Jump to content

User talk:ERcheck

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Frogsprog (talk | contribs) at 19:03, 24 September 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:SprotectedTalk


Today is Sunday, August 11, 2024; it is now 21:46 (UTC/GMT)


Welcome to my talk page. Feel free to leave me a message. Please place your message at the bottom of this page. Thanks. —ERcheck



Archive
Archives
October 2005 – March 2006

April 2006 – May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006





Need some of your admin help if able

For the past two weeks User:66.11.160.31 has been reverting the intro to the Jesse Macbeth article to make it read as if this guy was legitimate. If you are unfamiliar, Macbeth was kicked out of the Army while in recruit training and then became the darling of the anti-war crowd when he came out saying he was a Ranger and participated in war atrocities. He has since been proven to be a liar by just about everyone except the user above. Anyway, I am asking if you could intervene with this user to stop them from making these revisions as they are known to be false and this constant back and forth is getting old. Thanks in advance for the help. Hope everything else is going good. --Looper5920 22:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the last it seems that the above user has either taken a new name or gained a friend. Please add User:Jessefriend to the above situation as well. Thanks--Looper5920 23:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of reverters & actions

Note: Sockpuppet report, 3RR report, and Admin noticeboard incident report. — ERcheck (talk) 01:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobunaga25, 26, 27....

Thanks for the heads up. Deepthroat123 has violated 3RR, btw. --Nobunaga24 00:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those accounts haven't been created yet (I think). Just being lighthearted :-)--Nobunaga24 00:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe someone else, Mmx1, has reported the sockpuppety, Don't know if anyone has reported the vandalism. I'm kind of doing my editing on the sly right now, since I'm at work, so haven't really gotten too deep into the whole affair, just a few reverts. I think Mmx1 and Looper have been battling this guy more than me, and doing a good job of it.--Nobunaga24 00:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions?

Is ERcheck your real name. If not then what is it and why don't you use your real name?

Thank You,

Aberon Jones Aberon Jones 03:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion

Hey Er its me aberon jones. I just wanted to ask what you think of my user page. Please answer as fast as possible so that I can change mistakes or violations

Thank YOu,

Aberon JOnes Aberon Jones 03:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question from KRBN (talk • contribs • count)

I want to ask you something; Do I have the right to put {{prod}} in any article? I followed that rule about not putting articles for speedy deletion but User:TruthbringerToronto stil continues to revert them. Instead of reverting, he could have discussed that subject. I think it is time for warning for block on him. Just check Christos Panopoulos. KRBN (Talk | 18:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you answer me another question to understand better notability? Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad are worthy of articles. I don't understand well that phrase.

  • First team squad means usually at the squad of 11 players or to not be just in young team?
  • a club of sufficient stature, what does that mean? especially the stature.

KRBN (Talk | 21:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Again

hey thanks for checking out my User Page. I was also wandering if you can delete my account so that I can start a new one? Please answer.

Thank You

Aberon Jones Aberon Jones 20:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bye!

Hey its me Aberon JOnes. I have erased most of my user page so that I can start a new account. I will be back as JCYJ okay. So next time that you read something from JCYJ you should know that its me Aberon JOnes. Thanks for all your help pal. Bye (But I will return)

Aberon Jones 21:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SELECTED ARTICLE

Nice! In the past you have played an essential part in the artcles which I have writen. The references which you have supplied me have helped me write good articles. I wrote a stub (and you know that I hate to write stubs) on someone that I found interesting and this is because I could only find limited information on him. The person in question is Fernando E. Rodriguez Vargas. I was wondering if you could find any addition sites that I may have missed with additional information that I can use. Cheers. Tony the Marine 03:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Harrison austin

I think you speedied this, but it got recreated and the creator keeps removing the speedy tags I have been giving the second version. Do you have any advice about what to do next? --Slp1 12:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. I have gone ahead and done an AFD (not sure I've done it correctly but anyway!!). Just so I know, how has the author asserted some notability? By the text in the article, or somewhere else I have not found. --Slp1 13:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks muchly. The clarification about notability was especially helpful. Have a good weekend! --Slp1 13:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tonycdp

