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

Nominations for the upcoming Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi ERcheck - you recently A7'd the article Roen McCullough - I would like to know if it could be moved to draftspace or WP:REFUND as I have not had sufficient time to contest the A7 (it was only a few hours since I created the page and no tab was present either nor opportunity for me to improve the article. Thanks! InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 03:39, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

@InvadingInvader: Can you let me know what you would say in contesting an A7 deletion? I'm willing to hear your reasons for not deleting.

FYI: While I did not delete based on WP:Notability (a higher standard), I did not find that significance was established from being:

• A back up college football player who never played in a game for his college team
• A scholar athlete
• High school youth athlete

As far as starting with a draft, it doesn't seem that McCullough would pass notability for a youth athlete, nor college athlete. With respect to his arrest, without a conviction and significant coverage, given WP:BLP and notability for criminal acts, that portion of his life does not give significance and likely should not be included for a biography.

NOTE: Pages deleted under A7 are not eligible for WP:REFUND.

— ERcheck (talk) 20:36, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the response - McCullough's involvement with Townhall and Mandrake (Ethos Hospitality Group) has been the subject of a major planned protest already covered by Axios. Admittedly my writing was a little bit too soon - I wrote the article based primarily on that the coverage already in the article was sufficient per the GNG. I think that as a former player, one of the two subjects of the protest, and the pending charges, but particular weight placed on the second of these three points, McCullough meets at least the GNG. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:24, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

@InvadingInvader - Protests based on the pending charges. As you mention, WP:TOOSOON. — ERcheck (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I was going to edit my page today but it seems you have already deleted all of my work from yesterday! I spent a few hours putting that together. How do I get it back to edit it? This seems very unfair. The page was for Kingfish Bay. KarynBell (talk) 15:51, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

@KarynBell - Responded on your talk page. — ERcheck (talk) 17:47, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

I wish I had an opportunity to edit or copy it. This was a complete waste of 2 hours of my day which I now must recreate KarynBell (talk) 18:05, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

@KarynBell: I recommend that you do not recreate as it as. In order to make it encyclopedia, it would take a "fundamental re-write". Please review

• Wikipedia:Article development
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• as well as the notes left on your user talk page. (my reply and the speedy delete notification)

Other helpful pages:

• Wikipedia:Article_wizard
• Category:Planned communities in the United States for ideas on writing from a neutral point-of-view.

— ERcheck (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I rewrote it and re did the sources. Hopefully this will work! KarynBell (talk) 19:16, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

@ERcheck remember to sign your name on your vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Daniel J. Richardson III. You have not. ~Rafael (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 23:51, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. BTW - speedy deleted it. Hoax/vandalism/etc. — ERcheck (talk) 23:51, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

@ERcheck thank you too. I appreciate it. ~Rafael (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 23:52, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

@Rafael - It seems the user is bent on putting an article out on Daniel J. Richardson III. He now has it on his user page! — ERcheck (talk) 23:54, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Yeah it's bizarre. Just marked two of their drafts as G3's too. I genuinely can't tell if it's like... malicious, or just deeply misguided. File:Dr. Daniel J. Richardson III - Noble Peace Prize Laureate.png is especially interesting. Perryprog (talk) 23:59, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

That is absolutely a hoax!!! Is this a sleeper vandal? — ERcheck (talk) 00:34, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't think this is a sock if that's what you mean. I'm more leading towards simply them being a misguided editor. A bit late, but one line that stood out to me was in the lede of one of the drafts that seemingly no-one took notice of (this draft had four declines!): American technology executive, consciousness computation researcher, retired U.S. Army officer, and cybersecurity specialist created for the discovery of Pi constant Pi = 3.159. using P = NP. Perryprog (talk) 00:55, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

@Perryprog - No. I mean that the editor has been creating these articles for quite some time and not getting noticed. Continually creating versions of pages on the same named person. Uploading fake documents goes beyond misguided. Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. — ERcheck (talk) 00:58, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh! Honestly I have no idea. I'm honestly a little miffed that this wasn't noticed (and then investigated) in AfC. This isn't entirely the first time I've seen... attempts at getting this "genre" of pseudoscience added in various places (many years ago, pre LLMs), but this is probably the highest volume instance of it. I do suspect the "yes, anding"-ness of LLMs is partly to blame in that respect, which is really unfortunate. Like—I genuinely don't think they were acting in bad faith, at all, really. Perryprog (talk) 01:03, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

@Perryprog and @ERcheck, I even draftified an article that they made. ~Rafael (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 02:12, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2025).

