User talk:Ymblanter

Following this finding of fact in the arbitration case (unrelated to me) I have stopped all administrator activity in the areas I edit — everything related to the countries of the former Soviet Union, to rail transport, and to the Olympics. I may occasionally make fully uncontroversial actions, such as blocks for and protections against obvious vandalism and obvious BLP violations.

Archives: 2011; 2012; 2013; 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020

Bosco Sodi

Hi Ymblanter. Hope you're well. I wanted to make some changes to the Bosco Soid page but noticed that you have put it on semi-protected. Could you please lower the protection on the article? Thanks in advance.

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)

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)

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)

Draft:Nikolay Antipov

Hi Ymblanter. Draft:Nikolay Antipov was on the verge of G13 deletion, but the man is obviously notable. It looks like a machine translation of ru:Антипов, Николай Кириллович. I have added a few English language book citations, would copy-editing be an easy task for you? Thanks, Sam Sailor 18:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding me, I will be slowly working on the draft.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Great, thank you. Sam Sailor 18:46, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Global renamer

Would you consider applying? We could use another active Russian speaker. Something we’ve been working on is getting people not to handle as many requests from languages they aren’t familiar with and this has lead to a small backlog from some wikis. I know you aren’t active on ru.wikipedia now, but being able to read the requests on meta and figure out if it’s within policy would be incredibly helpful. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni:, do you have any idea how much time investmet this could be? I am operating close to the upper level limit of my abilities, and if it is enough to check some page once per day and react to pings, I could still do it, but continuously monitoring a page would probably be too much.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:06, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I think that’d be the most, and checking once every few days would even be helpful. It’s a volunteer project and getting more volunteers from different language groups is always a plus. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I will have a look.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Contest

Hi. I was actually thinking of organising a contest to get my old stubs expanded. Basically what I did in the early days on here was to identify notable missing articles, simply identifying them and getting them up, thinking in the long term at what is best. The problem is that a lot are really off the anglospere radar and don't get expanded but really should have decent content even if short. The idea that I mass created copyvio articles amuses me, I doubt there's more than a few dozen out of 100,000. I might see if I can get a hotlist of stubs created and run a contest to see who can expand the most. Alternatively I can request deleting them all which would mostly be negative as most can be fleshed out..♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

The list is at the CCI investigation page(s). No, I do not think you should delete them, and indeed most of them (I do not know whether most is 90%, 99% or 99.9999%) do not contain any copyvio. But having them expanded would be nice. For Russian districts, I am going through them anyway, and it still could take years, but if I am still alive I will do them. I sometimes write on more exotic topics, but for example Chinese stubs typically require some understanding of Chinese sources for their expansion, and attention could be brought to them it would be great.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

The task of building this encyclopedia is just so gigantic isn't it? I feel guilty in seeing so many short stubs but really should have been created with much more content but it was all done with the mindset of trying to make this encyclopedia have coverage of everywhere on the planet and really try to tackle systematic bias. I did a lot of good, a lot of them have been expanded but there's a worrying number untouched in ten years. Nobody is developing them. You know Czech and Turkish villages, German rivers etc, articles we should have but nobody is editing. We need something to get them improved. There's probablt a lot of African villages which should probably be redirected into a list, some of those villages in Burkina Faso and Benin etc are still unlikely to have anything online within the next ten years, though on a county or municipal level it seems to be gradually improving in some areas as they come online.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this is an evergreen question what should be redirected and what should have separate articles. This is of course diffisult but I would say administrative divisions of levels 1-2-3 are probably fine, and reasonably big settlements (say above 10K) should be fine as well. For the rest, I would say we either have easily available sources or not. Once I tried to expand an article on a Czech village and could not find any information above the standard one which was already in the article. On the other hand, a Czech speaker would know what to search for and might be more successfull. African villages are probably hopeless for the time being unless there are very clear sources covering them. I created some time ago an article on a new province of Zambia (first level administrative division), English is an official language of Zambia, and it was still difficult to find any reasonable information.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I mean look at Madjoari Department (not mine). Even the bigger province is a short stub Kompienga Province. If we can't even get that right it's useless worrying about hundreds of localities within them. If all we have is a population figure I think we should redirect them all into lists by district/province like a gazetteer until there is sufficient info. I'm more embarrassed at seeing how many stubs I created which are still empty than worrying at people finding vios!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

When I was writing about districts of Mozambique, it was easier for me that articles already existed, templates were there, and I just needed to add info from my sources. I suspect Burkina Faso is similar, and I speak French. Villages could be a completely different story whatsoever.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Ulaankhus

Hi, can you find anything on this in Russian or find a way to translate Mongolian, I tried to destub it but struggled with the web sources I found. Russian wiki has some decent info on it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I will have a look. --Ymblanter (talk) 13:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I found a source for the population at here 8010, looks like there's some other facts in there in the tables. I remember about 12 years back the sums were all half liners and there was no info on the web at all about them!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:02, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Cheers. It would make a massive difference to the encyclopedia wouldn't it if we could get every article on localities up to that sort of minimum quality. Most of the districts are still one liners.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and this is what I am systematically doing with Russia (see e.g. Firovsky District as a random example). Concerning Ulaankhus, it also borders with China (and actually its borders with Russia and China are separated), but yesterday I could not figure out how to write this properly. The article I found also contains some information on the geography (mainly relief), I will see whether there is something useful to add to the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I was just looking at that, that narrow strip to the southwest, Xinjiang I think. You and Ezhiki have done a terrific job with Russia, it's massive!! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

This is definitely Xinjiang, but to add it in the list, we need to know which Mongolian sums this border separates, and I could not figure this out yesterday. Thanks for compliments for Russia, Ezhiki is unfortunately inactive but I am still around. There is still plenty of work to do there.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Firovsky District is several times more than adequate, a lot of these stubs if they even had a paragraph of text like the lead it would make a big difference, something which actually looks like something you'd see in an encyclopedia, not a crappy online database. "Life is what you make it" they say, well "The encyclopedia is what you make it" rings true too! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I added a translation from Russian wiki for Altai, Bayan-Ölgii but I couldn't access the sources. Can you see if you can source it. If not I've just remove it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:58, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I think I tried to get the sources from the Russian wikipedia yesterday and one was off-line and another one was archived but not particularly reliable. I will have one more look in the evening.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

There is only one Russian source there, [1], which has quite a lot of info about the aimak (though the reliability is questionable, but it should be ok at the end), but very little specifically about the sum.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. I started Kikhchik, Russian wiki has two settlements of the same name, one a village which existed nearby long before that was set up. I think it would be best to have one article covering them both but you might disagree. Looking in Google Books the river seems the most notable. It's transwikied and if possible the source need checking and verifying. Won't keep bothering you as I know you're busy but you might want to look into it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:08, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Subdistricts of Afghanistan

Hi, can you find a list of subdistricts of Afghanistan? I can't seem to find any. Of course even the districts mostly need expanding and researching but it would still be good if there was a list somewhere.† Encyclopædius 14:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Mmm Kot-e Ashro looks like it is actually the town of Jalrez itself now. Falling Rain isn't reliable but is usually right on coordinates and looking on google maps it says it's Jalrez now. This source though says Kot used to be the district capital until taken by the Taliban. Odd. What do you think?† Encyclopædius 15:02, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Usually these things come out if the census, but then one of course needs to be able to read Pashto, and also I am not sure there was a census in the last 50 years. Any other statistical info would be good as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I can't find the coordinates for Zaiwalat either. It's an educated guess for now but not sure.† Encyclopædius 15:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Found it I think.† Encyclopædius 16:58, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I spent some time searching, I can not find the list of subdistricts. Will try again tomorrow.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

This one says that the subdistricts were eliminated by Taliban in 1996 and are not in use anymore.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I want to edit Seventeen page

Hi Ymblanter, I would like to add information on Seventeen page about:

Seventeen's Japanese comeback in September 2020 with mini album 24H, source: https://www.seventeen-17.jp/statics/24h

24H's achievement to top Japan Oricon chart, the first non-Japanese international male artist to achieve a fourth-consecutive win on the weekly album chart, source: http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20200915000374 and http://www.koreatimesus.com/seventeen-earns-fourth-consecutive-oricon-album-chart-win-with-24h/. The same album receives platinum certification from Japan Recording Industry association, source https://www.seventeen-17.jp/posts/information/cgrybe and https://www.riaj.or.jp/f/data/cert/gd.html

Seventeen Joshua and DK's collaboration with US based singer, PinkSweats, source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/tamarherman/2020/09/24/pink-sweat--seventeen-discuss-coming-together-on-17-remix-in-age-of-corona/#263097005519h

Unfortunately you have the page protected. Can you help to change the protection or help make edits, so the page is more enriched?

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BarbaraUkulele (talk • contribs) 10:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

There was significant disruption going on at the page, this is why I had to apply long-term protection. At this point, I am not willing to lift this protection, since I am afraid disruption will return. However, you are welcome to ask for an edit at Talk:Seventeen (South Korean band) by using {{edit semi-protected}}.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:21, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Kovanja

User Kovanja has been making edits of questionable POV in topics around Rus' and medieval Russian history for a while, in particularly adding questionable material emphasizing that Rus' and Russia are the same and challenging in particular Ukrainian claims to descent from Rus'/the Rurikids. Do you think any of his edits have reached the level of sanctionability?--Ermenrich (talk) 15:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Edits do not look good, but I think at this point it is best if I stay away from everything related to Russian-Ukrainian conflict topics.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Is there another admin active in the area you'd recommend me to try?--Ermenrich (talk) 16:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

No, and this is a problem. If you feel confident enough, you can make a AE case, then someone has to close it anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:25, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Ganei Tikva ECP

Hi, can you please remove ECP from Ganei Tikva? As I pointed out on the AN, if any ARBPIA rulings should apply, you can put an edit notice for that one sentence on the article, but you should not lock down an article that has nothing to do with the conflict. Huldra has been trying to insert conflict into Israeli place names when if any conflict area applies, it is just that "one sentence" in those villages. But under "anyone can edit" and partial ECP that we can do with the edit notice, we should not be applying full protection when it's not needed. Thanks. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry but in my opinion it is needed because we just had an instance of ARBPIA edit warring in which one of the sides was not extended confirmed. However, I will be happy to have a second opinion from uninvolvred administrator. Would you mind bringing this to AN?--Ymblanter (talk) 06:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Block review

A user you blocked (and whom I reported to ANI, which led to said block) has had their block expire, and has immediately resumed edit warring at one of the relevant pages by reverting to their preferred version, after dropping a personal attack on the talkpage. Could you please take a look and determine whether the block should be reinstated and extended? Grandpallama (talk) 00:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I would prefer to wait longer. Whereas their behavior is indeed not exemplary, on South Korea they clearly get support of other users at the talk page, and blocking for one diff with borderline personal attacks for month would probably not be taken positively if someone drags me to AN for that.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look. Grandpallama (talk) 13:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

What is an LTA?

In one of your comments "One user is relatively new, one is an LTA" what is an LTA? LaceyUF (talk) 17:05, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I apologize, but (i) I am missing the context (ii) I would rather not discuss possible block evasion with a user who has 89 edits. Thank you for understanding.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for reviewing transgenerational. The sections, although separated, have significant overlap and I could not think of a non-overlapping section head for them.

If you have changes to suggest, please let me know.

== Memdmarti (talk) 23:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. There are no so many items anyway, so the easiest would be to put all of them next to each other so that there are no sections--Ymblanter (talk) 05:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Question

How do I delete an account in Wikipedia? University Gee in Claude (talk) 09:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

It is not possible. One can rename an account.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

71.204.53.77

Can user:71.204.53.77 please be blocked ASAP. CLCStudent (talk) 14:50, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 14:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Stub

Hi

Could you please put this article as an Australian Road Article stub

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giinagay_Way

Thanks,

Thent1234 (talk) 21:55, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

It already has the stub template.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:04, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Help with report

I'll send a message now to Arbitrators, if that's it? Mikola22 (talk) 08:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but I would expect them to come back to you and either ask for more information or to explain why they are not going to deal with the case.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:32, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. When something new happens, I'll let you know. Mikola22 (talk) 08:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I withdraw the report to arbitrator committee for false accusations against him because he admitted mistake. Thank you. Mikola22 (talk) 14:56, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

changing the name

Well, where is the place where I can change my name University Gee in Claude (talk) 15:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

meta:Steward requests/Username changes--Ymblanter (talk) 15:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank, the name has changed Jerry Kyoni (talk) 01:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Sure, no problem--Ymblanter (talk) 05:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Zubryckiy's activity

Dear Ymblanter, I would kindly ask you to draw your attention to the Zubryckiy's activity. He has renamed a number of articles on the history of art and culture in the Russian Empire. See: [1], [2] etc. He did it despite a number of sources contradicting his contribution. It seems to me that his activity does not have the purpose of making a valuable contribution to Wikipedia. Best regards, Ушкуйник (talk) 18:51, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I blocked them short-term on 17 October, and they never showed up after the expiration of the block.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Please Ушкуйник do this all the time; so I don't have to correct your errors (Kharkiv is the common English name for Kharkiv for at-least the last 20 years by the way, in fact Odessa seems to be the only city left in Ukraine were the Russian name of the city is the is the common English name). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

No, also Chernobyl, and Gurzuf went through a RM. Historical usage might be different though.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:09, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Well as long as the Inquirer Bandera does not go through a RM..... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh yes...--Ymblanter (talk) 20:54, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reviewing page Manipur State Constitution Act 1947 do give suggestion to further improve it as a notable wiki article.Thank youꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ (ꯆꯥ) 08:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Sure. Now it is a one-line stube, I expect it can be extended to explain what the content of the act was, what was the historical backgroung, and what were the consequences, citing reliable sources.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Ymblanter I have added some more info but user User:ChunnuBhai is repeatedly trying to add unrelated topic and removing quote from reference,kindly review this conflict too.ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ (ꯆꯥ) 17:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I have added RfC template on the talk page to keep any discussion at one place. I have explained my edits.ChunnuBhai (talk) 17:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Question

Could you please specify the reason for you revert at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ymblanter&oldid=986272699? There truly was a mistake so I decided to get rid of it. --217.113.241.188 (talk) 21:48, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

You are not supposed to edit other users' responses.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

How is this editing a response when I removed a broken header. Isn't this considered editing other users' responses? --217.113.241.188 (talk) 22:17, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Just do not edit anything which is signed and which is not what you have written.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Category replacement

Since you protected the page Bahrain–Israel normalization agreement, please, replace category:Treaties of Israel with category:Peace treaties of Israel on it. Also, is autoconfirmed protection not enough? Maybe protection level can be lowered now? MBH (talk) 10:52, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done. The protection is arbitration enforcement per WP:ARBPIA, I am afraid there is very little I can do about it.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:20, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Case for edit warring or AE?

Hi Ymblanter, does this user look like they should first be reported for edit warring or just go straight to AE Natalia Bargel Lviv?--Ermenrich (talk) 12:52, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Let us see whether they do anything after warnings. If they resume, I can block myself.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Frequent disturb on wiki pages

Hi admin,does this userChunnuBhai and ChunnuBhai expect me or other editor to write concoted texts for articles, afterall some words from sources can't be ignored as it the sources that inspired me or other editor to contribute on wikipedia ,he reported every pages I contributed as copyright violation.He put copyright violation on pages Khagemba,Yaosang,Manipur State Constitution Act 1947,Loiyumbaetc Kindly help me in this matter,to me this seem like a personal attack by the said user violating WP:NPA or do correct my mistakes if I made thank youꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ (ꯆꯥ) 05:01, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello , Luwanglinux, many of your edits are simple copy pastes from the sources I have mentioned. I have not added copyvio notice without reason. Please read WP:COPYVIO to have a better understanding.

I have not made any WP:NPA in any of my edits. Please point out , if any.ChunnuBhai (talk) 05:19, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@ChunnuBhai and ChunnuBhai: your way of trying so hard to find fault on articles I contributed seems a personal attack to me.If that is not the case then thank you.ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ (ꯆꯥ) 05:43, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Luwanglinux, Please read WP:WIAPA ChunnuBhai (talk) 05:50, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

CFDS processing error

It seems that you accidentally removed from Category:User apache when processing speedy renamings, because it's not in the batch you added to CFDW. Could you fix this? Regards, Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:37, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done, thanks for noticing--Ymblanter (talk) 14:50, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

List of wars involving Russia

Hi, you protected List of wars involving Russia over the edit-war that was just two editors failing to see the obvious - one added the invalid file File:Flag of the Khanate of Khiva.svgg the other just removed the invalid file. Solution just remove the typo double g to get File:Flag of the Khanate of Khiva.svg - if you could fix all should be fine and probably no need for the protection. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 16:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 18:17, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Can you unlock the "2024 United States presidential election" namespace?