Thanks for your comments. I get the impression Tonycdp was trying to provoke a response. Unfortunately for him I have been around for a long time and know well how to keep a cool mind. Arbitration procedures are quite stressful and usually bring out the worst out of some people indeed. Thanks again, E Asterion u talking to me? 18:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ta

you beat me to the TPV4, cheers muchly Khukri (talk . contribs) 15:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yea noticed that just had one blocked who was leaving | MUAHH HA HA HA HA HAA on articles, I wondered if this one was the same guy who'd just changed his IP. We'll see. Cheers Khukri (talk . contribs) 15:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sheynhertz-Unbayg user talk

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive56#Ban of Sheynhertz-Unbayg: if he wants to be unblocked, he should do so with his primary account which is old enough to bypass the semiprotection, not any new accounts or IP addresses he uses to edit. Ryūlóng 20:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Help

I know u don't know me but i really need a little help. I uploaded a picture but it didn't go where i wanted it to. Can u tell me how can i delete it? please & thank you.

Baby16 23:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Viogfernos user conduct RFC

Hi, I notice you have had recent difficulty with Viogfernos blanking warnings on his talk page. I've opened an RFC regarding him here which you may wish to comment on. It deals mainly with incivility and mislabelling others' edits as vandalism, rather than blanking. I don't know exactly how this works, whether I'm supposed to contact everyone who might have a problem with him... but I figured you might be interested. Thanks, Fuzzypeg☻ 01:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

Has been a bit of a handful by myself! - Glen 11:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to his unblock request

) - Glen 00:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks

Thanks for helping me out with Topchief1 and his vandalism. TheCyrus 03:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Lol...thanks for the advice :) I used the blatantvandal template...but then I wanted to get ...creative? In hindsight, bad idea. Cheers!

List of Hispanic Medal of Honor recipients

Check out the "Photo Gallery" in List of Hispanic Medal of Honor recipients Semper Fi Tony the Marine 04:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give me some critical feedback?

I'm basically satisfied with portal layout and portal article boxes; I'm in the process of writing guideline and welcome talk pages before showing this to the group. After we get some group consensus, we can take this off under-construction. BusterD 00:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

News

I have some great news that I want to share with you. Istarted a movement to have the names of Capt's. Manuel Rivera and Humbert Roque Versace inscribed in "El Monumento de la Recordacion" , which is a monument located in San Juan, Puerto Rico dedicated to the solidiers born in the island or of Puerto Rican descent who served in the Armed Forces and gave their lives for the United States. For some unknown reason these two names were not in the monument.

The thing is that my quest has paid off and the President of the Puerto Rican Senate invited me to attend the unveiling in Memorial Day of 2007.

Pretty cool,huh? Tony the Marine 22:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vaughan Demographics

  • Hey ER, I did see the new sock, I commented on your sockpuppetry evidence page. Regarding the Vaughan demographics issue, the reason I reverted it to the Religion table is because that same anon (or someone likeminded) continues to put in the ethnicity table, but without any citations. I haven't been able to find any reference for the ethnicity numbers, so I added a similar (if not totally the same) breakdown, religion, which there is ample references for. If you, or anyone else for that matter, is able to locate proper references for ethnicities, I'd be happy to see it included. By the way, thanks for keeping up the vigilance with VW/JC and the whole mess! -- pm_shef 22:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting my page!