Administrator changes

Euryalus

• Admrboltz
• FloNight
• Floquenbeam
• Ganeshk
• JesseW
• Night Gyr
• Nixdorf

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

CheckUser changes

AmandaNP

SQL

Oversight changes

AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open on whether use of emojis with no encyclopedic value in mainspace and draftspace (e.g., at the start of paragraphs or in place of bullet points) should be added as a criterion under G15.

Technical news

• Administrators can now access the Special:BlockedExternalDomains page from the Special:CommunityConfiguration list page. This makes it easier to find. T393240

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Article titles and capitalisation 2 has been closed.
• An RfC is in progress to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

However, I think that, at least, the redirection can remain, unlike the one specified in the Template. What do you think? Bagyblazha (talk) 06:59, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

@Bagyblazha - Can you provide a reliable source that shows that "serbocracy" is a word in common usage and not a neologism? — ERcheck (talk) 10:51, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Voting for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open! A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. Voting closes at 23:59 UTC on 29 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi ERcheck. I came across your tagging of TenSecondsNow's userpage with U5. That criterion doesn't apply to userspace drafts that could plausibly be developed into an article, so I have removed the tag. If you were taking issue with how the draft was on the base userpage, it's better to move it to a subpage (or draftspace) and replace the redirect with {{draftified userpage}}. jlwoodwa (talk) 03:40, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Draft:TWOG has been recreated by an IP editor. I was going to tag for CSD but since you just deleted it a few minutes ago I thought you'd like to be informed. Take care --tony 03:43, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

@TonySt - Thanks. Feel free to let me know if it happens again. — ERcheck (talk) 03:47, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Johnny K. Davis, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Chief of Staff of the Army and Operation New Dawn.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 20:00, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

You just deleted Draft:Comrade Azhar Jatoi. I wasn't the creator of the draft, but I was trying to salvage the article when another editor tagged it for speedy deletion. I agree that the article couldn't be published in its current state, but I would like to continue working on it. Could you please restore it, perhaps to my user space? Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:30, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

@Eastmain - it looks like it was recreated @ 01:36, 24 September 2025 by User:39.50.251.125. Is this the version that you were last working on? — ERcheck (talk) 01:57, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, ERcheck. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple.
Message added 01:56, 24 September 2025 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

There exists a G11 speedy deletion request on their draft, Draft:DC SNIPER (Recording Artist), implying possible advertising behaviors. I'd prefer having that handled (and if applicable, sanctions be imposed) before deciding what to do with the renaming. 1F616EMO (talk) 01:56, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

@1F616EMO - Do you recommend a {{uw-spamublock}} to give the user the opportunity to demonstrate that they understand the issues? — ERcheck (talk) 02:05, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative; therefore, I don't think "giving the user the opportunity to demonstrate" justifies a block, especially since they paused editing on the draft. Per this reply, it seems like they do not understand that being employed counts as paid editing, and I'd prefer explaining that first. If they continued adding inappropriate content despite the talk page messages, or otherwise acted disruptively, then a {{uw-soablock}} can be given. ({{uw-spamublock}} would be confusing, as now their username have nothing to do with a company.) 1F616EMO (talk) 02:37, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello ERcheck. I saw that you deleted User:Lambda scorpii gmd (and also User talk:Lambda scorpii gmd) under WP:U2, and I wanted to let you know that U2 does not apply to redirects created due to a user being renamed (as these ones were). jlwoodwa (talk) 18:22, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