Hello Ymblanter, On the talk page of the 2024 United States presidential election draft, there is a strong consensus to move the 2024 page to the mainspace now that we know the winner of the 2020 presidential election. However, after a discussion in November 2018, you locked the "2024 United States presidential election" name until November 28, 2020. However, consensus exists to move the page now. In all past presidential elections, we typically would have the next election's page up by now. Would it be possible to unlock the name so the page can be moved? Paintspot Infez (talk) 21:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I would like to see a formal closure, ideally by an administrator, who can then move the article. I unfortunately do not have time right now to review the discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war

Found this while wondering about closing WP:AE#Beshogur. I know almost nothing and don't want to learn about this area, but I'm wondering if this article should have 1RR. Ping me please if you reply. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 11:04, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: yes, I think it should have 1RR, clearly since there are a lot of Armenians (understandably) unhappy with the conditions of the truce we will see a lot of edit warring in the coming days.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:16, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Do you have time to add it? I'd have to search through a lot of stuff to find out the details of adding it, and don't have a lot of time. Doug Weller talk 11:52, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I can add it (possibly later today, I hae to teach in 20 minutes).--Ymblanter (talk) 11:54, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I have set it up--Ymblanter (talk) 12:11, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Great. The AE can be closed now but if he continues to be a problem.... Doug Weller talk 15:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: The whole topic now is a big mess because the situation was stable for 30 years and now has suddenly changed. Even in the normal situation, most Armenians do not count Azerbaijanis (and Turks) as human beings, and most Azerbaijanis do not count Armenians and human beings, and now this even got worse.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what articles are affected, but at least they all need to be brought under DS and an attempt made to give alerts. I can add DS if you tell me which articles. Doug Weller talk 17:15, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Off the top of my head, all geographic articles pertaining to Nagorno-Karabakh. Shusha and the Republic of Artsakh are urgent, others I can do before or over the weekend.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:15, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Shusha had it, I've done Artsakh. Doug Weller talk 19:31, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Great, thanks a lot. I will try to do the others. I am sitting in the middle of an intensive teaching period, but should have a bit of time left.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Talk:List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_country

Hi,

the IP is pushing recurrent edit-request's on a case that has been already raised and discussed earlier, I asked to stop and formulate only new edit requests which ignores Goodenough. This is already disruptive...the pp-semi you once set on the main page expires on 05:32, 17 July 2021, but it seems already the talk page needs similar conduct (the 11th (!), edit request I won't answer, maybe you should revert it). Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 19:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC))

I protected for a week--Ymblanter (talk) 19:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the review of Artem Novikov. Best wishes from Los Angeles,   // Timothy :: talk  11:59, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Sure, no problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:01, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Another revert warrior

[2] Ghirla^-трёп- 18:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done, probably one of our banned friends.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:43, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Catherine de Zegher's Wikipedia page

I am affaird that your text on the Torporosky affair on the Zegher Wikipedia page exceeds all standards of encyclopedic formats. In addition, the case is listed including the suspension, and details of the legal matter are on a separate page. Please note that this lawsuit has not been finalized. It is unethical to "take sides" on a Wikipedia page in a lawsuit, debate, or controversy, as Wikipedia wants to have a strictly neutral stance. Your text insunifies that Ms. de Zegher is guilty, although there are no conclusions on this trial yet.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Curatorslog (talk • contribs)

Well, I happen to be a little bit familiar with Wikipedia standards. What I see that you, in one edit, completely rearranged the article, and all mentions of de Zeghe being suspended and fired magically disappeared, though they clearly belong to the article. Moreover, the reliable sources talking about her suspension, disappeared as well. I strongly suspect COI editing.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I have no interest at all, I am a simple editor and work with Wikipedia guidelines and the facts. I actually had the impression that you have a COI conflict of interest. The way you have focused on this page and topic transcends any interest in creating a balanced page. I am not saying that this case should not be mentioned (which I did by the way), but the full description of the person should still be objective and balanced. Can you explain to me why you focus so much on this one aspect of Ms de Zeghe's career and blow it up as this is the only thing this person has done in her career

Actually, I do not, you have probably seen that I have left intact all other sections of the article which talk about the rest of her career. However, understandably, in the last several years she got attention mainly due to the criminal case and the fact she was fired, and that it was related to forgery. We write Wikipedia based on reliable sources, and we give sufficient weight to the events which were more prominent in these sources. If you think I have a COI, you are welcome to open a topic at WP:COIN, I am really curious what arguments you have not to prove this (which you obviously can not) but at least to motivate this absurd proposition.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I did not catch this earlier, but I am amazed by the editing done by Curatorslog. This is not acceptable at all. It seems he removed almost everything about the Toporovski scandal. He did not even link C. de Zegher her page in the new page he created regarding this scandal! And an important 'detail' about de Zegher lying about researching the work was removed. I have added this back. But it is obvious this is not written in a neutral way at all. I agree there is a serious COI from Curatorslog.Garnhami (talk) 16:58, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Generic IP distruption Government of National Unity (Hungary), Fascist Italy (1922–1943)

Hi,

please see the subject and respective talk pages. Now the IP are around the 7th revert each pages, starting to boomerang the policies I told him, repeating everywhere "you failed to make a case for your edit" despite everything has been demonstrated in the talk. Unfortunately I get since a time really unserious answers, at this time is already disruptive. I think it is very easy to understand what is a state article, and what is a government one...(KIENGIR (talk) 20:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC))

I configured pending changes for both articles--Ymblanter (talk) 20:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Protection reduction request

People with COI (such as User:Kalariwarrior and User:Kalari Poothara, they are practitioners, are they the same person?) are misusing the pending-changes protection of Kalari Payattu, they are tweaking, whitewashing and removing content as they wish without sourcing, also removal of sourced content. This is an encyclopedia, not a personal blog, but some are treating as such. Please remove the protection. 2409:4073:2E90:725B:588F:21B0:BEDB:7BB4 (talk) 08:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Sprry, but your message does not make sens to me. If there is disruption in the article, why should I reduce the protection? To give you an opportunity to edit-war in real time?--Ymblanter (talk) 09:06, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

As long as it is pending protected they are not going to participate in discussion, but misuse it. Currently this is propaganda article. BTW, I see no edit-warring going on there. Look at that article, mostly poorly sourced and half of the content is unsourced. 2409:4073:2087:C2C5:1DA2:976B:21B1:520B (talk) 10:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I am not going to be involved into the content dispute related to this article, and I do not find your argument convincing. You are welcome to request unprotection at WP:RFPP. If you are sure these people have COI they must be reported, prtobably at WP:ANI.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Your Article

How on earth could you gain the right to have an article about yourself here on the English Wikipedia? --93.78.35.45 (talk) 10:22, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

May be because I am encyclopedically notable? I have not touched the article, let alone written it.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

What guidelines do you meet for this? --93.78.35.45 (talk) 10:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

You should ask people who have actually written the article. WP:NACADEMIC I guess.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:29, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Regarding edits to this section, you have deleted multiple revisions. Why would you do this? --93.78.35.45 (talk) 10:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Because I do not publicly reveal my real name in relation with my Wikipedia account. It is not on my user page--Ymblanter (talk) 10:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thanks for blocking that crazy reverter! I couldn't keep up with the reverts! ~ Destroyeraa🌀 17:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Protection

Hi. Can you protect the article Ismail Kadare? An IP known for edit warring in SQwiki is vandalizing it. Thanks!--Udha (talk) 19:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

There is not enough disruptive activity as far as I am concerned.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

That IP just reverted me in that article after I posed this comment See here.--Udha (talk) 19:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry bu6t this looks like content dispute to me. Their arguments are not unreasonable. If they continue reverted they must be blocked at some point, but protecting the article is not really appropriate in this situation. Try to start a talk page discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Please do consider the user that asked for protection is a blocked user in sq.wiki along with other IP at his disposal due to continued editwarring and wikihounding along with WP:OWN, WP:I just don't like it, WP:Drama and then some. Please consider this before any of his requests. Peace --217.73.133.82 (talk) 20:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I am not going to study long discussions in a language I do not speak. Thank you for understanding.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 reverts. As I pointed out earlier, that IP has caused edit warring in SQwiki for two years,( here) and it seems to behaving the same here.--Udha (talk) 20:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Now blocked for 31h--Ymblanter (talk) 20:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Much appreciated.--Udha (talk) 20:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Babel

IMO, from a native English-speaker, you could raise your {{Babel}} rating to en-4. Narky Blert (talk) 22:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, but I prefer keeping a low profile. I would not like people saying than I am overselling, and it does not matter so much anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I do recommend you raising your level to 4. I do not tolerate false content. --93.78.29.3 (talk) 20:52, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, but I do not think this is any of your business. This is not content.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:55, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I see, you are the same IP. Time for the block.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:55, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

AfD for deaths due to COVID-19 and related RfC

Hi. Thanks for commenting at the recent AfD for the above list. There is now an ongoing discussion around the best way to split the list, if any, if you wish to comment further. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:42, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

thanks, I will have a look.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:06, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Block Request

Can user:2a02:c7f:6c2d:f300:1cf:4c0b:94d8:bd93 and user:99.153.140.102 please be blocked asap. CLCStudent (talk) 22:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 22:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Have a look

Hi,

Why my changes to the article Kalarippayattu are not auto accepted even if I'm an extended confirmed user? Outlander^07@talk 16:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I do not know, your revert should have been indeed auto-accepted. Would you mind asking at WP:VP/T?--Ymblanter (talk) 16:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

O.K Thank you.Outlander^07@talk 17:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Sure, no problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Proper name

It is recognized worldwide as the SandyGeorgia syndrome. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Is there a link somewhere I can use next time?--Ymblanter (talk) 20:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I will write it up as soon as I publish the MEDRS paper. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Good, looking forward to it.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Recreate Our Wikipedia Page and Delete the Current Page

Dear Team,

We would like to recreate our Wikipedia page (Vellore Institute of Technology) in an innovative and professional manner and would request you to kindly delete the current page or assist us in identifying the admin of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vellore_Institute_of_Technology page as soon as possible Amuthukumar1988 (talk) 12:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

No, please use the Draft space or the talk page for this.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:59, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Please remove the below text in our Wikipedia page :

Gender discrimination has been a common issue raised in universities across India.[30] VIT allegedly use their restrictive rules and regressive practices to market to conservative parents of Southern India, particularly in their home state of Tamil Nadu and neighboring Andhra Pradesh. These practices include much more restrictive rules on women hostelers, moral policing, shaming by an all-round security force and special committees to look into moral paternalism.[31] The Hindu reported that often women would find themselves checked at hostel rooms and asked to stop talking on mobile phones and sleep or study. Over time, videos and articles have emerged online about the same. VIT officials, however, maintain that stricter female hostel rules are a necessary safety precaution given the rise in crimes against women.[32] VIT officials have stated that, while they agree that men and women must be treated equally, they have at times been faced by irate parents who have insisted on stricter codes of conduct.[31] VIT despite calling itself a progressive educational institution committed to excellence, still ensures strict gender segregation at official events and fests.[31]

In October 2013, two female students were suspended after they helped to organize an online opinion survey of female VIT students, focusing on issues of safety and inequality.[33] Commenting on the issue, VIT vice president Sekar Viswanathan said: "The students started a campaign based on the misplaced notion that the university discriminates against women, which is not true. They were taken home by their parents".[33]

In 2019, Indian news outlet The Print carried a story which alleged that the government was delaying according the Institute of Eminence status to VIT due to an alleged anti-Modi government stance by its Chancellor and an official Intelligence Bureau report alleging gender discrimination of students.[34]

Lack of freedom of speech VIT allegedly makes students sign an affidavit which prohibits them from speaking out against university management.[31] The university code of conduct prohibits any form of protest or action within premises or outside which may spoil repute of the institute and prohibits passing out information to any media group without prior permission of university officials.[35] In 2015, Indian stand-up comedian Papa CJ was banned from the campus for taking up issues related to gender discrimination and moral policing during his show at GraVITas. He put up a video about his ban on his Facebook page and tweeted about the same[36] describing his ban and a video recording of his show.

Amuthukumar1988 (talk) 17:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I do not see why I should remove sourced information. Please raise the issue at the talk page of the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:17, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

List of best selling books

Hello

Can I ask why you locked the best selling books article? this seems unfair as it privileges some editors over others.

Could you unlock it.

Happy to discuss

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.85.156 (talk) 10:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I have protected the page because there is too much disruption coming from non-autocinfirmed editors. I am not going to unprotect it. You can always register an account, in a few days and after a certain number of edits you will be able to edit this article.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Replies in own section

Hi, I feel like putting replies to others' comments in different sections here is confusing and would be hard to understand for the admins reviewing the report. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 09:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

You obviously need to indicate whom you are replying to, but this is the procedure which has been in place for many years, possibly from the very beginning (btw the same as for the arbitration cases).--Ymblanter (talk) 09:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I understand. Thank you. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 09:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Map of India

@Zoozaz1, ChunnuBhai, and Ymblanter:, I strongly believe that this user Kumarkk1203 on Talk:Bhutan–India relations#Omit the disputed area entirely is Aghore that Ymblanter blocked, [3]. Please take a look on the thread. --Walrus Ji (talk) 13:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done, I recently blocked another sock on Commons--Ymblanter (talk) 14:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

1k out of 75k survived???

Regarding the article History of the Jews in Latvia.

That figure does not seem reliable to me, when you compare it with the other data (censuses etc.) regarding the amount of Jews in Latvia. I don't know what you think of it... --Spafky (talk) 14:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I do not know, but there is a source in the article which says this. My reading of this number (consistent with other numbers) is that of 75 which stayed there under the German occupation only 1k survived - which does not seem improbable to me. In any case, we can not just remove sourced material, it requires some discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:18, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

You're right, but another source in the article says that there were 95k Jews in Latvia in 1939, when I do the math it still doesn't make sense to me. --Spafky (talk) 16:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I guess the difference, 18 = 95-77, are people who were forcibly resettled or voluntarily moved out in 1940 or evacuated in 1941. I personally knew someone who was born in Riga and survived the war by moving out of Latvia in 1940/41.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Fidesz

Hi,

persistent IP vandalism ([4]), ([5]), ([6]), ([7]), ([8]), edit warring notice previously here ([9]), still continued (please note that talk page discussion ongoing is about another issue especially, IP tried in one of the edit logs to dumb us) Thank you for your time! (KIENGIR (talk) 20:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC))

I protected for 2 weeks--Ymblanter (talk) 20:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Miklós Horthy, Viktor Orbán, Russophilia

Hi,

a user unfortunately is ignoring or policies and does weird (?) things.

- first of all he does not stop edit-warring, despite discussion is ongoing in the talk the user failed to build consensus (already 7 reverts): ([10]), ([11]), ([12]), ([13]), ([14]), ([15]), ([16])

- in the other page, the user completely ignores discussion, and as previously do not understand that category is for other purposes, even it's mother page is linked in the other discussion, which he denies (5 reverts) ([17]), ([18]), ([19]), ([20]), ([21])

- Finally, at the third page the user is performing weird addition, already the third time campaign that Joachim von Ribbentrop would be Russophile, which is awesome, and the sources referred are really against (or see even my edit log about the wikitionary the user tried to use as a source)...([22])...edit warring notice here: ([23]). Thank you for your time!(KIENGIR (talk) 10:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC))

Blocked for 31h, this is a long-term problematic user.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

WikiCake!

Yulia Romero • Talk to me! has given you a WikiCake!

I am presenting you this WikiCake as a sign of appreciation for your updating of the raions of Ukraine. I noticed that all the "C"(-named)-Oblast are all updated Good work and I hope that you will keep up this good work! If you are looking for appropriate background music during updating Wikipedia articles of the raions of Ukraine, I suggest the song "Rayon" by alyona alyona ft. Fatbelly

Spread the tastiness of cakes by adding {{subst:GiveCake}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

• Thanks a lot. Actually, no, they are not yet fully updated - still Zastavna Raion to do, and also the raions of Chernihiv Oblast will later need to have the hromadas added, nut generally, yes, I reasonably expect to have the first passage finished by the end of the year.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

NNP in Transcarpathia

While translating some articles about nature conservation into Ukrainian I spotted Uzhanian National Nature Park article. I wonder, do you mind if I rename it to Uzhansky National Nature Park according to the name on the page of the Ukrainian Natural Resources Ministry [24]? Thanks, by the way, for all what you′ve done in Conservation. A lot of work! Mykola Swarnyk (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I am not particularly attached to the name, which I found in some template or a page full of redlinks, I do not remember now. The Ukrainian government really pretends that they spedk English while they actually do not (see for example this publication full of gems like "stlmt Dashava" or "city Chyhyryn"), so I would just ignore what they write in English. However, if you think Uzhansky is better than Uzhanian feel free to rename. Following WP:UKR in this case it probably should be Uzhanskyi.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

On the main entrance info board there is Uzhanskyi. So I′ll go with that. Thanks a lot. Mykola Swarnyk (talk) 02:58, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Good, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:01, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

ϢereSpielChequers is wishing a foaming mug of Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec20}} to your friends' talk pages.

Thank you, also greetings to you and your family.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:58, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Vraagje...

