Marcerickson

Welcome

Hello, Marcerickson, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! - theWOLFchild 15:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC) Getting started Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles How you can help Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

Proposed deletion

I wanted to inform you that I proposed Stan Freberg Presents The United States of America Volume One The Early Years for deletion. Click on the blue link to see why. You have an opportunity to oppose the deletion if you think it's a mistake. YechielMan 21:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the deleted page. WP:PROD is the process by which uncontroversial deletions are done. The PROD notice on the article is considered notice of the deletion. When the notice has been left for five days, the page can then be deleted at any time by an admin. But one key for PROD deletions is the "uncontroversial" part. Any opposition to the deletion, before or after, is enough to overturn the deletion. You have complained, the deletion is thus no longer uncontroversial, and thus it has been restored. If the original nominator wishes to still delete this, they will need to either send it through WP:CSD or WP:AFD. These are the other two deletion processes on the project, and are more complicated than PROD.

My part in this was simply to notice that it had been on PROD for more than five days, and to thus complete the deletion. The reasoning for the deletion was that the information had been merged to another page, so there was no remaining purpose for the separate page. If you want more explanation than that, you will need to ask the person who originally listed the page for PROD deletion, User:YechielMan.

Defining a few of the things you were questioning about on the email:

Prod reason? - See WP:PROD the reason for the proposed deletion.

Tagging? - Placing a "tag" on the article, showing that it is subject to deletion.

Db-g6 (speedy)? - WP:CSD Speedy deletion. One of the other deletion processes. Fast, but very limited in what it can be used on.

Stop sign? - A chance to protest the PROD deletion.

In his PROD reason, User:YechielMan stated that the page fit the requirements for Speedy Deletion, specifically reason G6, housekeeping. He merged the information to another page, so it was a housekeeping chore to remove the now redundant page. But instead, he gave you the courtesy of placing the page up for PROD instead, giving an extra five day chance for you to respond and possibly oppose the deletion. You did not, so it was deleted on schedule. He even gave you a notice as listed above. So IMHO he did a good job of trying to give you a chance to respond if you wanted. - TexasAndroid 19:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

As TexasAndroid said, my rationale for deleting the article was that I had merged much of the content with Stan Freberg, who wrote the record, since that article is longer and better developed. Wikipedia's policy on handling this kind of situation is somewhat undefined. Whether to merge an individual album or to keep it as a separate article is often a judgment call. I thought merging it was better, but since you prefer to keep it separate, I respect your opinion as the article's creator. YechielMan 17:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Notifying editors by merely posting a notice on their talk page is INSUFFICIENT. I write. A lot. In many different places, including my blog, a commercial website, comments on pages, letters to the editor, and on wikis.

I write for the reasons most do, and specifically I write on and edit wikis to inform people of things I'm passionate about, and to improve the structure, grammar, spelling, or language of a page. Asking me to monitor a page for a notification of changes to a page I've worked on is asking me to monitor 50 - 100 pages per month, and eventually to monitor all of what I write. The English written on many pages here can be improved by a good editor - which I am. I'm happy to do it and regard it as my contribution to the commonweal.

To ask me to monitor a page for changes that I have contributed to is, I feel, unfair and a large burden, when you already have my email address and could notify me that way with no extra effort beyond a copy and paste. I feel that, since you are the person making the change, it is fair for you to have to perform that small additional task rather than me have to check Watch This Page on everything I touch. After all, I'm contributing my skill to you, without charge.

Best regards, Marc EricksonMarcerickson (talk) 03:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Email vs on-wiki response

You asked if I was alergic to Email. No. I am, however, a fairly private person. I prefer not to share my email address around. I can list my email for the "Email this user" privately, and there is no way for others to see the address. I can be reached without my address being seen. But there is really no way for me to respond via email without giving out the address. I prefer not to do this for a variety of reasons. Especially since, as an admin, I am going to by nature be encountering situations where people disagree with my actions. Sometimes quite... strongly. I really just do not want my personal, private email address to be getting out publically, so I simply do not respond by email. - TexasAndroid 21:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of "I am a British Columbian"

