User talk:ERcheck

ERcheck is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia soon.

Archives
October 2005 to March 2006 April 2006 to May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October to November 2006 December 2006 January to February 2007 March to June 2007 July to December 2007 January to December 2008 2009 — 2010 — 2011 2012 to 2015 2016 to 2017 2018 — 2019 — 2020 2021 — 2022 — 2023-2024 — 2025 — 2026

Hi ERcheck, quick note on Special:Block/DennisRodmanOfficial: I updated the block reason to match the talk page notice since a promotional note in the reason could send someone in the wrong direction in the future. I'll also plug Twinkle for blocking since it keeps the reason in sync automatically and has reasonable defaults (like soft blocks for blocks like this one). Cheers. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:48, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Quinlan - Thanks. It was a few weeks ago, so, I'm not sure how I added the incorrect reason in the block, but the correct reason on in the notice to the user. Thanks for catching that. — ERcheck (talk) 23:58, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I am Verdict! and recently I have found an article which is completely messed with unreliable sources. I have been arguing with an editor who kept those things since whole day!. You may see our conversations on our talk page and understand the whole situation. Could you please help me what can I do further to make it unbiased. I don't know what to do! Narrow-gauge railways in Denmark, this is the page I am talking about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VerdictByLogic (talk • contribs) 19:28, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You have just place this on that Wikipedia website and you have just been removed all of informations that was already there so why place this thing here yeah that doesn't make any sense at all. ~2026-17339-05 (talk) 21:34, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-17339-05 - Please do not carry your dispute to my talk page. — ERcheck (talk) 21:39, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just trying to talk to this person so this person can have some more respect against other peoples. And nothing else at all. ~2026-17339-05 (talk) 21:41, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you understand what I'm saying and I think you should go to my talk page so you can see the whole thing for yourself. ~2026-17339-05 (talk) 21:42, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a free place, and I don't think you should be that aggressive you should just be calm and not aggressive at all. Just remember that tone okay that's all for me and I hope you understand what I'm saying by the way. Thanks for your understanding. ~2026-17339-05 (talk) 21:45, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are only warning yourself dude, and all of the admins they can just see what you have sent to me on my talk page. That is not okay and you have not that privilege at all, that privilege is only by admins. ~2026-17339-05 (talk) 21:40, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-17339-05 - I am blocking you from commenting on my talk page. As I said, I am not a part of this dispute. — ERcheck (talk) 22:50, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That didn't work. [1] Perhaps it's better if it didn't work; I'm not a fan of an administrator using the tools to deal with a dispute they're involved in, such as partially blocking someone from their own talk page for having annoyed them. I'd recommend asking them to stop messaging you, as everyone can, and if the messages continue, revert, revert, report at ANI. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:03, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree - Thanks. I see your point, though I didn't view myself as an "involved" party. One of the disputing parties came to my page, I surmise randomly looking for an admin; then, the other party followed to my page. I requested that the discussion not be on my talk page, but it continued both on my page and Verdict!'s page. I did recommend make recommendations on addressing their dispute. Given your perspective, I will be more circumspect in a similar situation. — ERcheck (talk) 06:14, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

All good, I was a bit in a hurry this morning. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:03, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you for all your help on the administrative side of Wikipedia. Lynch44 01:08, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at four works Timeline: This month in military history

		The Barnstar for the Oops
		thank you for telling me that African agoty don't have tails

Bencefo (talk) 17:29, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sir thank you for handling that user whom i reported at the AIV, the person vandalizing the article about the Baker Act law in Florida. Really, I don’t know why he was doing that. I live in Florida, I’ve lived here my entire life, apart from when I lived in India during my infancy, that was where I was born. Yes, I am an Indian-American boy, born and raised Catholic, and I have been U.S. citizen since Summer of 2015 before my 4th grade.

Ever since I immigrated to USA as a toddler in late 2006, I have been living in Florida. I know VERY WELL what the Baker Act is and I was actually in the Baker Act myself from September 21, 2019, at 12 AM, to when I was discharged the next day during the afternoon. Don’t worry, I’m better now, and yes, the Baker Act is NOT a baking school, where you “learn how to bake cookies, french chocolate pastries, cupcakes, and so much more,” quite contrary to what this vandal was doing.

It’s called “Baker Act” but the official name of that Act is the Florida Mental Health Act of 1971. Baker Act is just a nickname. It comes from Maxine Baker. She was in the Florida House of Representatives, she represented Miami-Dade County FL, and she was the one who pushed for this Act. That’s why it’s called Baker Act, and it really has nothing to do with baking.

Don’t worry, I am not like that user. I am here to help Wikipedia improve and be better. That’s why I reported that troublesome user at the AIV. Thanks for handling him. It’s annoying when braindead kids like him come and cause trouble like this. Come on, if someone is bored, he/she has far better things to do than to be vandalizing Wikipedia or Fandom and giving admins and others trouble. Don’t you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmericanDude28 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2026).

Administrator changes

• Deepfriedokra

• EvanProdromou
• Wouterstomp

Interface administrator changes

L235

Chaotic Enby

CheckUser changes

• TheresNoTime
• Versageek

Oversight changes

Moneytrees

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

• Changes to user permissions made from Meta are now included in the local user permissions log (T6055).
• The autoconfirmed user group will soon be modified such that the four-day account age requirement begins when an account makes its first edit (T418484).