Hallo meneer Ymblanter,

Mag ik eventjes vragen: Hoe kan ik een admin worden? Hockeycatcat (talk) 09:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Je moet zich voor WP:RFA vordragen en dan een week wachten. Dat is waarschijnlijk kanselos met minder dan 10 duizend edits te doen.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:21, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Dank u wel! :) Hockeycatcat (talk) 09:30, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Graag gedaan.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Need Input

Hello Ymblanter , I hope you are having a wonderful day. I need your input. This one user will not concede that Miklos Horthy and Fidesz are nationalists. He is basically using original research to justify his claims. I have. tried to look up sources for what he calls Hungarian Nationalism vs Hungarian Nationalism and I have found nothing. He is trying to segregate that category for far right and fascists, even though other categories under this umbrella are not held to that standard. If there were a far right group called Hungarian Nationalists than I can forgive it but there is no such group called that. National Conservatism is a form of nationalism, it even says so on its wikipedia page. It embraces both Conservatism and Nationalism. So by definition if you are a national conservative than you are a nationalist and a conservative. I am holding this category to the same standard as all other nationalist categories. Let us go south from Hungary for second and go to the category, Serbian nationalists. This category includes the Chetniks, the fascists, The Milosevic era politicians, the Serb Democratic Party (Bosnia and Herzegovina) which is a national Conservative party and Aleksandar Vučić who runs a conservative and populist government. Are these all the same? No. The Chetniks- The Chetniks were Royalists, however the Milosevic politicians were communists. You don't have to be a certain political orientation to be a nationalist. Or let us use Romania. There was Ion Antonescu, the fascist leader of Romania, and Nicolae Ceausescu the Communist leader of Romania, both were nationalist just had a different way of implementing it. However it would be inappropriate to NOT call either one a nationalist. Just because you are not a fascist or a far right winger, doesn't mean that you aren't a nationalist. There ar things like National Communism and left wing nationalism, I don't have to love them or support them, but I have to acknowledge that they are forms of nationalism because that is how they function, just like national conservatism. If categories similar to this one include figures that are both far right and far left and in between but in this category, they only allow far right, that simply is not fair and is biased. Wouldn't you agree? I also used sources to back my claim and here they are. They are all good and credible sources by wikipedia standards. Horthy and Orban were even listed under figures of nationalism before I even found that page. Horthy: Reuters: The Economist: BBC: Fidesz: The Economist: Reuters: It even says in the article right wing nationalist. It does not say "far right". However, is it right wing? Yes. Is it nationalist? yes. Foreignpolicy.com: The Guardian: BBC: WSJ: You have a great day. Thank you for your timeFenetrejones (talk) 16:36, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I do not think this is my business. If you can not agree, you probably need to try Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:41, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thank you regardless. Have a wonderful day!Fenetrejones (talk) 17:48, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Yo Ho Ho

Donner60 (talk) is wishing a foaming mug of Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec20}} to your friends' talk pages.

Thanks, also greetings to you.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:51, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Problematic editor

Hi Ymblanter,

First off, happy holidays! Second, would you mind looking into this editor Noraskulk. He's been edit-warring about very questionable info he's been adding at Rurik dynasty and Slavicism and doesn't use talk pages.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:12, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, and also happy holidays to you. For the time being, they are still using talk pages, including their user talk page, so that there is some hope still.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:20, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't know, I find edit summaries like this as well as talk page use like this and this somewhat concerning. That and trying to pass off a ninth grade paper as an RS.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:40, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

They are absolutely concerning, and I have given them a Ds alert, but I do not think we are at the point yet when a block is needed.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

• Ermenrich, I'm sorry, what's wrong here? Noraskulk (talk) 14:49, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

  You might want to read WP:RS to get the answer.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:53, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

  Indeed. And consider how ridiculous your statement appears considering that Agricolae has been on Wikipedia since 2006 and you joined earlier this year.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:54, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Multi-article edit war

There seems to be a multi-article edit war going on between User:Vyaiskaya and User:Danloud, and there had been a report at WP:AN3. You left an ARBEE alert for one of the parties. Have you formed any impression of who is more likely to be right in this? EdJohnston (talk) 03:06, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Vyaiskaia is a new user, and she claims the other two are reverting their edits for nothing calling them names. I looked at some of the reverts and could not find anything particularly bad about them; on the other hand, I have not looked through all the articles, and I would need to have done this to see whether the claims are at least partially true. I will try to take another look today.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:36, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 08:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk:List of Nobel laureates by country

Hi, the IP simply does not stop the disruptive edit requests, a more severe restriction would be needed than set last time. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 16:58, 27 December 2020 (UTC))

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 17:07, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Question

Is National conservatism a variant of nationalism? Fenetrejones (talk) 18:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

No idea, one needs to look at reliable sources.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I did that and the guy I am debating still refuse to concede.Fenetrejones (talk) 19:03, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Then you need to open an RfC or seek third-party mediation. Opening RfC is easier.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

How do I do that? Fenetrejones (talk) 19:15, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:RFC, but make sure to formulate the question in an appropriate way, otherwise it will be very difficult to close--Ymblanter (talk) 19:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Would this be worth a report?

I am in an argument with a user. -His argument is based on original research which has no wikipedia article or credible sources to back it up

-Claims I am uncivil yet, he calls me problematic

-refuses to accept that I am citing my argument with Sources, and I mean sources like WSJ, NYT, The Economist ETC

-Called me an accuser and that he never said that yet, it can simply be disproved from a simple command f click.

-Claims that my citing of text is irrelevant, yet it is crucial in understanding the topic(s) at hand.

Fenetrejones (talk) 23:10, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I think you should stop this behavior, indeed more of us noticed the problems I referred (and yes, people can read and verify statements, and after more then 3-4 trials the result is a question of competence). However, what you did recently may very likely end up in a boomerang, per ([25]), ([26]), where you repeatedly referred me as a liar, although I asked you to remain civil earlier ([27]), but I am sorry you ignored it.

Ymblanter, I let on the user's talk this notice ([28]).(KIENGIR (talk) 01:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC))

@KIENGIR Simply I deleted that because that information was not needed but you did lie. Let us look at what you said "The traditional Hungarian nationalism is covering the far-right/extreme viewholders and their relevant theories, at any historical time, openly. It is not the same to be simply patriotic, or moderate nationalism." It is okay, nothing wrong with that, I literally used your quote for an argument. You said "Besides that, you as well address/insist allegations to me I never said." You are accusing me of making up quotes that you never said but a simple command f says otherwise so you lied. Just accept that you TOO messed up on something.Fenetrejones (talk) 02:25, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

You lied because You denied saying that and you did. Imagine this scenario, I said something offensive to you, you call me out on it and I deny saying it. However, You have easy proof on me saying the offensive comment, than you have proof that I was lying. Fenetrejones (talk) 02:31, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, as I said in the article's talk I won't play your games further not understanding or pretending not to understand is the worst you can do in our community, even here you are adressing misleading statements like "You are accusing me of making up quotes that you never said", although I never stated such, and anyway anyone may easily check how many times you stated like "you refuse to accept..." and other similar statements where you address things I never stated, and I won't explain the third time it was not about the literal quote, etc.

But because now again called me twice a liar (4 in total), despite the second warning, prepare for the consequences. (I will as well stop responding your messages here)(KIENGIR (talk) 02:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC))

Fun Fact did you say that I was false accusing you of saying something? Yes. Did I have the item and not make it up, yes. It is okay to be wrong sometimes. You said that you never wrote anything like that but I found otherwise.Fenetrejones (talk) 02:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Deceased Wikipedian

Hello, could you please fully protect the user page User:Aditya Kabir as per Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Deceased_users? Regards. --Titodutta (talk) 02:18, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 06:23, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Report on KIENGIR

This user is trying to cover up on his actions when I caught him red handed.

To quote him, "Look, you continously put words, examples to my mouth which I did not say, and since the beginning did not grab exacly what I said, but pushing your own considerations all around and presenting that it would be mine, with unnecessary repetitions and flooding the talk page disruptively. I won't explain it the nth time, may be read above."

I called him out saying that moderate nationalism is nationalism, using his quote in this paragraph All groups listed are diverse on the political spectrum a nationalist communist and a fascist may both be nationalist even if they are not allies. AND don't make any excuses, "The traditional Hungarian nationalism is covering the far-right/extreme viewholders and their relevant theories, at any historical time, openly. It is not the same to be simply patriotic, or moderate nationalism." Moderate nationalism IS still a form of nationalism. A moderate republican and a Radical Neo Nazi republican are both republicans. A stalinist socialist and a democratic socialists ARE both socialists even if the former is more extreme than the ladder. (The quote in the middle is his quote.)

I may have been a little unprofessional by saying nice try lying, the first time, but He insists that he did nothing wrong. "No, everything may be read above (including what I said and what I did not, among them what you erroneously claim to be said although I did not, etc. - it's not about the literal sentence in quotations marks, but I referred to others as I just explained), but this discussion is over because of the continuous lack of comprehension and competence from your behalf, which is apparently recurrent, I won't play such games." I did not play with his words, he just explained the difference between Hungarian Nationalism vs Hungarian Nationalism to Nigej. There was no change in his words. He was however, lying when he said that he did not say it and that he said it. I found it with a simple command F. He still acts like he never said it and that it never happened, which means he lied by every definition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Miklós_Horthy

His argument of Hungarian Nationalism vs Hungarian Nationalism is Original research. I have tried searching this topic and have not been able to find anything. Moderate nationalism is still nationalism.

I did research on National Conservatism and according to wikipedia, National Conservatism is a variant of Nationalism.

I also used many sources in saying that Horthy and Orban were Nationalists, including WSJ, The Economist, Reuters, the Guardian and many other credible sources. I may deserve a warning, but he does too.

He accused me of accusing him yet I caught him redhanded with a simple command F.

Fenetrejones (talk) 02:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Give me a warning, because I do deserve it, But give him one to for all I listed above.Fenetrejones (talk) 03:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

You should just stop, you will get blocked. However not able to interpret appropriately English sentences, either you do by pretence or not is the lack of WP:CIR. Above you said "You said that you never wrote anything like that but I found otherwise", although I was not speaking about the literal quote you presented here (and now you literally qoute as well where I reinforce I did not refer to your lireally qouted sentence), so you just contradicted yourself, etc., the rest is useless, everyone may carefully read the facts. With this I finished any further discussions with you on the subject.

Ymblanter, the user presented me a liar in this post, and started to troll my talk page ([29]), telling the same, it is (overall the 6th time), please end this, enough what is enough! Sorry for your time.(KIENGIR (talk) 03:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC))

I am not trolling you, I am calling you out for accusing me. You want professional behavior sure, than apply it to yourself and not accuse other users of making accusations.Fenetrejones (talk) 03:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Let us see what you said "Look, you continously put words, examples to my mouth which I did not say," Yet the quote I used is from he, himself. Yet that is a quote from you. When I said that you were lying, I did not mean it as "You are liar" or any derogatory comment like, but that your claim was false and what is the most common way of saying that a person said false statements, the common phrase is that the person was lying. It does not inherently mean that the person is a liar, just that they stated false information at the time. If you thought I called you a liar, than I am sorry on that account, I was writing it that your statement was false.Fenetrejones (talk) 03:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@User:Ymblanter, The first time I was called out by a user, it was you and I was doing what was essentially original research. This time I am the one in the two parties using sources for our argument. And they are credible sources. So nothing like Alex Jones or whatever else it may beFenetrejones (talk) 03:25, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

He also refuses to acknowledge when I mention his claims appear to be original research, he always dodges it and never gives me sources.Fenetrejones (talk) 03:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

And he claims I was trolling. Maybe he did not think he was being rude when he was accusing, but he came off as rude when he was accusing me. Also would a troll, admit at times that they were unprofessional?Fenetrejones (talk) 03:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

disclosure of off-WP coordination

Dear Ymblanter, today you stated that

 I just know there is off-wiki coordination. In 2010, I was an arbitrator in the Russian Wikipedia, and we had to consider a case about Azerbaijani off-wiki coordination similar to WP:EEML (and some of the current warriors were on the mailing list). We knew about its existence because someone infiltrated in the list and sent the content to us. 

Can you please disclose that list of pro-Azerbaijani "warriors" to other admins of English Wikipedia, so they, too, are aware of this history of coordinated action? Many thanks Armatura (talk) 13:46, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I do not need to "disclose" anything, he decision is publicly available: w:ru:Арбитраж:Азербайджанский список рассылки--Ymblanter (talk) 13:52, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks for the link. I think this is relevant to English wikipedia, too, as a lot of prominent pro-Azerbaijani editors active on English WP have been involved. May I ask what is the best way of making the admins of English wikipedia aware of this? Any particular noticeboard suitable for this type of alert? Regards, Armatura (talk) 14:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I would say either WP:ANI or WP:AN, probably AN is better.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:03, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Saini

The census of 1881 as shown on page 292 and 232 of the book linked below 'The Cyclopaedia of India and of Eastern and Southern Asia, Commercial, Industrial and Scientific by Edward Balfour, Jan 1885' ascertains that Sainis and Malis have always been documented as entirely separate tribes in census. Same with page 232.

https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=yvNWAAAAMAAJ&hl=en&pg=GBS.PA294

Why is it being ignored, please understand this is a sensitive topic for Saini community and we are being mistaken for other group which lives in different part of India Remove mali word with saini articles you can say that rajput mali started only in 1937 using saini surname how you can say all saini are malies only rajput mali using saini surname not all mali in other different @Ymblanter:

I am sorry but I thought I was very clear that you must understand Wikipedia policies before continuing further requests. Your requests are not actionable since they explicitly contradict to our policies.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:14, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Is this source is reliable @Ymblanter: Akhil bhartia kashtharia mahasabha Saini rajput mahasabha held conference news

https://www.dailypioneer.com/2018/state-editions/2018-07-05-210907.html

I do not know. Superficially, it looks like a reliable source. Please discuss this at the talk page of the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:10, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

They immediately removed my post without reading said i am banned from wikipedia @Ymblanter:

Indeed, if you are banned from Wikipedia you may not post anywhere.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

So wikipedia doesnot consider it reliable source as i am banned ,why i am banned because i dont know wikipedia i try to correct article that is related to my caste they have banned as i got angry when i saw. I felt sorry from everyone on wikipedia still no one listen and correct article. you make wronge use of your authority by publishing wrong information to whole world @Ymblanter:

Happy New Year, Ymblanter!

Happy New Year!

Ymblanter,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:46, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Thank you, also happy new year to you.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks and welcome sir. . - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Happy New Year to you! Fenetrejones (talk) 23:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, also happy new year to you.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Vyaiskaya

It seems Vyaiskaya is back to reverting and edit-warring as soon as the protection expired. He's gotten into another edit dispute, same as before. At this point, it seems he's not here to build an encyclopedia, rather here push his own opinions, and revert who disagrees with him, without discussing on the talk page. Danloud (talk) 10:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Whereas it is right they are edit-warring it is also true that they tried to discuss at the article talk pages and have not got any response, as far as I can see.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Im not here to push any opinion, but Ive tried multiple times to talk in the talk pages. I recieve no reply. All of my edits follow what has been discussed in the talk pages. Im not trying to edit war with anyone, but a couple users have followed around every article Im on, big or small, rescinding every alteration, whether it's fixing grammar or anything else with no discussion. I am not the one constantly reverting. Furthermore, none of my points are particularly "opinionated", most of the changes have been trimming up the convoluted article formatting, bad grammar, and taking out political biased phrasing for neutral phrasing. If there is anything "wrong" with the updates (which have made the articles actually readable, something they weren't before) then *please,* discuss it. As it is stop following me around. Thank you. Vyaiskaya (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Vyaiskaya: It seems Noelcubit is also constantly reverting and edit-warring, but on the other hand, he's also telling you to wait, until you get consensus from the talk page, and your version gets approved, and until then the stable version should stay. But you are not the type of person to listen, as I said you're pushing your opinion, and not looking for a common ground. It seems Archives908 also agrees with Noelcubit. Why will I be following you? You're openly edit-warring, and getting away with it, which is my point. Danloud (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you Danloud. Personally, I do not agree or disagree with the edits, however the way Vyaiskaya is going about it is all wrong- and by far not constructive. Before the page was protected, user DxRxXxZx made practically identical edits to Vyaiskaya and edited just as aggressively; which leads me to believe that a degree of WP:SOCK may be involved here. For that reason, the last stable version of the article should remain as Noelcubit has tried to do. Thank you both for your diligence in this matter. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 19:36, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Update: Looks like Vyaiskaya is ignoring all our warnings, as it appears they have reinstated their edit yet again...Archives908 (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Archives908 You were right about the sockpuppet situation. It turns out Vyaiskaya indeed used DxRxXxZx as a sock. He has now been blocked. Noelcubit (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Vyaiskaya is currently back to restoring his edits on the same pages, he is now using an IP. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vyaiskaya/Archive. Noelcubit (talk) 18:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done, blocked for 72h--Ymblanter (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Romani people in Hungary

Hi,

a problematic user continously disregarding our policies. The user started to challenge the last stable version, which was set on ([30]) a few months ago, and with misleading edit logs get contrary the evidence in the talk page. 6 (!) reverts so far ([31]), ([32]), ([33]), ([34]), ([35]), ([36]),

edit warring notice here ([37]), which the user immediately blanked ([38])....