@Jlwoodwa It looks like U1 would have been the correct choice, as the renamed user nominated it. Seems something was amiss as the page was left after the rename, but reading logs, it was supposed to have been moved to the userpage for the renamed user — ERcheck (talk) 18:28, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I see – yes, U1 would apply to the userpage (but not the talk page). I don't see anything amiss about the rename: the pages were moved to the new username and redirects were left behind at the old username. jlwoodwa (talk) 18:33, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Johnny K. Davis, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL and missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (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) 01:36, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Fixed. — ERcheck (talk) 09:49, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello ERcheck, I have reviewed my article for all of the possible reasons for rejection and have the following observations - not written by LLM (but used chat got to guide me on the submission process/wiki text coding) - no promotional elements - no essay like writing - not vague/generic/speculative, lots of citations - no hallucinations - references all exist BUT - some of the news articles are not established news outlets, more industry press, perhaps that is the issue? Please could you guide me. I have spent a long time crafting this piece and really thought it had been written correctly. Your guidance would be HUGELY appreciated. AltFinDG (talk) 08:45, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Reply on user's talk page. — ERcheck (talk) 12:29, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

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 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 Jared Isaacman, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL and missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (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) 18:34, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Fixed. — ERcheck (talk) 09:50, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I was distracted and forgot and came back and knew I'd forgotten to do it so I went to do it real quick... only to see it done! Thank you. - Purplewowies (talk) 01:26, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

No worries. :-) — ERcheck (talk) 09:50, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I think it be a good idea to redact the initial creation log entry summary too. ~delta ^{(talk • cont)} 02:06, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

@~delta - thanks — ERcheck (talk) 02:29, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi ERcheck! I hope your weekend is going well and that you're having a great day so far! I was patrolling through recent changes and logs, and I saw that you applied redaction to the creation log of this account and with "{{uw-uhblock}}" in the summary. I just wanted to check with you and see if I'm overlooking or missing something. If this username is highly profane or egregious, the block log for the account is still public and has the account's username visible... :-)

Also, the account creation log wasn't fully redacted from public access. When removing a username from an account creation log, you need to remove both the "action and target" and the "performer's username/IP address". Otherwise, it's still accessible via the API. That's not the end of the world, as many administrators aren't aware of this fact - I went ahead and fixed it for you. When removing a username from any other logs, you don't have to do this, but on account creation logs, you do. It's weird, but that's the way it works... I figured I'd just let you know. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:14, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

@Oshwah - Thanks. Though I've been an admin for a long time, I'm pretty new at redacting info. I'll go ahead and fix the block log as well. I appreciate that cordial greeting and your help.... made a good weekend even better. — ERcheck (talk) 17:18, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

the creeper has one and villagers are humans so yeah idea hopefuly all minecraft mobs will have there own page Minecraft warrior cat (talk) 13:37, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

@Minecraft warrior cat - No thanks. I do not make pages for other folks, nor am I familiar enough with Minecraft to make appropriate contributions to the topic. Also, please review Wikipedia:Notability to understand what merits a Wikipedia article. — ERcheck (talk) 16:46, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2025).

Administrator changes

• Billinghurst
• Crisco 1492
• DarkFalls
• Spike Wilbury
• Valereee
• Ergo Sum

CheckUser changes

Vanamonde93

Arbitration

• After a motion, arbitration enforcement page protections no longer need to be logged in the AELOG. A bot now automatically posts protections at WP:AELOG/P. To facilitate this bot, protection summaries must include a link to the relevant CT page (e.g. ]), and you will receive talk page reminders if you forget to specify the contentious topic but otherwise indicate it is an AE action.

