User talk:Ericmaas

Welcome!

Hello, Ericmaas, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like Michael gilson, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! JCutter (talk) 22:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Michael gilson[edit]

A tag has been placed on Michael gilson, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. JCutter (talk) 22:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Michael gilson[edit]

A tag has been placed on Michael gilson, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. JCutter (talk) 23:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of HExistentialism[edit]

A tag has been placed on HExistentialism requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion pages[edit]

Please leave your comment where I left it. As it is, people think you are begging for the preservation of the article Please do not delete, which, of course, never existed to begin with. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Now you're asking what I have against the article Please be more specific. Well, if you click on that red link, you'll see that there is no article with that title. What is this? Is there a band called "Please be more specific"? I don't know. What article are you talking about? -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah no I am asking what you have against the hExistentialism page. You are just trying to get sassy with me.

So you didn't understand, right? By inserting your comment at the top of the deletion discussion with a header, instead of at the bottom with only basic formatting, you are in fact initiating another unrelated deletion discussion, and people will not see that what you are asking is in fact related to HExistentialism. I tried sarcasm to show what you were doing, and it didn't work. So, I moved your first comment to its proper place. If you want to add more, please add it using the formatting I used, and not the one you used.

On a side note, the edit you made to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 July 17 could have been considered vandalism. You were lucky that I was the first to catch it. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please add your comments to the bottom of a discussion, never at the top. Otherwise, people will think your comments refer to another discussion. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

July 2009[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abusing multiple accounts in an attempt to sway consensus. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Tiptoety ^talk 02:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I do not see why I am blocked. I have one account, and I am arguing my point on my listing. Please clarify the block.

Decline reason:

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ericmaas/Archive. Either you are operating multiple accounts yourself, or you are specifically recruiting people to give the illusion of consensus at the an WP:AFD discussion. Either way, the behavioral evidence points clearly to these one of these two conclusions, and per this ArbCom decision, it really doesn't matter since both situations are equally as problematic. See also User talk:Dani zee. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 03:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I would like to note that I received an email from the above user stating: "Really not sure why I have been blocked for 24 hours. I am registered user of Wikipedia. I have been asking questions and following the rules and giving proper arguments for my posts. The admins are claiming that my references lack editorial over sight, which here in the link http://www.geardiary.com/about/ is not true. We are posting factual information about a video game, we are asking questions and participating. Please help, I would hate for our article to be taken down, before we can fully justify it and give all the evidence we can to support our claim. Thank you, Eric Maas" Might I ask why you are using "we" and stating that it is "your" article? Tiptoety ^talk 04:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article hExistentialism, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. MuZemike 02:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael Gilson concern[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael Gilson, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 03:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your article submission Michael Gilson[edit]

Hello Ericmaas. It has now been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Michael Gilson.

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note, however, that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael Gilson}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 02:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm Dennis Bratland. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Honda CB77, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.

Please go to Talk:Honda CB77 and cite evidence that VJMC website is an authority. Who, specifically has said that this document is reliable? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]