The user since the beggining were told in the talk page the contributions on some part only stands until their balanced, since their suffered from serious NPOV issues, my last edit was in spite this a rollback to a much earlier version, explained much earlier in the talk ([39]), ([40]), along with clarifying the erroneous interpretation about our policies (and not the first time), but the user blatantly ignores and pretends if the situation would be otherwise...after the last revert's misleading, boomerang edit log I had not other choice to ask your intervention...(KIENGIR (talk) 14:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC))

I am afraid I can not do anything here, it would require an in-depth analysis of all edits. You can try WP:DRN, though they have to agree to go there.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, I provided you the evidence and cutting edge info, at least easily you may see ([41]) this was the last stable point, standing for months, from which the user started edit-warring, so it is out of question to this the revision the page may be fairly reset per policy (and I will do it soon). The problem is the user still trying to fool me on the talk page and outlines a clear WP:CIR/WP:LISTEN issue, and unfortunately nowadays such users emerge more often to tyre the community and it is very disruptive and time consuming (the DRN would just fuel endless discussion of something is clear and still may be resolved in the framework of the talk). I explained even more then three times the user our policies, my duty ends here. Give yourself time then and please follow the events at least, until you may more depth analyze the issue. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 16:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC))

However, they are adding sourced material. I can not just revert this material without studying it, and I do not currently have time to study it.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I certainly know you lack of time as I do, that's why I am sad when I run into a user that is pretending (?)/ playing (?) with others precious time and nerves. Actually if you check, the first 5 reverts, the user was removing sourced content, which were double reinforced in the talk by more users (only the last revert he/she appeared to restore anything, since then I rolled back further per talk/policy). So, in fact, the issue is the opposite, the user continously remove sourced content per WP:I just don't like it in fact (so in case of restoration 21:00 Dec 2 as shown above would add sources and would be the last stable).(KIENGIR (talk) 17:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC))

I fully protected for a week now, please try to find consensus at the talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, I will work on that, you may see how much I struggle and since how long time, practically around 90% percent of the users addition we let and demanded a little c/e or amendment for consensus, I don't even get why the user wanted to start over...I wish both of us a year with less issues, Have a nice day!(KIENGIR (talk) 17:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC))

Hi Ymblanter. I will be attempting to reach consensus with Kiengir on the talk page in question, though I would strongly dispute some of his statements above. I was wondering if I could ask your advice as an admin regarding the meaning of "consensus". If three parties discuss and two agree, does this constitute a consensus? (Cards on table, I feel this has already occurred on this page, which is why I deleted a couple of sourced sentences). Also, what happens if we can't agree after a week? Sorry for mithering. Boynamedsue (talk) 17:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

This depends. I also do not see Tgr agreeing with either of you, though I see that you have declared him as such.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. The part I interpreted as agreement was "All that said, accepting for the sake of argument that Lakatos is a somewhat prominent Roma leader, why is his opinion relevant to the article?" That to me was a statement that Lakatos was probably not notable and if he was, his opinion wasn't relevant. Perhaps my interpretation is wrong, in terms of his overall point there was a degree of ambiguity.Boynamedsue (talk) 18:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Maryam Rajavi

Hi there, fellow editor. :) I noticed that you undid one of my edits after there was consultation and discussion reached via the talk page of the article under the second section entitled, "The MKO is a Terror Org." Can we please discuss? I reviewed all of the articles supplied by the unconfirmed IP address user and all of the headlines and body of reputable sources persistently refer to Maryam Rajavi as a terrorist. Further, "terrorist" is only a derogatory term in the non-academic sense. It actually has a technical definition that can apply to anyone without prejudice. Looking forward to a healthy discussion. DeweyDecimalLansky (talk) 19:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Maryam Rajavi is the article. My apologies. Looking forward to hearing why the term should not be included. DeweyDecimalLansky (talk) 19:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry but I have made my edits in my capacity of an uninvolved administrator. You need to achieve consensus with other editors of the article (who have rejected edits similar to yours in the past).--Ymblanter (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Karabakh issue

Hello Ymblanter, since you were accepted by both sides in a dispute related to the Karabakh issue, you might be able to help at WP:ANI#User:Armatura. ◅ Sebastian 13:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi. We had more recently this nice discussion, so I am afraid I could not be much of a help here.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, it's of course your prerogative to recuse yourself, but from that discussion, I see no need for it. That mix of strong polarization with occasional attempts by more experienced editors to calm others down, btw, reminds me of what we experienced here during the Sri Lanka civil war. ◅ Sebastian 14:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

There, user A reported user B, and I said there is not need to do anything. Now, B reported A for pretty much the same behavior, and I think it is better if someone else takes this. I have not follower the Sri Lanka civil war discussions, but in Armenis vs Azerbaijank there is a lot of groupthink involved.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Hadrian

Hi, I was wondering why you removed the "Gay royalty" and "Gay writers" tags from this page. Hadrian is noteworthy because he was the first openly gay emperor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvint69 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

This information is not in the article and is not sourced. I opened a talk page discussion on 22 December, nothing happened.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello Ymblanter, just wanted to thank you for your contribitions to the page Teofil Lapinsky. I had to create it in a hurry, so I couldn't do much. I'll try to add more info on the infobox as well (translating from Turkish). Signed, ~𝓐𝓭𝓲𝓰𝓪𝓫𝓻𝓮𝓴 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓕𝓲𝓻𝓼𝓽~^Contact 20:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Please do not forget to add sources you are translating from, even if they are in Turkish.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

"Pushkin is a Russian Empire writer"

Yaroslav, do you consider such edits helpful? What can be done? Ghirla^-трёп- 19:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I restored the body. Concerning the categories, I would just drop it. It is not particularly helpful, but there are so many people around who feel strongly about categorization that it is easier to let them do whatever they want.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Stresses in Russian

Hello, Mike_Novikoff keeps removing stresses in Russian names. What is worse, he is referring to his essay as if it were an established rule or something. Read here. I believe this is a very dishonest behavior. Could you please do something about it? Thanks. Taurus Littrow (talk) 20:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I assume the user has understood what I have written at his talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I hope so. Thanks much. Taurus Littrow (talk) 20:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

No problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Romani people in Hungary (again)

Hi Ymblanter, we are still, slowly, discussing the changes on that page, although some some small progress has been made. I was wondering if you could give some feedback here. There has been a large scale deletion of sourced content on the page, which was never really explained. From the discussions going on, it appears that the reason for deletion was that Kiengir feels that the section title "Anti-Roma Sentiment" violated WP:NPOV (he didn't put it like that, but that is as close as I've got to understanding him). If the objection is the title of the section, is mass deletion of sourced content warranted? I would have thought that, even if the text is itself biased, the obligation would be to correct the bias rather than blanket delete. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Without looking at the article, I agree with the sentiment, but I do not understand much in the subject, and there is no reason I should get myself into the content of the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. Any suggestions for the best course of action? Boynamedsue (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Usually, to continue discussing at the talk page is the best. If the disagreement is clear and the positions of two sides are well-stated, one can try WP:DRN--Ymblanter (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Cheers, that's really useful. I'm trying to steer things towards a clear declaration of positions on those questions we can't find compromise on, so I'll continue in that vein. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Great, thanks--Ymblanter (talk) 16:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Boynamedsue:,

it's really not helpful to state such immediately refutable statements like as been a large scale deletion of sourced content on the page, which was never really explained, when on the contrary the talk page - as well - is full with explanations concerning that, repetitively, at first in last year September, afterwards when you opened this year a new section, 8 January again I explained twice the same day (and I could count even more), it is another thing you so hardly understand/ignore some things, as it happened yesterday, when you again opened a new section and conflated two different issues, and even you were explained what you conflated, but your direct answer again ignored it again and suggested that erroneus assumption you presented also here. You have to clearly specify from now on if something is not clear for you, even quote me if needed. Two points we already agreed, but still there is some left.(KIENGIR (talk) 04:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC))

Kiengir, could you please try and explain on the talk page exactly what your problem is with the content. When you are removing sourced content you have to explicitly state a reason. I have reposted the deleted text (2 paragraphs) for which I do not understand your reasons for deletion, if you look at it and tell me why the individual sourced statements shouldn't be in the article, I will then fully understand your position.Boynamedsue (talk) 08:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@Boynamedsue:,

It seems you again totally ignore what I have just said, even the premise/assertion of your first sentence is false, as well even the second, since I've been explicit as always. Based on your recurrently problematic comprehension, I will again use logical markers and highlights, and please do not conduct parallel discussions, especially because of the earlier mentioned reason, since you obviously should improve your focus and analytic skills.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC))

Help with Berezovo, Chukotka Autonomous Okrug

Sorry to bug you; when you have the time, could you look at the above article for me? It says it's a town, but the population is so small I assume it must be a village (but I don't want to change it without knowing for sure). The other thing is, the ru.wiki article (Берёзово) says it's abandoned with zero population. I can't verify one way or the other using the Russian census because I can't speak any. Could you sort me out when you have a minute? No rush. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure. It is certainly not an urban locality (in particular, not a town), and I have corrected this. Concerning the population, the ref is incorrect (it goes to the 2010 census), I will check alternative sources later today. Likely it is indeed abandoned, because it is not listed at Berezovo, and Ezhiki has always been very careful in compiling the lists. Thanks for letting me know.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate you having a look. Do you need me to do anything on it once you've checked, or will you take care of any changes that need to be made? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I will take care of any changes, no problem. --Ymblanter (talk) 11:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Cheers, you're the best :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure, no problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Kurds and Kurdistan case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 5, 2021, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 16:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

User stop editing (Jerry Kyoni) 3 months ago

Hello, I want to put a retired template on a user’s page. User stop editing Can you put the template instead of me. I cannot set it because a message appears stating that my editing has been stopped by an automatic filter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.206.178.170 (talk) 09:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

No, only a user him/herself may do it.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk:24 de Diciembre (Panama Metro)#Requested move 24 January 2021

The Line 1 stations that you added are confusing. Perhaps that content should be inside a collapsible section? AlgaeGraphix (talk) 13:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

We can make it collapsible, no problem. My point is that in the unlikely event RfC gets closed as keep or as no consensus, these stations must be moved back. Thus, they must be listed as art of RfC.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Reminiscent

This reminds me of a mutual friend of ours. Not sure yet, but the acount does provide some strong signs straight off the bat (knows his way around and extremely keen on giving a more "European" outlook to Georgia). Thought I'd let you know. Pinging Chipmunkdavis as he's a "friend" of LTA Satt 2 too. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

No, I can not really say anything without a CU.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

More from Mike Novikoff

Hello, Mike Novikoff is now edit warring at Wikipedia:Romanization of Russian over a link to his essay. ([42], [43], [44]). That's very annoying, as pointed out by some users. Taurus Littrow (talk) 10:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

They have not edited it for three days, I assume they are waiting for the outcome of the WT:MOS discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Alternative rock

Can you page protect the Alternative rock page? An anonymous IP keeps vandalizing it and adding stuff like this [45] and this [46] Fruitloop11 (talk) 14:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I blocked the IP--Ymblanter (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Report question

Hello. In WP:ANI#User:Armatura report, I wanted to give an update, particularly on Armatura's recent one-way IBAN, however since only uninvolved editors are asked to comment, I think my comment would be taken in bad faith. I contacted Sebastian about what I should do and they replied that they have rescued themselves from the case and therefore can't help. Any ideas? Cheers. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 09:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I have recused myself as well, they mentioned that in the case.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Welp, I can't find anyone else to help. Do you know anyone who can? Also, does rescuing matter in this case since I'm not asking for any action, but guidance about how I could add information, if I even can? — CuriousGolden (T·C) 10:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I am afraid if it does not get acted on and gets archived, is to open an AE request and to link this material from the AE page.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks for help. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 10:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

RevDel request

Hello admin, sorry to bother you but can you please revdelete this edit? It contains contact information of someone, probably shouldn't be on a public forum. Thank you. --Ashleyyoursmile! 11:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done, tnx--Ymblanter (talk) 11:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much. --Ashleyyoursmile! 11:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Hi Ymblanter. Just letting you know that this IP [47] whom we both had the honor of receiving those praising words is probably the same person as [48] who also got blocked for the same kind of personal attacks related to Mohammad Reza Pahlavi/the Shah. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

The person clearly is in need of medical assistance, and there is probably not much I can do except for blocking on sight.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Jobbik

Hi,

([49]), ([50]), ([51]), ([52]), ([53]), warning here ([54]). Despite the talk page discussion has been opened soon a year ago (21:09, 30 May 2020), the user ignored my direct ple to engage there...Thank You.(KIENGIR (talk) 08:24, 29 January 2021 (UTC))

I blocked for 31h--Ymblanter (talk) 08:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Ignored report at ANI

Hello, I've recently made this report on ANI, which hasn't been reviewed by any of the admins, could you please take a look at it? - Kevo327 (talk) 12:48, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

No, this is not something that can be reasonably treated at ANI. You should go to WP:AE.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Posp68 sock

Hi Ymblanter, there's an obvious sock of Posp68 back at Talk:Expulsion of Germans from Czechoslovakia, OlaBirkebeiner:

1. Norwegian name: Posp68 and his IPs always geolocated to Norway - as does this IP that edited one of the new accounts comments [55] (this also follows Posp68's pattern of sometimes editing while logged out).
2. Continuation of Posp68's discussion insisting the expulsion was not genocide [56]
3. Grudge against me and KIENGIR, whom, despite having created the account 4 hours ago, he clearly knows [57]
4. The same IP above just returned to Posp68's other haunt Munich Agreement to reinsert text Posp68 had originally added [58]

Is this obvious enough for you to block them?--Ermenrich (talk) 14:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 14:43, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks!--Ermenrich (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Here we go again

Hi Ymblanter, once again I have to face malicious deletions of info from users from the Ukrainian Wikipedia. This time they are removing important information from Vitalii Markiv's article. Could you help me understand how to behave?--Mhorg (talk) 01:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:BLP would be a good start, also WP:COATRACK. This is a very sensitive situation. A soldier was prosecuted and EXONERATED (= ОПРАВДАН), and you cannot in good faith continue pushing his purported guilt (WP:POV). You also use the word "Ukrainian" with negative connotations in your edit summaries. That is not nice.--Aristophile (talk) 02:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

The part you removed does not claim his guilt, but the guilt of the UAF, of which Markiv is a member. You are clearly trying to show that the Ukrainian army is not involved in the murder in question. "Ukrainian" it is not a negative connotation, but it is important to specify that we are once again facing a disruptive attack on the English Wikipedia from Ukraine.--Mhorg (talk) 13:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Lute88 is not a user from Ukrainian Wikipedia, they are a long-term user here who has received multiple warnings for disruptive behavior in Ukraine-related area. The easiest is probably to get the to AE and to topic-ban from Ukraine. However, the link they are reverting does not work anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I meant that he was also a user of the Ukrainian Wikipedia. Forgive me, I'm not that experienced, what does "AE" stand for? And which link is not working?--Mhorg (talk) 15:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement. The link to Corriere della Sera does not work, at least not for me.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank, I'll try to figure it out how to solve this problem. I also replaced the source with one accessible without registration on "pressreader".--Mhorg (talk) 19:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

About Martiros Sarian s edit

Dear Ymblanter, thanks for your attenrion in Martiros Sarians edit. But I want to say somethink about the deleted part. I am Armenian and I did it because in Arnemian history we had not and have not this flag. This flag has nothing to do with Armenia, I asked about it armenian teachers. For more informafiaon you can read List of Armenian flags article. Can you delete this flags logo again? Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ASTGH NARINYAN (talk • contribs) 16:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

The flag is not in the article about Armenia or about Armenian flag, it is in the article about Sarian. I suspect the real issue is that the flag is similar to the LGBT flag.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

HK IP hopper

Hi Ymblanter, thanks for blocking 220.246.55.231 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I am wondering if you can tell if 203.218.129.244 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is perhaps the same person. They're the latest in a string of IPs that have been editing disruptively on MTR-related articles and they have a similar writing style (1, 2) as the person you have been blocking (3). One of the IPs Matthew_hk mentioned, 14.0.236.217 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), has made similarly odd/incorrect edits to HK railway articles as the IP hopper I have been reverting. They are also involved in the same kinds of content disputes as those mentioned by Matthew_hk (e.g. changing the Mandarin romanisation from Pinyin to another system, similar edit by blocked ip – not that I think that is necessarily an unconstructive edit, but it seems like further evidence they are the same person). Thanks. Citobun (talk) 02:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I am sure all these IPs are either the same person, or at least closely coordinating - but the pool is too big. I just blocked everybody who showed up at ANI after I have blocked the first one for unconstructive editing and personal attacks, but it is not a sustainable solution for me to block every HK IP who shows up for 31h. We need s structural solution, and this is what the ANI thread was about, but it unfortunately degenerated into a series of personal attacks by ip hoppers.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for helping. Sorry to bother you again but the same IP 203.218.129.244 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is back and stirring up utterly pointless conflict at the same articles as before. And threatening to report me, for what I am not sure considering I haven't edited the article since February 5. Citobun (talk) 14:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I already had a nice discussion with them today at their talk page. Let us wait until they do something blockable.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for page protection

Thank you for protecting Holodomor in modern politics. Is there any grounds for making it extended instead of semi? The IP edits on the page are by Stix1776. Thanks for the consideration and best wishes from Los Angeles,  // Timothy :: talk  11:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

No, we may not extended-protect pages which have not been previously semi-protected. Please also check my comments at ANI.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks I replied there, please review what was done, this is a serious accusation against an editor that was fixing a copyright problem.  // Timothy :: talk  11:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Covid-in-Greece topic ban

