User talk:Ymblanter

If you leave a message here, I will answer it here. So check back later.
If I left a message on your talk page, please reply there. I will watch your page and reply as soon as I can.

Archives: 2011; 2012; 2013; 2014

Pavel Petrovich Korowkin

Will you take a look on the biography of these Russian mathematician. I made it last year by translation from the german wikipedia article de:Pawel Petrowitsch Korowkin. It has not get any large contribution ever that. The german wikipedia also has a article de:Korowkin-Approximation. Please take a look in these articles. I am not sure whether they are notable or not. Solomon7968 (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I will have a look, thanks for pointing out.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Donguz Formation

Hi Ymblanter! Donguz Formation was recently created and could use a couple of edits so it doesn't get speedy deleted. Do you have time to look at some Russian sources? --Tobias1984 (talk) 07:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I will have a look, but this is clearly not speedy deletion material. Added to the watchlist just in case.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Ezhiki#List of Russian landscape painters

Ярослав, вы не заглянете туда, если найдется время? Там Ленинградартист просто развернул деятельность, а мне не верят. Очень по вам скучаю :(( --Shakko (talk) 19:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Обязательно, но, наверное, уже завтра: только что вернулся из Польши, три дня был без интернета вообще.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The Little Humpbacked Horse (ballet)

Mr. administrator, I need your help! Проверьте, пожалуйста, my English. Lawrentia (talk) 01:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Вечером прилечу домой, посмотрю.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• Конечно. И сначала вы отдохнете после дороги. Я там явно не справилась с английским. Воспользовалась транслейтером в Гугле и Яндексе, но после них надо вызывать живого переводчика. Спасибо. Ёжики сейчас на выходных. Извините, что я опять к вам. И опять со своим балетом. --Lawrentia (talk) 12:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Ярослав. Вы очень хорошо перевели с моего английского на нормальный английский язык. Славочка, а там дальше - совсем непонятно? Дело в том, что этот балет стал краегольным камнем, окончательно определившим развитие русского балета. Может, это хоть кому-нибудь будет интересно? А потом, в 1930-х годах Сталин полностью довершил уничтожение Московского балета: он перевел в Москву ленинградцев, которые заняли все места. В результате балетное направление Московской труппы было уничтожено, его немного сохранил Игорь Моисеев в своем ансамбле. Ну ладно, спасибо. --Lawrentia (talk) 00:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

    Дальше ещё не смотрел, сегодня постараюсь продолжить.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)/

Canada lists

// There are a number of problems with the Canadian historic places lists. They include:

• provincial lists are too long (some are over 1,000 entries) and need to be split
• lists are not sorted, and are not sortable even by municipality, due to the way the address was dumped
• don't use {{coord}}, so can't use {{GeoGroup}} for mapping
• references numbers (into the CRHP) are sometimes inaccurate, and need to be verified
• the same place may be multiply designated (federal/provincial/municipal, sometimes multiple federal)
• there are missing entries due to the way the data was retrieved

I have no easy ideas on how to address the last point, so am focusing on the other items. What I'm doing is a multi-step process:

1. Fill out the municipality field in the {{HPC row}} templates and deleted the municipality (and redundant "Canada") from the address field (if no municipality is given, try going to the referenced CRHP entry to figure it out)
2. Sort entries by municipality and count entries to figure out how to split the list. This is generally along the lines of counties or their equivalent (some Canadian counties have been supplanted by regional municipalities, see the Nova Scotia list for examples); you'll have to figure out which counties places are in
3. Split the big list; I've not been explicitly seeking consensus, but if the history indicates it might be needed, best check for it. The remaining steps are then done to each sublist.
4. Validate that the id numbers actually link to the proper CRHP listing. If they don't, find the right one by searching the CRHP (every listing I've seen with a wrong id was listed under a different one)
5. Merge duplicated listings where possible (it isn't if there is more than one federal designation, for example, but provincial and municipal listings can be merged into those)
6. Sort the list by primary alpha words (see the Nova Scotia or PEI lists for examples)
7. Change references to {{HPC row}} to {{HPC rowt}}, which uses {{coord}}. This requires changing "lat" and "lon" to "latd" and "longd", and changing the sign on the longitude. (IMHO the last is lame, but the template was already in use on several lists before I took this on)
8. Make sure municipality names are linked (I usually do this in conjunction with one of the other passes, and don't worry about redlinks)
9. If the name field contains pipe links, add "namea" field containing just the name, otherwise the coordinate field gets screwed up
10. Add {{GeoGroup}} and a locator map to the top of the list

I have done this for Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, PEI (almost done), and am starting in on New Brunswick. Others have previously done work on the Canadian territory lists (Yukon, Northwest, Nunavut, all fairly modest in length), and those for British Columbia and Saskatchewan. This leaves Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec to do, where some splitting has been done, but little else.

Things this work does not do fix:

• making the list sortable by address, which would require adding sort keys to the municipality field so that the listings get sorted properly within municipality (see {{sort}})
• making the list properly sortable by name (I tried putting sort keys in the name field, and it caused problems with the coordinates)

Did I mention this is tedious work? Thanks for helping! Magic♪piano 20:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanations. I will have a look at Alberta tomorrow.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:56, 22 August 20/13 (UTC)

Japan

Hi Ymblanter, in case you want to help: The Historic Sites of Japan need to be converted to use {{NHS Japan header}} and {{NHS Japan row}}. For now only the national part. I did a couple as examples. Multichill (talk) 15:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I will have a look.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello; Is it possible to do any conversion by ?bot? as seems to have been done for these Chinese ones? The format of the Japanese lists is intended to be internally similar, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 11:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I guess this is more a question to @Multichill: than to me, but I guess if it were he would do the conversion himself without asking me. Let us wait what he answers. If the conversion is not possible, I volunteer to do at least some of the manual conversion (one-two lists per day).--Ymblanter (talk) 11:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I tried converting with a bot, but didn't manage to do it without too much mess so I abandoned that. Multichill (talk) 16:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Cleaning up the Belarus geographical mess

I'm getting unstuck in trying to compile a table of terminology for the Belarus geographical naming conventions. There appears to be a flood of new articles and stubs recently and it appears that English Wikipedia is now leading the way with transliteration/transcription norms (which, as we know, simply isn't Wikipedia's role). As the contributors don't seem to know what to do other than follow the current directives, we're ending up with orphaned pages and broken links absolutely everywhere.

My thoughts are to follow the Belarusian government standards for the English speaking world (which DON'T involve the irritating version of what is essentially Latinka), i.e. as laid out per this map and other official sites. What's good enough for the Belarus government should be good enough for us.

You can check the sad beginnings in my sandbox. Any constructive input from sensible Wikipedians would be appreciated.

I've left this message on Ezhiki and TaalVerbeteraar's pages as well. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The beginning seems reasonable, thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

IP hopping editor

It is clear that the IP hopping editor is User:Bigbaby23. I suspect that Bigbaby23 is also banned sock User:LarryTheShark who was active in the RT discussion in April/May. LTS was banned on May 13. Bigbaby23 was created May 14. Similar editing pattern and approach. How to proceed? Capitalismojo (talk) 22:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The best is to open an SPI.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I've never done one. I'll start reading up. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Azovske

Hi, can you or @Ezhiki: source/improve this. This seems a decent source.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I will add sourced data on population now and will have a look at the rest after Monday when I am back home (writing this from a hotel in Italy).--Ymblanter (talk) 17:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Out of curiosity what hotel? Interested in Italian hotels :-).♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:48, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

We were driving from Livorno (from a ferry from Corsica) and I reserver Casa Betania in Pisa. Good place to stay for one night, and we did not care that it is far from the historic center.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

808s & Heartbreak

Can you change protection setting to allow only admin, indefinitely? Because User:MariaJaydHicky's IP address or users were permanently continued disruptive editing. 183.171.162.201 (talk) 07:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I just do not see enough recent disrupting activity to justify the protection. I would probably decline a RFPP request. But if there is a result of SPI available may be we can block the socks. Try WP:RFPP anyway, there are many eyes there and people are free to disagree with me.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Russian article on Dobrolet Airlines

I posted a request at [1]

to ask that someone review the pending changes in ru:Добролёт (авиакомпания), but I don't think that anybody has done so.

If you can review the pending changes to the article, please do so. If you don't have that permission, perhaps you can find someone who could do so and who could add tyo the Russian article the changes that you have made to the English article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

As a matter of principle, I do not edit the Russian Wikipedia. Sorry.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

64.228.73.49

Please block this IP for longer. It is a long term vandal that I've been tracking for years and have a whole writeup here. Also disable talk page access. He's already modifying the templated warnings to praise himself instead.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

It is apparently an IP hopper, so that it does not make sense. If there is a long-time abuse pattern, a range should be blocked, but I do not have enough technical skills for this.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

He hasn't hopped IPs yet. This is the first time he's been on the site since April. Just extend the block on this IP for at least a month and block talk page access. He never requests unblock anyway.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

All contribution of this IP are from today. I revoked the talk page access since they were clearly misusing it, but I do not currently see any reason for a longer block.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

This guy has been vandalizing this site since 2008. You don't see a need to extend the block?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Again: All edits from this IP are from today, and the IP has no deleted contributions. It means if they previously vandalized Wikipedia they did it from a different IP. This, in turn, means that there is no reason for a longer block of this IP.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Did you not look at the list I have here: User:Ryulong/sandbox#Saban troll? This guy has been at this for longer than you've even had an account.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I have an account much longer than you think. I am afraid you have difficultie understanding my reply. Please go to ANI if you want to achieve smth. I am not going to reblock.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you have a difficulty in understanding the severity of the situation. But ANI's been dealt with already.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

You forgot talk page block again.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, will do now.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you think that in our purview as an admin you could send his ISP's abuse contact a line to get him off of our backs? I used to do this every time he resurfaced and it seemed to help but I'm bogged down at the moment.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

For a number of reasons, I would prefer not to. Sorry.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

All I used to do was say "individual with IP address violating terms of service" with some relevant time stamps and never actually got a response back from Bell Canada or Sympatico, but okay.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

He's evading on 69.159.39.75 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done, will remove the talk page access if they misbehave.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

you should revoke it anyway. He's doing his usual and I should not have given him a sentence with Saban in it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I did already. So far, they were not able to wait for more than five minutes.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

PC-protection expiring on or before August 16, 2014

Extend time for Pope John Paul II and Somalia? --George Ho (talk) 20:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

For whatever technical reason, I can not do it before the PC expires. I have Pope John Paul II on my watchlist and will re-enable the PC once it expires in a week. For Somalia, I am not so sure, this is not a BLP, and vandalism gets reverted in a timely manner. May be you can take it to [[WP:RFPP] once PC expires.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

War in Ukraine - request for review

As I've noticed that you're interested about Turkey, which is an Eurasian country, I'd also request, if possible, a review of War in Donbass (which involves Russia, and therefore is also an Eurasian issue). If you could do, I'd be very glad, because there are now 21 pending revisions awaiting review.

It has already been dealt with, thanks to EvergreenFir and Alex Bakharev--Ymblanter (talk) 08:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Michael L. Brown

Not frequent enough for semi-protection; lower to PC instead? Otherwise, add PC? --George Ho (talk) 07:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Let us may be wait a couple of days. They cited the reason at RFPP that someone else with the same name was recently shot. One week semi might be an overkill.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Ukraine administrative divisions

Hi Ymblanter! Nice work on updating the Ukrainian administrative divisions articles. However, I have one thing to say.. I noticed that you changed some of the articles from referring to the settlements as cities to towns. That is incorrect as there is no distinction in Ukrainian between the two. In Ukrainian, they are all referred to as misto--which is essentially translated to city in almost all of the respective articles. The next level of subdivision are urban-type settlements, which in some cases could be translated to towns, but either way are referred to as urban-type settlements in general. But confusing the readers by having some articles refer to misto as town while other urban-type settlements are also towns is unnecessary. Let's keep everything on the same page, § DDima 17:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

We have a long-standing convention for Russian settlements that a город with the population over 100,00 is called a city, and the one below 100,000 is called a town. There is no such convention for Ukraine, and the articles are in complete disorder, so it looks to me that applying the same 100,000 convention would actually be the least confusing.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

If it is to be done, it should be brought up on the Ukraine noticeboard with all of the other editors involved in administrative divisions, etc. so as to establish consensus and so that everyone involved would know what is what in the future. § DDima 17:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Good, I will do it, though my past experience with the Ukraine noticeboard was rather unpleasant: Users had a lot of ideas what I should do, but they were not willing either to compromise even tiny bit or to do it themselves.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you're correct with that. But it has been a pressing issue in the past, so we might as well finish it off once and for good now. And I know of 2-3 important users who's opinion would be valuable on the topic. Just send me a link with the thread. Thanks, § DDima 17:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ukraine#City/town, I assume this is a reasonable place to discuss.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Robin Williams#Full protection

I'd urge you to consider lifting full-protection on Robin Williams at this point. It seems that legitimate editors have reached a consensus that full-protection is not the best approach in this matter. Thank you, and hopefully you see this in time to consider lifting protection before the expiration. --CrunchySkies (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) To editor Ymblanter: Conversely, I encourage you to maintain full protection because although the edit-warriors are eager to rejoin the battle, there's really nothing useful to be added since just a few hours ago when you protected the article. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I had a look at the talk page, and it seems that the infobox issue has been resolved. Are there any other issue requiring full protection at this point? (It will expire in the morning anyway).--Ymblanter (talk) 20:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I am on Central European time, and I am going to bed now. The protection will expire tomorrow morning.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Conversion of energy into matter = Original research???

You obviously have no clue about physics to pretend that converting energy into matter is original research. The production of matter is allowed by matter-energy equivalence. Do your research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.101.208.168 (talk) 03:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

You may want to read the Wikipedia article about me to see whether I have a clue about physics. Please discuss it at the talk page as I suggested.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The CCI

I'm probably popping up all over your watchlist at the moment, sorry :) It seems the CCI subject pretty much (a) copied from English sources (and a definite copyvio except occasionally it's from a public domain source), (b) machine-translated foreign sources (and probably a translation copyvio), or (c) machine translated from foreign wikis. What I'm doing on each article is checking to see if it's (c), in which case the material can obviously stay (with attribution, despite the dodgy writing), and if not, I'm deleting it because it's highly likely to be (a) or (b) (although I'm doing a quick check first in case it's from an obviously public domain source). A pretty crude approach, I know, but it's a big CCI... Anyway, don't hesitate to revert me if you think I've stuffed anything up. --Mkativerata (talk) 12:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

No problem, this is just my fault. Novgorod Oblast is an article I worked on extensively, and I somehow miscalculated who has written the section. I reverted myself, and now I will just add a shorter summary (obviously without copyright violations), since it is needed in the article. Sorry for the confusion and thanks for working through this CCI.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

Please note that you are at four reverts at List of metro systems. I could have blocked you now, but I give you the last chance to stop edit-warring and continue civilized discussion (and not a crusade) at the talk page. The edit will be now reverted.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:08, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Also here: List of tram and light rail transit systems--Ymblanter (talk) 15:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I cannort stress enough that there's no discussion at the moment, apparently there's someone called Instantball earlier this year and they all think anyone who think HKG flag is appropriate for use is that only user. It's just not possible to talk in the situation like that. GB Lothian (talk) 11:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

And this is the reason you decided to edit-war.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

They decided they don't want a discussion. More confusingly, they don't even allow a compromised consensus they agreed in the previous talk. They revert the edits just based on the people they think I am. (Which I am not)GB Lothian (talk) 12:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

is KYIV russian city?