I just want to try out the Searchable Attributes bot username test so that it becomes a robot, it is an account from user:Searchable Attributes (my account) but it seems there was an error when creating the bot account, please correct me if I am wrong in understanding the robot policy on Wikipedia. and again I didn't create an account for vandalism/Sockpuppetry users. Searchable Attributesbot (talk) 12:17, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

@Searchable Attributesbot & @Searchable Attributes - Per Wikipedia:Bot policy, did you get approval from the Bot Approvals Group (BAG) ("which supervises and approves all bot-related activity from a technical and quality-control perspective on behalf of the English Wikipedia community.")? BTW - the naming convention is correct per the Bot Policy. — ERcheck (talk) 12:33, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

not yet but the Bot Policy is correct. Searchable Attributesbot (talk) 12:42, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

@User:Searchable Attributesbot - Oops: Bot policy says it should be Searchable AttributesBot. (note capitalized "B") — ERcheck (talk) 12:45, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Help Searchable Attributesbot (talk) 12:49, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

It seems like you are doing a task to change the name which is not in accordance with Wikipedia:policy. Searchable Attributes (talk) 06:55, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

@Searchable Attributes - Please elaborate. Your above message does not indicate what task you are speaking of, nor what name is being changed. — ERcheck (talk) 17:02, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

@ERcheck can I change my account name or am I the one running the account? Searchable Attributes (talk) 11:05, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

@Searchable Attributes - You cannot change your own user name. You can request a new user name at Global user account rename request|Global user account rename request. Your new user name must comply with Wikipedia's user name policy. — ERcheck (talk) 12:09, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

ok Searchable Attributes (talk) 14:06, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your work. I saw you deleted Carl Lawson (sprinter) recently -- when you have a moment, can you please restore it to draftspace? The page subject was a Pan American Games gold medalist so I'd like to add some SIGCOV sourcing and the appropriate notability-asserting statements when newspapers.com access is restored. Thanks, --Habst (talk) 14:11, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

@Habst - Happy to know that you will be able to add SIGCOV for this sprinter. Restored to Draft:Carl Lawson (sprinter). — ERcheck (talk) 17:01, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello ERcheck. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Draft:Justine Lynne Murray, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: It's just a draft, let them keep trying. Thank you. asilvering (talk) 16:01, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering - Thanks for letting me know. — ERcheck (talk) 21:13, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Hey @ERcheck. Your wiki edit anniversary was 2 days ago, marking 20 years of dedicated contributions to this Wikimedia project. Your passion for sharing knowledge and your remarkable contributions have not only enriched the project, but also inspired countless others to contribute. Thank you for your amazing contributions. Wishing you all the best for the year ahead :) -❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 14:05, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

@Gnoeee - Thanks! Wow! Hard to believe it's been 20 years. I started editing on Wikipedia after a family member suggested I add something new to my hobbies. — ERcheck (talk) 22:13, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

That’s wonderful to hear. It’s amazing how that has lead to such a meaningful and long-lasting journey. - ❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 12:39, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @ERcheck, thanks for reviewing and explaining the issues with the Spaceberry Studio draft. I understand the concerns about tone and sourcing and I’ll be rewriting the article based on your feedback to ensure it meets Wikipedia’s standards.

When you have a moment, could you please restore it to draftspace so I can work on the improvements and resubmit it properly through the Articles for Creation process?

Really appreciate your time and help with this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AngelinaGertz (talk • contribs) 16:48, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

@AngelinaGertz - Please read the G11 speedy delete criteria - the page was assessed by the nominator that it would need to be "fundamentally rewritten to serve as encyclopedia articles". When I reviewed the page, I concurred and thus deleted it. If I restore the page, it is may be again nominated for deletion.

Please respond to the following:

1. In reviewing the page, it appears that much of it was written using AI. Please see Wikipedia's views on using LLM. It may be again nominated for deletion for being LLM-generated. Are you using AI tools to write the draft article? Do you understand Wikipedia's stance on use of AI for writing articles? How does this information impact how you will write the draft?
2. Though you have declared your paid contributor status, the page demonstrates that you were not writing from a neutral point of view using reliable sources, and didn't edit with an understanding that demonstrating that notabilty standards are met does not mean spamming (i.e. you must that there has significant coverage). Please carefully read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest to avoid issues.