Hi, Ymblanter. I see that you closed this ANI discussion with a topic ban for MadJack. Thank you. But did you give any thought to a general site ban, which three of the four commenters were calling for? It might be helpful if you included, in your closing comment, your reason for going with a topic ban rather than a general block. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The reason is pretty obvious - this is a SPA who tries to push POV in the articles of Greek politicians. Concerning the site ban, generally we tend to give such editors a chance to edit other areas where their edits would be less problematic, but of course a community ban can be considered. I will now make it clear at ANI.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the indefinite semi-protection on the Donald Trump Jr. article. I was going to request it, but a one-week block starting on January 30 stopped it. Regards,–Cupper52^Discuss! 11:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Sure, no problem--Ymblanter (talk) 11:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

User ignores topic ban

Hi! Please, could you do something with user Santamoly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? This user was indef topic banned from anything related to Eastern Europe, but since then most of Santamoly's edits are related to Eastern Europe articles. I noticed that when I saw user's last edit - Santamoly added original research to Vladimir Putin article. Judging by his contributions the user just completely ignores the fact of broadly construed topic ban. He has been warned many times, but still continues to edit EA articles.--Renat (talk) 14:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done, pretty clear topic ban violations--Ymblanter (talk) 15:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Transylvanian Hound

Hi,

discussion in the talk (you don't need to read entirely, because my inquiry is mainly technical), resulted in no consensus, after an editor on contrary acted agains it ([59]) hence I restored status quo ([60]), and after twice. Two other editors reverted ([61]), ([62]), ([63]) three times... the problem of their argumentation - as you may see from the edit logs, but explained in the talk - they are totally ignoring our policies, not understanding what WP:CONSENSUS means, on the other hand we have more expert sources that are not unanimous. I address this of lack of experience of such issues (I don't stress on myself if they would cooperate on this), because "During a dispute discussion, until a consensus is established, you should not revert away from the status quo" is clear not just for admins, but experienced editors and I've as well experienced enough to learn that all participants opinion has to be taken into account, especially if multiple sources conflict and contradict infobox template implications (and I even did not reset to my preferred version, just roughly the status quo). Hence I kindly ask you to handle this professionaly, I think noone should be exempt our policies.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC))

I do not think I can do anything in this situation.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

However, am I correct regarding the deduction? I see it correct to restore it until our resolution processes in an appropriate way does not conclude otherwise.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC))

I do not see a formal no consensus close, and then you say there is no consensus, and your opponents (who are all good-faith editirs, not socks) say there is sufficient consensus. This can only be resolved by a formal close.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I see the point (about good faith, even if I would notice by one editor a lack of goof good faith, I have to follow WP:AAGF). However from my "opponents" two have declared before and after the events openly that "Decisions on Wikipedia are primarily made by consensus, you do not have consensus for the current arrangement" and after "There can be no consensus", hence I did - and even reinforced - the restoration to status quo ante was fair...If they openly declare of the state of no consensus (so that is not just something "I assume"), is the formal close necessary?(KIENGIR (talk) 12:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC))

I assume they mean there is no consensus for your version, not for their version.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Interestingly they claim both, and that is mutually contradictive, since when they said my version would not have consesus (first quote - I agree), they said the parameter will have to be changed (and I did it back to status quo). The second qoute has the same spirit, however, earlier they assumed consensus have been reached to their version, which was not the case. Thus their allegations, the policies quoted by them and their actions contradict each other...hence I raised my latest question.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC))

This probably needs to be discussed at the talk page of the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I tried, more times but ignorance and false pretentions I've got. So, in spite of the earlier mentioned, still the formal closure is needed? (and if yes, where from it should be requested?). Thank you.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC))

I would open an RfC and see what happens--Ymblanter (talk) 15:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Besides that, is there any other method? (sometimes I've met with "this discussion is closed, do not modify" tags with evaluation that was not a result of an RFC, but some other conduct (I just ask because the issue is better a technical/semantical one, which should be treated professionaly, and not necessarily by RFC, which may result contradictive to sources).

Sure, you can just ask someone (or post a request at one of the noticebards) to have a look and formally close, but people usually do not want to read long discussions and dig into conflicts if they are not involved - and may not do it if they are involved.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Does it need to be an admin, or may be an uninvolved editor as well? (yes, indeed, however it's not hard to see not having consensus, and what is the status quo, it's an everyday usual conduct by disputes we restore to the status quo, this does mean any user/admin would be involved and taking sides...as well I hate unnesessary lengthy discussions, but it's not my fault I had to explain more, but the other parties who refuse to hear...well I get you don't wish to involve, the same way I am sure implicitly you certainly know that I have right...since in this quantum space, if we make a measure, two parallel reality may not exist and all probability functions will collapse :-) )(KIENGIR (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC))

No, it does not have to be an admin, any (experienced) uninvolved editor would be good enough.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what to think

Ymblanter, sorry if I take some of your time. I am having a discussion [64] with two users which is getting surreal. With one of them there is certainly an harsh form of dialogue but it is ok, the other instead poses in a totally aggressive and almost unmotivated way, avoiding all my previous answers and taking up any opposite comment and reiterating it for no reason. When I get the 24h ban he\she came to my discussions page to insult me [65], now he\she comes to accuse me of Sockpuppetry [66], and the thing, which in my opinion is really suspicious, is that this user started to be active from 27 January 2021 [67], about 13 days and he\she knows all the rules of Wikipedia, knows how to report users, seems to know everything. Tell me if this is normal, if I am exaggerating. But in 5 years of activity on Wikipedia I have never seen anything like it. Thanks for all.--Mhorg (talk) 15:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I semi-protected the page for three months, no IPs can edit it, and future accusations in sockpuppetry will have no merit in any case. Concerning the content, the easiest would be to open an RfC (read WP:RfC for best practives). It should not be difficult to find reliable sources, at least in Russian, than Navalny advocated the expulsion of Georgians in 2008 calling tnem "rodents" (грызуны, a slur from грузины), it was then all over the place.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help and suggestions. Now I'm trying to understand the procedure for WP:RfC, you know, I'm just a 5 years user :). Concerning the sources, I even didn't use Russian one, because I know that this could raise suspects, and I don't want to pass as a the "Kremlin troll". I simply found 5 western RS that talk about Navalny and the Georgian war (the support for war, or the racial slurs): The Atlantic, South China Morning Post, Politico, RollingStone, Al Jazeera. These users are appealing to the "undue weight" and others, in my opinion, weak justifications. At this point it is difficult to give an answer, we are now at the level of personal opinions about what is important or not. I think that these informations, quite compromising, on any other article of a political figure, would have been promptly inserted. Here I understand that there is a question of political struggle. But that's okay, I hope other users join in the discussion, I'm exhausted (and a bit dejected).--Mhorg (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Finally. It was as I suspected, User:LauraWilliamson was a sockpuppet [68]. He\she was driving me crazy. Thank you again for your support.--Mhorg (talk) 18:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, it happens unfortunately--Ymblanter (talk) 18:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I made my first WP:RfC: this one. Do you think it is ok? And should I ping the users involved? Or I just need to wait their response on the "Dispute resolution noticeboard"? Thank you--Mhorg (talk) 00:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

It is best to follow Robert McClenon, he has much more experience with DRN than I have.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Alexei Navalny vandalism

Hi, on the Alexei Navalny article you just semi-protected (thank you for that, by the way) those two new IP addresses with no real previous edit history - 220.253.99.152 and 120.16.121.41, are repeatedly reinstating disputed content that is currently being discussed on the talk page at talk:Alexei Navalny#Did he back the Russian war in Georgia or not?. I would revert it again, but I've done three reverts now and I don't want to edit war. I think the two IPs may also potentially be sockpuppets - considering they have popped up out of no where with no previous edit history to repeatedly reinstate a user named Mhorg's disputed content. I had a look at the two IPs geolocation and they are both similar. Mhorg has previously been reported by me and subsequently blocked for edit warring on the article - just a few days ago. LauraWilliamson (talk) 15:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

You mean, you are asking me to be a proxy for you to make a revert you are not eligible to make? Sorry, I do not see this as my role of an administrator of this project.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

No no I don't mean that, I was just looking for comment on the situation on that page as I think it looks suspicious. LauraWilliamson (talk) 15:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

LauraWilliamson is trying to proxy people to get there way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:My_very_best_wishes#Clear_vandalism_on_Alexei_Navalny_related_to_the_talk_discussion_you_contributed_to (Could you possibly revert back to the status quo again)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nicoljaus#Alexei_Navalny_-_users_keep_reinstating_content_that_is_being_discussed_on_talk I've reverted these suspicious new IP's 3 times now, but don't want to edit-war. Could you possibly revert back to the status quo again while it's still being discussed on talk? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 102.176.108.200 (talk) 16:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Already at ANI--Ymblanter (talk) 17:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

a new sock puppet of LauraWilliamson?

out of no were the user Beanom undoes Mhrogs edits the same way has the other sock did,

(Edit waring when other users disagree, undue content is still being debated on talk)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexei_Navalny&diff=1006200363&oldid=1006193783

How would a new user know the terms (Edit waring and undue) they do not seem like a new user at all. I was going to try to tell Drmies but there page is locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1340:35F0:4DA5:B516:8646:4A06 (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello Ymblanter. How would you feel about increasing the protection on Alexei Navalny to extended confirmed, due to the socking by newly-created accounts? EdJohnston (talk) 01:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I though about it yesterday, but there was only one confirmed sock. If there is another one, I think we should add extended confirmed protection to the article. (I did not have a chance to look at it in the last 8 hours because I was sleeping; may be we are ready for protection now).--Ymblanter (talk) 06:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Now had a look, we did not have any new socks. I would just way until the next one comes and then extended-confirmed protect the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Casting aspersions

Don’t bother accusing me of beating around the bush.[69] And “casting aspersions again” is literally casting aspersions.

If I wanted to go after you I’d just post your own offensive diffs.[70][71][72][73][74] I have better things to do. —Michael Z. 03:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Not sure what you want to say. So fat you are the only admi9nistrator on the project under discretionary sanctions, not me. Look, everything was fine, and it was a reasonable discussion, and then you went again implying I am trying to separate Ukraine from its history. No, I do not. What I care about is the accuracy of information. I have in fact for the last year been likely the editor with the largest number of edits in Ukrainian topics. Just stop commenting on my motivation which anyway you have no idea of and continue working on improving of encyclopedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for blocking

Hey there,

Thank you for blocking the IP address editor. I’ve reviewed their talk page and I have seen unkind remarks about our policies.

Thank you.

KirkburnFandom (talk) 08:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, sure. Unkind remarks against our users are more problematic though.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with that. Extremely problematic. KirkburnFandom (talk) 09:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit war on the Alexei Navalny page

It looks like the page needs admin protection. Two users were trying to add information and another user is undoing it all the time. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexei_Navalny&action=history46.55.213.35 (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I think some other admin should do this st this point, not me.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Battles of Krasnoi and Vyazma 1812

Hi: I wrote the original versions of the Krasnoi and Vyazma articles. I see that you have done a bit of editing there, and that you asked me to take responsibility for editing those articles myself. No problem; that I can do. However, a few people have edited those articles recently, and they've done so in ways that are not for the better (to say the least). When I try to undo these recent erroneous and low-quality edits, I am blocked by Wikipedia for some reason. The message I get is that "too many intermediate edits have taken place" (or something to that effect). Can you kindly tell me how to get around this Wikipedia block? I really want to restore both articles to their original form. Thanks - Kenmore (talk) 00:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Apparently, you can not do it technically, and this is also not advisable because you will in this way also eliminte good edits, including some technical edits. What you can do it to modify the text. You can get the text of every old version by going to the history, looking at that version and pretending you want to edit it.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Block evasion

Hello. 5.44.170.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has returned after the 1-year block you issued late in 2019 expired. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Sometimes I am really amazed with the persistence of people.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Please can you check

Talk:Iran under "content" section. Seems strange and I have been called a fraud, and accused to I have some my handlers and the other crazy stuff in general. Nubia86 (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Timetravel12: an adept of gay-Jewish conspiracy?--Ymblanter (talk) 19:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

At first I thought to ignore but when I checked better I felt really uncomfortable. I can send you my location or anything, I am not connected with anything what that editor accused me and I felt regret I came to edit wikipedia when I checked better what he wrote to me. So for that I decided to alarm someone and I saw you in page edit history of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I am sorry for taking your time and to be free to write like this on your talk page. And thank you. Nubia86 (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

No, please do not send me any private information. I think we are on the way to the indef block for the user (who is apparently the same as the IP).--Ymblanter (talk) 19:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Again, thank you, for giving me part of your time to check about my concerns. Nubia86 (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Sure, no problem--Ymblanter (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation and persistent vandalism

I have one more concern, but I feel uncomfortable to share, but it is persistent. I opened sockpuppet investigation, on couple of accounts and well, that accounts don't participate in discussion and I afraid to not just sockppupeting is an issue, seems just vandalism created accounts also. Couple of articles is totally vandalised, some I tried to fix. I haven't found any useful contributions, from all that accounts. I already bothered you today but if you can see if some can be done, one account keeps vandalizing articles. Here it is: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ShkoDevAct. Nubia86 (talk) 21:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do not have time to look at it now, and it is unlikely I can do it tomorrow. I guess one of the CU's will take action.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I know they have a lot of work, anyway, thank you again. Nubia86 (talk) 21:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Turkic languages

Hi,

disruptive IP, ignoring talk page, 10 reverts so far ([75]), edit warring notice here ([76]), did not work, more of us tried, please handle it. Thank You!
P.S. - I wish you health and remedy!(KIENGIR (talk) 19:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC))

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 19:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

FYI

[77]. This is an opinion, I do not insist. Perhaps it is a sock, I do not really know. I just do not think this is obvious, after looking at comments at their talk page. My very best wishes (talk) 18:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

They look to me like a sock, but even if they are not I do not see how they could be a good-faith user with their editing history. Good-faith users usually do not go on a spree of removing large pieces of material from highly visible articles, including a full restoration of an edit of a blocked sock. I do not see any need to unblock.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeh, apparently that was a sock, sorry. My very best wishes (talk) 01:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

At least they decided to be explicit and to to clear vandalism rather than continue edit-warring in political articles.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Administrator Query

Hi Administrator,

A page Draft:Shadab_Siddiqui was created by few people in 2018 then later admin salted the page now only administrator can create the page. I fixed the page and edited it more than two months ago but it is still not approved, so i thought only an admin could remove the salt then it will approved. the entity is passing the notability of WP:NMUSIC so can you remove the "protection" from this page so it can get approved?

Thanks --Static Hash (talk) 18:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I can not review the article, and I am not willing to circumwent the AfC process in this case. It is best to ask someone familiar with Indian topics to review the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Policy question

Hi,

just a lighter question:

- exist such that a user bans another user posting comments on his/her talkpage, even pinging the given user, unless they would be required by policy? (I would assume banning would be tool of admins or at least higher level bureucrats)

- (the second question's validity may depend on the answer to the earlier, which I don't know yet) in case a user asks another one about the same, mentioned above, it has to be followed? (I mean not necessaily per wikietiquette, but by any policy?)