Тобі нічого робити, «брат-словянин»? Це ж українська столиця - а ти маєш свою москву. Того з тебе й досить.--Бучач-Львів (talk) 14:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Ik spreek geen Oekrains.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Haven't translate? --Бучач-Львів (talk) 14:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Great, at least you speak English. I do not speak Ukrainian and I am not sure what you want to tell me.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Так у тебя ж родной русский - судя по личной странице. Или неправда? Что, не понимаешь братский украиский язык? Пользуйся переводчиком, рlease. I can speek Ehg so-so. Только если ты действительно хочешь ДЕЛАТЬ правдивый взнос в Англвики, или хотя бы немного поразмыслишь - украинским языком КИЇВ. Я ж не заставляю тебя говорить Москва, не пишу Moskva, Maskva. Так будь любезен - не выдавай русское название КИЄВА Киев за УКРАИНСКОЕ. Если только ты не разделяешь «великорусских» взглядов - тогда мне нечего с тобой говорить. Потому, что разговор з тем, кто не желает слышать правды, не имеет смысла. Московская оккупация Украины закончена. Спасибо россии за всё. СЛАВА УКРАЇНІ!--Бучач-Львів (talk) 07:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Бучач-Львів--Ymblanter (talk) 07:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jennifer Rubin (journalist)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jennifer Rubin (journalist). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

JlawLemonT

He abandoned and went to Sidisn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I know. But I still do not want to be desysopped.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a situation where one gets desysopped. Of all people I should know.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a banned user or people indistinguishable from a banned user fucking up these pages. This is something you get a barnstar for.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Nabih Berri

Hello,

Possible socks are redoing the same edits to this article Nabih Berri. I strongly suggest that this page be fully protected, at least until the end of the year, because this seems to be a coordinated effort by a digital marketing agency and party members.

Thank you,

Callsfortruth (talk) 16:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

To fully protect it until the end of the year is an overkill. I fully protected it for two weeks; please file an SPI to eliminate existing socks, then in the future, we can survive on a semi-protection.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

dear admin,

I'm someone editing using my phone and not a party member nor a digital marketing agency, I've noticed that the same edits have been happening in a coordinated effort for the past couple of years to the article Nabih Berri with an intent to distort the image of a Lebanese public figure using multiple accounts, edits made present a clear defamation of a living person and violates Wikipedia three core content policies. references used are not reliable and not published and mostly based on blogs and questionable websites while the modification I made are referred to the Lebanese parliament official website as well as Lebanese newspapers. I strongly suggest the removal of the protection applied on this page and making sure that the edits comply with Wikipedia rules and policies

thank you for reading

Please raise the issue at the article talk page and stop reverting. I am not involved with the article, and I do not want to be involved.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

LungZeno

This user may or may not be collateral damage in the mess that befell the train list articles, but when I asked him a simple question he refused to answer. I think he no longer needs access to his user talk.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

At this point, I do not see why they should have been denied access to their talk page. Just stop talking to them, that's it.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I am trying to extend the olive branch. And someone who's been wiki-stalking me has been communicating with him as well.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to give him one last chance to answer my question because I've sugested he could be unblocked because checkuser results were apparently not a 100% match but close enough.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Please revoke his talk page access.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Materialization (paranormal)

Something needs to be done with all the edit warring on this page but I don't know how to send multiple editors to WP:AE for it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

There is an ANI topic currently open for that article.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, started by a party and only being commented upon by the parties.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

List of cultural heritage sites in Sindh

Just asked someone else but you've been around longer. Why all the upload buttons on the page? Don't they make copyvio more likely? Could you ping me if you reply please? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@Dougweller: Everybody believes that the upload buttons make the upload easier for novices, but there is a general consensus that they should be only activated during the WLM (and not everybody accepts even that). Copyvio is indeed a serious concern, especially with Pakistan where the copyright culture is not so high, but my experience is that clear copyvio uploads are certainly not in majority, may be 10% or even less. I check every image from the landing page I work with, and I guess they are somehow also checked on the Commons side. I am not involved with WLM Pakistan organization though, just had the landing page on my watchlist from the last year, and I try to help a bit.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Fomenko and rude introductions

"I appreciate that you try to help Wikipedia, but apparently one week after registration you still do not quite understand how the project works. Please go to the talk page and discuss your edits there. If you achieve consensus, which I highly doubt, you will be able to introduce your changes into the article. This is described in WP:CONSENSUS (WP:BRD). If instead you proceed edit-warring without trying to achieve consensus, your account will be promptly blocked. To help you start discussion, I will revert now your changes again.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)"

- Is this what the guidelines mean by not bullying new users? And how do you know anything about Fomenko's work? Have you read it? How much of it? And how do you qualify to delete my very, very neutral POV by replacing the word "pseudoscience" in regards to the works of persons holding combined dozens of doctoral degrees? I have seen the entire history of the Fomenko page; since 2007 a small group have almost fanatically edited it using their own opinions and removing the sound neutral POV of dozens who try to adjust it. If Wikipedia is your own little kingdom then it is all yours. I have more to do in life than be henpecked by Wikibullies. (Eleventyeight (talk) 18:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC))

If this is your way to admit that you stop your disruptive editing, it is much appreciated. I do know a bit abot Fomenko's work, and believe me, longer that you possibly do.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

PC-protection on pages expiring on or before 14 September 2014

Extend PC time for Regular Show (season 5) and Money in the Bank (2014)? --George Ho (talk) 02:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Extended both, thanks--Ymblanter (talk) 07:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Allow LungZeno to demonstrate he/she is not a sock

I see you’ve changed LungZeno’s block settings so that he (or she) can’t edit his/her talk page. I thought we were having a productive conversation related to demonstrating that he is not a sock of Instantnood (e.g. different subjects of interest). Any chance of allowing LungZeno to respond to my comments with some guidance as to what is and is not appropriate for a blocked user to say on his/her talk page?--Nowa (talk) 16:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Once they started to use their talk page to express their views on political status of Hong Kong it became clear that they are NOTTHERE. They still have e-mail, and you can continue discussing over mail, or they can mail to Arbcom appeal subcommittee.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

This is helpful. Thanks. I suspect his best bet may be Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee.--Nowa (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, given that the checkuser found a likely intersecction.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Missing Russian women writers

Hi, I was wondering if you could add missing entries to the Russian section of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women writers/Missing articles. Missing articles from Russian wikipedia and the ru link in brackets?♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I can write about Sedakova, but not about others.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

It actually already exists, and Yunna Morits as well. I will check the others.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

If there's any missing women writers from here and the sub categories it would be great if you could list them! Not asking for you to write articles, just to identify what is missing and redlink!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Olga Aleksandrovna Sedakova listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Olga Aleksandrovna Sedakova. Since you had some involvement with the Olga Aleksandrovna Sedakova redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. gobonobo ^{+ c} 03:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to template you, Ymblanter. And thank you for correcting the link to the Russian category on the worklist. As far as I know Olga Sedakova doesn't have the patronymic Aleksandrovna, but I could be mistaken. We're still in need of an article on English Wikipedia for ru:Седакова, Ольга Александровна though. gobonobo ^{+ c} 03:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

My fault, thanks for taking it up.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Adam Baldwin

Has this article been infrequently edited? If so, why semi-protection? --George Ho (talk) 17:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

It was vandalized several times by unregistered users in the last two weeks, and it is a BLP.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Gc-MAF

"Hello, did you delete the references I posted on this page a couple of days ago? (See link below) If so, why? thanks for any feedback.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gc-MAF

I hope I'm leaving a message in the right way. I've never done this before." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zped9090 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

According to WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a repository of links.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

96.243.56.50

You said to ping you if 96.243.56.50 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) continues that behaviour. YLSS (talk) 20:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, blocked for a week.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Possibly 173.64.53.95 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) = 96.243.56.50 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)... YLSS (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I blocked them for a week and this is about as much I can do. If they reappear, we will need to protect the articles. May be you will need to file a RFPP request.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Mexican War of Independence

 Thanks PKT(alk) 16:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Kirghiz Soviet Socialist Republic

Greetings. Any chance you could proof/source improve my Russian translation of the history and expand it further?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I will have a look.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Oathkeeper

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Oathkeeper. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft

Just letting you know, if a entry on this list is either deleted or redirected, the entry is taken off the list. That is part of the list guidelines you can find WP:List of accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft/Guideline for inclusion criteria and format. Cheers!...William 15:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I have seen it but was hesitant to delete it right away in case the info could have been used somewhere.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

1993–94 New York Rangers season‎

Hi Ymblanter! Back in July, you protected this article, through a RFPP request if my memory serves, due to an ip hopping editor repeatedly re-inserting content against consensus. Unfortunately, the same person has returned with the same edits and we're stuck in the same revert cycle as they simply re-insert without the slightest attempt at discussion. Would you be so kind as to restore the protection? As with last time, I would do it myself but I'm far too involved in the reverting. Thanks! Resolute 19:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done, for a month--Ymblanter (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, most appreciated! Resolute 14:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Integral Liberal Arts Program

Just recreate the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Looks like you have a lot of articles and conversations going on. Thank you for helping out new article writers and helping out Wikipedia! Pumpkinpedia

Commonscat

Hopefully this will save you a few clicks. Russian infoboxes pull the commonscat info from Wikidata automatically; there's no need to add it manually. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 1, 2014; 12:07 (UTC)

I see, thanks. I only added those which I have just created on Commons, and apparently there was a caching problems so that I did not notice this.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it sometimes takes a few minutes to pull through.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 1, 2014; 15:32 (UTC)

Putin khuilo! edit warring

There was no "edit warring". Edit warring is when two same people do that. And please don't call me "IP" anymore, it's very denigrating. Just because the stupid system keeps logging me out for some reason doesn't mean I'm some nobody from nowhere wishing looking for trouble. Thanks, 24.201.216.214 (talk) 07:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

You were edit-warring against several people, which is a blockable offense.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

No I wasn't. You decided that I was. 24.201.216.214 (talk) 14:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

"Deciding that" is a privilege admins have. As another, uninvolved, admin, I fully concur. If you continue in the same vein, you will be blocked. Please review WP:EDITWAR to learn more about what is considered edit-warring and what isn't.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 2, 2014; 15:04 (UTC)

И ты, брут... 24.201.216.214 (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

List of urban-type settlements in Ukraine by subdivision (Lviv Oblast)

Urban-type settlement Nemyriv is in Lviv Oblast, but urban-type settlement Nemyriv is in Vinnytsia Oblast. --Bogdan Kosar (talk) 12:35, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I have now corrected it. For links to the Ukrainian Wikipedia, we have a neighbouring column, which I updated as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Dobrolet (low-cost airline)

Hi Ymblanter, thank you for your putting back information into the Dobrolet (low-cost airline) article. It is astounding that another admin would decimate an article like they did. I will be continuing to expand the article in the near future; I hope to get it up to GA standard before too long. When that time comes, would you possibly be able to do the good article review on it? Cheers, 193.40.10.180 (talk) 16:17, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

No, actually I never do certain work here, including FA and GA reviews, since English is not my mothertongue, and I am afraid I can miss some important things.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Your protection of Stephen Collins

There was no heavy edit warring at that page when you fully-protected it for 3 days. The last edit was a reversion about 6 hours before you placed the protection. See the article talkpage and the BLPN discussion for my deeper rationale on this issue. LHM^{ask me a question} 16:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Lithistman: Page protection is preventative, not punitive. Wikipedia protects Saint Patrick's Day every March in anticipation of vandalism. Likewise, protecting the article about Stephen Collins after the recent news is only wise precaution. Feel free to "hash out" these issues at the talk page or simply wait until the protection is lifted. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, there was heavy edit-warring, I obviously checked the page history. The last dozen of edits were reverts, and they even involved five editors. On the other hand, if consensus has been reached at the talk page (which was not the case at the time of protection), pls ping me and I will unprotect the article, no problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I guess we just have different definitions of "heavy edit warring", which is fine. One edit in the previous 6 hours seems (to me) to not represent that, but if you've reexamined and still think protection is necessary, then that's that, I guess. LHM^{ask me a question} 17:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Miss Intercontinental pageant

It looks like you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Intercontinental pageant as delete, but Miss Intercontinental pageant never seems to have been deleted. Or am I missing something? Stuartyeates (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Deleted now. Apparently, in the morning I summarized the discussion and marked the file for deletion, but then forgot to delete the article. Thanks for pinging me.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry. I was trying to undo an edit in the article but something did not go right. Tlsandy (talk) 13:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

No problem but pls be more careful, you recently made a similar edit in another article.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Covert vandalism

Hello. I am a limited user; I cannot make certain edits. Indeed I do not have a wish to contribute to this WP in these conditions, either. Therefore I limit myself to attract attention to some edits and leave the rest to others. I guess you are the administrator who protects Recep Tayyip Erdoğan article. I am not sure if the article should only be protected from IPs or also from certain users. Look at this edit please. The user who made it claims having Turkish as his/her mother tongue; but adds there some words supposedly in Turkish which are not used in the Turkish language since at least half a century. So either the mother tongue information in the user page is not true (that means lack of honesty, sorry) or the said user is mocking the President of a country. How do you find it? On the other hand, someone has opened a "special" user name to add Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to the List of Turkish diplomats, where of course he does not belong, with some very pointed POV expressions. The worst thing about that is that another user edits that contribution, and as he/she claims to be a patroller something, other people that look at the history of that list after that intervention will innocently think that everything is in order. Therefore s/he is covering the red link used by a not very honest person. Is it possible to find out if Rbry2423 is in fact another user? Thank you and sorry for disturbing you with my suspicions. All the best. Note: If writing to talk pages in a limited area is also forbidden please tell me and I will not come back. --E4024 (talk) 07:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

It is impossible to protect the article from certain users. It can be either not protected, or protected from IP users and new accounts, or fully protected from everybody. Right now, it is under pending chahges, meaning edits of new users need to be reviewed by experienced users before they go live. I do not speak a word of Turkish, and specific edits are best to be discussed with the editor who introduced them.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

RFPP stuff is usually pretty thankless work. So thanks for the pending changes protection of Sistine Chapel. I genuinely believe that will reduce the pointless drive-by vandalism there. Keep up the good work. Cheers, St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Patrick Dangerfield

Many thanks for applying the protection to this page. Your work here allows editors like me to concentrate on other work of interest rather than the deletion of mindless vandalism. It is much appreciated. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 20:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciated.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Adam Baldwin

Hello. Thank you for your earlier help in protecting Adam's page from vandals. I'm afraid its happened again in the last couple of days. His page is getting updated by vandals regarding Gamer Gate. Is there a way we could give the page protection again? Any help would be appreciated. Thank you, Amie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purselover2 (talk • contribs) 05:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done, for 3 months.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate it and so does Adam. --- Amie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purselover02 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Page appears to have been vandalized tonight by a registered user. This is what I put. Fixed obvious POV mistake and blatant bias in wording. Can you check it out for me? Purselover2 (talk) 00:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Please try to discuss with the user. Autoconfirmed users are not supposed to vandalize articles, they either should have a point or need to be blocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

An apology

Please forgive me if I have offended you with my comments at the Ukrainian regions (Template:Lang-uk) page. I greatly appreciate all the work that you do here on the English Wikipedia, and no way meant to imply that I didn't. I merely meant to say that I don't believe that some non-native speakers of English are capable of effectively or objectively evaluating whether a term is the natural way to describe something in English. Naturalness is an article title criteria, and hence quite important at this point. RGloucester — ☎ 20:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I still feel though that people heavily editing in the area should be aware of the discussion. If the closed is a native speaker of English, they must be able to figure out what arguments are valid.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it is fairly obvious how the discussion is going to be closed. As you may imagine, I don't agree with the outcome. There isn't much to do, though. It greatly harms the encyclopaedia. RGloucester — ☎ 20:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