A page you created, I am a British Columbian, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it has no content, other than external links, categories, "see also" sections, rephrasing of the title, and/or chat-like comments.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thanks. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 02:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of "I am an Albertan"

A page you created, I am an Albertan, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it has no content, other than external links, categories, "see also" sections, rephrasing of the title, and/or chat-like comments.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thanks. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 02:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

This user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Marcerickson (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

24.84.108.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

---

Block message:

{{checkuserblock}}

• Blocking administrator: Bsadowski1 (talk • blocks)

---

Accept reason: == IP block exempt == I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking. This will allow you to edit through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page Wikipedia:IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions.

Note in particular that you are not permitted to use this newly-granted right to edit Wikipedia via anonymous proxies, or disruptively. If you do, or there is a serious concern of abuse, then the right may be removed by any administrator.

Appropriate usage and compliance with the policy may be checked periodically, due to the nature of block exemption, and block exemption will be removed when no longer needed (for example, when the block it is related to expires).

I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

(untitled section)

Attacking an editor? PLEASE! I've nothing against them. I was attacking the entire stupid system that denies originality. If the rest of the world followed that, we'd still be in caves. One of the reasons Wikipedia is dying is due to that policy.

And blocking me from editing? Big froggin' deal. I contribute until I become tired of and frustrated with the stupidity of the policies here. It doesn't bother me a bit if I were banned. I've excellent writing and proofreading skills and choose to donate them here - if Wikipedia cannot understand that intelligent people consider some of their policies tres stupide, I'll stop donating time here and thus have more time for my other pursuits. Which are far more rewarding than battling the idiots here which includes the stupid policy of allowing anonymous usernames. "The loose collective running the site today, estimated to be 90 percent male, operates a crushing bureaucracy with an often abrasive atmosphere that deters newcomers who might increase participation in Wikipedia and broaden its coverage." - http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/520446/the-decline-of-wikipedia/ - http://www.salon.com/2013/05/17/revenge_ego_and_the_corruption_of_wikipedia/ "As is sometimes the case with highly insular organizations, Wikipedia has developed an elaborate jargon, incomprehensible to outsiders. It has been made even more bewildering to the uninitiated by being expressed almost exclusively in the form of acronyms. Increasingly, this serves to defend the project against newcomers who actually believe that “anyone can edit”; in content disputes, it gives the advantage to entrenched persons who can cite policy with great facility (and greater selectivity.)" - http://wikipediocracy.com/2013/11/25/taking-the-alphabet-soup-with-a-grain-of-salt/ - http://wikipediocracy.com/2013/05/17/anonymous-revenge-editing-on-wikipedia-the-case-of-robert-clark-young-aka-qworty/ -— Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcerickson (talk • contribs) 08:54:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Macerickson, I have moved your comments here because it is usually preferable to keep a discussion confined to a single page. I see you responded to this warning, which I had placed on your talk page recently. Please understand, I'm not your enemy, I'm just another editor like yourself. And, just like you, I can find Wikipedia somewhat confusing and frustrating sometimes. There are some people here who may be difficult to deal with and somewhat unhelpful, but there are also many, many people here who are very helpful, kind and patient. Though Wikipedia has flaws, overall it is a remarkable accomplishment. The reason for this is because of the hard work of many people, who just like yourself, want to build and improve the project. Even though the motto is "anyone can edit", it doesn't mean anyone can just do anything. There are rules and guidelines that determine just what, how, where and when, content can be added. Sometimes this 'wiki-policy' can be dense, counterintuitive and counterproductive, but overall, it does keep the project focused on it's purpose - that being the building of an encyclopaedia. You have to understand that content must be properly sourced. People can't just add whatever they want, no matter how well written or authoritative it may be. Unsourced content, even if well-intended is considered to be 'original research', and is not allowed. This applies to everyone, even scholars, professionals and academics. This way, we know that whatever we read here is a pure and supported fact, and not a guess, opinion or mistake. I'm on your side, and I'm willing to help. You can also find plenty of helpful people at the help desk.