• The deleted draft was full of direct url links to Spaceberry Studios clients, which is promotional.
• On the talk page of the draft, please use the Template:Connected contributor (paid) to declare employer and client.

If your response demonstrates that you understand the above and you can adequately tell me what you will do differently, I may restore the page. — ERcheck (talk) 00:44, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to explain this so thoroughly, I really appreciate your patience.

I need to be completely honest about what happened:

1. Regarding AI usage:

I did use ChatGPT but not in the way it might appear. I wrote the content myself based on publicly available information and then used AI to help me structure and organize it into what I thought was a proper encyclopedia format. I genuinely didn't realize this still violated Wikipedia's LLM policy.

I've now read through Wikipedia's guidelines on AI and understand why this is problematic - even using AI for restructuring can introduce issues with tone, phrasing, and encyclopedic style. If you restore the page, I will write everything from scratch myself without any AI involvement, carefully following Wikipedia's manual of style and sourcing every statement properly.

2. Conflict of interest and neutrality:

I didn't see how promotional the draft looked. I declared my paid status thinking that was enough, but I clearly didn't understand what "neutral point of view" actually means in practice:

- Those direct client links were inappropriate and promotional

- I was focused on describing what the company does rather than demonstrating why it meets notability criteria through independent sources

- I didn't add the Template: Connected contributor (paid) to the talk page - that's my mistake

What I'll do differently if you restore the page:

- Write everything myself from the ground up, no AI tools

- Focus entirely on verifiable coverage from independent reliable sources (tech publications, design awards, industry recognition)

- Remove anything that reads like marketing - stick to facts that can be cited

- Properly use Template: Connected contributor (paid) on the talk page

- If I'm unsure whether something sounds promotional, I'll better remove it

I genuinely want to learn how to do this correctly. I understand Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with strict standards, not a business directory, and I respect that.

Would you be willing to restore it so I can demonstrate I understand these requirements? I'm committed to getting this right. AngelinaGertz (talk) 18:25, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@AngelinaGertz: Two items:

1. A mistake that is often seen in promotional content is that the editor tries to prove notability with non-notable coverage or unreliable sources/primary sources. Reviewing Wikipedia:Notability will give you guidance in what is seen as notable.
2. If you are going to "write from scratch", why start with the deleted version versus starting again.

— ERcheck (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

I see where I went wrong. I was treating any mention as "coverage" when Wikipedia clearly distinguishes between passing mentions and significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. I've now read through Wikipedia:Notability more carefully and understand that:

- Trade publication features and industry award announcements count

- Client lists and brief mentions don't

- The coverage needs to be substantial and independent

I'll focus on finding actual in-depth coverage from reliable sources (design publications, tech media, industry analysis) rather than trying to piece together mentions.

2. Why not start completely fresh:

That's a fair question. Honestly, I thought having the deleted version as reference would help me see what went wrong and avoid repeating mistakes. AngelinaGertz (talk) 09:29, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

@User:AngelinaGertz - I've briefly restored the draft to User:AngelinaGertz/sandbox. Please copy the page to off-wiki and then place {{db-author}} on the page. — ERcheck (talk) 11:41, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much for restoring it! I've copied the content off-wiki and placed the tag. AngelinaGertz (talk) 13:23, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind, I just wanted to remind you that WP:G7 says that blanking shouldn't be interpreted as a deletion request in userspace. Anyway, thanks for deleting that page I tagged as G3. Janhrach (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@Janhrach - I'm unclear as to which page you are referring to. The most recent user space deletion I made was {{db-author}} tagged by the user. — ERcheck (talk) 16:55, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

(Sorry for being unclear.) Janhrach (talk) 17:03, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@Janhrach - Thanks for your diligence. I deleted for vandalism and note (to self) that user blanked page (U1 should not have been added to the reasons). While user blanked page, the vandalism/attack was still available in the visible history. Good call on your part. — ERcheck (talk) 17:08, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