If it gets closed in favor of the oblasts, I do not see how it harms the encyclopedia. We have French departments, Japanese prefectures, Turkish vilayeti, and I believe none of them makes any harm. Oblasts are no worse than these.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, the word "prefecture" isn't Japanese (it is English), first of all. In fact, in Japanese, there are many different things that are all translated into English as "prefecture". These are the ken, fu, dō, and to. "Ken" are bog-standard prefectures, "fu" are urban prefectures, "dō" literally means "circuit", and "to" is usually translated as "metropolis". However, in English, these are called lumped together as "prefectures". Try renaming the prefectures of Japan page as "ken, fu, dō, and to of Japan"! "Department" is an English word. The word in French is département. Furthermore, we do not have "vilayets" of Turkey. We have Provinces of Turkey. To be frank, I have no idea how to even pronounce "vilayet", even though I have great familiarity with the Ottoman Empire. Next time you try to use the word "oblasts" for Ukrainian regions, try and think about how absurd it would be to refer to Kyoto Prefecture as "Kyōto-fu". RGloucester — ☎ 20:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I do not find it absurd.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

You'd like to rename Kyoto Prefecture as Kyōto-fu? Does "fu" mean anything to you? In Japanese, it means nothing either, without the Chinese character 府 to parse the meaning. The sound on its own (ふ) could refer to many different things. As an example, see the picture at the right. That is a type of wheat gluten called fu in Japanese. Merely that the Chinese character is different (麩). Would you still like to rename Kyoto Prefecture as Kyōto-fu? What exactly is "Kyoto wheat gluten"? RGloucester — ☎ 21:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Buffalo vandal strikes again

108.34.28.204 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) appears to be the latest sock of 96.243.56.50 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) and a reincarnation of 173.64.53.95 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks). Useddenim (talk) 03:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

RFPP. YLSS (talk) 09:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Protected for a year.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of rail transport in the Netherlands, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NS. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Eliane Chappuis

Dear Ymblanter I see no problem in using imdb references and other websites, when I know the projects and people involved to some degree. I do also edit imdb pages of my own and about people I know where involved. Of course almost anyone (with some acceptance restrictions) on imdb can edit films there as on Wikipedia and not all have same importance, but it is as good as it gets. Films produced before imdb started around 1991 are very often uncomplete as well as projects who took part at some credible festival and then only at small ones. Natascha Beller is an upcoming new Swiss director and not all projects she has made are up on imdb, since she haven't cared about it herself and I haven't added information to it myself. She wrote a script for a Swiss TV-Movie which is not on imdb, because Swiss TV has the rights and don't send the Film on Festivals nor care about imdb registration. Switzerland is a small country and lot of productions don't go worldwide. I do care about to get things right, even delete things at a later time, if I happen to be mistaken for some reason, or information became void. Nevertheless you can say she is not important Reference as well as the actress Eliane Chappuis herself. But that's also the case with a lot of other entries on Wikipedia. I am not common with all programming mechanisms on Wikipedia, I have read some but might occasionally still be wrong in some cases, nevertheless I see if it comes up or not the way it should, if not, I try to find out how to fix it, if others immediately are deleting it, it can be kind of confusing. If I can see a comment than I at least can try to understand(Trollcat56 (talk) 10:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC))

I think we are talking about two different things. IMDB is not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards exactly for the reason that everybody can edit it, but links to IMDB can still be located in the article. In fact, right now the first external link in the article is an IMDB link, which is perfectly fine with me. (It would not have been ok if the IMDB link would be the only external link in the article though). What I was objecting against is your style of hyperlinking to external sites. For instance, if a Wikipedia does not have an article about a certain film, do not hyperlink the name of this film to IMDB. Instead, either create an article about this film and link to it, or link to it anyway (the link would be red) and wait until someone creates an article). Even if you need to source the statement that she was acting in a certain film, make a footnote, and IMDB is not good for this purpose anyway. You may want to read Wikipedia:External links where all this is explained in more details. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "RT Network". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 27 October 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 14:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:The Game (Queen album)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:The Game (Queen album). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

RE: CPSU Central Committee members

That's great! First, I'm already on it; see 27th Secretariat of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, 27th Politburo of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (thinking of reorganizing this one to as to make it similar to the one found in the Secretariat article), every CPSU congress article, and officeholders in general (I'm guessing if we have articles we can begin to add the info to the infoboxes as well). Thinking similar to the outline on the Politburo officeholders, see the Mikhail Gorbachev article, it says "Full member of the 25th, 26th, 27th, 28th Politburo". And of course when we have the articles we can make links to the them (most commonly know is to just write Central Committee, and in the few cases the numbering is used, it redirects to the Central Committee article). I'm currently creating articles for the Secretariat membership. --TIAYN (talk) 10:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I will start at some point (need to finish first what I am doing right now).--Ymblanter (talk) 11:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

Hello, I'm Derianus. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Oblasts of Ukraine that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please stop spreading lies about other users and in the case mentioned, add a note that fixes you lie. Derianus (talk) 16:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Great, go to ANI and complain that multiple editors are not happy with your constant reverts. In addition, here you removed info about administrative amd municipal divisions without any explanations, copied it into several unrelated articles, and started edit warring when I tried to return the info. Usually such activity soon or later results in blocks.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

And your message here contains personal attacks again.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

And you are clearly a sock, so that we do not need to collaborate. Sorry.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Squidward Tentacles

Thanks for applying the protection. I seemed to be having a bad time with the sections on RFPP yesterday. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 17:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

No problem, I also sometimes forget to do it. Thanks for taking the case up.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Ymblanter:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome :) –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Ymblanter:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning RT Network, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, User:TransporterMan (talk) 12:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Weekly Shōnen Jump

Hello! It appears you fully protected the page for a while due to sockpuppetry. That seems a bit too much: even our articles on controversial topics are only semi-protected at most. Because there are a good number of legitimate edits to the article, I would suggest lowering the level of protection. Or perhaps as a compromise, the article could be kept fully protected for a month, then be downgraded to semi-protection for six months. We'll see if the "master" will stay or not, given that it has come to this. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Let us wait until the discussion at WT:ANIME has been concluded. I am not against lowering the protection period, but the arguments at WP:RFPP were that indefinite protection is needed, and I see the same arguments coming back now at WT:ANIME.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Derianus

Hi. I have a hunch that Derianus might be a sock of banned Tobias Conradi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whose last known incarnation was Androoox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Areas of interest (administrative divisions) match, recklessness matches as well. He's hardly a new editor, having opened a RM on Oblasts of Ukraine on his day 3. Not sure about other behavioral similarities, as I don't have time to investigate.

In fact, Editor Interaction Analyzer gives some interesting evidence -- ex-USSR administrative divisions aside, both Derianus and Androoox are somehow interested in obscure articles like Enlargement of the eurozone, Category:Territorial entities by language and Wilayah. It surely quacks... No such user (talk) 13:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. It would be great if you could open an SPI. New editors do not behave like that, and they create too much disruption anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

FYI, SPI for Conradi. Pinging User:Iryna Harpy as well. Even if he's not a sock (and I'm quite convinced it is), he's highly disruptive. No such user (talk) 14:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

No such user, there's a definite resemblance to Androoox aside from just the fact of hitting the ground running from the moment the account was created. Even if a new user is extremely organised in terms of the changes they want to make to the organisation of Wikipedia's administrative territories, categories, etc., the plausibility that they could acquaint themselves with more technical aspects (redirects, renaming categories, et al) without pausing to draw breath would have to be highly unlikely. More to the point, although it's not uncommon for new users to be paranoid about harassment and being attacked, even manifestations of Derianus and Androoox's behaviour runs along parallel lines: obliterating any perceived negative comments on their own talk pages with derisive edit summaries and attacking/accusing other users of tendentious editing.

By the same token, of course, the MO could be coincidental. Nevertheless, Derianus is really running amok. S/he has shifted and changed large tracts of Wikipedia based on executive decisions with no attempts at communicating with other editors, or trying to establish consensus until pushed. Even there, no interest is displayed in curtailing his/her forward push according to their personal 'grand plan'. At best, the user is WP:NOTHERE, but I'd suggest that s/he is simply a WP:TE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for following up on Derianus's disruptive behaviour. I'd only just booted up for the day when I saw that, not only had you opened another ANI, but it had already been closed. Unfortunately, I'd missed the earlier one you'd opened before it was closed. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

No, I actually only opened one ANI which was closed yesterday evening.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I could have sworn... Well, I guess it's official: I'm senile! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Aha, I just realised I confused the Kenfree ANI and Derianus. They've all been merging into one big POV blob of aggression. Keep up your admirable cool-headed approach. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Kenfree was unsuccessful--Ymblanter (talk) 06:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Averil Power

Hi, you semi-protected Averil Power recently, now the talk page is being vandalised, could you protect that too? Tx, Snappy (talk) 18:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done for 12 hours, it is usually not a good idea to protect talk ages for a long time, especially since the article has been protected as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, hopefully it will be enough to discourage the vandals. Snappy (talk) 18:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

190.163.4.132

I've re-enabled talk page access with a stern warning that there must be no further personal attacks. Please be sure to ping me if the user lets me down on this - I can't keep track of all his IPs. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. I currently have their page on my watchlist (they only edited it from the same IP), but not the other pages.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Armyansk Urban Okrug listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Armyansk Urban Okrug. Since you had some involvement with the Armyansk Urban Okrug redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Derianus (talk) 05:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Feodosia Urban Okrug listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Feodosia Urban Okrug. Since you had some involvement with the Feodosia Urban Okrug redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Derianus (talk) 05:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Feodosiya Urban Okrug listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Feodosiya Urban Okrug. Since you had some involvement with the Feodosiya Urban Okrug redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Derianus (talk) 05:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Yevpatoriya Urban Okrug listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Yevpatoriya Urban Okrug. Since you had some involvement with the Yevpatoriya Urban Okrug redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Derianus (talk) 05:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Saki Urban Okrug listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Saki Urban Okrug. Since you had some involvement with the Saki Urban Okrug redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Derianus (talk) 05:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Sudak Urban Okrug listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Sudak Urban Okrug. Since you had some involvement with the Sudak Urban Okrug redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Derianus (talk) 05:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Question

How do you translate "Комаров, Николай Павлович"? According to Google Translate its "Komarov, Nikolai Pavlovich", but when I search Google Books (in English) I can't find anyone by that name. Do you know? ... I'm planning to create the articles for the early Central Committees (considering that most of the early officeholders are well known, and usually I can just search the Russian name and then access another WP which has created an article on it)... Help. --TIAYN (talk) 11:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

By translate you mean transliterate? According to WP:RUS, it is Komarov, Nikolay Pavlovich. There is an article in the Russian Wikipedia, ru:Комаров, Николай Павлович, not sure whether this is the guy you need since the name is pretty common.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes thats what I meant ... Question, is this guys name Валентин Месяц really Valentin Month, seems like a strange name. He was a member of the 27th Central Committee as well as serving as First Secretary of the Moscow Regional Committee (de facto governor). Sincerely, --TIAYN (talk) 22:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Valentin Mesyats is a real person. The name is Ukrainian I guess.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:32, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Another one; Чаплин, Николай Павлович .. Its transliterated as "Nikolay Chaplin" - Chaplin can't be correct, can it? See 13th Orgburo of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks). --TIAYN (talk) 21:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

It is correct, and I am actually suprrised we do not have an English article about him, he was pretty well known.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:58, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem with Western writing on the Soviet Union is that very much has been written about Stalin, and some about Lenin, Khrushchev and Gorbachev. Its not so much about the system as the leading men, however, the field seems to be improving, with works on Stalin's comrades being published as of late; for example, a book entitled Stalin’s Team: The Years of Living Dangerously in Soviet Politics, will be published next year - but you have to wonder why no one has thought of publishing such a book when Nazi German provincial mayors get their own biographies. One of the reasons why I'm planning to apply for Russian courses at the university is so I can get access to the Russian books (which have more range, and I'm guessing more closeness to the subject). Anyhow, another question is Дании́л Сули́мов best transliterated as "Daniil Sulimov" . I literally can't get any hits on it. --TIAYN (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is Daniil Sulimov. You may want to check WP:RUS, it is pretty much straightforward.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Ymblanter. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is RT (TV Network)...neutral feedback desperately needed!.The discussion is about the topic neutrality of lede. Thank you. --Kenfree (talk) 22:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

thanks for the notification--Ymblanter (talk) 22:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

User:124.9.91.102

Hi

Can we revoke talk page access as well, as per there last two edits. Amortias (T)(C) 15:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 15:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for your good work, Huldra (talk) 22:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Galactic envoy

FYI, I have just declined an unblock request at User talk:Galactic envoy. Cheers, De728631 (talk) 18:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Pirates of the Caribbean (film series)

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 06:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done, extended for a year.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 8 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:

• On the Tver Viceroyalty page, your edit caused an ISBN error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
• On the Novgorod Governorate page, your edit caused an ISBN error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
• On the Tver Governorate page, your edit caused an ISBN error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:33, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

SNL season disruptions

Hi, Ymblanter. Regarding my administrators' noticeboard posting from October 20 about SNL season page disruptions, to which you had added pending changes and said to ping you if there was another one, well it happened again [2] with another immediate self-revert [3]. Both revisions were accepted by an editor, so pending changes will not end this problem. How would you suggest we proceed? -- Wikipedical (talk) 01:42, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

No, the first edit was not accepted and has never been shown to the readers, so that I suggest we proceed as before.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:11, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

PC-protection expiring on or before 15 November 2014

Pope John Paul II, Les Misérables (musical), Maryam Mirzakhani, Kailash Satyarthi, Rila Fukushima, and Malala Yousafzai? Extend PC time or upgrade to semi-protection on each? --George Ho (talk) 06:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

That should go via RFPP.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Undid revision 633090702 RT article

Please refrain from removing the tag. It's an ongoing issue on the Wkipedia NPOV noticeboard ).Spotter 1 (talk) 14:33, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Look, you opened already a dozen of threads of this, and in every single one there is a convincing consensus that the tag should not be there. May be you should learn to respect consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Please respect WP:NPOV: "This policy is nonnegotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editor consensus.". It doesn't depend on the editor consensus if the tag is up or not, the purpose of the motion is to verify the claim if a consensus for not npov tagging even exists, but not that this consensus supersedes general WP:NPOV policy.Spotter 1 (talk) 14:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The policy does not say you can disrupt Wikipedia by opening new and new discussions and keeping the NOPV tag for the durations of these discussions. It says in fact that you can and should be blocked for such activity.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

There are no new discussions, the points I made are quite consistent and answering to accusations on different pages doesn't qualify as an opening of a new discussions. Replying to a revision is also not a new discussion but a follow up.Spotter 1 (talk) 15:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

... and disrupt Wikipedia, you are not "wikipedia".Spotter 1 (talk) 15:11, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

References

{{Reflist-talk}} put by — Revi 17:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for intervening

It's entirely possible that Slowestonian is simply a new user who happened to pick up on me by chance however, if s/he is a sock, I have a couple of potential candidates outside of the most recent and obvious one. I'll keep my eye out for any gravitation towards the areas of interest those bearing a grudge towards me won't be able to resist. In the meantime, thank you for intervening before the behavioural problems escalated! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. To be honest, I am tired of "new" users who are now showing up in highly contentious areas and start edit-warring or disruptive editing pretending they are not familiar with the policies.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The most frustrating and exhausting part is that, rather than getting on with improving articles, every moment is consumed with patrolling existing articles and cleaning up the messes left behind. Assuming good faith becomes an inhuman feat of endurance. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Buzequity Edit Reverts

Please explain and provide justification for your having reverted my edits on the Bizequity page. Specifically, what is the point of concealing from the users the details of the acquisition under the bankruptcy proceedings, an actual fact. Also, the claim of having valued over 13 million US businesses in the country where only a fraction of operating businesses ever obtains a valuation seems like an inflated claim. I highly doubt that this number of alleged valuation can be independently confirmed.