Thank you for reverting my page! It really makes me feel happy when I know other people are there on my side against the vandals! :-) J.J.Sagnella 12:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:vandalblock

Sure. I'll watch out for edits from this account past the 24-hour mark. Thanks for the heads up. enochlau (talk) 13:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE STOP

Please stop blocking peoples bots and their users. If you continue in this manner you will find yourself blocked. Please show respect other than ruining the work of others. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyereh Mireku (talk • contribs) 16:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC) User:Kyereh Mireku|<font colour= "blue"[reply]

Note, I've responded on the user's talk page. User has a history of vandalism has been repeatedly warned not to try to use banned User:Kingbot. — ERcheck (talk) 17:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The PROPOL CHARGES

Thanks for you, looking in to his weak and unfounded charges. I have read your assement , and it pretty much, out lines my concerns and begins to restore my faith in wikipedia that there is, really some rule of law here. Any rate. Thanks. Joehazelton 20:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responding you your message, My knowledge of "depute resolution" is limited. Also, my time line with pressing Real life matters, precludes me to immediately peruse this until end of this week (Saturday) In the mean time, I hope there is AGF and the other parties are "reasonable" and not try the "game wikipedia" (an aside, I am a Noob, but I learn fast and I am beginning to understand the nature of this beast,as well as the very colorful and well document history of one of the admins,on the out side "blue water internet" which I have been dealing with and which I have don't "respect" (sorry, The facts on this would seem speak and i can back that up if you like) any rate, I am willing to debate, in a fair venue the issues I have, as long as the people, that have the power, don't do" my way or high way" thing, and follow consistent rules of augment -- see Logical fallacy. Quite frankly, my experience I have had, so far on Wikipedia, have lived up the what many critics have said about Wikipedia on the blue water internet. Do a google on this phrase "Critics of Wikipedia" and see, I have.

My agenda is pretty simple and self evident, its to neutralize bias editing on the Roskam article, since I live there in the sixth district and have a stake in that election. (I only let the facts speak for them self as well as the rules of logical argument). I will be well if the Roskam page is truly NPOV and Encyclopedic. Again, it would appear you to be the first "non-bias" admin pearson I have come across in my joruny in the land of wiki and with that I give you a <Salute>. Thanks

Tag

MILHIST needs to tag and rate Robert Lee Scott, Jr.. Rlevse 18:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See responses to both of your inputs on my talk page. Also, just a minute ago my article on Gilwell Park made FA, so now I have another-;) Rlevse 09:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Little repair needed

Was wondering if you could work some mojo on this article.... Carl W. Weiss. Could use some help and might be a good place to slowly crawl back in from. Hope all is well. Cheers--Looper5920 08:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking email addresses

IMO, instead of blocking email addresses, you should simply leave {{subst:WelcomeEmail}} (or {{subst:we}} for short) on their talk pages. That way, if they want to put up a username change request on WP:CHU, they wouldn't have to ask to be unblocked. Just a suggestion, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

You posted to User talk:Abrinezs@gasairca.com saying email addresses weren't allowed per policy and blocked them while simply recommending a name change to User talk:Mpmv8@yahoo.com. Why did you send different messages? Also, I know email adresses are discouraged, but I have yet to find the policy that forbids them (if they wanna be spammed, who are we to stop them?) Please point me to the policy you referred to here. - Mgm|(talk) 12:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EMail usernames

I use "welcome email", but I see the point in your issues. Perhaps the signup page should be improved to read, "Do not use your email address as a username". - Mgm|(talk) 04:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bhumibol Adulyadej

This is a FA on the King of Thailand that has had repeated vandalism since the coup started. I think it needs locked til things settle down, can you help? I helped get it to FA? Rlevse 14:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone already locked it. Thanks anyway. Rlevse 19:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting on user talk pages

Please do not revert anything on my Talk page without discussing it with me first. Talk pages are intended for communicating between Wikipedians, so I feel that reverts by a third party are in bad form. Raymond Arritt 01:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Policy on copyrights

Hi thank you for the warning of course I will follow it. --Kt66 21:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

three revert rule

Hi there really I am a while with WP and I do not understand why it is possible that User:Ekajati can always delete past contributions made by other editors and delete my added sources with quotations and not violating the WP rules. Also User:Ekajati was quite active to revert and don't accept changes and reasons. I will not say I have done nothing wrong, it would be nice if you can check the edits and reverts at:

Why it is not needed for User:Ekajati to discuss huge changes? In the past this worked without problems - although all three topics are controversial topics. However I will not be active for a month on the articles this is to much Wikistress to me. Thank you for your consideration and time, --Kt66 21:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and reply

I have replied to your reply on WP:AN/I. Ekajati 21:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock of Wikipedia:Autoblock of 62.255.83.8.