Thank you for clarifying!(KIENGIR (talk) 10:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC))

If user A does not want user B to post at their talk pages it is usually considered as "A banned B from their talk page" (even though no blocking tool is involved) and is followed by all parties, even if it creates some inconveniences (for example, automatic Twinkle notifications, or B reports A and can not notify them). I thought this is written at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines but I can not easily find it there; may be I am mistaken (on the policy; the practices are certainly what I have described).--Ymblanter (talk) 10:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I think I found it, WP:NOBAN, ...such requests should, within reason, be respected... (but mentions nothing on pinging). However, the guideline does not mention ar call it is a ban (only the WP shortcut), but as an ask. Thank you for help to investigate this. Have a nice day!(KIENGIR (talk) 12:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC))

Yes, I think this is it, indeed.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposed decision posted at the open Kurds and Kurdistan case

In the open Kurds and Kurdistan arbitration case, the proposed decision has now been posted. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. You were notified as you made comments in the case request. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 16:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Complaint against user NedFausa

Hi Ymblanter. I am Cokeah, from India. The user named NedFausa had hurt Indian sentiments by editing the Sushant Singh Rajput Wikipedia page despite bans and blocks. A petition has been filed against Wikipedia to state the actor's death by suicide. If you are a real administrator or moderator, please edit the cause of death to murder because of many proofs gathered by the forensic agency CBI. Please look forward to this matter. Yours sincerely, Cokeah (talk) 07:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

We are not succeptible to external campaigns aimed at damaging Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Protection request

Hi Ymblanter. Thanks for ECPing Aung San Suu Kyi. Can you do the same for Win Myint? The same disruptive edits occurred there today, and both pages have been disrupted to a similar extent. It was under semi-protection, which just expired. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 09:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

This article is cleraly not ready for extended confirmed. In principle, it could be semi-protected, but a week long protection expired today, and we need to wait if there are disruptiove Ip edits. If there are edits from at least two Ips, or a lot of edits from one IP, please let me know or ask for protection at [[WP:RFPP].--Ymblanter (talk) 09:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

37.41.48.234

user:37.41.48.234 is posting lewd pics. CLCStudent (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan closed

An arbitration case regarding Kurds and Kurdistan has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed.
• GPinkerton (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• GPinkerton (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles related to Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Thepharoah17 (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles related to Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• عمرو بن كلثوم (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles related to Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles related to Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Paradise Chronicle is warned to avoid casting aspersions and repeating similar uncollegial conduct in the future.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan closed

Non Stop Disruptive Edits

Thanks for the support, but i think he will not stop, just look here and also here the New created user will not stop doing the same thing (Pushing for a Turkish/Young Turks POV). Could you protect the page indef.Mr.User200 (talk) 00:22, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

We do not protect pages against a single user. If they return to continue the same edits, they will just get a longer block (possibly an indefinite one).--Ymblanter (talk) 06:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

You know stuff

Hi, Ymblanter. I noticed that you made some edits on a page (Betsy Paluck) that I started a couple years ago. Thank you for those! When I looked you up, I read on your page that you are a physicist. I started another page a few years ago for physicist Manijeh Razeghi that I have always felt deserved better than my layperson's explanation of her work and its significance. Have you heard of her? Would you mind taking a look to see if her work piques your curiosity and if you could help explain it to the rest of the world? If so, great! No pressure either way. Thanks again for your Paluck edits! Best, SJTatsu (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi. She is kind of in my field, but I have never heard about her. 1000 papers means she is a manager. She likely does not have time to read them.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Problem user

Thanks for this response. That user is very abusive. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:30, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

No problem. I think this is the last we have seen from this account.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Satinder Sartaaj

Sir, this is regarding a caste POV pushing sock (User:Punjabier likely) making threats of legal action and being generally unpleasant. You protected the article on 1 January 2021, after it expired, they atrted adding unsourced stuff again here, on being reverted, they edit warred [78], making threats of legal action laced with personal casteist attacks in Punjabi. Today took a jab at Ravensfire (called their father stupid) [79] on being reverted. I believe the article requires protection. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 09:07, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sock

Hello Ymblanter,

I saw that you blocked the user Beanom and then unblocked the user to give them another chance on 17 February. That user claimed they had no relation to the blocked sock LauraWilliamson who was confirmed to be sock of Gordimalo. Now, another sock of the user called Caretaker John was blocked. Now, Beanom did not make any edits since 17 February when he was unblocked but strangely enough, as soon as Caretaker John was blocked, Beanom started editing again today and has restored some of Caretaker John's edits. They are continuing to restore the blocked sock's edits on pages they've never edited before. That seems very fishy, don't you think? Regards. Mellk (talk) 17:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but I will not go through this again.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

The user is very much just vandalizing articles now and blanking major articles like Brazil and Venezuela. Mellk (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to bother, the issue has been resolved, the user has been blocked. Mellk (talk) 19:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, we block-conflicted.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Revoke TPA

Hello. You recently blocked Adam Lietuva. Can you please remove their TPA? Thank you. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 06:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking Adam Lietuva

Thanks for finally blocking Adam Lietuva. I saw that you have hidden some of the revisions on his talk page. There were more similar "messages" by the editor – Special:Diff/1007931757, Special:Diff/1007932418, Special:Diff/1007932967, Special:Diff/1007935411. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I hope I now got all of their offensive edits.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

mea culpa!

Holy smokes! I did not realize the massive delete I made in the Template:ACArt discussion. Completely unintentional on my part. I meant to just vote. Thank you for reverting it. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

No problem, I do not blame you in any way. I actually added your vote to the discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:11, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Odegay 31

He's edit warring [80], this time not even an edit summary, much less talkpage participation. Any help with this would be greatly appreciated. Khirurg (talk) 20:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 21:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, much appreciated. It really wasn't looking good. Khirurg (talk) 22:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

March 2021

Really? @Starman2377:, may I please suggest that you really look at the edits before leaving automatic messages at talk pages.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

My mistake. It was pretty chactoic there and i thought you made a vandlism edit. I am sorry. Starman2377 (talk) 17:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

semi protection and sock

Thanks for the semi. He's moved onto other articles now: [81]. Volunteer Marek 17:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I blocked but this is a dynamic IP, they will likely show up again soon--Ymblanter (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Har Homa

You locked the page with misinformation in it. The linked articles I was removing were to an archived version of a NYT article. The relevant section was retracted and does not appear in the current version of the article because it was false. Also, Huldra was deceptively editing direct quotes from other articles. She may be allergic to the word "neighborhood", but that doesn't prevent Netanyahu from having said it in 2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.42.125 (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Please discuss this at the talk page--Ymblanter (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Auto-accept/autoconfirmed permissions

Hi Ymblanter, I saw that you changed the permissions on the GameStop page so that edits from new or unregistered users must have their changes reviewed before being published. As far as I can tell, a new user is one with an account for less than 4 days; an unregistered user is trivial. However, some users (such as me) are making posts which are under revision, even though the account is neither new or unregistered. Is there a different definition used for this permission change? Do any account settings need to be changed? Thanks! Sideriver84 (talk) 19:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I never protected Gamestop, but I protected a lot of other articles. Presumably you mean Wikipedia:Pending changes protection. Indeed, it is not enough to be a confirned user to have edits automatically accepted in this case. I tried to figure out what are the requirements, and could not do it quickly, but I guess extended confirmed (30 days and 500 edits) would be in any case sufficient.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) (Relevant article is GameStop short squeeze and these edits [82][83].) @Sideriver84: Hmm, because your account is autoconfirmed (more than 10 edits and 4 days old), you should be able to have your changes automatically accepted. However, lately it seems that a number of other users have experienced the same issue as you where your edits are being held back for review erroneously. See also the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Pending Changes again. I suspect this may be a bug in the software that runs Wikipedia. Mz7 (talk) 20:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I have noticed this before, I thought that the general allocation of permissions has changed.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Ymblanter: and @Mz7: Appreciate your looking into this. Hopefully the bug will be repaired soon. Sideriver84 (talk) 20:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Civility/NPA

Hi,

I am in a discussion, I get such an answer ([84]), which made me avoid answering until now, I don't feel this "Please don't be silly." remark appropriate. Please judge this, until I'll keep myself on hold. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 17:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC))

Not an exemplary behavior but certainly not blockable at this point.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, depends which meaning of silly we would interpret, however may be borderline...should a warning to be given (by any means?), or I should continue discussion ignoring it completely?(KIENGIR (talk) 20:01, 15 March 2021 (UTC))

The easiest is probably ti remind in the discussion itself that this is not the best way to address Wikipedia users.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:03, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Louis XVII

Hi, and thanks for your help on Louis XVII. However, I noticed that the protection you put in is significantly shorter than the previous protection which expired only a short time ago. The previous protection was one year in length and the page has been consistently vandalized despite multiple protections for more than a year. Would you please take a closer look at the protection history and consider making it longer? Thanks. I am the Jet Liner (talk) 22:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

You are right, the page was moved last year, and the protection log was left at a redirect, so I was not aware of previous protections. Now I found the log and, based on it, protected the page indefinitely.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppet

Hello Ymblanter! I hope you are doing fine. Recently, I saw a newly created account disrupting Template:Largest cities of Russia. If you see the template's edit history, you will see the new account is not only vandalizing the template with random images, he most probably created another account. Danloud ^(talk) 09:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I protected the template; this is probably the only reasonable thing which can be done at this point.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Zack Snyder's Justice League

Hi. Thank you for adding a page semi-protection, yet there are users like Samoht99 who continue their disruptive editing. This user, for example, has been reverted multiple times by multiple editors (similar to Dwilliamphilip83's edits on WW84 article), yet they think that they are the only one who "reflect what the truth actually is" without any reliable source (they only spoke about Rotten Tomatoes score, which is irrelevant to their edits). Can we also topic ban this user? ภץאคгöร 13:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I do not see it as disruption, though of course both versions of the text are unsourced and probably should not be in the article. You should discuss this with the user at their talk page / talk page of the article, of nothing comes out it is either WP:ANI or WP:DRN. I do not have much time now, but I assume they have not been already topic-banned or so because if they were this is a different story.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey, thanks very much for handling my RPP at Abu Musa. Cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure, no problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:45, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Kingdom of Kashmir

Hi Ymblanter. I see you are an Administrator who has been involved with editorial issues regarding Kashmir. I would like to create an article about the ancient Kingdom of Kashmir (6th-16th century, its art, architecture, diplomacy, coinage etc...) here's my start, but it was soon blanked by User:Fowler&fowler [85]. We are having a discussion at Talk:Kingdom of Kashmir but it's going nowhere. User:Fowler&fowler is not providing a single source to back up an overarching claim that "there never was a Kingdom of Kashmir" [86]. What should I do? Can you help? Best regards. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 12:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I would say ask the Wikiproject.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:49, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Which Wikiproject would that be? Can you point me to the page? पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 12:55, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I guess Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics--Ymblanter (talk) 13:00, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

2020 Summer Olympics

You protected this article with Pending Changes exactly two months ago, on January 20, 2021. Could you please consider unprotecting it now? During the last month, the only actual vandalism edit attempt that I see in page history is a single IP edit from March 10. There were some other pending edits that were not accepted but, as far as I can tell, they were good faith edits. I don't think the article currently satisfies any of the Pending Changes protection criteria listed in the WP:PCPP policy (Persistent vandalism; Violations of the biographies of living persons policy; Copyright violations). Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, thanks! Nsk92 (talk) 17:08, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure, no problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:29, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Ukrainian language

Hi,

user has very uncivil remarks, ignoring the talk page, mass reverts, ([87]), ([88]), ([89]), ([90]), edit warring notice here ([91]), but also spread retaliatiory reverts several other pages ([92])...Please look on it, Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2021 (UTC))

Reverted whatever it was reasonable to revert and gave an alert and a warning. Let us see what they are going to do next. The editing pattern does not look good, blatant POV pushing and nothing of substance.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, I agree. Seems a sleeping account/reincarnation of a sockmaster, like this ([93]).(KIENGIR (talk) 18:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC))

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Tnx--Ymblanter (talk) 18:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Tendentious - Zakarpattia Oblast, Hungarian–Czechoslovak War and so forth

The user with sometimes spurious edit logs, tendentiously performing continous reverts contrary the talk page discussions where he was told consensus should be built. His tone sometimes there are rude, and breached the 3RR at more instances:

([94]), ([95]), ([96]), ([97]) - contrary the prior discussion, which still ongoing, redux

([98]), ([99]), ([100]), ([101]),

Edit warring notice here ([102])...

Meanwhile composing this report, I noticed this ([103]), again a tendentious 3RR breach, no need to detail, may spread to other pages...Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 10:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC))

I would want to warn you that me and User:Norden1990 have agreed on a compromise for the page on the Hungarian–Czechoslovak War. User:KIENGIR overruled this and then went through my edit history, reverting everything he could. He's clearly claiming ownership over multiple pages now, trying to push his POV through brute force. Azure94 (talk) 10:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I fully protected the article and gave a user a Ds alert so that they are aware of the sanctions. Note however that this is likely one of my last administrative actions in the Eastern Europe area: If FOF3 of [Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS/Proposed decision|this]] passes, which looks very likely, I will immediately stop doing any administration in the area, in order to not find myself in a similar position later.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank You, I reviewed this FOF3, it seems complicated to grasp at first glance, however I consider any fair conducting admin has nothing to afraid of, of course all of as suffer sometimes injust abuses, shall be any of our status. The user put me a few personal attacks in talk pages, but I just gave a vocal warning to stop (I see here he tried to redefine the rules of consensus as well...). Now he copy-pasted my words as an answer to myself, and as I see he draw your attention another case where I was tried to dragged in in an unfair way to a loop, which was quicly debunked (and a possible offwiki coordination against me I revealed, some user's by mistake considered I sent them e-mails ([104]), I still wait to reveal who that was), the case the user drawn into your attention was censored with spurious edit logs ([105]), ([106]), ([107]), as I debunked this lame trial, of course it has been inconvenient to them. However, I understand you, in quantum-computing one-measure is enough to acess and oberve the facts, while in WP we need multiple layer's to arrive to that sometimes :) Btw., in the end the result will be the same diffs talk, who try to manipulate, will fail...Have a nice and calm day!(KIENGIR (talk) 11:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC))

Now I blocked them anyway--Ymblanter (talk) 11:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, the user made a long tp rant ([108]) just out of block, I gave a short answer, however the user did not stop with personal attacks like "you're simply pushing your biased nationalist POV (it's not a surprise to me that you're a self-identified Hungarian).". Please decide what to do, IMHO I think it's a bit above that would be simply handled by an NPA warning (practically a collective stigmatization of a nationality, near to a kind of racism, which is prohibited here), hence better wait for your opinion.(KIENGIR (talk) 03:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC))

The promised to take the issue to "higher places", the easiest is probably to let them do it and see what happens.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Nowhere did I "stigmatize a nationality" or acted "racist". All I did was point out that KIENGIR's biased edits can only be explainied by his nationalist POV. Azure94 (talk) 18:23, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure, you are probably innocent, maybe I was citing another editor :).(KIENGIR (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2021 (UTC))

Aspersions & PA

Hi there, the user Dallavid has been casting aspersions & personal attacks in my talk page for a while now (here, here, here) even after I told them not to do so. What should the appropriate course of action be? Cheers. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 19:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

The user will not be able to edit your talk page for a week, and I gave them a fairly strong warning. Please note that for the reasons I explained in the topic above I will likely stop very soon using my admin tools in all topics related to the Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. It's a shame that you won't be doing any admin work in this area in the future as you were the only admin that generally knew about the political situation/history, but it's understandable as the topic is quite controversial and toxic. With El_C also not accepting any new requests, do you know any other admin that could handle reports like this? Cheers & good luck in your future editing. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 19:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

No, I am afraid you will have to go via usual avenues like AN, ANI, and AE.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Rauzaruku

Thanks for the block. Was fully prepared to do it myself but had to step out. Canterbury Tail talk 18:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. This is their fourth block, so we are probably preparing an exit strategy for them.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

And all for the same attitude problem. I don't think they get it and next one I'd just indef. Canterbury Tail talk 18:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Right.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Kiengir

I think you really need to reconsider your block of user:Azure94, and the way user:KIENGIR utilises you to enforce his POV in articles. The characterisation of KIENGIR's behaviour by Azure94 is entirely correct, if perhaps a little lacking in the full analysis of the "KIENGIR method". His deliberate provocation of, and eager participation in, edit wars and subsequent use of you to enforce status quo or sometimes false "status quo" edits is leading to you unwittingly becoming part of a pattern of disruptive editing that consumes many thousands of hours of productive editors' time annually. I can happily provide more detail on this, if required, but I don't want to wall of text you.

In the case of Azure94, he is entirely correct to say that a consensus of two users had been arrived at, which should have been allowed to stand by KIENGIR while the matter was discussed. KIENGIR was the initiator of the edit war in this case. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I checked that the behavior of Azure94 was not appropriate, they were edit-warring in many articles simultaneously. I never take admin actions of behalf of anybody, I am myself responsible for every of my administrative action. Concerning my future involvement, I expect the arbitration case which I mention above to be closed today (may be it is already closed), after which I will completely stop acting as administrator in the area.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Kiengir is also edit-warring in those pages, and appears to be the one who breached 3RR in two of them, yet no action was taken against him, despite him being by far the more experienced user. I think it is possibly better if you simply recuse yourself from any action based on appeals by KIENGIR, while I do not suggest any bias, your willingness to restore versions that KIENGIR wants in two party discussions and allow discussion to continue forms part of a well-developed strategy of WP:STONEWALL that attempts to force bias into articles through stamina and force of will. Your attitude of reverting to a status quo without reference to the content is not incorrect, but it is being used manipulatively and selectively by KIENGIR.Boynamedsue (talk) 08:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, as I mentioned, I will stop acting in the area as administrator, likely today. Concerning KIENGIR, well, if there are issues, it should be possible to get them at WP:AE. I do not think anybody attempted to do this in the last several years.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding, consideration and advice. All the best. Boynamedsue (talk) 09:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Boynamedsue:,

your misleading campaign is not just bad faith per se, but misleading administrators are not really advisable, as I told you WP is in incemental platform, bogus representations will be debunked. You have been explained and warned many of guidelines and policies, several times, and still you have a very hard understanding of them, recurrently denying to accept them, as the striking example is of this discussion lately as well ([109]), and contrary what you try to force, you are the one who is reverting even little copyedits, open long talk sections well we have to explain you near WP:SKYBLUE things, and you're stealing editors precious time, like now. The big WP:BOOMERANG you again try to insist a "false status quo", although as linked in the previous discussion, you don't know and don't accept what means status quo (consensus the same), and now you try to back a distruptive user with a nonsensical editing pattern, just because you think it a good retaliation I draw your attention the mistakes you do at several pages. No, I was not the initiator of the edit war, I opened the discussion, and no consensus was reached there, which is clear of any Wikipedian even sometimes less than 1000 mainspace edits, consequently, disruptive editing is far cry from my activity.