Are you a professional appraiser in possession of industry statistics? If so, please provide a reliable source confirming this doubtful claim. --Slowestonian (talk) 05:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I also noticed that you reverted my observation that, despite the multiple offices claimed by Bizequity, there are no telephone numbers shown for any of them. Usually one expects a company's offices to list contact telephone numbers, their lack begs the question. What is the point of concealing this information from the Wikipedia reader? --Slowestonian (talk) 06:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Most of it was unsourced and original research. Please also read WP:BLP very carefully before you continue editing Wikipedia. Unsourced and poorely sourced accusations are reverted immediately.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. By this definition of original research, the unsubstantiated claim of 13 million business valuations is original research, to wit "facts, allegations, and ideas - for which no reliable, published sources exist". Why is this allowed on BizEquity page?--Slowestonian (talk) 07:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Try to understand it, and if you start editing before you get the point, I will block you for an indefinite duration of time, given that you do not have a single good edit here.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

You refuse to listen to reason. Who are you to issue these threats? Who gave you the right to block other editors on a whim? What is your authority here and how do I appeal it? --Slowestonian (talk) 08:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

You said you have read the policies? They have answers to your questions.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, being new here it seems to me you have some admin privileges. However, according to Wikipedia policies, you must not use the admin tools against an editor with whom you have a dispute, see WP:Administrators. Your revert is an obvious example of disagreement. You seem to ignore my arguments offered in good faith in defense of my edits. Please desist from making threats, it does not sit well with new editors. --Slowestonian (talk) 09:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I do not have any dispute with you. You do not seem to be an editor in good standing, not having made a single good edit, and I am perfectly entitled to block you for an indefinite duration. The only reason I have no done it yet is that I still have some slight hope that I am mistaken and you genuinely want to learn how to edit.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Infelicitous wording

As the result of a discussion with user:Kenfree, I read through a section of your interaction with him on the NPOV noticeboard. Although much of what was posted there was on topics that make my eyes glaze over, I must point out one less-than-acceptable comment on your part. Specifically, here, where your third sentence is such that it can be interpreted as a threat against him.

While I understand that disputes on nationalistic issues such as these can be quite aggravating, and tempers can flare, that particular sentence is really not okay -- and, in fact, could potentially serve as the basis for a formal complaint. Since such complaints are tedious and loathsome to everyone involved, I politely ask that you strike that particular comment. DS (talk) 01:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I am obviously not going to block Kenfree since I am involved, but it is unfortunate he is not yet blocked since his only activity here is to fight against consensus of all editors in good standing. I am sorry but my time in real life is indeed expensive. I can not just go and search for the links every time he wants to open a new thread on one of the village pumps or talk pages. He was given references once, he was given them twice. Beyond that, it is called disruptive editing. Sorry for that.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Assistance

You're a good administrator, and I presume you are uninvolved in the whole "Gamergate" matter. Do you mind keeping an eye on WP:GS/GG/E, which is the Gamergate general sanctions request for enforcement page? It was only just established at another administrator's request, and I do think that some new fresh administrator eyes would do it good. There has been a real management problem in this topic area, and sanctions enforcement has been lax. RGloucester — ☎ 01:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I am indeed completely uninvolved, the problem is that I have very little time until the end of December. I will try to have a look today and estimate whether it can be done relatively quickly or not. If not, I will come back here.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I think I first misunderstood the request. I added now the page to my watchlist and will try to react, but until the end of the year expect long delays from me.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Бучач-Львів

• I don't doubt your goodwill. Maybe you and you will stay away from Ukraine.--Бучач-Львів (talk) 09:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

  May be you should finally read policies. I am going to edit any topic I like, at least before someone imposes editing resrictions on me.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Malaysia Flight 17

You closed a thread at WP:ANI with the comment that it should be taken to ArbCom. Did you mean that the OP should file a new ArbCom case, or that the OP should go to arbitration enforcement, or what?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs)

Both avenues would work, though my personal preference would be that AE or Arbcom case be filed by a third party. Further threads at ANI about this topic are useless and should not be opened.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

AE is not productive, in this case. A new case should be drafted. RGloucester — ☎ 21:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Also fine.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The question is, who should write the case? RGloucester — ☎ 21:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that should be whoever is fed up with what is going on at the article and at the talk page. It could be one of the sides who believes that the other side blatantly violates policies. It could be also a neutral user tired of seeing all this shit around on a regular basis. I do not think I should do it: All my attempts (a few) to resolve the situation, including the last ANI filed, led to me being reverted, some users claiming I am a POV pusher, and neutral admins somehow assuming I am representing one side of the conflict and want to get advantages. But my main point was that this shit should not return to ANI, and I believe there is consensus for this. It has been there many times, and no action was ever taken, even when there were several reverts of the same material within hours.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm not that familiar with the arbitration process. I've not been involved in the article, though I've been plenty involved in other Eastern Ukraine conflict matters, as you know. I'm not sure I feel comfortable writing such a case, for that reason. However, I do think a case needs to be brought forward. RGloucester — ☎ 21:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Let us see, may be someone takes the initiative.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: I'm sure you don't want to be burdened with this nonsense, Iryna, but you are better at dispute resolution than anyone else that edits in this topic area. I'd be happy to help with drafting a case, but you strike me as a good candidate for bringing it forth. If you're interested, it would be appreciated. Otherwise, I'd appreciate any suggestions on editors that might be good for the task. RGloucester — ☎ 21:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think any of 'us' (and I use 'us' as a descriptor for those who do their utmost to abide by policy despite any personal positions on the issues being addressed) want to be 'burdened by this nonsense'. For the sake of the project, however, we are obliged despite the desire avoid it. I wouldn't be able to even pretend to approach renewing discussions as a genuinely neutral party as I've had heated dealings with all of the editors I consider should have been topic banned long ago.

AE isn't a desirable venue as it would require user by user submissions or a 'bulk' submission. Both methods are bound to end as protracted fiascos ending in stalemates (read as too messy and confusing for admins to have any desire to follow through on trying to work out what's what as the result of lobbying) or, even worse, the wrong editors being penalised. A new Arbcom seems to be the only method of reviewing positions taken and their pro and con arguments. Given my history with parties I'd consider to be tendentious editors of the most disruptive kind, I certainly am not in a position to present a case as a genuinely neutral editor. By no means should this be interpreted as my backing away: it simply means that I need to consider a strategy by which I'm able to open a new case striking at the heart of the matter. That's not an easy task as we know that the same editors feature on dozens of related articles making the same accusations, and disrupting content development using the same strategies.

The third option - being that of enlisting an editor who has the requisite mediation skills, neutrality, as well as the intellectual prowess, to open a fresh Arbcom - leaves me with only one person in mind. I would be reticent to call on him as he's currently bogged down in articles surrounding affairs in the Middle East. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Whatever we do, we ought to it quickly. Letting this fester is not likely to produce positive results. Luckily, ArbCom cases don't require huge amounts of overhead, as the Arbs do most of the fact-finding. We simply need a 500 word statement and some diffs. RGloucester — ☎ 00:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed that speed is of the essence. I know that Yaroslav is sick to death of a recent spate of sheer idiocy from socks and new muppets trolling all issues surrounding Russian and Ukrainian articles, so I'm going to assume that he would like to be informed of the Arbcom but, understandably, doesn't want to be involved putting the submission together. If it's okay with you, Your Grace, I'll email you with my take on the problems plaguing the article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Go right ahead. RGloucester — ☎ 03:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Shall do. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• I am not sure what you agreed about, but please keep in mind that a new arbitration request will probably be rejected on very simple grounds: this subject area is already covered by discretionary sanctions. If anyone has complaints, he/she must be able to present their case on AE, especially if this is something of a limited scale (a specific user or specific article). New arbitration can be opened only if AE administrators decide they are not capable of dealing with a new case presented to them. My very best wishes (talk) 03:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

DS are not the sole purpose of arbitration. WP:ARBEE isn't working, and we can show it quite easily. RGloucester — ☎ 03:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

How can you "show it" when there's been no AE requests in relation to this article so far? Or are you talking about other Ukrainian conflict related AE requests? Stickee (talk) 04:45, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

No man, AE is working. My very best wishes (talk) 04:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

By and large, the purpose of WP:ARBEE is for uninvolved administrators to enforce discretionary sanctions at their discretion. Arbitration Enforcement, i.e. WP:AE, is not meant to be applied to whole articles, or to large groups of editors, but only to one particular editor at a time. Instead, per the "WP:ARBEE discretionary sanctions", administrators are supposed to comb the talk pages and articles and make judgement calls about disruption, sanctioning where appropriate. That simply hasn't happened. The one administrator who said he might start enforcing the sanctions fled, fearing threats on his life. The result is that there has been chaos at the article, no enforcement whatsoever. AE is not the solution. The solution is ArbCom. RGloucester — ☎ 05:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Admins have no obligations to enforce anything. An admin decided not be involved in something - this is their personal matter. This happens all the time. If the problem was with an article, this has to go to AE - there are specific article-level sanctions. But honestly, this is just one of many "hot" articles around, and I do not see any reason even for AE complaint. BTW, this your edit shows poor judgement. My very best wishes (talk) 05:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

My very best wishes and Stickee: while AE may work to a limited extent for individual users, it hasn't worked for investigations of POV pushing by numbers of users on any given article for a long, long time. As I noted above, bulk submissions are a waste of energy. The only way to address problems is to bypass individual users in favour of examining the development of an article and serious policy-based infringements by contributors to a given article. Yes, AE is fine for a single contributor who is easily identified as going against policy. It is useless as a method of identifying targeted articles and establishing en masse patterns across numerous articles, particularly as the same tendentious editors are travelling together in order to impact on the content of an entire genre. Policies and methods of dealing with problematic editing practices have not always existed. When they being to fail and are probably due for revision, there is no reasonable argument for returning to these venues where admins do not wish to participate for genuinely valid reasons. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

This article is already covered by discretionary sanctions by Arbcom. What else can you possibly want? My very best wishes (talk) 14:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Article sanctions are possible, as are sanctions and admonishments for editors found to be disruptive. RGloucester — ☎ 14:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Which brings the question: what is disruptive, exactly? For example, it is disruptive to waste other people's time by filing unsubstantiated accusations and complaints to various noticeboards, such as ANI, AE, or arbitration requests... Do not do it. My very best wishes (talk) 16:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

It is for the arbitrators to decide whether someone's behaviour is disruptive, not mine. RGloucester — ☎ 16:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I only provided you a peace of advice (do not do it) and explained why, since you said that you are "not that familiar with the arbitration process". Good luck! My very best wishes (talk) 00:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Brenton Thwaites

You semi-protected the article, but you said at RPP that it is PC'ed. --George Ho (talk) 14:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Corrected now, thanks--Ymblanter (talk) 15:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Your unexplained reversion of my RT edit

Ymblanter: Today you reverted my edit of the RT/UK section https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RT_%28TV_network%29&diff=next&oldid=634276580. You gave as editorial summary that mine was a "disruptive edit," but you provided no explanation of why that was so. My edit summary explained that I was "clarifying the source." The funding source behind the paper that produced the allegation is not indigenous, as the term "critics" would imply, unless qualified, as my edit attempted to do. Also, the partisan nature of these critics is not disclosed by the unqualified term "critics," therefore wrongly implying to readers that these critics were neutral or unbiased, when obviously the case is quite opposite. My edit clarified all these points, but you reverted it as "disruptive." I would like a full explanation of exactly how it was "disruptive," as opposed to constructive. Thank you in advance for your reply. Kenfree (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

First, the reference was from BBC, not from the foundation. Second, whan you cite the Times, do you every time write that it is owned by Rupert Murdoch, naturalized US citizen? You edit was to to prove the point, which is a disruptive behavior. And you perfectly know this.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Dushanbe Tojikiston Soveti

Hi, can you or Ezhiki find anything on this and Russian/Tajik title?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

It might be difficult, but I will have a look.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if it's this one. If so, it was established way before 1955 (when it was renamed for the last time) and does not contain "Dushanbe" in the title.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 19, 2014; 16:09 (UTC)

Thank you

Heh, I love that I forgot to actually click the last button to block Romana... thanks for getting it. Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure. I actually have not seen your message, went from ANI directly and blocked her as a sock, than noticed your block message.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Busse

Thanks for the block. You'll need to disable talk and email access also - standard procedure now for these accounts due to their equally standard methodology. - Sitush (talk) 07:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Kevin has already done it while I was lecturing.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:St. Francis Dam

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:St. Francis Dam. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: a message on Mollinair's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mollinair (talk • contribs) 01:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Article protected changed

You had protected an article and yet they have changed it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atl%C3%A9tico%E2%80%93Cruzeiro_football_rivalry&action=history . It is filled with bias, and I exposed them on the discussion page. Could you please revert it? Thanks in advance.189.61.16.215 (talk) 23:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Please agree with your opponents first. If I unprotect, it is clear that you will resume edit-warring.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of No1 Model of the World

Hi there,

so I will recreate my page No1 Model of the World, feel free to delete it again! :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by Europelinks (talk • contribs) 00:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 06:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Great job, just explain me why that happened again? What a silly Enciklopedia. ∅

Because it was deleted as a result of AFD discussion. The outcome of the discussion was that the topic is not notable.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually that is not true at all, I provided more than 10 references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.88.117.166 (talk) 10:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

These references were not reliable sources.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

Sorry about that. I got caught in an edit conflict and accidentaly removed your edit. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 20:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

No problem, I just restored it. Thanks for cleaning that page up on a regular basis.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Help

You have experience with SPAs, so I'm asking for your help. I've been having some problems, as of late. Essentially, there was an article called "Cultural Marxism", which was coatrack central and not supported by reliable sources. It was being used as a vehicle for a conspiracy theory, which we have an article on. It was trying to pass the conspiracy theory as reality. Some other editors and I tried to resolve the situation through a merge, resolving the PoV fork situation. This was stymied by a flood of off-Wikipedia SPAs. The result was that the article was protected, and that sysop MusikAnimal required that a discussion take place. We held this discussion, and there was a clear consensus for a merge amongst those who actually based their arguments in policy and RS. However, MusikAnimal refused to close the discussion, and asked me to put a request in at AN/RFC. For weeks, that request lingered, and meanwhile, more SPAs turned up to make a mess on the talk page, and to make the article even worse than it already was, with unsourced bunk about "sleeper-cell Marxists". Today, a new off-Wikipedia SPA campaign began, specifically targeting me. Another SPA conveniently provided a link at the article's talk page to the message board where people were targeting me and preparing this campaign. Having had enough of this nonsense, and being tired of waiting, I closed the discussion and merged the article. Of course, one might say this was improper. I discussed this at MusikAnimal's talk page, and you can read that thread to learn more about my reasoning. However, MusikAnimal has washed his hands of this matter, and essentially I'm left in the precarious position of defending Wikipedia without any administrative assistance, whilst being subjected to a campaign by off-Wikipedia SPAs. I need help. More SPAs are bound to come, and make a mess further. I feel threatened by these off-Wikipedia rumblings. Please help resolve this situation. Watch the article, and stop these SPAs. Please. RGloucester — ☎ 20:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