Now as to warning... it was just that, a "warning". Consider it as advice, rather than scolding or admonishment. You had posted this;

* "i HAVE A RELIABLE SOURCE, YOU IDIOT - ME! tHIS PERSON CAUSED ME MONETARY AND EMOTIONAL LOSS!"

"yOUR STUPIDITY IS LIKE ASKING A HISTORIAN TO ACCEPT EVIDENCE FROM A DOCTORAL DISSERTATION WHEN THE ORIGINAL SOURCE DOCUMENTS ARE AVAILABLE! wHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? BECAUSE SOMEONE PUBLISHES A REPORT - AN ARTICLE THAT COULD BE FICTION - THAT IS MORE RELIABLE THAN SOMEONE WHOM CAN TESTIFY TO THE EVENTS? I WAS THERE! I KNOW EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED! YOU ARE A FOOL - NOT ONLY THAT, YOU ARE SUCH A FOOL THAT YOU CANNOT RECOGNIZE YOUR FOOLISHNESS! gO TO http://www.collarme.com/personals/v/1915332/details.htm AND LOOK AT THE STINKING PICTURE! sEE HOW IT SAYS RAVEN RILEY IN THE CORNER? sEE HOW THE JOINED DATE IS 10/23/13? gO TO https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=279237252207391&set=pb.100003633550977.-2207520000.1385447174.&type=3&theater AND LOOK AT THE PHOTO. ISN'T THAT RAVEN RILEY FROM THIS SET? http://tour4.ravenriley.com/show_gal.php?section=5&t=pictures&galid=151&uvar[count:1]=6&nats=NjM6Mzox"

"gET A BLOODY BRAIN, SIR (LIKELY) OR MADAM - AND USE IT!"

I can tell you this, calling people "idiots", "stupid", "a fool" and telling them to "get a brain and use it" is not acceptable here. In fact the editor who's page you posted this on, could have (or may still) brought this to ANI, where as a result, an admin could block you for incivility and personal attacks. Also, using ALL CAPITAL LETTERS is considered a form of 'shouting' or 'yelling' and is considered rude. (no one like to get yelled at in real life, right?)

Did you notice my Caps Lock key was on? No - demonstrative of the adherence to POLICY and lack of thinking that is endemic at Wikipedia.Marcerickson (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, I am doing you a favour. You say you have a lot to offer this project - that's great! We want you here. But you have to understand how it works. Take some time to learn the principles and guidelines here and, learn how to "go along to get along" (and vice versa). There is a reason why there's over 4 million articles here and this is the 6^th most visited site in the world. Once you get to understand the workings of it, you will do fine. One last thing, when you leave comments, can you please add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) to the end to create a signature and time stamp? It let's people know the comment was made by you (and it's also a rule). Good luck! - ^theWOLFchild 00:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Attacking an editor? PLEASE! I've nothing against them. I was attacking the entire stupid system that denies originality. If the rest of the world followed that, we'd still be in caves. One of the reasons Wikipedia is dying is due to that policy.

And blocking me from editing? Big froggin' deal. I contribute until I become tired of and frustrated with the stupidity of the policies here. It doesn't bother me a bit if I were banned. I've excellent writing and proofreading skills and choose to donate them here - if Wikipedia cannot understand that intelligent people consider some of their policies tres stupide, I'll stop donating time here and thus have more time for my other pursuits. Which are far more rewarding than battling the idiots here which includes the stupid policy of allowing anonymous usernames. "The loose collective running the site today, estimated to be 90 percent male, operates a crushing bureaucracy with an often abrasive atmosphere that deters newcomers who might increase participation in Wikipedia and broaden its coverage." - http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/520446/the-decline-of-wikipedia/ - http://www.salon.com/2013/05/17/revenge_ego_and_the_corruption_of_wikipedia/ "As is sometimes the case with highly insular organizations, Wikipedia has developed an elaborate jargon, incomprehensible to outsiders. It has been made even more bewildering to the uninitiated by being expressed almost exclusively in the form of acronyms. Increasingly, this serves to defend the project against newcomers who actually believe that “anyone can edit”; in content disputes, it gives the advantage to entrenched persons who can cite policy with great facility (and greater selectivity.)" - http://wikipediocracy.com/2013/11/25/taking-the-alphabet-soup-with-a-grain-of-salt/ - http://wikipediocracy.com/2013/05/17/anonymous-revenge-editing-on-wikipedia-the-case-of-robert-clark-young-aka-qworty/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcerickson (talk • contribs) 18:02:13 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello again. I see you replied to me, but for some reason, you just copied & pasted your previous comments, instead of actually writing something new. You also didn't sign your comments (I've done that for you), but I see below that you have learned how and have since done so. Another thing we do here, to help keep a discussion going, and differentiate comments, is to indent our additions to the thread. This is really easy, we just use a colon ':'. You will see them on the comments of others when you open the 'edit' window. (You can see them here on our thread). This is an example of how the colon would be used;