As well I did not breach 3RR (it seems again you cite a policy you don't understand). Now you pressure poor Ymblanter, a veteran administrator who possibly see through on multidiensional quantum spaces, as also earlier you did not understand why some administrative actions were taken in other pages. This is what consumes many of hours of precius editing time, your problem and reluctance of understand some basics, which would compulsory to edit here like now. Sooner or later you'll have to understand some editing basics, it will not be a solution to always avoid to face and recognize the mistakes you commit.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC))

Regarding Zangezur Moutains

Hey Ymblanter, I think our question about the translation order got answered. It seems like they also agree to put it in alphabetical order as "it's a common "neutral" way of ordering things". Should I proceed to re-edit based on alphabetical order?--ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:04, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I would say leave a talk page message and edit the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:07, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for helping to sort things out. --ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Hungarian Romanian War

Re. the lock you have put on Hungarian–Romanian War, would it be possible for you to unblock it briefly? It was written in British English before the current kerfuffle, and I would like to change the spellings back. Boynamedsue (talk) 12:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done. I will likely not re-protect it.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks. Boynamedsue (talk) 12:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure, no problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

GameStop short squeeze

Would you consider either dropping PC or semi-protecting? PC is currently bugged (see VPR/VPT), so a lot of extended-confirmed editors are causing the backlog to build up requiring changes to be accepted, when normally that wouldn't happen. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Upgraded to semi--Ymblanter (talk) 19:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Many Thanks

For putting a stop to the disruption after the one week has expired believe you me when I say the disruption would continue, but once again thanks for stepping in & doing the right thing. Celestina007 (talk) 22:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Fully protecting an article for more than a week if it not has been previously protected would not be really appropriate.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:43, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	This is to show my appreciation for stepping up to the challenge and putting a halt to the disruption previously ongoing at the Feminist Coalition article Celestina007 (talk) 22:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks--Ymblanter (talk) 06:43, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Your 3RR block re: Rent Control

I'm surprised to see this rather substantial block of the IP who is trying to promote and engage in informed discussion at NPOVN . I'd think 48 hours at most and a warning to the complainant to address the many concerns raised on talk and at NPOVN. SPECIFICO talk 17:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

The are fresh coming off a week long block. I checked that what they call, already after the block, "talk page consensus" is what they say something and everybody else objects, In my book, this is a two week long block.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:12, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I am also against this block of the IP and suggest to revert it. It seems that you are unaware of the contributions on both sides and just blocked by default. --Pedrote112 (talk) 06:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

You will have difficulties convincing me that you are not that IP evading the block.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Name calling

Hi. You’ve called me a specific name in several discussions. It remains as a blemish against me for anyone who may see it and suspect there’s something to it. It comes back to nag at me and interferes with my participation in Wikipedia. I’d like you to remove all trace of it, as much as technically possible. If you’re unwilling or unable to do so, for whatever reason, let me know and I will find someone at ANI who will. I’m not asking for any opinions, justifications, or apologies, but I want it gone. Thanks. —Michael Z. 23:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry that you feel this way. I guess I know what name you mean. What I can do is to go and edit archives, removing iot with a placeholder. This is technically not allowed, but I am willing to do it anyway. If you mean revision-deletion, I can not do this, it is against the policy.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Please do so. —Michael Z. 15:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Ymblanter - hope all is well. Thank you for your recent comment at AN about the Turkish villages, and also a thank you for all the page protections that you do too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure, no problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry to bother you again, but if you have a moment, please could you take a look at Talk:Viktor Ivanov (boxer) (Olympian from the 1976 games). There's a query about if he is Ukrainian or Russian. Thankfully, nothing too heated! Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Responded with what I know.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm a bit worried

I know you're involved, but that means I can ask you without canvassing. Carlos' statement, "I would like to withdraw all my contributions here as you all don't want them. Please make it so. I'm gone." got me worried. In particular, I'm worried that very soon he might come back and try and make this a reality. (as in, Nuke) A case will be filed with ArbCom (if Jackattack and Hog Farm don't follow through I'll do it myself) and I think it would be wise to take his mop away at least temporarily. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 03:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: fyi. As Xeno notes in the thread on AN, "here" is open for interpretation, but it kinda reads to me (combined with the drama retirement) as simply all their contributions. The reason I bring this up here and not on AN is to maybe avoid WP:BEANS. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 03:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Skanderbeg

Since you make page protections around, can you take a look at the Skanderbeg article. It is disrupted by IPs continuously, sometimes on a daily basis. In the past it was semi protected several times. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:53, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done, protected for a year--Ymblanter (talk) 20:56, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure, no problem--Ymblanter (talk) 21:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Help with warning/banning user.

Hi, can you help me again with warning/baning user Kedr26? After the ban, he continued to vandalize the same articles. I've already reported him here, but I was advised to make a warning post. Honestly, I'm kind of bad at that. Would you mind helping me with a warning/ban? --Kram333r (talk) 02:54, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Just checked his edits history, apparently, he broke the 3RR multiple times and also did multiple edits wars. This is one of many examples.--Kram333r (talk) 03:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Another UPD, the user clearly has political motives, he removes everything Ukrainian related from every article he edited.--Kram333r (talk) 03:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Gave him 1 week block for 3RR Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:18, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Alex.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you so much for so promptly dealing with that for me. Best regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure, no problem--Ymblanter (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Просьба

Здравствуйте! Можете ли Вы помочь в защите статьи List of Hazara tribes. Написал заявку к администраторам по причине войны правок. В статье удаляют источники, а также не хотят приходить хоть к какому-то консенсусу. Буду премного благодарен помощи.--KoizumiBS (talk) 22:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Нет, тут нужна не зашита, а действия против Вашего оппонента. Сейчас я его предупрежу относительно войны правок, а Вы, пожалуйста, попробуйте с ним обсудить на странице обсуждения, что ему, собственно, надо.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Большое спасибо! Призвал оппонента к диалогу на странице обсуждения.--KoizumiBS (talk) 08:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Участник снова начал войну. Видимо вести диалог он не собирается. Дифф.--KoizumiBS (talk) 08:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I added the article to my watchlist. If they do not leave a talk page message within an hour, I am going to block indef.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 09:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Большое спасибо! Можете, пожалуйста, закрыть мою заявку.--KoizumiBS (talk) 10:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Да, конечно.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

The deleted template

Yaroslav, how can we remove this trash from articles? Ghirla^-трёп- 15:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Manually, I guess. Will do now.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 15:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Admin eye requested

Vhugalamahadulula98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be editing solely to promote Vhugala Mahadulula. In addition to Draft:Vhugala Mahadulula and their own userpage (which should probably be tagged db-u5 or db-spamuser but I'll leave that for someone with an account), they are now hijacking articles (blank and replace followed by moves) in an effort to get the page up. I think this one is too complex for AIV but I'm not quite sure the ANI crowd will be receptive either as it is not exactly an urgent incident or a chronic intractable problem. Anyway I think it might be worth your time to have a look and see if any action is needed. Sorry if your busy, saw you were recently active, and you've been helpful in the past. Cheers, 2A03:F80:32:194:71:227:81:1 (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, User:Vhugalamahadulula98 should be blocked and all his moves should be undone. He seems to be a promotion-only account and he is doing damage that someone else will have to clean up. EdJohnston (talk) 23:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Looks like K6ka just handed out a 60 hour block, maybe that will discourage them from repeating this in the future; I'll do a quick check to see if there are any odds and ends that need to be tagged for csd. 2A03:F80:32:194:71:227:81:1 (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Looks like it's all cleaned up now, and Awesome Aasim has tagged the userpage. Doesn't look like anything further is needed for the moment. 2A03:F80:32:194:71:227:81:1 (talk) 00:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Policy question

Hello, I have a question based on the discussion there. If someone makes a change to an article and I disagree with it, when I revert can I mention in the edit summary that I am reverting to the pre-dispute/stable version together with the reason why I think that the change is not constructive? Or is it not allowed to mention in the edit summary that the version I think is the good one is at the same time the stable one? Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

You certainly can mention this in the edit summary, but a good style is to start a talk page discussion--Ymblanter (talk) 21:36, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

(Assuming of course the article is not under 0RR, so that a revert is legitimate)--Ymblanter (talk) 21:36, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. Of course, the talk page is the place to sort out content disputes. I asked because one editor, who themselves in the past in several cases wrote "revert to/restore stable version" in edit summary, now thinks that when reverting one is never allowed to mention the fact that they are reverting to the stable/pre-dispute version - not even when doing a single revert (of course edit warring is another thing). They base that on WP:STABLE: It is important to note that outside of the limited administrative context, a "stable version" is an informal concept that carries no weight whatsoever, and it should never be invoked as an argument in a content dispute. Maintaining a stable version is, by itself, not a valid reason to revert or dispute edits, and should never be used as a justification to edit war. Stable versions are not superior or preferred to disputed edits in any way, boldly making changes to articles is encouraged as a matter of policy, and obstructing good faith edits for the sake of preserving "stable" content is disruptive. Editors involved in content disputes or edit wars should focus on resolving the dispute, rather than preserving the stable version, and the decision to temporarily preserve the stable version for the purposes of deescalating a dispute may only be made by an uninvolved administrator. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

There is WP:BRD, which is, whereas an essay, describes the best practices. Otherwise, I agree that a stable version is not really a policy defined concept.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. The WP:BRD page itself indirectly "defends" the stable version, where it says "If your edit gets reverted, do not revert again". In a perfect world, if one change is reverted, there is no further revert until the dispute is solved through discussion. I do not want to waste your time, but can you respond to my last question. The said editor said that they will report me if I mention in an edit summary that I am reverting to the "stable version". In your opinion, would one admin block or impose other sanctions on my account due to that? Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

As an abstract question, nobody would block you for one revert. Also, nobody would report you for one revert. In the real situation, which I have no time to study, things could be more complicated - probably it is not one revert, and possibly you had some editing history in the editing area, and the area is possibly under DS, and all of this can be taken into account.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, the editing history of a user is important. The area is the Balkans, an area that unfortunately suffers from lack of attention. Thanks again for you help. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Maxim Berezovsky: Admin eye requested

Dear Ymblanter, some users like Lute88 and A1 are trying to push the thesis about Maxim Berezovsky's belonging to Ukrainian composers. I've tried to explain them several times that there is no historical evidence whether Berezovsky was born in the area of modern Ukraine and there is no agreement on this question. All the first information about his life before working in Oranienbaum are uncertain. It is a matter of speculation. Anyway I have observed the hypothesis about Ukraine as Berezovsky's possible place of birth in the text of the preamble, but it's obviously not enought for Lute88 and A1. For that reason I would kindly ask you to to take the article about Maxim Berezovsky into account. Ушкуйник (talk) 13:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, as the banner on my talk page says, I can not be involved in this business in the administrative capacity. As for Lute88, they must be presenter to AE and get a topic ban from Ukraine, long overdue.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Why, may I ask?--Aristophile (talk) 10:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ушкуйник, the vast majority of sources say that Berezovsky was Ukrainian. It is all about sources.--Aristophile (talk) 10:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Because you always revert and never discuss anything. This is disruptive editing. We had some issues before, and I do not see an improvement.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

The only topics where I revert without discussing are blood libel and antisemitism.:-)-Aristophile (talk) 13:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

About an edit

Thanks for your edits here. If you aren't aware, this could be of interest... Shearonink (talk) 17:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I have seen that. I have also protected a couple of related articles in the morning and blocked a vandal.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Bless you O Kind Admin. Nice not to have to constantly deal with the multiple/persistent vandal-edits at all the related articles as much anymore. Shearonink (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

A Padlock Barnstar for you!

	The Padlock Barnstar
	You have been rewarded this Barnsatar form me because you protected the Maya Jama page form vandals! Thank you so much for doing that! I would had gone inasne if I woke up, went to the Maya Jama page, and saw edits saying that she wasn't British. Again, thank you! 🍓⋆JennilyW♡🍧 (talk) 19:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, no problem--Ymblanter (talk) 19:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Your welcome! 🍓⋆JennilyW♡🍧 (talk) 19:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Tatar confederation

Здравствуйте! В статье Tatar confederation добавляют собственные суждения (ОРИСС) и удаляют источники и ссылки на крупных историков Mehmet Fuat Köprülü и Peter Benjamin Golden, которые по мнению оппонента 'resource that is not reliable or directly related to Kashgari's writing and can only be classified as a conspiracy theory aimed to distort the original understandıng of the context'. Можете, пожалуйста, на правах администратора предупредить о недопустимости подобных правок. На сообщения от участников он не реагирует, а также игнорирует страницу обсуждения.--KoizumiBS (talk) 18:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Нет, я в этой теме не могу выполнять функции администратора.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Хорошо. Попробую связаться с оппонентом на странице. Если начнет войну правок, то оформлю заявку на странице для запросов к администраторам.--KoizumiBS (talk) 20:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

MusikBot II in da house

Hey. Just letting you know that MusikBot II now automatically adds pp-tags, so there's no longer a need to add these manually. Regards, El_C 11:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I know, thanks. I am just using this to check whether I applied the protection I wanted to apply. If the template does not show up I did something I should not have done.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:AN

There is not a discussion at WP:Administrators' noticeboard over an issue you may have been involved in. Thank you. ——Serial 11:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I actually did not realize first it is in the dangerous area (though it must have been obvious from the name).--Ymblanter (talk) 12:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

No problem, I imagine you're still getting used to the "restriction", as it were. It's one I respect. Thanks for letting me know! ——Serial 12:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammad Ilyas (cricketer, born 1996)

Can you please explain your reasoning in this one a bit better? WP:NSPORTS (and, as a result, WP:NCRIC) requires GNG to be met, so I'm not sure why you thought this was "not possible to resolve" - it's really very easy. Thanks! SportingFlyer T·C 15:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

We both perfectly know what this is about. WP:NCRIC specifies when a person is presumed notable, which was the case for this person. WP:GNG says when the person is notable. Ideally, somebody should have searched all possible sources available on the Earth to determine that someone is presumed notable according to NCRIC but is not notable according to GNG. In the linked discussion, there was no consensus whether the person should be held non-notable because sources have not been found (basically, that the sources have been exhausted). This is not first discussion of this type, the issue has been around for longer than a decade.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:17, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that's correct at all. Several of us did source searches and found nothing and also noted that the rule was that if GNG isn't met, NCRIC doesn't matter, which has been followed by many recent other AfDs, for instance RandyKitty's relist of [[110]]. Also, you're applying a non-existent rule: nowhere does it say that all possible sources must be exhausted to fail WP:GNG when a SNG is met. Please reconsider your close. SportingFlyer T·C 15:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

It was obvious that a number of users in good standing did not agree with you, otherwise I would have closed the discussion differently. WP:DRV is that away if you want a second opinion.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:38, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm in total agreement with SportingFlyer here, the argument that "sources must exist" but we just can't find them is not a reason to keep around a BLP indefinitely, especially when this is an extremely well-covered sport in the subject's home country and his career is entirely within the internet age. It's also widely recognized by even cricket project members that NCRIC is one of the worst predictors of meeting GNG, which is especially evident in the sheer number of cricketers who are deleted in AfD every day despite numerous "meets NCRIC" protests. I would sincerely urge you to reconsider your close. JoelleJay (talk) 22:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion very clearly has no consensus, because half of the participants voted keep and about a half voted delete. The keep voters were users in good standing, not socks. You are basically saying now that their votes are not policy-based and should be discarded. However, they clearly do not think so, the last keep votes came when all arguments have been already in the discussion. Discarding arguments of a half of the voters in a discussion we call "supervoting", and such closes often feature at AN/ANI. I am not going to do this. You should have convinced the opponents that your arguments are stronger, not me. This is a debate which is running for over a decade, and it would be highly inappropriate for me as an uninvolved closer to behave like thisa. Again, if you think my close was not appropriate, you are welcome to take it to DRV, it is specifically design to evaluate whether closes have been appropriate.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:27, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Their votes aren't policy-based, though. NSPORT explicitly states in its FAQs

Q2: If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean he/she does not have to meet the general notability guideline?
A2: No, the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline.

There was a well-attended 2017 RfC SportingFlyer was involved in that affirmed NSPORT does not supersede GNG, so the disagreement is not the same as it was a decade ago. The issue is the garbage wording of NSPORT's second sentence, which uses GNG vs SNG "either/or" language to describe the sourcing necessary when an article is created -- but this is addressed in FAQ Q5:

Q5: The second sentence in the guideline says "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." Does this mean that the general notability guideline doesn't have to be met?
A5: No; as per Q1 and Q2, eventually sources must be provided showing that the general notability guideline is met. This sentence is just emphasizing that the article must always cite reliable sources to support a claim of meeting Wikipedia's notability standards, whether it is the criteria set by the sports-specific notability guidelines, or the general notability guideline.