"Washing my hands" is correct, I only protected the page because I witnessed disruption. I encouraged discussion as that's how you resolve the matters that lead to the page having to be protected. RGloucester, if these SPAs were "assaulting" you as you say, you should report to a more relevant venue like WP:ANI. I would have not blocked them anyway, even if warranted, with your continued inquiries on my talk page it may have appeared I was persuaded to side with you. To be clear, I have not looked into any of this at all. My involvement ended with protecting the page, and I stand by that. — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I am perfectly uninvolved, since I know nothing bout the subject, and five minutes ago I did not even know that the subject exist. I see two problems here. First, usually we let merger discussions run for a week, or even longer, if the discussion is ongoing. Second, I see indeed a large number of opposes from new users, who were obviously canvassed from an external site (in this case, the best way of dealing with them would be to write in small print that they have very few or no edits outside this page. Typically, such votes are discounted by the closer, or at least given little weight. However, at least superficially, I see several opposes from users in good standings and with a long tenure. My guess is that if the RM gets to run its way the most probable outcome would be no consensus, and this is unrelated to SPAs. For the time being, since you closed the discussion and merge the article anyway, I would let it stand as it is, but if someone would want to unclose the discussion and to undo the merge, I would not say that this is completely unreasonable.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Ymblanter, the merge discussion started 34 days ago. It was obviously stale. There has been no real discussion for weeks, other than a few SPAs making a muck-up. I agree that there were a few opposes from users in good standing as well, but I've refuted their arguments, as have others. I've taken pains to show that reliable sources do not support the existence for such a school of thought. All you need to do is read the last version of the article before my merger, which will show you that this article was nothing more than a coatrack. There is nothing more convincing than actually reading what was written in this article. If you read it, you'll see why I did what I did. Policy does not support the existence of this article. Reversion of the merger would be a disaster for Wikipedia, and would facilitate more disruption by these SPAs. RGloucester — ☎ 21:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Then I probably only found the second part, which started on Nov 29. I will have a look again.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see, it is 29 October, not November. Good, let us then leave it where it is now.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Would I be wrong in asking you to semi-protect that page? If an editor reverts my merge, I'm fine with that. I don't think, however, that SPAs or IPs should be allowed to manipulate the page. We know that they are there, and we know that there is severe disruption. Links to the offending websites have been provided. Isn't that enough to justify a semi-protection? RGloucester — ☎ 22:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

That would amount to a preventive protection, and I would rather not do it. However, I added a redirect to my watchlist. If an SPA starts disruption, I think I could handle this.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

An IP has begun restoring the article, and is now engaging in personal attacks. RGloucester — ☎ 21:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I was offline. I see that it ha been helped already.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I'm happy that this problem is finally resolved. RGloucester — ☎ 07:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

It has been resolved for a month, b ut I continue watchlisting it.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• I think I spoke too soon. It seems like disaster is approaching, if this fellow is correct. RGloucester — ☎ 03:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

  Sorry, but I have to unwatch the page.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I shall be doing the same. Thanks for your previous assistance. RGloucester — ☎ 20:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Request to close stale merge proposal

Sorry to impose, but a merge proposal for the First Battle of Donetsk Airport and Second Battle of Donetsk Airport was made here nearly a month ago and was stale before it had even begun. I'd close it myself, except that I'm very much involved and don't want to trigger more IP and SPA edit warring. I'd rather that an uninvolved admin who is actually familiar with the subject matter, such as yourself, close it, and am content to abide by your decision whichever way it goes. I just want to see some of the POV messes surrounding articles about recent events start getting cleaned up. If you're not prepared to close it for whatever reason, just let me know and I'll approach one of the members of the merger taskforce. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I will have a look in the (European) evening if nobody taks it before that. I have now six hours of teaching ahead.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:22, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Please unprotect death of Eric Garner

Most (or atleast a majority of) IP edits have been constructive. People seem to have a lot of respect in this case and there have been surprisingly few instances of vandalism. Biased POV edits like the occasional "murdered" don't really constitute wp:disruptive editing. IPs have provided references to the article, corrected longstanding errors and even cleaned up behind other IPs. Just go through the history. And there have been exactly zero edits trashing living persons so far. Your protection can at best be called preemptive action. But you're also stymying the quick updating and involved fact-checking that can only be done by the larger community. As long as they're doing more good than harm I think banning anonymous edits is unwarranted. 64.233.173.170 (talk) 13:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)aka Googleman

There have been vandalism from non-autoconfirmed accounts though, and there are too many of them.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

• If you say so. You may have analyzed the revision history more thoroughly than I did but I still don't agree with you. Just out of curiosity though, can you see who's autoconfirmed on the history page itself or do you have to hit "contribs", count the number of edits and then hit "user rights" to find out date of creation like the rest of us?--64.233.173.174 (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2014 (UTC)Aka Googleman

  No, one needs to check the userrights, but a red talk page and a red userpage are good indications that a user is new.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

• In case you are not paying attention to some cabal IRC right now, let me ask you myself. Are you ok with another admin overturning the protection?--64.233.173.147 (talk) 15:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)aka Googleman

  I am not on IRC. Yes, I am fine with an admin overturning the protection assuming sound reasoning has been presented.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

RFPP

Sorry, I saw it now;

To be honest I don't expect any edit from other users, but I just want to make sure other users cannot edit my userpage. I saw some people's userpage (such as User:Σ}), and thought it (full-protection) is possible. — Revi 17:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

It is possible, theough usually is applied for retired users. I can fully protect it if this is really what you want. Just wanted to double check.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Please go ahead. :) I think I have some kind of paranoid about my userpage being edited by others :p — Revi 17:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 17:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks; btw, please make the template small. — Revi 17:22, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for accepting the re-opening of the discussion about Cultural Marxism. It's not clear to me what the right answer is, nor where the discussion will end up, but it was right of you to unprotect.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:32, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for handling this.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Just a note, the page was on semi before your full protection. Perhaps it should be returned to semi again? Stickee (talk) 02:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

It was on semi because the IP reverted the redirect to the previous version. Now it is not needed. The page is watched by a bigger number of administrators than it had ever been watched, and I am sure they will react if there is any disruption ongoing.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

WFAHM - Voyeur

Dear Ymblanter, I spend a whole day in creating a wiki-article for the missing last Album by WFAHM, adding cover artwork, links to articles and a brief text about. As detailed as others did for the previous albums. Less than a second after I posted it, it got deleted, and I don't understand this. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Voyeur_(War_from_a_Harlots_Mouth_album)&oldid=637496295&diff=prev — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kausalitaet (talk • contribs) 17:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry for you, but the article was deleted at AfD as non-notable, and therefore it was amenable for speedy deletion. Please go through the AfC process.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

America: Imagine the World Without Her

Was this supposed to be fully protected or semi-protected? --George Ho (talk) 23:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The request was for full protection, I will see now what happened.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

CC articles

I've finished wit the CC articles (missing the 1961, but knowbysight one is under construction). Id appreciate your help on something; finding missing death dates. I've noticed a couple of times; that if knowbysight misses one, the Russian Wikipedia or warheroes usually have one, but some people seem to be missing corresponding articles on the Russian WP or warheroes so its difficult for me, who can't read or write Russian, to track those death dates. Some of the dates will probably be difficult to find; such as the dates for the 18th CC, but others probably easy (as the birth and death dates of the 28th CC members currently missing)... I'm not saying you should do this know, since you're currently working on the 27th Central Committee (and probably some other things too), but it needs attention sometime in the future. Thanks for you're help :) --TIAYN (talk) 10:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I will have this in mind. For 27 and 28, many people are actually still alive.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

That I now, but the main problem with the 28th is I can't find their birthdates (az-lib seemed not to have created entries on them). And as you may know, people don't always die of natural causes; Alexander Dubček died in a car accident of all things. --TIAYN (talk) 11:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Junaid Jamshed

Thank you for protecting this article; the editor who was causing all of the fracas has now been blocked indefinitely, so would you please lift the protection so the article can be improved by the remaining editors please? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 06:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you very much, and enjoy your day. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Requesting page protection on Adele

Hi there. Adele's page has been subjected to repeated vandalism since the Admin lock expired. The page itself was locked prior to the admin lock. Requesting page protection as its prone to vandalism, especially from ip users. Cheers--Carlos Rojas77 (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I am afraid given my previous protection of this page the request should go through WP:RFPP--Ymblanter (talk) 18:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Eurasian Economic Union

Hello Ymblanter, the Eurasian Economic Union will launch on January 1 2015 with Russia, Kyrgyzstan, Armenia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan as its members states. Tajikistan may join in the future. As you are interested in Russia, if I may I would like to ask you to help assess the article so that we can get it ranked as a good article before January 1 (if you have the time and wish to do so). We're currently working to make it fit the featured article criteria. If someone could assess the article it would be greatly appreciated. We would like the article to be ranked as a Good Article and be in perfect state before January 1. (This is purely voluntary although any help will be greatly appreciated).

Many thanks —Mentoroso (talk) 16:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure I will have time, but if I have I am going to have a look.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Number sign

He's back. -- Calidum 19:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 19:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Calidum 19:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Spectre (2015 film)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Spectre (2015 film). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi again

Hi, this is a fairly uncontroversial change; would you bother to move Central Commission for Discipline Inspection of the Communist Party of China to Central Commission for Discipline Inspection. There are no other institutions by this name, and frankly, Central Commission for Discipline Inspection of the Communist Party of China is a very long title. Would you be willing to move the article? Thanks.--TIAYN (talk) 21:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 21:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Again, in the spirit of shortening titles, could you move Secretariat of the Communist Party of China Central Committee to Secretariat of the Communist Party of China? It would be similar to the Secretariat of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the Secretariat of the Communist Party of Vietnam and the Secretariat of the Lao People's Revolutionary Party. Thanks. --TIAYN (talk) 17:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done as well--Ymblanter (talk) 17:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Could you please...

Semi-protect my talkpage for a couple of days? RFPP isn't dealing with it, and I'm getting a little bored of having to revert my "admirer". Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you very much. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

	Merry Christmas!!
	Hello, I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year, Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia!    –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 19:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, also merry Christmas to you.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome and thanks :) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 19:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Derek (TV series)

Hi, there are a few disagreements on actual content on that article, but there is also a lot of vandalism going on. For example, "Kev exercises his artistic talents by building a Robot Grief Dog, named MONGO-2000, winding up Hannah in the process, while Derek deals with sad news. Meanwhile, Trigger makes a face." or "As Broadhill prepares for the wedding of the year, the alcoholic sex pest Kev's behaviour proves too much for Hannah, who calls him a cunt. Everyone realises: Kindness Is Magic." as a synopsis for the last episode. Both were added in the last 24 hours. This is pure nonsense being added by anonymous users. Ultranol (talk) 16:43, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but vandalism gets reverted pretty efficiently, and there are clearly good edits from IP. I am hesitant to semi-protect, and the traffic is too high for pending changes, but you can of course leave another RFPP request, citing this thread (to avoid automatic rejection).--Ymblanter (talk) 16:52, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that it gets reverted efficiently in this case. It is the legitimate content that gets vandalized efficiently in this case. I've erased the same vandalism three or four times already in the last 48 hours, manually, even after some bots acted on it but failing to remove it. I see some registered users doing the same. Anyway, will proceed as suggested. Ultranol (talk) 18:08, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

02:41, 26 December 2014 (UTC)02:41, 26 December 2014 (UTC)02:41, 26 December 2014 (UTC)02:41, 26 December 2014 (UTC)== Deletion:Bamidele Ojo ==

Deletion:Bamidele Ojo

Merry Christmas. What do you think can be done to reverse your decision to deleting Bamidele Ojo. I think the primary requirement for inclusion as an academic was met. Bamidele Ojo is a professor of political science at a university. The Fulbright scholarship award is an important academic award. His involvement in Nigerian politics is note worthy. His appointment by former Nigerian Presidents Obasanjo as chair of the governing council of the Nigerian National Labor Institute(2005-6) and former President Yar Adua, as member of the Governing council of the National Institute for Trypanosomiasis Research(2007) and past professional engagement as the Vice Chair of the American Society of International Law Human Interest Group are all noteworthy. Your suggestion and help will be appreciated.

PS: http://www.ekiti.com/ekitinews/default.php?news_source=&news_id=107731 http://naijatechtalk.wordpress.com/2009/05/14/president-appoints-members-for-science-and-tech-parastatals/03:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)Del2003 (talk)

Sorry, no. My decision was based on the AfD discussion. You are welcome to try Wikipedia:Deletion review.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. He is noteworthy to me and many and maybe to you soon.happy holidays again and keep up the good job. "Try not to become a man of success, but rather try to become a man of value."-Albert Einstein 19:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)19:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Del2003 (talk • contribs)

Darwin Zapovednik

Dun.Leutha (talk) 12:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. It is still not in English, but at least not amenable to immediate removal.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:12, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Rivers

Hi YmB. The conventional English name for a European river is "Foo" not "River Foo" or "Foo River". This also reflects the Finnish name and much of the article text. If we add "... River" it implies "River" is part of the official name, which AFAIK it isn't. Please could I ask you to move it to the conventional name. Thanks. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, this is not what Wikipedia:WikiProject Rivers#Naming says. I would appreciate if you stop renaming items counter to consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:16, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but the only places where "Foo River" is the proper name are the USA and Canada - if you look at the examples you will notice that. The problem is that some editors, especially in Eastern Europe, have used "Foo River" as a disambiguator instead of "Foo (river)" and then others seems to think we add the word "River" to all rivers in English - we don't. Please stop reverting changes that are in line with the convention and Wiki practice and have a discussion at the project page if you're still not happy. I promise not to change your Russian river articles... --Bermicourt (talk) 19:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

You have already renamed a Russian article. Please stop renaming until you present RS - and let us start with Latvia and Finland. If you continue renaming, I will take you to ANI.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Protection on Nicklas Bendtner

• Not sure if you're aware, but the previous protection was a year in length; as such, I fail to see how three months is appropriate in length. Given the length of the protection log, the fact it is a BLP, and the amount of trolling attention this person gets, it is my opinion that the only appropriate duration is indefinite; at the very least, it should not be a quarter of the previous duration. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, I misred the year when I was checking the protection log. Now I changed it to an indefinite protection.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for your prompt action. I can see how it is easy to misread the year - it was quite a jump from previous protection levels (but justifiably so in my opinion!) That's one less article to watch like a hawk for vandals. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Ymblanter!

Happy New Year!

Ymblanter,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

Thank you, also happy New Year to you.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Ymblanter!

Happy New Year!

Ymblanter,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

Thank you, also happy New Year to you.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

2015 already

Hi Ym. No frills - just a quiet ‘’all the best’’ to you for 2015 and I hope you’ll continue to be around on Wikipedia for a long time to come.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:50, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, and also all the best in the new year to you.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Realgm

There have been no less than 4 users who have agreed with the stance originally taken by another poster, which I have supported. The sources are reliable per Wikipedia standards. To wit: "...sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion...." This is a clear exception to the real otherwise stating that user generated content is not acceptable. Please explain how this is incorrect. This is precisely the instance that this exception was created for. You are not taking the time to understand the issue. Please, before you go making edits, discuss this so that you can understand. Jacona's ego has been bruised because she doesn't understand the rule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ErerfAnocaj (talk • contribs) 06:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

First, three sources were blogs/forums, and the fourth one did not mention the subject. Second, in the discussion, there was an IP followed by you; everybody objected or had reservations; third, do not discuss this with me, I am uninvolved and I do not want to be involved. Please discuss it with other users at the talk page of the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you help with subtitling a video?