First comments, no colon.

Next set of comments, one colon.

Next set of comments, two colons.

Another set of comments, three colons. (And so on...)

...And that's basically how it goes. When we get to 7 or 8 colons, we use {{od}} instead, to start at the left side again...

...and it looks like this.

Anyhow, I hope this helps. I see from your comments below that you are somewhat frustrated and that you have an issue with the policies and guidelines here. Let me tell you that, I agree - Yes! The policies and guidelines can be difficult sometimes. But once you learn your way around, it becomes quite easy, and you just might get to enjoy editing here. I would suggest that instead of trying to edit any further, for now, you get some help with the basics of contributing. A good place to start would be here: Help:Getting started. Also, there are people here willing to help and, of course, there is the help desk.

I'm happy to help as well. If you wish to ask me questions or discuss something, just post your question or comments here. I will watch this page for awhile, and respond if needed. I'll say again, Good luck! - ^theWOLFchild 21:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

"...Yes! The policies and guidelines can be difficult sometimes." "But once you learn your way around, it becomes quite easy..." Are you aware of the dichotomy in the second sentence which contradicts everything in the first? It's difficult, until it becomes easy. Most things are like that. Wikipedia appears to persist in keeping things as is for the benefit of their insiders, rather than continually looking for ways to make things here easier so that more are encouraged to participate. Once it took a doctorate and specialized employment to be on the internet - what would the world be like today if that still were true?Marcerickson (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

We could do with your skills

Since you have "excellent writing and proofreading skills", why don't you use them here on Wikipedia? That would be really helpful to the encyclopaedia, and much better than the stuff that, for some reason or other, you have chosen to post here instead. 80.168.237.127 (talk) 17:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

It's a rule to add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) to the end to create a signature and time stamp? Really? Then why is this the first I've heard of it? That is EXACTLY indicative of what is wrong with this whole project and why I contribute here far lees than I would if the policies here were more intelligent. Marcerickson (talk) 18:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you seem so angry and frustrated all the time. Being involved with Wikipedia doesn't have to be a miserable experience. Learning your way around here is not that hard. There are plenty of people willing to help you, and I've now gone an extra step an added a 'Welcome section' to the top of this page. Everything you need to know is there. Take a little time a read through it. Then you won't be caught off guard anymore by some of the policies we have here. I would really suggest you educate yourself a little first, before you edit any more. But once you get the hang of things, you'll actually might begin to like it here. Then you can see just how much fun you can have contributing here, and see all the new friends you'll make! Good lick! - ^theWOLFchild 15:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I become angry and frustrated when scientific truth is rejected because it doesn't conform with POLICY. Yah, it's inconvenient (at least) when the world changes and we have to examine our beliefs and assumptions because of a change, but refusing to change because of a policy or inconveniece is how you get increasingly crappy results. Garbage in = garbage out. That's exactly why the world is in trouble with global warming now.

oil sands -> tar sands

Hi, I appreciate and agree with your edits re: the re-branding of tar sands as "oil sands". They are mining bitumen, not oil. They are hiding many things with this branding, and it is technically inaccurate. What can be done? Thanks Bill Huston ^(talk) 20:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Marcerickson. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Marcerickson. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Marcerickson. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)