Many thanks for your message - I am sure someone dealt with the autoblock in the time it took for the email to get to you. As I continued to read the autoblock message page, I realised that I could edit my talk page even with the block. And so put a tag as per the instructions. Many thanks again. --Hari Singh 23:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. DavidJJJ 11:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Geshe Michael Roach

Hi there, it would be nice if you can have a look on my new trial to include the further development of Geshe Michael Roach. The sources are completely from Geshe Michael Roach himself, and there is no doubt about this and that this happened and published by himself in 2003. So the WP rules are - as far as I understood it for protecting people from wrong facts and the like - but not for misusing avoiding critical points. The sources are - as far as I can see not against WP Rules - the only argument of User:Ekajati for deletion is: the Sources are now not more present at Geshe Michael Roaches internetsite, but this does not deny their validity. I feel in that case the desicion of what to do should be balanced by the validity of the facts, the WP Rules and the need for a proper article. Please be so kind to have a look and leave a comment. I think there will be a ongoing dispute otherwise in the future too. As you can see the main activities in that article were either to include critical points or to remove it completely. Now User:Ekajati was seccessfull of completely removing it. --Kt66 11:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear ERCheck,
thank you for your answer, reaction, care for WP quality and comment. Where there are "review of archived versions of his website in 2003" available?
OK I checked the PDF files: for instance the "Letter of Replies" (18 pages):
  • the date of storing at my computer (download) is: August, 17th, 2003,
  • the letter was published by DIAMOND MOUNTAIN RETREAT CENTER and is dated: March 28, 2003
  • The letter expressing his attainments and relation to Christy McNally was published at www.world-view.org in 2003 because the "Letter of Replies" (18 pages) says: "If you haven't read Geshe Michael's original letter, you should get a copy from www.world-view.org under the quick link “open letter” before jumping into these responses.")
Of course this is original search in a way but the point now is to check if the self-source is in accordance to WP rules and can be used even if the publication were later removed.
Perhaps you could re-check the archive of www.world-view.org, 2003, quick link “open letter”, if you feel it is worthwhile.
Thank you very much. --Kt66 13:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

all sources could been validated

Thank you for your help. I gave the links of all the sources I used (or suggest to use for the article) at the talk page of GMR. --Kt66 14:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

last edits

Dear ERcheck, thank you it's not me, please check the IP's than you can see it. I think the rush of the new editor comes because it is a controversial topic, I think it's good to inlcude the bracket of controversial article at the tp. If you disagree, please remove it. Thank you very much. --Kt66 17:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you. I understood you from the beginning that consens has to been gained first. So maybe the template will be helpful. What about the critical internetsite, do you think it fits to: :::"Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all."?
User:Ekajati could give no reasons (although I asked) why the website is fulfilling that criterias, others argued that this website is hearsay, but if you know the stuff - although parsian in a way - it lists facts which are just facts and gives an alternative view to his activities. Also if you look the diamond-cutter.org site is dealing straight forward with the points which were named by user:Nat Krause as "between the line". --Kt66 18:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

tag

USS Firebolt (PC-10) needs a tag. Rlevse 13:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your message

You say my userbox is innapropriate because it is innapropriate for wikipedia, in which case why not ask those with 9/11 tribute boxes to remove them :-) --Frogsprog 12:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:Userpage: "What can I not have on my userpage .... Personal statements that could be considered polemical...." — ERcheck (talk) 13:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

come on!

come on lighten up, its a tag that I didn't make myself, and it can be put on articles that are frequently vandalised! its humour!! --Frogsprog 19:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ERcheck&oldid=77577489"