Hi - Crisco 1492 has been looking for someone to help with this video that's at FP. I thought of you ... However, I don't have working sound on my computer right now so I don't know whether it's Russian or Ukrainian! If you can't help, can you suggest someone else? Yngvadottir (talk) 22:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

It's in Russian. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, replied there.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Приветствую, Ярослав! Просьба помочь немного: что такое "vocal dynamo" в музыкальной терминологии, либо это обозначает что-то в музыкальной сфере и употребляется произвольно (нужно для русского понимания: в поиске нет понимания на данный предмет)? Извиняюсь, что в нерелевантной теме пишу (чтобы не создавать целую тему из-за пустяка). Вы можете откатить это (когда я увижу Ваш ответ, то напишу, что увидел). Спасибо, надеюсь, что поможете! - 95.29.70.33 (talk) 13:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC).

  К сожалению, совершенно ничего про это не знаю.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• С Рождеством, Ярослав! Сорри, что не сразу ответил (праздничные хлопоты). А Вы не могли бы спросить это у Ваших коллег (чистокровные американцы и англичане, в том числе). Они точно знают, что это такое (в поиске иногда отыскивается сочетание этого термина с джазом, на английском языке: значит чистокровные знают про вокал динамо). Спасибо! - 37.144.121.240 (talk) 12:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC).

• Ярослав, вот пример употребления фразы: https://www.google.ru/search?ie=UTF-8&hl=ru&q=jazz%20terminology%20vocal%20dynamo&gws_rd=ssl#newwindow=1&hl=ru&q=vocal+dynamo+opera (очень много). - 37.144.121.240 (talk) 13:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC).

  Ну, так спросите сами на Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music, я же даже ответ не пойму.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Спасибо, Ярослав, попробую! - 37.144.121.240 (talk) 15:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC).

Violation WP:CIL in Brief edit summary

• Добрый день. Полагаю, что текст Вашего описания этой правки является нарушением WP:CIV и WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Прошу Вас воздержаться в дальнейшем от подобных нарушений. Leningradartist (talk) 01:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

  I disagree. Please abstain from blatantly promoting your private collection here.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

  You may also want to read WP:GALLERY. Your edits violate it.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Daisaku Ikeda

I noticed that you initiated the temporary page protection of the article. I do hope however you will keep the article on your radar as I fear the same issues might resurface as soon as the article is unprotected again.--Catflap08 (talk) 12:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I am sorry, but I can not keep on my watchlist all articles I protect, these could easily be a dozen per day. Pls ping me or apply to RFPP if there are any problems.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for dealing with the user who kept changing Persian language Perso-Arabic script to Latin script. Based on some of his edits in regards to Iran, he seems to be a counter-revolutionary (i.e. changing Islamic Republic of Iran to National Republic of Iran) trying to edit Wikipedia (an encyclopedia which strives to be free from personal/political views) to his own taste, which includes (in his view) the romanization of the Persian language. Many thanks. Negahbaan (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure, no problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:2 May 2014 Odessa clashes#Requested move 30 December 2014

You were involved in this article; I invite you to a move discussion. --George Ho (talk) 11:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi again

Hi again. Would you be willing to move Ministry of Supervision of the People's Republic of China to Ministry of Supervision. There has only existed one Ministry of Supervision throughout history so should be fairly uncontroversial. --TIAYN (talk) 13:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 14:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Please explain why Otto Bauer (pornographic actor) wiki page was requested for deletion?

Ymblanter, please reply . . . I have just submitted a new and fully updated Wikipedia profile for Otto Bauer (adult entertainment performer, director and producer) and I am receiving notice that you requested the existing Otto Bauer (pornographic actor) wiki to be deleted. Please explain why you think that a profile of an active adult entertainment industry business man should be deleted from Wikipedia? I'd like you to either remove the existing article from the deletion request list, or approve the updated version I submitted 13, January 2015. Sherry Ziegelmeyer of Black and Blue Media, by request of Otto Bauer. BlackAndBlueMedia (talk) 21:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I actually never requested deletion, I just deleted it since there was consensus in the deletion discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Otto Bauer (pornographic actor).--Ymblanter (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Buhari article

I noticed you put a block on the Muhammadu_Buhari article. (Which I think makes perfect sense) I just got into this, I'm a teahouse host and one of the people involved in the dispute asked for help there. IMO between the two versions the version that was saved before the current version and the block is the better one. I've never been involved in one of these controversial disputes before, most of the articles I edit are technical and I stay away from political issues but I offered to help one of the editors in the teahouse. Do you have any recommendations as to a good way to proceed? I put a comment on the Buhari talk page here: Talk:Muhammadu_Buhari#suppression_of_well_sourced_informations My thought was that if the IP user who keeps reverting the changes doesn't reply then to take it to the Dispute Resolution noticeboard but as I said I'm a novice to these kinds of controversial edits so if you have other suggestions please let me know. thanks. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately there is very little one can do. First, one hopes that the sides can agree during the three days the article is protected. If this does not happen, WP:DRN is the way to proceed.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. When you put the block on there seemed to be some genuine controversy on the talk page. In addition to the Internet user: 80.189.17.218 (I think his IP address has changed btw) there was one other user: Weegeerunner who was arguing against the changes. However, on the talk page now: Talk:Muhammadu_Buhari#suppression_of_well_sourced_informations Weegeerunner seems to agree with my argument for keeping the changes. So the only one who still objects is 80.189.17.218. His arguments are I think clearly not good Wikipedia arguments. He claims there is a libel action in place but gives no evidence, he claims a site is libelous and not to be trusted but when he reverted the change he leaves that very site as a reference to support other information, etc. Unless some more substantive argument against Passenger68's version is presented by someone I plan to revert back to his version when the block is lifted and if 80.189.17.218 continues to revert at that point I will take it to WP:DRN. I welcome your input if you disagree with any of that or have additional suggestions. thanks. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I blocked the IP not because there were edit-warring (in fact, several of the users were), but per WP:LEGALTHREAT. If a registered user were threatening by a legal action, I would have blocked them indefinitely.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The block expired and I made a bunch of changes. Now another (or the same?) IP user is back making unconstructive edits with a clear agenda. I actually just created a teahouse question asking other hosts for ideas but I forgot I should probably drop you a note as well. I don't have experience with these kinds of contentious edits so I want to do things right. This teahouse question gives an example of what I think is clearly a biased edit: Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Could_use_some_help_editing_controversial_political_article --MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

This is fine. You can also let a semi-protection request at WP:RFPP, but nothing is guaranteed.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive edits after recent block expiration

This guy --188.158.56.56 (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Single-purpose account and trolling

Targeted one talk page with his forum-like comments and behavior:

• [4], [5], [6], [7]

According to his comments, it looks like he's a banned/blocked editor with a new account. No helpful edits since his WP registration. --188.159.146.30 (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you take it to WP:ANI mentioning the block of the previous user. I really do not want to enter this business, especially if all communication runs through my talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Good job. Thanks for what have you done at Singapore airlines. Thank you. Lee788 (talk) 06:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Lawless close

A valiant attempt at a difficult job. I'd have worded it a bit differently here and there, but that's by the way. In one small area, however, you went astray; and I think that it's better if I point this out quietly before somebody does the same with the typed equivalent of a red face and spittle flying everywhere. I really don't think that the (non)existence of an ISBN is meaningful (see my comment there on the matter), but so far that it is meaningful, there are ISBNs (as pointed out within that AfD by Lesser Cartographies). You may wish to reword slightly. -- Hoary (talk) 09:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I will cross it out, it is not important anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the detailed and thoughtful close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seph Lawless. That went above and beyond, and I appreciate it. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 10:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure, no problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, that was a tough close, and you got it right, I think. Good job. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I was surprised no one mentioned the fact that the strong proponent to delete that page RoadBound was banned indefinitely for repeatedly vandalizing Lawless' page during the deletion process after several warnings were issued from Oversight. Very Odd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.56.220.119 (talk) 14:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Another thank you

Your contributions in the Viktor Chegin related athletes scandal is most appreciated. I do not speak Russian and most of the material related to this originates in Russian. You are helping keep up to date, hours after decisions are made, rather than days or weeks later when the English speaking press figures it out. Keep up the good work, or even just drop me a reasonable clue. I just created the RUSADA article. They are certainly a player in all of this. The question is how corrupt they are. Some press accounts suggest systematic drug related cheating goes all the way to the top. Trackinfo (talk) 18:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure. In this case, I just transferred the press release of RUSADA, everything is already in the articles. Sorry for messing up a couple of things, I have seen that you and another user corrected the dates.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:George Zimmerman

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:George Zimmerman. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Adam Baldwin

Hi. Hope you are doing well. The protection you placed on Adam's page expired the 18th and they've started with the same edits again. Is there anyway to get protection again? Purselover02 (talk) 00:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

For the time being, I personally see no reason to reprotect. Please file an WP:RFPP request, this should help.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

speedy delete

removing libel information — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.101.131 (talk) 10:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I see. I will block you again now, since you refuse to learn.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

see meta http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global#ymblanter_yet_again_rude_to_users.2C_making_threat_of_range_blocks see noticeboard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#administrator_abuse — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.194.166 (talk) 11:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Can I ask you to have a talk with a Russian-speaking editor?

Y.repik has been adding a modern portrait to Otto von Bismarck. Since the source given on Commons was the artist's Pinterest, and since the painting is listed for sale elsewhere online, I am concerned that the artist may not appreciate its being uploaded on Commons under a free licence, so I asked the editor on their Commons user talk, and they said the artist is their brother and they've been acting as his agent. I see there have been further developments there now, but they still clearly don't understand that they are surrendering all rights to the work. Can you possibly explain it to them in Russian? (I also don't think the image is a useful addition to the article - there is a large Commons category of portraits of Bismarck, but my main concern has become that the editor should withdraw the picture himself as soon as possible for the sake of the artist's earnings.) Yngvadottir (talk) 14:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

No problem. They will need to send OTRS permission.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 15:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Moncton High School

I tried to move the page over from New Moncton High School to Moncton High school and wikipedia advised me to copy and paste the article over the redirect, why are you advising me that I did something wrong?16:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

This is really very strange. You should never copy and paste it over a redirect, since in this way, you lose the page history. Anyway now I moved it over the redirect. If you still remember what message did you get and at what step, it would be handy to know. If there is smth wrong here, I might take it to a village pump for a more general discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Novak Djokovic

Hello! A question about the article Novak Djokovic. Last summer you applied pending changes protection to this article, which is still in place. Recently they asked for additional protection, because there had been a wave of IP and non-confirmed user edits (looks like more than 50 in the past day or two). I thought that was more than could be reasonably handled with PC protection. So I semiprotected the article for a week, leaving the pending changes protection in place. I wanted to check with you to 1) see if this change was OK with you - if not, please revert or fix it; and 2) ask if I am correct in thinking that when the semiprotection expires, the pending changes protection will still be in effect? Thanks for any feedback on this; I am a very new administrator and would appreciate any comment about my action. --MelanieN (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes on both counts. It is certainly ok to apply semi-protection when it is needed (the guy just won the Australian Open, which typically attracts all kids of vandals), and you do not even need to ask me, certainly not if you are not interfering with my protection. When semi-protection expires, PC will remain in effect until their expiration date. Thanks for looking at the issue.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Janice Urnstein Weissman

Ticket:2014111010027021 have permissions from Janice Weissman to use contents at "Feminist Artist Statement" (link:Artist Statement) and "Biography" (link:about) under GFDL-CC BY SA 3.0. I think http://www.brooklynmuseum.org/eascfa/feminist_art_base/gallery/janice_weissman.php is also a copy of it. (Does this (deleting admin) or Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion is the right place for a request. I'm very new in this task. :D) Jee 09:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done, we are not a bureaucracy--Ymblanter (talk) 10:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Jee 10:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Putin khuilo!

Extend PC time? --Gh87 in the public computer (talk) 23:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done, 1 year--Ymblanter (talk) 06:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks and a favour

Thank you for deleting NWA Australian National Heavyweight Championship recently and also deleting the redirect to it from NWA Australian National Championship. Now in addition to that, can you please salt it? There is a user who plants redirects like these and then edits the pages on his IP to avoid scrutiny. Salting it would prevent this from occurring here and force some user ownership on a replacement article. The user Pidzz has a history of this tactic over a wide area of Wikipedia. Curse of Fenric (talk) 01:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I added it to my watchlist and will be able to take action if smth like this happens.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Unprotection request Kuwait

The protection is unnecessary. Prior to the lock, there wasn't an edit war or vandalism. The allegations of "disruptive editing" are unfounded, most IP editors were progressing the article by adding sourced information. IP editors were making positive contributions to the article. - Incu gia (talk) 10:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The article is not protected, only pending changes have been installed, and not by me.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The article is currently semi-protected so that only established registered users can edit it. According to the protection log, you changed the article's protection level to "semi-protected". - Incu gia (talk) 10:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The same log says my protection expired on Dec 28. Anyway, I removed the semi-protection leaving the move protection and pending changes.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Assistance

I noticed the infinite block you recently gave on the Shushi article and was wondering if you would block this user on similar grounds? --Steverci (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

No, this seems to be a POV-pusher, not a vandal.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Belarusian names

Hi there! Do you know if there's a way to quickly revert all redirects that user:Чаховіч Уладзіслаў just done? Because I 100% support you on using the most common name in English, and I can assure you that all of those Belarusian football clubs are always referred to in Russian names, both by people in Belarus, and by clubs themselves (just check their logos and websites for proof)-BlameRuiner (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

No, unfortunately I do not know of any quick way to revert page moves (as opposed to page edits, where one needs a rollback). I am afraid moves have to be done by hand.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

There is actually a revert move link in the users' move log (see). It's still not as quick as a rollback for regular edits, but faster than reviewing the complete contributions log, with fewer chances of missing anything, since all the moves are there on one screen.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 9, 2015; 20:41 (UTC)

Great, thank you, I did not know about it.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Priyanka Chopra

Hey! Since you have protected Chopra's article. I want you to check her talk page as user Krimuk90 is very partial towards a list of actresses and he hates Chopra. It doesnt bother mattee to her or me if he hate or love somebody. But, this is affecting the neutrality of articles especially Bollywood articles. Its a violation of rules as this user has removed the term "Versatile" despite knowing that its a fact. He says provide a source. I had provided several sources and previously it was sourced too. He calls an actress a female hero, another a game changer but removes any such things from Chopra's article despite being present in the article's body. He hasbeen manupulating things to show her favorite actresses are more valuable than others. Since you are an administrator, pls help me and please read all the stuffs on Chopra's talk page. You will know about it. Thank You.—Prashant 16:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I know absolutely nothing about Priyanka Chopra, I did not ever hear about her until I saw the request for page protection, and I really do not want to read the discussion. I guess you need to follow the WP:Dispute resolution procedures if you can not agree on what should be in the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Ya, but Its an article and you are an administrator. Anyway, thanks!—Prashant 17:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The article is protected from editing, so that none of you can make any damage.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Brenton Thwaites (2015)

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Moving spree

Yaroslav, can we do something to stop this nightmare? The newcomer seems to assume that the authors of the articles were idiots who don't know how to spell a person's name. --Ghirla^-трёп- 06:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

[8]. I saw that you moved them back, but we also need to revert the changes in the lede. I will not be available for half an hour, but than I can slowly start reverting them.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I guess I'll revert unprompted edits over the weekend. --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Could you please undo this move? --Ghirla^-трёп- 16:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 16:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Here we go again... Perhaps the page should be protected from wanton moving. --Ghirla^-трёп- 10:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The user is autoconfirmed, and I am hesitant to apply full move protection. I warned them instead. Will now go to fix the junk they left.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Belushya Guba etc.