Arbitration

• The arbitration case SchroCat has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case closed on 15 April.
• Per a recent motion, appeals of blocks from the conflict-of-interest VRT queue are, by default, appealed on-wiki through the normal unblock process. However, they may be heard by the Committee if COIVRTers disagree on the interpretation of the evidence or believe ArbCom would be better suited to hear the appeal. Administrators are also advised that loosening or lifting such blocks without the consent of someone with access to the queue or ArbCom can be grounds for desysopping.
• Per a recent motion, restrictions issued directly by the Committee may now be enforced with blocks which work exactly like contentious topic blocks.
• The arbitration case Maghreb has been closed.

Miscellaneous

• The May 2026 administrator elections are scheduled to run from April 29 to May 19. The call for candidates ends May 5.
• The 2026 Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) election is scheduled to run from April 25 to June 1. Candidacy submissions close on May 10.
• A new noticeboard for non-urgent, batch page protection requests has been created, primarily for the enforcement of contentious topic restrictions.

I got called out for not handling WP:UAA appropriately, are you available to help me for a moment? --みんな空の下 (トーク) 18:28, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What is your question? (I have just a few minutes now.) — ERcheck (talk) 19:39, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply, but I was wondering if you have any input on my possible UAA mistakes (third warning section). I'm trying to correct the mistakes from the input Cabayi gave me earlier today. --みんな空の下 (トーク) 20:06, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@みんな空の下 - Likely it was a bit of a surprise to be admonished for what you felt was diligent reporting. I recommend to take a few moments (and a few deep breaths), shed off the feelings associated with being called out, and now let's look at how do handle things differently in the future. I recommend reading Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention/Instructions.

FYI, here are some things that I do when I look at usernames:

• First thing, check to see if the account is blocked.

• When I look at newly created accounts/usernames that seem promotional:

1. I do a google search on the name to see if it is truly a company with the exact same name/website with the exact term.
2. I check the user contributions to see if they have been editing promotionally.
3. I check the user talk page to see if they have already received a warning.

• If no warning has been issued, I then use the {{uw-coi-username}} warning, with the usual subject line "Username issue - please choose new username".
• If you issue a warning, give the user time to respond. Don't report to UAA immediately thereafter.

• On occasion, I will need to use Google translate to figure out what is actually happening.
• Looking at usernames that are offensive is sometimes a difficult call.
• Key takeaways for when to report to WP:UAA:

1. Blatantly aggregious violations, such as threats of violence, blatantly inappropriate names, I'd bring to UAA.
2. For all others, that are serious/obviously promotional, follow the "Only report accounts with edits and do not report those with no edits in the preceding 2 weeks" and also, provide a clear explanation of what is against policy.

Hope this helps. Feel free to ask specific questions here. I am busy IRL, so I might not respond quickly. — ERcheck (talk) 20:06, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Minna Sora no Shita - I wrote the above while you were answering, so, I may not have addressed what you needed. Please to feel free to ask for more details if needed. — ERcheck (talk) 20:11, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@みんな空の下 - Follow-up to warning on obvious corporate usernames: As such names are allowed on other wiki accounts, I do check to see if the account was created on en.wikipedia.org, with no other global accounts/contributions. I find that the use of the template {{uw-coi-username}} is gentle way of letting a new editor know that their username does not comply with English Wikipedia's policy. There was an admin discussion thread last year (July 2025), that leaned toward WP:CORPNAME with no edits = warn/discuss. 18:36, 7 May 2026 (UTC) — ERcheck (talk) 18:36, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you should follow-up with Cabayi with this, since they're the admin that has warned me for biting new editors (I was handed a final warning earlier this morning). I've been using {{uw-coi-username}}, but thanks for the tip with the point on no other global accounts/contributions (use Special:CentralAuth to see if such). I usually use Google/Duckduckgo to see if the username resembles an existing company in real life, but maybe I should also use CentralAuth tool as well. Though I'm not sure if I'm going back to full speed patrolling newly created users... (Maybe newly created pages might be better, especially when I find blatantly promotional pages that are unacceptable for wikipedia). --みんな空の下 (トーク) 19:02, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lint Fixer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User page says "MBC Media Group (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is blocked" (blocked for promotional username/editing)

I'm not sure if this is a possible sock of it or something, so I don't know where to report or if I should warn them; any advice? --みんな空の下 (トーク) 23:31, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Minna Sora no Shita - I don't think Lint Fixer is a sock. Looking carefully at the edits, seems to be more test edits/vandalism/playing around. Worth keeping an eye on. — ERcheck (talk) 23:44, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you deleted an article that I created. This article is legitimate. ~2026-29968-87 (talk) 01:26, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7, Hog Farm and Nick-D look at four recent works Timeline: This month in military history

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 1952 Mount Gannett C-124 crash, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A dates error. References show this error when one of the date-containing parameters is incorrectly formatted. Please edit the article to correct the date and ensure it is formatted to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style's guidance on dates. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 02:35, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Typo fixed. — ERcheck (talk) 03:03, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I see you blocked user:AQUAFUTURE and user:TNBDA BUSINESS for 24 hours aren't username blocks supposed to be indefinite especially when combined with promotional edits? Lavalizard101 (talk) 14:16, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Lavalizard101 - Thanks for letting me know. I was using Twinkle for blocking for the first time and made a mistake. Fixed them both to indefs. — ERcheck (talk) 15:44, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No worries twinkle misclicks are easily done. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:16, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]