07:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Dwayne Perkins[reply]

You shouldn't be writing an article on yourself. Please see WP:AUTO. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver Vets Ride

Hi Ice Cold Beer, you have recently deleted Vancouver Vets Ride which I created last night. I would like to give some info about it. It is a very popular bike ride in the Vancouver area similar to Toronto Donut Ride which is in a Wiki. People from Toronto (Toronto Donut Ride) know about Vancouver Vets Ride and they are wondering why there is no info on Wiki on it. That is why I wanted to write about it. It is very well know ride and all serious cyclists in Vancouver area know about it. I created the page with the intend of expanding it. I was wondering if it is o.k. to proceed to eventually create a page similar to Toronto Donut Ride. Thanks for your help. --GSVANCOUVER (talk) 16:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beeblebrox placed a message on your talk page which should have some helpful tips on writing an article well enough to keep it from being deleted. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 18:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know, thanks Ice Cold Beer, I will try to collect some more info like press article etc. before trying again.--GSVANCOUVER (talk) 21:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if you would like me to copy the deleted article into your userspace I would be happy to do so. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 21:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you could do that, (when you get a chance) that would be great. Thanks again.--GSVANCOUVER (talk) 22:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is at User:GSVANCOUVER/Vancouver Vets Ride. When you think it's ready, you need to move it back to Vancouver Vets Ride (use the move tab at the top of the page, it is important that you do not cut and paste the article from your userspace into the articlespace). You might want to let me know when you think it's ready so I can give you some input. Thanks, Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]