I have almost forgotten; can you please also delete the page's logs? Janhrach (talk) 17:14, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@Janhrach I don't believe it is necessary, as the page history is only visible to administrators. — ERcheck (talk) 17:23, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

But the text of the page is still visible in the logs for everyone. Janhrach (talk) 17:29, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@Janhrach - Thanks - done. I can only "see" with admin eyes, so it is helpful that you pointed this out. — ERcheck (talk) 17:33, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

I noticed that you recently deleted this redirect under CSD R3. This redirect had been listed at RfD and the discussion has not yet been closed. Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 20:31, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

@CyberTheTiger - Yes. I did not delete due to the RfD discussion, but as a result of the later speedy delete tag WP:CSD#R3. — ERcheck (talk) 20:35, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

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: Three Wikipedia editors review five books Timeline: This month in military history

Hello, ERcheck. This message is being sent to remind you of significant upcoming changes regarding logged-out editing.

Starting 4 November, logged-out editors will no longer have their IP address publicly displayed. Instead, they will have a temporary account (TA) associated with their edits. Users with some extended rights like administrators and CheckUsers, as well as users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will still be able to reveal temporary users' IP addresses and all contributions made by temporary accounts from a specific IP address or range.

How do temporary accounts work?

• When a logged-out user completes an edit or a logged action for the first time, a cookie will be set in this user's browser and a temporary account tied with this cookie will be automatically created for them. This account's name will follow the pattern: ~2025-12345-67 (a tilde, year of creation, a number split into units of 5).
• All subsequent actions by the temporary account user will be attributed to this username. The cookie will expire 90 days after its creation. As long as it exists, all edits made from this device will be attributed to this temporary account. It will be the same account even if the IP address changes, unless the user clears their cookies or uses a different device or web browser.
• A record of the IP address used at the time of each edit will be stored for 90 days after the edit. Users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will be able to see the underlying IP addresses.
• As a measure against vandalism, there are two limitations on the creation of temporary accounts:
  • There has to be a minimum of 10 minutes between subsequent temporary account creations from the same IP (or /64 range in case of IPv6).
  • There can be a maximum of 6 temporary accounts created from an IP (or /64 range) within a period of 24 hours.

Temporary account IP viewer user right

• Administrators may grant the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right to non-administrators who meet the criteria for granting. Importantly, an editor must make an explicit request for the permission (e.g. at WP:PERM/TAIV)—administrators are not permitted to assign the right without a request.
• Administrators will automatically be able to see temporary account IP information once they have accepted the Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy via Special:Preferences or via the onboarding dialog which comes up after temporary accounts are deployed.

Impact for administrators

• It will be possible to block many abusers by just blocking their temporary accounts. A blocked person won't be able to create new temporary accounts quickly if the admin selects the autoblock option.
• It will still be possible to block an IP address or IP range.
• Temporary accounts will not be retroactively applied to contributions made before the deployment. On Special:Contributions, you will be able to see existing IP user contributions, but not new contributions made by temporary accounts on that IP address. Instead, you should use Special:IPContributions for this (see a video about IPContributions in a gallery below).

Rules about IP information disclosure

• Publicizing an IP address gained through TAIV access is generally not allowed (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 previously edited as 192.0.2.1 or ~2025-12345-67's IP address is 192.0.2.1).
• Publicly linking a TA to another TA is allowed if "reasonably believed to be necessary". (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 and ~2025-12345-68 are likely the same person, so I am counting their reverts together toward 3RR, but not Hey ~2025-12345-68, you did some good editing as ~2025-12345-67)
• See Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer § What can and can't be said for more detailed guidelines.

Useful tools for patrollers

• It is possible to view if a user has opted-in to view temporary account IPs via the User Info card, available in Preferences → Appearance → Advanced options → Enable the user info card
  • This feature also makes it possible for anyone to see the approximate count of temporary accounts active on the same IP address range.
• Special:IPContributions allows viewing all edits and temporary accounts connected to a specific IP address or IP range.
• Similarly, Special:GlobalContributions supports global search for a given temporary account's activity.
• The auto-reveal feature (see video below) allows users with the right permissions to automatically reveal all IP addresses for a limited time window.