Hi Ymblanter: Drmies and I know this editor - for some reason he or she refuses to get an account, but he or she is an excellent prose editor. There is indeed a massive redundancy there, with the lede saying twice that it's the administrative center. On the population, I think he or she may be asking too much: I have noticed that for US population centers, there is always a sentence with the wording "In 2010, the population was distributed ..." and then there follow the census results with respect to percentages of men and women, different ethnicities, married and unmarried, etc. That's always struck me as awkward and misleading, but it's clear it's a template that's being followed. I suspect the incomplete sentence about population figures that the editor also changed is as hard to change as that. But I suggest we should change the doubled statement about administrative center, because that's just an easily fixable redundancy. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not against this, but this is a generic pattern which was established by User:Ezhiki about five years ago or so for all articles on Russian localities, several thousands of them. It does not make sense to change this just in one article, and massive changes should be discussed in advance. I proposed Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russia and the best venue to discuss the change. I actually suspected that the editor is a sock of a blocked user (nowadays we have too many of them edit-warring in EE articles), thanks for convincing me this is not the case.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Now another editor joined edit-warring.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I have just got up; I see from the IP editor's talk page that the other editor (if it's the one you are thinking of) has raised the issue at the WikiProject. But they haven't distinguished between the two issues. As I say, I appreciate the difficulty of dealing with the established pattern for stating demographic data (the sentence fragment in this case.) But I think the repetition - if that is part of the pattern for these articles; I haven't checked) should be changed. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Let us wait until they get response, presumably on Monday.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Sal Castaneda

Sal Castaneda (deletion) Hello, I wanted to ask why Sal Castaneda, Bay Area reporter was deleted when several other reporters in the same category are still allowed to remain (example Frank Somerville, Ken Bastida). I am asking for Castaneda's page to be put back up.

Because there was consensus for deletion here. Concerning other reporters in the same category, I guess nobody nominated them for deletion. You can do it and see what happens.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply. I'd rather not nominate anyone for deletion since that would take away information for people who use wiki in the San Francisco Bay Area. Is there any way the page can go back up? what would it require. Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaxford45 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Assistance

I don't know if this is something you are interested, but I could use a little help. There are many sources that reference the Russian military concept of a "kettle" (Template:Lang-ru) as a term for "encirclement". As an example, The New York Times does so in multiple articles. This is used in reference to Ilovaisk and Debaltseve. Now, I've been incorporating this concept into the article in line with what English RS say on it. However, I was wondering if you might be able to make a brief article on the subject, so that it can be explained elsewhere and linked in. There are really no good sources for this in English, so Russian sources would be required. RGloucester — ☎ 18:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

My understanding is that котёл is just the encirclement, one to one correspondence. It has also been used in relation to WWII, for example, we refer to Вяземский котёл (Vyazma Kettle). I can check how the term is consistently used in English in relation to WWII, but I am afraid there could be no material for an independent article.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmm...perhaps add a section to the article on encirclement about the term? It is very unique. I think it should be described somewhere. RGloucester — ☎ 00:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I will check whether there is any consistent usage, and if I find any sources, I will add it there.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Tetteh Plahar

Hello Ymblanter please I want to redevelop the article Tetteh Plahar could you please restore it as a stub for me so I work on it and improve it regards.--Rberchie (talk) 12:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Will do it shortly.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Please is it possible to move it from WikiAfrica/Stubs and put it on Wikipedia directly.--Rberchie (talk) 14:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Rberchie/Tetteh Plahar. Sorry, could not do it earlier, had some urgent things offline.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC). Please why did you remove the categories?I want to know if I am doing something wrong.--Rberchie (talk) 09:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Because categories should not be in the drafts not in mainspace. If ever the draft gets moved to the main space, categories will be added (actually, I did not remove them, I commented them out).--Ymblanter (talk) 09:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok thanks for the clarifiation. I am still developing it I will be adding more refernces. Hope it will be finally moved to the mainspace regards.--Rberchie (talk) 09:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Erdogan

Hello, Ymblanter. You have new messages at Mar4d's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mar4d (talk) 13:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015

Your recent editing history at Recep Tayyip Erdoğan shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. kashmiri ^TALK 16:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Seriously? BLP violations are exempt.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Only with regard to "libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material",[9] neither of which applies to the article. Unless you consider Guardian a poor source, but I am afraid you might not get too many editors supporting this view. Also, see WP:PUBLICFIGURE which formulates some policies very relevant here. kashmiri ^TALK 23:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

This is unfortunate that on such weak basis you engage in edit-warring and start sending block threats around. The Guardian article says Erdogan once said he might be of a Georgian ancestry. Now imagine I can say today I am a King of Persia. With some effort, I can get it published - I get interviewed by media on a regular basis, one of them can just publish that out of fun, saying I claim to be a King of Persia. Would you then argue that the Wikipedia article about me should be added to the category Category:Monarchs of Persia?--Ymblanter (talk) 06:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The Guardian article says that Erdogan "had the warmth and emotion of his Georgian roots", and not what you mention above. You are POV pushing, that's it. kashmiri ^TALK 12:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Please prove my POV pushing or apologize.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

stop waging war changes options

you do meaningless delete text has links. half of the text that you have left is a lie. For example, Israel has neither confirmed Syria has denied the attack, but it's still there in the text, but you left it. But you have removed the refinement of that attack only the media gossip.

• text must be restored, the text has sourcesor you are troling?

• Abkhaz authorities claimed that Buk air defense system was used to shoot down four Georgian drones at the beginning of May 2008 (In the opinion of dependent media source). An official certificate use of Buk not testify.

• Analysts concluded that Georgian Buk missile systems were responsible for downing four Russian aircraft—three Sukhoi Su-25 close air support aircraft and a Tupolev Tu-22M strategic bomber—in the 2008 South Ossetia war. U.S. officials have said Georgia's SA-11 Buk-1M was certainly the cause of the Tu-22M's loss and contributed to the losses of the three Su-25s. According to some analysts, the loss of four aircraft is surprising and a heavy toll for Russia given the small size of Georgia's military. Some have also pointed out, that Russian electronic counter-measures systems were apparently unable to jam and suppress enemy SAMs in the conflict and that Russia was, surprisingly, unable to come up with effective countermeasures against missile systems it had designed.

Georgia bought these missile systems from Ukraine which had an inquiry to determine if the purchase was illegal (An official certificate use of Buk testify).

• On 29 January 2013, the Israeli Air Force launched an airstrike on a convoy in Syria believed to have missiles (SA-17 Air defense missiles and other ground-ground missiles) bound for Hezbollah in Lebanon. The Syrian government denied that a shipment of weapons had taken place (An official certificate use of Buk not testify).

• The system is suspected of having been used in the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (a Boeing 777-200ER) on 17 July 2014 with 298 fatalities in eastern Ukraine. An official certificate use of Buk not testify. Media sources say the use of Buk, S-125, MiG-29.

It is great that you are a fan of conspiracy theories, but it would be better for you to open your own website and publish them there, and not trying to add them to the English Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/malaysia-airlines-mh17-crash-ukrainian-military-jet-was-flying-close-to-passenger-plane-before-it-was-shot-down-says-russian-officer-9619143.html

watch it, it's official and English is independent.co.uk is very candid.Calo yronili (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

What is official? The Independent acknowledges an existence of a conspiracy theory. This has been discussed and beaten to death, and then again beaten to death at Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. You can start there a new round if you want.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

random chance

Can you tell me the actual probability for the following occurring by random chance, please?

Consider the likelihood of two editors just accidentally editing the same page within the timeframe indicated: (FWIW - the time difference is generally between my edit and the subsequent edit of my friend as in some cases it was not a blatant response to my edit or were in different matter on a noticeboard etc.)

Min time between edits

1. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring 25 seconds
2. Breitbart (website) 56 seconds
3. Talk:Pamela Geller 59 seconds
4. Talk:Frank L. VanderSloot 1 minutes
5. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard 1 minutes
6. Campaign for "santorum" neologism 1 minutes
7. Talk:Outrage (2009 film) 1 minutes
8. Talk:Michael Grimm (politician) 1 minutes
9. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons 1 minutes
10. Marco Rubio 2 minutes
11. Talk:Marco Rubio 2 minutes [10] "never heard of talkingpointsmemo" on 21 Nov 2012 ... when he posted in a discussion about sources in 2010 which included it in a list)
12. Talk:Alex Jones (radio host) 2 minutes
13. Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines 2 minutes (super example)
14. James Delingpole 2 minutes (blatant)
15. Talk:Chip Rogers 3 minutes
16. Talk:Robert Kagan 3 minutes
17. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard 3 minutes
18. Michael Grimm (politician) 3 minutes
19. Talk:Rick Santorum 3 minutes

19 pages all with a maximum of 3 minutes between editor interactions with my edit being first - what are the odds? Especially considering some comments therein. Any remote chance that stalking could maybe have a tiny shot of being the cause rather than random chance? Collect (talk) 22:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Why do not you take it to ANI? In my closure I looked at your edits, and not the edits of this user, I evaluated them and I came to the conclusion I stated. I see that you do not like the conclusion, you can also take me to AN or ANI, I am fine with that.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Years ago I swore off the drama boards for very good reason. The fact is I doubt the OP "randomly" saw anything at all. I have been forbearing of iterated snark and attacks, and I just want you to know my only reason for any of those edits was and is WP:BLP period. When people try to use part of what the source says (the part they like) and do not use the rest of the source (the part they do not like) - I find it a misuse and abuse of the source, and will continue to do so, and I hope you will understand why -- it is the easiest way to abuse living persons in their biographies. I find the supreme basis for WP:BLP to be do not harm people. I suggest you reread the posts and weigh them accordingly, as otherwise the person who complains the most gets heard the loudest just by human nature, and I suggest you look at Talk:Sam Harris (author) and note the problems there as well. Sometimes you cannot tell the players without a scorecard, and this is one of those cases. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Nor am I unique in my view -- ask the recipient of [11] how, with over 450K edits he viewed a threat of a topic ban from a person with all of 15K edits -- of which over 1/5 are directly about me or on articles I edited. Collect (talk) 22:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I do believe that I read the posts, weighed them accordingly, studied the edit history of the article, and came to the conclusion I expressed in the closure. I can not really add anything there. That was a complaint about you, I looked into it carefully and found it partially grounded and partially not grounded. If someone files a complaint against your opponent and I would have to look at it, I will do it as carefully as I did now.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Monkey Kingdom

They're discussing it on the talk page, but I ended up taking it to AfD since I honestly don't see where they're going to see eye to eye on this. I really, really hate doing that since I'm pretty much only doing it to make a point (ie, that I'm not making up policy), but I don't think that they're going to let up until I do and I also kind of have the viewpoint that if this does make them more aware of policy, then it could avoid future articles having to go to AfD. I just hate that it had to go this way. In any case, I'm not just here to vent, mostly I wanted you to keep an eye on the AfD and talk page so that it doesn't get too heated if it starts to go that way. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I added the article to my watchlist yesterday, and I will add the AfD page now, no problem. I will not be the one to close the AfD discussion obviously, but I hopefully be able to prevent disruoption if needed. I think what you did is correct and reasonable given the circumstances.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks! I was mostly just hoping that I could at least convince him to be patient for the one month that it'd take for the film to release and gain coverage (assuming all went well), but no go. (sighs) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Please explain why did you delete "Durgadas Kamat"

I am not clear why did you delete this page. Please explain. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belleshenoy (talk • contribs) 01:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Because the deletion discussion was closed as delete.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Mary Landrieu

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 07:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

No, there was no vandalism since January 12.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Что-то не так?

Объясните почему вы против России в статье Симферополь? Ilya Drakonov (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC).

Your edit did not improve the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• Ymblanter, sorry, I thought it would be better like that. Ilya Drakonov (talk) 16:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC).

User:101el capitan

Your 24 hr block of 101el capitan had no effect on that user.[12] 101el capitan went right back to edit warring on the same article, reverting Lukeno94.[13] Thought I should let you know. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I now blocked them for a week, but I am afraid for the next block you would have to ask another administrator (unless they start vandalizing articles or so).--Ymblanter (talk) 17:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Money in the Bank (2014)

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 18:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

No, I do not see much vandalism at the moment.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Explanation regarding the deletion of website

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InfoQuest this Wikipedia page was deleted with the reference by you, As a member of that function I know that some of the information is wrong and we will update it original sources if you help me in the recovery of that webpage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashokkumar01 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

No, the consensus of the deletion discussion was that the website is not notable.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes the Website was not notable earlier, but the website has been changed to the address infoquest15.in. have a look at that. please help us to recover the Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashokkumar01 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Eva Carneiro editing history

Hello, could you please restore the history of Eva Carneiro before it was deleted by AfD. The person passes GNG now in my opinion. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 21:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the InfoQuest Wikipedia Page

Hi, You said that the website is not notable. I too agree with that its because the Domain has been changed to infoquest15.in. please help us to undelete the Wikipedia page of InfoQuest. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashokkumar01 (talk • contribs) 06:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The notability does not change just because you change the domain.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

AMERICAN SNIPER

they started it by trying to be bias against American sniper in favor of mockingjay i dont know whats the fuzz is all about im just stating a fact that American sniper will take the domestic boxoffice crown and they're like kicking and screaming about it

The fuzz was that you wen way abover WP:3RR, and you are clearly set to repeat this record now.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

its moot and academic at this point i feel i won this one so im not pressing it anymore no point anymore lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.151.124.167 (talk) 08:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Right, and your prize is one week long block.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the InfoQuest Wikipedia Page

I am not getting why the Wikipedia page was deleted so will you please tell me how can I restore the Wikipedia page of infoQuest So that I can do that. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.242.250.151 (talk) 08:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

No, it is not possible, as I already explained on two occasions on this page immediately above this section.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Administrative republic

Thanks. Did you see my comments on this and the IP socks? This is an ongoing problem. I was hoping it had stopped. Dougweller (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I have only seen your discussion with Ezhiki at his talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

That's it basically, I think it included an ANI link. Dougweller (talk) 21:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar for Art & Feminism Challenge

	Thanks for your contributions to the Art & Feminism Challenge in 2015!
	Hello Ymblanter , thanks for adding Anna Ostroumova-Lebedeva and Ellen Thesleff to the English Wikipedia! I hope you will participate again during the next A&F challenge in 2016, and if you send me your snail-mail address I will send you some real stroopwafels in gratitude, Jane (talk) 14:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Jane.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

ANI harassment closure

At WP:ANI#Harassment, I was not forum-shopping. I was there about a WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE over a user’s WikiBullying—an issue I had not discussed anywhere else besides his own Talk page—and that same user grossly mischaracterized my purpose in being at ANI. So I ask that you please review your closing of that discussion. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

No. Everything you needed to discuss you can discuss at AN.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I should discuss harassment in a discussion about an RFC the user wasn’t involved in? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 20:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

’Kaaay… is there anything in policy about that? Or any successful precedent? WP:DR explicitly suggests AN/I. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 20:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:Trolling--Ymblanter (talk) 20:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Are you suggesting I should have accused him of trolling? Or are you making an unsubstantiated accusation towards me? If the latter, I don’t know how you got that idea if not from the very thing I reported to ANI, but every action I have taken was done in good faith. If you don’t believe me, feel free to take me to ANI or WP:RFCC or something, or even just have a civil conversation where you ask me for justification for whatever you found questionable. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 20:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The reason this other user reverts you is because he believes you are disrupting the RfC closure. Those are not two different things, but just one. It arguably could be best started at ANI, but it does not matter, once you started it at AN, let us confine it to AN. Note that several users commented in the ANI thread before I closed it, and none of the comments was favorable to your cause.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

That would be understandable if it made any sense to say that “How do I do X?” was disruptive to “We should all do X.” And even then, it still wouldn’t excuse the personal attacks and total lack of WP:AGF. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, you may of course open ANI against me, but do not be surprised if you get blocked (not by me obviously). I explained you twice how you should proceed. Whether you want to listen depends on you.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

And you justified that explanation by obliquely calling me a troll. That doesn’t exactly seem like a good-faith explanation. But I wasn’t referring to you with that last sentence; I can at least assume good faith on your part by the fact that you were actually willing to discuss, for which I thank you. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 20:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

If you were actually using WP:Trolling to refer to m:What is a troll?#Misidentified trolls, I sincerely apologize for assuming bad faith in it, and doubly thank you for clarifying afterward. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Cfd result

FYI -- while I of course have no problem with your reading of consensus, I think the recent CFD deletion discussion and result that I discuss here was flawed, for the reasons I give on that talk page. --Epeefleche (talk) 08:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, my reading of consensus is exactly that the category is upmerged. If consensus changes, the category may be recreated. But for the time being, we need to live with what we have.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

As I said, I have no quarrel with your reading of consensus.