Videos

• How to use Special:IPContributions
• How automatic IP reveal works
• How to use IP Info
• How to use User Info

Further information and discussion

• For more information and discussion regarding this change, please see the announcement from the Wikimedia Foundation at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF) § Temporary accounts rollout.

Most of this message was written by Mz7 (source). Thanks, 🎃 SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Starting on 1 November, the month-long 2025 Article Improvement Drive will target a number of content improvement areas and backlogs. Participating editors will be in line for barnstars and other awards; articles from all aspects of the project will be eligible so there will be something for everybody. Interested editors are encouraged to sign up now! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:17, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2025).

Administrator changes

Toadspike

• Elahrairah
• Juliancolton
• Magnus Manske

CheckUser changes

asilvering

Guideline and policy news

• The speedy deletion criteria U5 has been repealed, with U6 and U7 replacing it. See the FAQ for more clarifications.
• Community-designated contentious topics may now be enforced and appealed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard (AE) as a result of an RfC.

Technical news

• You can enable a handy user info card next to usernames, which when clicked displays edit count, blocks, thanks, and other information. To enable this feature, visit Preferences → Appearance → Advanced options → Enable the user info card

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Transgender healthcare and people has been closed
  • Uninvolved administrators may impose an AE participation restriction on any thread at the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard.

Miscellaneous

• An unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in November 2025 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Aesurias (talk) 06:22, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

No need to involve yourself if you don't want to but I saw you dealt with this user so thought I should let you know. Have a good day! Aesurias (talk) 06:22, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)Link to thread which has been blanked at least once by the subject of the thread. Think they need an indef, but my laptop is glitching. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:19, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

blocked by newslinger -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:52, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

@Aesurias - Thanks of the notification and the sleuthing to document all of the issues. — ERcheck (talk) 12:40, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to ask the motive behind the deletion of this page, considering the article text which was supposedly "stolen" was actually my own work and was actually copied by that website. (jabz) 10:40, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Response on User talk:(G)jabz. — ERcheck (talk) 15:12, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

	For guiding the apprentice, honored the teacher is
	I did not expect this to go so easily. Thanks for your help. I hope to call on you for advice. Best RPK2000 (talk) 05:11, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

@RPK2000 - I'm honored. Please feel free to ask me questions. I'm looking forward to the improvements you will make to existing articles, and the new ones you will create. Your areas of interest coincide with some of mine, though I am by no means an expert in those areas. — ERcheck (talk) 04:48, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I’ve made some edits to improve the references on the page. After working on it for a bit, I realized I had previously noted a conflict of interest, so I want to be cautious. I also identified several awards that have reliable sources, but I wasn’t confident about formatting all of the citations correctly, so I stopped to avoid introducing errors.

Is it acceptable for me to continue making straightforward reference fixes and adding properly sourced information? If not, I’m happy to leave proposed changes here on the Talk page for another editor to review and implement. Either way, the page does need some reference cleanup, so guidance would be appreciated. I cannot figure out the references the awards need to be adjusted.

== Awards and honors ==

Cryer received numerous national and international awards in recognition of his work on hypoglycemia and diabetes, including:

• Banting Medal for Distinguished Scientific Achievement of the American Diabetes Association (1994);
• Albert Renold Award of the American Diabetes Association for mentorship in diabetes research (2010);
• Claude Bernard Medal of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (2001);
• Novartis Award for Longstanding Achievement in Diabetes;
• Kellion Award of the Australian Diabetes Society;
• Rorer Clinical Investigator Award of the Endocrine Society;
• Outstanding Clinical Investigator Award of the Endocrine Society (1988);
• Rumbough Award of Breakthrough T1D (formerly JDRF) for scientific achievement in type 1 diabetes;
• Method to Extend Research in Time (MERIT) Award from the U.S. National Institutes of Health (2001–2010);
• Honorary doctorate from the University of Copenhagen (2000).

RPK2000 (talk) 06:12, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

So, I corrected most of the references and a couple of other things. Do review the changes and let me know if I am on the right track. My first draft had the wrong links, and it was noticed by an editor. I think they are fixed now. RPK2000 (talk) 06:30, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

My opinion:

Award section should include the major awards - include all that have a Wikipedia page, those from organizations which have a Wikipedia page; and, any that are included need to have citations from reliable sources - OK if it is the organization who gave the award. It's nice to include why they received the award. (Wikilink awards and organizations that have Wiki pages).

Publications sections are often an extensive lists of publications, which are not necessary. I'd make sure that the seminal papers are there, followed by those with the most citations, etc. Prioritize in terms of importance. It is also nice to include a brief sentence on what is covered in the paper. (For an example, see Robert_Maxfield#Selected_publications.

More later. I'm busy IRL, so, it may be a few days before I can review. — ERcheck (talk) 14:28, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed 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 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Gaza's hunger games. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 18:19, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

You forgot to apply the block to User:Saltandcandy. Fixed. -- Alexf^(talk) 10:28, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

@Alexf - Thanks so much! (Red-faced) — ERcheck (talk) 19:30, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello ERcheck

you have had deleted my article for promotion, I have revised it in my sandbox and I would appreciate your quick review if possible: User:Karlossmith/sandbox Karlossmith (talk) 07:58, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

@Karlossmith - I've added a {{user sandbox}} tag to your sandbox, with a submit for review button. When you are finished with editing the draft, click on the submit button and it will be reviewed by a new article reviewer. I do note that demonstrating that the company is notability may be an issues. — ERcheck (talk) 12:42, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Was this edit a mis-click? If not, what was the purpose of re-introducing the errors? 17:44, 27 November 2025 (UTC) BD2412 T 17:44, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

@BD2412 - Wow! That was a random mis-click! Sorry. I'll undo. — ERcheck (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. Cheers! BD2412 T 19:31, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

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 Op-ed: Nick-D on 20 years with Wikipedia Timeline: This month in military history

What the heck .. 1. I just wanted to say thanks for that block. Can't believe this is the first time my talk page gets vandalized. Also, plenty of thanks to @TonySt and @General Ization, for diving into this crap quickly, when I wasn't around. Thanks! ‎ ‎ B⠄Jayden ^(talk) 12:58, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

@B.Jayden - You are welcome.. That was a frenetic bit of vandalism - 24 hits in 6 minutes. — ERcheck (talk) 16:25, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Nominations now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2025! The top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Nominations are open here and here respectively. The nomination period closes at 23:59 on 30 November 2025 when voting begins. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. MediaWiki message delivery via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Correction: nominations are open until 23:59 (UTC) on 14 December 2025. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:20, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2025).

Administrator changes

• Chaotic Enby
• Rjjiii

Valereee

• Fathoms Below
• Tamzin

CheckUser changes

Spicy

Technical news

• Starting on November 4, the IP addresses of logged-out editors are no longer being publicly displayed. Instead, they will have a temporary account associated with their edits.
• Administrators will now find that Special:MergeHistory is now significantly more flexible about what it can merge. It can now merge sections taken from the middle of the history of the source (rather than only the start) and insert revisions anywhere in the history of the destination page (rather than only the start). T382958

Miscellaneous

• The December 2025 administrator elections are scheduled from Nov 25 – Dec 15.
• An Articles for Creation backlog drive is happening in December 2025, with over 1,000 drafts awaiting review from the past two months. In addition to AfC participants, all administrators and new page patrollers can help review using the Yet Another AFC Helper Script, which can be enabled in the Gadgets settings. Sign up here to participate!

Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2025! The top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Cast your votes here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2025. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. MediaWiki message delivery via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:54, 15 December 2025 (UTC)