I do have a problem with the nom's assertions, which seem to have been accepted without questioning. Which are wrong. I didn't see this -- are the relevant wikiprojects pinged when we have cat deletions? I guess not. That's something that we have with AfDs, that would serve cat deletions well, where lack of information drives a result. What's the best way to have a new discussion on this, inviting people who have heard of the 9,000-athlete Maccabiah Games (or who come across it in their research of the topic) to participate in the discussion?

Re-reading his prior posting, which he pointed to as a basis for his nom, I'm even further amazed. He wrote: "I have never heard Italian ancestry discussed in an Australian sports context. It's simply not a topic of study, hence why global search results simply mirror the content of this Wikipedia category. .... On a similar basis, I think Category:Jewish Australian sportspeople also warrants deletion as a non-topic. .... I can't locate anything to suggest that intersection is a topic of study." I'm flummoxed at what google search he performed, if any, to come up with such an untrue assertion as to the relevance of Jewish ancestry in an Australian sports context. --Epeefleche (talk) 08:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I see Wikipedia:Deletion review as an immediate option.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah -- I forgot # 3 (if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page). I imagine that is what you think this may fit under. Tx. I will wait for the nom's response. Perhaps that will ease this process. Epeefleche (talk) 08:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for giving us a break from having to revert IP vandalism daily (recently several times by the valiant TheRedPenofDoom (talk · contribs)).

It really is terrible that people are putting childrens' names in articles.
LLAP,
Dear ODear ODear
trigger warnings 15:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. I protected the article for a week, if after it has expired a longer protection would be needed, please reapply at RFPP.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again!

I wonder whether Nuland's article could get the longer-term lower-level (autoconfirmed) protection that Kagan's did, to give it a bit of help after a week. Nuland's article has been getting more vandalism/harassment lately. DearODear 20:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Let us wait for a week and see how it develops. Usually vandalism comes in waves.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration

I mentioned you.[14]

Dear0Dear 23:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ymblanter

Hi: quick preadvice in case another issue blows up with Afterwriting, this time over the plural abbr of Reverend. This is a little painful to have to keep arguing with so-called know-alls who actually don't know. Please advise. M Mabelina (talk) 12:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

& to boot I see he has publicly stated that "Editor is forbidden to contact me due to harassment" - perhaps Afterwriting should be forbidden from making incorrect & false statements about my edits - what is his problem? This really won't do. M Mabelina (talk) 12:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I do not see how you are involved (they are not reverting your edits, but someone else's); I am not sure why you are asking me (I can not recollect interaction with any of you before), and I do not know why you want my advise in the matter which conserns English spelling (English is not my mother tongue). For the time being, I do not see any problem at all; if any problems appear, and the user refuses to discuss, use dispute resolution avenues.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

And now an ANI thread has been started anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes I know, but why? Honestly it's beyond a joke - has this guy got an issue with me because I cannot see what else could have caused this... Sorry to contact you but you calmed things down before. M Mabelina (talk) 12:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Now another public alert has been launched by Afterwriting - surely this can't be right?

If a user is unhappy about you posting at their talk page, do not post at their talk page. It is very simple.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes I totally agree with you, beyond any shadow of doubt - however let me clarify for all: I have made various amendments/improvements to the Rochester Cathedral article including pluralising Reverends (which is correct usage, qv: Revdd) - out of all the many corrections/improvements I made, Afterwriting chose to pick on the issue of Revdd - what a fool - should his incorrect comment be allowed to remain in the public domain?

This MOS situation is not good - because there seems to be a gang which wishes to drive through its dogma at all costs whilst overriding fact. I totally realize that this is not going to make me popular with the activists, but who else is going to point this out to Wikipedia?

In a nutshell, why Afterwriting chose to pick on this MOS issue (hence my comparison with Esperanto) is totally beyond me. I trust that he & his MOS gang can stay away from me if poss (altho I have no probs standing corrected where valid). M Mabelina (talk) 13:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

PS. it's such a waste of time arguing like this too...

As I mentioned earlier, the place to discuss these edits is the talk page of the article. If the user does not reply, use the dispute resolution avenues.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Please understand this - Afterwriting will now launch an enquiry into me at the drop of a hat - so how can this be right?

from my outside point of view, correct & informative info should be welcomed by Wiki not bullied out of town by the few?? Sorry but it is thoroughly unacceptable behaviour as far as I am concerned. I hope like me you care. M Mabelina (talk) 14:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Autonomous republic

Do you understand that the article got moved and that references doesn't have any relation to it now? That nether the lead nor the scope is the same of the title? I suggest you took a look into the article history before making accusations. Lutie (talk) 01:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

This is not an excuse for edit-warring without even trying to start a discussion at the talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

So advise your friend to not add nonsense into articles. Lutie (talk) 23:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I do not have any friends here. You must be confusing me with someone else.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

User:chloeamby

Why did you delete my userpage?

Because it was a redirect to a non-existent page.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Please do not delete my article it is unfinished. There is no defining criteria whether the biography is insignificant especially its unfinished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chloeamby (talk • contribs) 14:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes it is: WP:N.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Bezalel Inc.

Hi,Ymblanter. Why do you delete the Bezalel Inc. page? I just reedited it according to the previous deletion discussion, and I am also adding other convincing reference. However, I found it was delete again when I want to add more references.Tiana wei (talk) 20:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I do not see any notability in the version I have deleted. I am afraid you have to go via WP:AFC as your article will likely be speedily deleted from the mainspace every time you recreate it.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

new essay

The ArbCom case against me is vexatious indeed - I shall not contend against those who taste blood. The main complaint even includes my essays - so I wrote one which I hope you will appreciate WP:Wikipedia and shipwrights. It would be fun to see how others react, indeed. Warm regards, Collect (talk) 04:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Hina Rabbani Khar

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 07:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 07:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Happy adminship birthday!

Wishing Ymblanter a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 06:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you and the Committee.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Precious again

Babel
Thank you for quality articles on "topics pertaining to Russia, mostly human and physical geography and biographies", for using your skill in languages to promote understanding between speakers and Wikipedias of different languages, for helping spontaneously without hoping someone else will do it, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Two years ago, you were the 433rd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Gerda.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs. Legobot (talk) 00:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Crimea annexation page

I'm not sure why you enabled pending changes for Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. Semi-protection would've been better. Pending changes clearly isn't working, regardless, as disruptive edits are being accepted by reviewers, and vandals continue to target it. RGloucester — ☎ 16:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism is not intensive enough to justify semi-protection.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

If that's the case, you might as well remove pending changes, as it isn't serving any purpose and makes it more complicated to get rid of rubbish edits. RGloucester — ☎ 17:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

You can apply at RFPP and mention that I do not object. I do not feel comfortable removing them myself.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• On another note, would you please place an ARBEE edit notice on the annexation page? It will be useful, given the contentious nature of the article. RGloucester — ☎ 05:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

  The DS note is already on the page. The next step would be imposing a restriction such as 1RR. From the editing history, I do not see much use of it, since there is no edit-warring beyond 1RR, and also if such restriction should be imposed at some point I think it is best imposed by an administrator without Russian or Ukrainian background.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't mean imposing 1RR. I just mean an edit notice for the page. An edit notice appears when one edits the page, above the editing box. It is useful to remind people of DS, and is more visible than the talk page DS notice. Look at this edit notice, used on the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 article. You'll see it at the top of the editing box. That's what I'm asking for on the annexation page. RGloucester — ☎ 15:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I do not have any issues with that, except for I do not know how to do it. Will try to figure out later in the evening.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Look here. I would've done it myself, but only administrators are able. The template used at the Malaysia Airlines article is this. RGloucester — ☎ 16:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 21:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much! RGloucester — ☎ 22:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

RT (Russia Today)

Would you take a look at article RT (TV network) ? It is to be unlocked on 26th. Any input on the articles organization would be appreciated.

secondary issue: I have been saying the lead section has 1/3 criticism and does not seem neutral. The argument by some has been Criticism IS neutral due to nature of RT. I see you have been working on Russian related topics and might have a useful suggestion to resolve the dispute.Paulthemonk (talk) 01:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I left there my opinion about half a year ago, when socks started to remove any mentioning of propaganda from the lede. It should be still at the talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Politecnico di Studi Aziendali

Bringing this to you rather than SPI as you appear to be up to speed on the goings on at Politecnico di Studi Aziendali (and its talk page). A new account, 9bh9bh (talk · contribs), has appeared to spam the talk pages of editors with the kind of material that I've seen added to Talk:Politecnico di Studi Aziendali, which is still protected. The editors (and bots) chosen, I think, have all been involved in dealing with previous sock/meatpuppet accounts of Isseasa, so I think it's yet another case of a new sock for the purpose of block evasion. Regards, VeryCrocker (talk) 09:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I will block on sight any Politechnico sock vandalizing Wikipedia, and I have already blocked two today, but I am afraid the only solution is to hard-block the range. Only CU can do it, since only they know what the range is. I am afraid we are spending too much time dealing with this vandal.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

How would one request this? Should I have made an SPI report anyway? --VeryCrocker (talk) 11:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

There is already an SPI report, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Isseasa. I guess one should request there, adding today's socks.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

inexplicable deletion of new user's sandbox

Dear admin, it appears as though on February 12th you deleted User:Klimhe01/sandbox the sandbox of a new user who was in the process of gathering information for an article. This user had not yet published any content, and was still in the research phase. If it is within your power to restore this user's sandbox contents, it would be greatly appreciated.

The draft looked like an advertisement, and it was a collection of texts from other sited which violated copyright. Copyrighted texts can not be hosted in our projects.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Balashikhinsky District

Sadly but Balashikhinsky District was really abolished in 2011. --Jarash (talk) 06:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the differences between administrative and municipal divisions in Russia?--Ymblanter (talk) 06:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Then split the table into administrative divisions and municipal divisions so that it can be understood by a foreigner. --Jarash (talk) 07:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I am working on these tables for Russia, and Moscow Oblast is on my list. It will require a major overhaul and will look like Administrative divisions of Arkhangelsk Oblast.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Assistance with reverting bold page moves

The following disaster-related pages had the word "Disaster" unilaterally decapitalised yesterday, without discussion. All of these changes are controversial, and must be reverted to allow for discussion. The user in question has modified all of the redirects, making it impossible for non-administrators to revert his changes.

• Birkenhead Dock disaster
• Twin Shaft disaster
• Monongah Mining disaster
• Darr Mine disaster
• Eccles Mine disaster
• Hanna Mine disaster
• Victor American Hastings Mine disaster
• Avondale Mine disaster
• Hawks Nest Tunnel disaster
• Benwood Mine disaster

If possible, could you please assist me by restoring the longstanding titles with a capital "D" in "Disaster" per WP:BRD? RGloucester — ☎ 07:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

No, since it is at AE, I am not going to interfere. The articles can alway be moved back later.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

somebody obsessed

"Politechnico vandal is too annoying": indeed. But this is only the second time I've encountered him. Please, prod my memory: can you tell me any one of his other names? (I need to put something on his user page.) Thanks. -- Hoary (talk) 09:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Isseasa. Thanks for blocking the second reincarnation.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Happy to help. (Oh dear, what a subject. It reminds me of the outfit whose many names include "Isles International University".) Could you possibly add this new name "Bb9bb9" to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Isseasa? Erm, I'm in a bit of a rush, and (embarrassing admission) it suddenly occurs to me that I haven't contributed to any SPI page in ages and would therefore have to read up on how to do this (yawn). -- Hoary (talk) 10:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Will do it in the evening if nobody else beats me to it (I am continuously busy from now until after dinner)--Ymblanter (talk) 11:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done, unexpectedly got a free hour.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ymblanter. You have new messages at RGloucester's talk page.
Message added 00:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RGloucester — ☎ 00:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Thanks for protecting Indiana. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Notice on ANI page

Ymblanter, I added some relevant information to your block notice here. Thank you. --Taivo (talk) 11:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Taivo, I will have a look.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see, already indeffed.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Yamimash

Why was the Yamimash page deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambyamby (talk • contribs) 14:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Because it is not notable. After I spedily deleted it in the morning, you decided to revert my edit on you talk page rather than stop recreating a non-notable article.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

It has references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambyamby (talk • contribs) 14:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

And its not even done yet I was on the process of adding more references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambyamby (talk • contribs) 14:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

If you want to avoid speedy deletion, please create the draft in the draft space, Draft:Yamimash, submit it and get accepted. Do not move it yourself to the article space.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Instantnood socks

Hi Ymblanter, thanks for semi-protecting Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 March 27. However, the one-day protection is not enough, and he returned as soon as the protection expired. Please note that Instantnood has been using IP socks for many years. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Instantnood. -Zanhe (talk) 05:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done 2 weeks. I hope the only discussion the socks are interested in at this page can be closed in 2 weeks.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick action! -Zanhe (talk) 05:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Connecticut Compromise

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 06:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 06:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

K2 Deletion

I was hoping my sandbox/K2: Siren of the Himalayas page could be restored so that I can edit it to better suit Wiki's guidelines. Pepe716 (talk) 18:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)16:06, 24 February 2015 User:Pepe716/sandbox

The deleted submission was a copyright infringement and will not be restored. Please start a new (copyright violation free) version at your sandbox.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

"Undiscussed and wrong"

• Undiscussed - пардон, с кем? ~0 активных редакторов статей о московской ЖД за последний год. Ну и это.
• Wrong - с чего бы вдруг? Вы видели ещё статьи про suburban direction of railway, если это то же самое, что это главный ход + несколько веток одной линии?

Good day. SkyBon (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

We are in the English Wikipedia. Please write in English and use the English terms for naming the articles. I hope though you will be soon indeffed here as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:37, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Should I consider that a threat? SkyBon (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

No, you will do everything yourself.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

And yet you still haven't answered my questions on-topic. SkyBon (talk) 18:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Pavelets Line does not exist in English. Pavelets suburban direction of Moscow Railway is a correct translation of the Russian term, and this is what we use in naming of the articles.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I beg to differ. For geographic names we use the widely accepted English name (or, form prevalent in the the English reliable sources). %terminus% Line does exist and is the one. By contrast, we fail to see Pavelets direction anywhere outside machine translated sources. SkyBon (talk) 19:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)