While the nuances are definitely confusing to people uninvolved in sports editing (when I decided to jump into sports AfDs a couple weeks ago I spent a good hour+ reading the guidelines and the recent Talk discussions), in particular to people who haven't seen the updated guidelines lately, unfamiliarity/misunderstanding/deliberately ignoring it does not obviate its applicability. JoelleJay (talk) 18:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I have heard your opinion. However, we see that 50% of voters disagree. I am not going to supervote.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I mean no disrespect with my above comments -- I just wanted to make sure you were aware of where the guidelines actually fall because NSPORT's second sentence is so confusing (since it isn't intended to apply to AfD whatsoever -- it's specific only to newly-created articles). I wasn't sure if the situation was the same as in the "keep" closes of Kant Singh and Aftab Ahmed, which apparently were based entirely on a misinterpretation of NSPORT due to that wording and therefore very likely to be reconsidered by the closer. All other AfDs in the last 2 weeks that had a similar level of participation and !vote split and where "keep" !votes were based on "passes [SNG] ± sources must exist" have been closed as delete with the explicit reasoning that GNG is the required criterion, not NSPORT, and as such the keep votes must be disregarded (see Qaiser Iqbal and Arif Saeed, closed by Nosebagbear; Emily Henderson, closed by Fenix; Obaidullah Sarwar, closed by Black Kite; Mohammad Laeeq, closed by Barkeep49; Shahid Ilyas, closed by Dennis Brown; Zulqarnain and John Ford, closed by Randykitty; and (albeit without the stated reasoning) Mushtaq Ahmed, closed by Seraphimblade; see also the redirect closes where !votes were split between that/delete and keep: W.P. Bailey, closed by RandomCanadian; W. Baker, closed by Premeditated Chaos; and compare to the singular (non-unanimous) keep close on cricketers, which was kept due to meeting GNG: Gerald Trump, closed by Aseleste). JoelleJay (talk) 20:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Sure, and I also see that I am not the only administrator whom you try to convince reconsider a decision so that it conforms with your understanding of the policies. As I already said twice in this topic, WP:DRV is that far away. Sure if my close was not aligned with the policies it is going to be overturned. Please follow the process. This is not what you are doing now.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I gave myself a couple days to step away from this, but FYI I've created the DRV now. SportingFlyer T·C 19:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Good, thanks for letting me know.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Emirate of Bari

You protected this a few weeks ago. The vandalism is back. I do not know what it is about this page that attracts this behaviour, but the exact ethnic identity of the Muslim rulers of Bari has been a target for years. Srnec (talk) 23:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I blocked the IP and protected the article for a month. If this resumes, we probably go for an indefinite protection --Ymblanter (talk) 05:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

British Chinese CopyVio

Hi Ymblanter. Thanks for taking care of the earlier WP:CV of British Chinese. As I was trying to confirm the citations for another section of the article, I discovered another violation, copied from a book. I think this is in the same block of history which you already redacted. But as I cannot see that history, I cannot be sure. Would you be so kind as to confirm this? Thanks! --Caorongjin (talk) 05:35, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Since there was any consensus at AN, I have undone all revision-deletions I have done and promised to stay away from RD1 revision-deletions. You should be able to see yourself what is in the history.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I was unaware of the AN discussion. It was obviously a complicated situation that had not been picked up for over a decade. Thank you for all your efforts. The history in question, related to the book, is still hidden from public view. I presume it would be OK for me to simply remove the {{copyvio-revdel}} template? --Caorongjin (talk) 16:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

This was not me, this was Anarchyte. It is probably easier to check with them.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll raise it on Anarchyte's talk page. --Caorongjin (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Sure.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Casting aspersions on new users

User_talk:El_C#My_topic_ban ANI#B.Lukashyk and POV. El_C 20:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Please rethink this comment and this one in the spirit of WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:BITE, and WP:ACDS. —Michael Z. 20:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

No way. This is most likely Piznajko. In any way, this "new" user must be blocked indef, the sooner the better.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:49, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@El C: I think it would be safer if I answer here. Yes, ideally the case should go to ArbCom: we have an admin who apparently has taken the duty of defending a bunch of users who are only disrupting Wikipedia provided they have a certain political position, does not hear arguments not aligned with their position, and is already topic-banned and continues topic-ban violations. But I plainly do not have time to collect the evidence, I have a lot of things happening at work, and I have a lot of things I need to do on Wikimedia projects which nobody else would do or would do poorly, and this just does not leave me enough time to file an arbitration request at this point. Sorry for that. Ideally I would just be left to do what I am doing anyway, which is 99% uncontroversial, but sometimes disruption is too strong so that I have to react.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:42, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Sure, Ymblanter, I understand. I note that I haven't looked into any of this beyond just reading the links I attached above, so I can't really comment on any of the particulars (i.e. don't know). Anyway, as mentioned at ANI, I'm a bit burned out from WP:ARCA right now, but that would be my venue of choice. I'm unlikely to pursue a full WP:RFAR case, even in the best of times (stamina and time-investment -wise). Regards, El_C 20:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Well, I obviously do not expect you to take all this. If the system works, someone will do it. If it does not, well, we continue with what we have. To be honest, I am really tired (not to say sick) of all this, and I am sure this was not the last episode.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

South Atlantic tropical cyclone

This article should be unprotected. There is an active tropical storm in this area, and the article must be updated, possibly by non-administrators. Perhaps the protection could be lowered to extended confirmed. Chicdat

Extended confirmed would be against the policy. I have lowered the protection to semi. If edit-warring resumes, I am not going to intervene.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:09, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the swift response. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Sure, no problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:42, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Where's The Afghanistan's data?

Hello, I would like to know about Afghanistan in article (List of countries by income equality) but it was blank. Could you help I access the data. Mohammad Mir shahnoory (talk) 11:07, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not know the answer.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:16, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

DRV angst?

If there were clear universally accepted consensus on the issue we would not have ended up here. I do not think I have a demonstratable track record or closing discussions against consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC) [111]

I agree. Do I detect a bit of stress with being reviewed?

For fun, I looked in the logs. You are there, but not much, and nothing of any concern:

Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2017_December_10
Your A7 deletion was overturned, to be snow deleted at AfD.

Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2015_April_26
Your “no consensus” at AfD was thoroughly reviewed as “no consensus”. The article is still live.

Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2014_May_23
Your “no consensus” close was appealed and the appeal withdrawn. Subsequent page moves and merges appear to have satisfied.

Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2013_November_25
Your AfD DAB page deletion close was endorsed.

I have seen you around for many years, but I don't know you well. My impression is that you are an excellent Wikipedian and closer. I would urge you to take no shame from being connected to a DRV on the nuances of WP:NPORTS vs the WP:GNG, this sort of notability boundaries controversy has been battled for the life of Wikipedia. I like to consider DRV to be like a continuing education program for deletion policy. It may be uncomfortable being involved in the exercise, but someone has to be. It's to your credit that you engage in difficult cases.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. No, I am perfectly fine with being taken to DRV or other second opinion boards. In this case, I myself above, on this talk page, suggested to take the article to AfD DRV. I am also fine with overturning the close, I do not have any emotional attachment to cricket, and, to be honest, I generally (not specifically related to this particular case) feel that it is better to organize articles with such a low amount of information to the lists. What I do not like in this particular discussion though is that I feel that there are two sides here, indeed, going a decade or longer back, and one side appears to be more vocal and is not really interested in listening to any arguments. Even if they are right that there is generally accepted consensus in their favor, they should, instead of attacking my close and literally repeating the same arguments many times, convince the users who are not aware of or unwilling to accept this consensus. Well, if a large fraction of users does not accept consensus, it means the consensus does not exist, per definition of consensus. And the means to convince them is not by AfDing and DRVing articles. For the record, there was at least one DRV which I believe is missing in your list above. That was about a porn actress, I do not remember how I closed it, but there was also a clash between policies saying opposite things which a large group of people was unwilling to accept. In the end I think my close was overturned, but, more importantly, the DRV itself was full of personal attacks against me, pretty much everyone was saying "bad close", with others going even further. Before that DRV I was a regular AfD closer, closing a number of AfDs every day. After it, I stopped and only close them occasionally (this one we are discussing has a close requested at AN). Currently, I am not planning to go back to AfDs, I think my work at RFPP and CFD is not less valuable.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:11, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for stopping vandalism with your Kemal Sunal edits/article semi-protection :) Justiyaya (talk) 07:36, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks--Ymblanter (talk) 07:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I opened an SPI on user:Kmlsnl54

Hello Ymblanter ; Hope you are fine ; I just opened an SPI on this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kmlsnl54 and other related accounts. But all these accounts are already blocked by you and other admins. So I think I just messed up it by opening SPI. So guide me what should I do next on the SPI I opened ? Thanks Poppified ^talk 07:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to disturb you.One checkuser closed the SPI. Thanks Poppified ^talk 09:33, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, no problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:27, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Anna Petrovna Kern

Yaroslav, could you move this page to Anna Kern as per WP:RUS? Ghirla^-трёп- 11:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Sure,  Done--Ymblanter (talk) 19:27, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

St. Peter's Basilica

Could you check recent edits by User:49.181.196.13, as they don't seem to have any sense. I have to go to work. Thanks in advance. Denisarona (talk) 12:08, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Purely typographics. Some people feel strongly about it, and I usually let it go.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:12, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Editor notification

Thanks for your close of the ANI discussion regarding Tesldact Smih. I don't want to edit your notice to the editor at User talk:Tesldact Smih, but I think you left out a critical word (added what I think you meant in bold/italic):

"The topic ban can be lifter by the community, for which you would need to leave a request at WP:AN or WP:ANI, but I would strongly recomment against doing this in the first six months:"

Thanks again! Schazjmd (talk) 15:42, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for catching it, corrected now. (The form "recomment" suggests that I accidentally highlighted and deleted "d agains" during the editing, but it is not that important anyway).--Ymblanter (talk) 15:46, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Villages in Iran

I do not mind that you are cleaning up those villages but the effects are sometimes shocking. Yesterday I have cleaned up nearly 1900 links to disambiguation pages. And today the links in template are again nearly 1200. And that is only the mess in templates, the list of articles nearly exploded. Can you please, please, please clean up the mess behind you and not leave it to others? The Banner talk 20:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok, but this will slow me down to zero - I will have to edit every template hundred times rather than one time.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:08, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

But I could not have created 1200 links to dabs today. This is just not possible.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:12, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Links in templates.

1. Kerman County (712 transclusions)
2. Bardsir County (261 transclusions)
3. Shahrud County (138 transclusions)
4. Mehriz County (75 transclusions)

The Banner talk 21:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I already figured this out. I can remove dab links from templates, no problem, but I will not be removing redlinks, because this would severely disrupt my workflow.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

What about the workflow of those editors trying to solve links to disambiguation pages? The Banner talk 09:01, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Redlinks have no relation to dab pages.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

The Banner, I'll try to look at this. In theory I should be able to help. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 08:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Usually after a move or unofficial deletion (often there is no link left to the original article), you can check "what links here" for newly created links to disambiguation pages. But just throwing it over the fence to let other people clean up the mess is not very nice. The Banner talk 09:01, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

The Banner, if the alternative is that it won't be done at all, it's better to throw the collateral damage over the fence. But it appears I can fix this now. Do you have a list of templates with problems? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

No, because the problems only appear when I convert an article into a dab. I have included this into my workflow, and I am now fixing the templates to avoid dab links. What one can do (I do not know how easy it this) is to remove all entries found in your list from all templates, they are out of place there anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I have this morning already fixed three templates with about 750 links. I am not letting my workflow being disrupted. Angry muttering The Banner talk 12:53, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

After 05:23 I created one redirect and immediately removed the link to it from the template. Everything else is not mine.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:08, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Ymblanter, Xeno, Uncle G, Hog Farm, 4nn1l2, The Banner, do you see any issues with these contributions? (other than some faulty links possibly not being removed, I don't have a list of redirects) I haven't found any issues myself so if you don't see any problems either I'll process everything in Category:Iran county templates. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 13:24, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I have a gadget that does just that, but it's spaghetti so I'd prefer to fix those templates myself so I can check it's not screwing things up. There is a problem though: admins have also deleted redirects and some templates actually use redirects. I don't have a list of redirects that were deleted within the scope of abadi stubs, so I can't clear those. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Alexis, it looks like Sarab-e Davud didn't need removed from the Delfan County template. I've added it back in. Hog Farm _Talk 14:11, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Hog Farm, Sarab-e Davud is in User:Alexis Reggae/Articles for locations oh my what a mess#newsearch. It's scheduled for deletion. No error. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:50, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

a list of redirects that were deleted within the scope of abadi stubs e.g. Dar Mar can be found by looking at the log entries in ns:0 containing G8: Redirect to deleted page in 13157 pages deleted: A - ~Dakin (3157); Darbargi thru Mazra'eh-ye Qomsur (5000); Mazraeh-ye Sadr thru Z (5000). (The Banner: By now you've noticed this is a rather large cleanup project with many moving parts - now including yourself!) –xeno^talk 14:59, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

You should have noted that I am indirectly involved: by cleaning up the mess/links to disambiguation pages your group has created. And what I preach here is simple: clean up your own mess and do not leave it to others. The Banner talk 16:43, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

The Banner, you could help by answering my question from 13:24. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 16:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Why are you removing those red links? Red links are invitations to write an article... The Banner talk 17:25, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

The Banner: The consensus seems to be that the articles (which previously existed) probably do not meet the inclusion criteria (and may not be entities that should be described as villages), so I'm not sure leaving the redlinks in place is indicated here - though I did notice the redlinks are now present in some non-template locations as well. –xeno^talk 17:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

To be true, I am not interested in the red links. I am interested in link to disambiguation pages, as that drops on my plate. I have taken a look in the prior discussions, and got scared by it, as it looks like destroying of articles because of the person who wrote them. I have seen that before at the Dutch Wikipedia where a complete pre-cooked vote was held (options: 1) delete everything, 2) nuke everything). Not my hobby. The Banner talk 18:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

The Banner, I have nothing to add to Xeno. These redlinks should not exist. If any these locations would both exist and be notable (safe bet that'll be <1%), the link can be re-added after article creation. Edit: this wasn't a war against Carlos. In fact, several articles were created by others using the same template. There are no good sources for any of these, that's the problem. (that, and the poor transliteration) If you do have sources, we'd all be very interested. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

So we are converting some things to disambiguation pages, which are included in some mass-created templates, which are kicking off warnings to a disambiguation workflow? –xeno^talk 17:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and we have stopped doing this more than 12 h ago.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:20, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Xeno, thanks, I'll add those. I thought I also saw some redirects that were deleted by Explicit though. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 15:05, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Yesterday, I started to check the redlinks in every template and removing those which clearly were deleted as part of this campaign. On the other hand, well, templates may have red links.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not sure what to do whether it should be left redlinks (if it's a real village) or removed (if it's a gas station, or farmer's field). In the meantime, I did these edits to fix up the backlink issue identified. Probably 4nn1l2 is best placed to answer. –xeno^talk 18:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

My reasoning is that we are deleting articles about villages which we are not sure they exist (or are in fact villages). If we are not sure, they should not be in templates as redlinks.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:29, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Xeno, I can predict what 4nn1l2 will say.. "take out the trash!", or something similar. Let's turn it around: say none of these were linked in those templates. Now someone comes along and says "Look people, I found this list of highly dubious place names for farms, random underwater coordinates, gas stations, water pumps and similar trash and transliterated it.. poorly. Imma add redlinks to all the templates!" I'd say they'd get blocked, not encouraged. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:35, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think Mohammadabad (32°33′ N 59°06′ E), Khusf is a useful redirect. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

The name must have made it everywhere outside of Wikipedia already.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Well if residents don’t know the exact coordinates of their village by rote, they have no business reading an article about it ;) –xeno^talk 12:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the story was that there were two objects (abadis or whatever) with precisely the same name, and they were for whatever reason disambiguated by the coordinates. (Which probably already shows that none of them is notable).--Ymblanter (talk) 12:57, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

That'll be Mohammadabad (32°27′ N 59°02′ E), Khusf which is also on the list. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 13:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

A look at WhatLinksHere shows what a bloody mess all these abadi articles are: Special:WhatLinksHere/Mohammadabad (32°33′ N 59°06′ E), Khusf lists redirects Mohammad Abad Gheis Abad, Mahmudabad, Jolgeh-ye Mazhan, Mahmudabad, Jolgeh-e Mazhan and Mohammadabad (32°33′ N 59°06′ E), Birjand. Special:WhatLinksHere/Mohammadabad (32°27′ N 59°02′ E), Khusf lists Kalateh-ye Mad Hajji, Mohammadabad-e Pain, Birjand and Mohammadabad (32°27′ N 59°02′ E), Birjand. Half of the redirects don't even sound alike. 4nn1l2, I'm intrigued - do you have any guess as to why Carlos created these redirects? (can't ask Carlos, if anyone could hazard a guess it's probably you) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 13:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

You should check history pages to fully understand what has happened one of which is not available to non-admins now, but here is my explanation:

In 2006, there were two abadis in the same province (1st tier), the same county (2nd tier), the same district (3rd tier), and the same rural district (4th tier) with exactly the same name Mohammadabad: [See the last table on the article administrative divisions of Iran to know about these tiers]

• One with the id 129449
• And the other one with the id 391198

Carlos has used their coordinates to differentiate them (disambiguation). Both abadis were uninhabited (population not reported)

In 2012, Khusf County was created out of Birjand County, so Mohammadabad (32°33′ N 59°06′ E), Birjand = Mohammadabad (32°33′ N 59°06′ E), Khusf and Mohammadabad (32°27′ N 59°02′ E), Birjand = Mohammadabad (32°27′ N 59°02′ E), Khusf

But I can't understand why he has used Mahmudabad (محمودآباد) for Mohammadabad (محمدآباد), maybe a mistake due to lack of Farsi knowledge. These are distinct names and an abadi cannot be named after both Mohammad and Mahmoud.

I have no idea about the other names. These are not mentioned in the census files or https://gndb.ncc.gov.ir. I can't access http://geonames.nga.mil/namesgaz/ which seems to be a US governmental website. [What is the new address?]

Some other points:

• Both abadis should be deleted as they are uninhabited or their population has not been reported according to the latest census (2016). Ctrl+F 129449 and 391198 here.
• ‌Both abadis are still in the same province (South Khorasan Province), county (Khusf County), district (Jolgeh-e Mazhan District), and rural district (Jolgeh-e Mazhan Rural District), despite new divisions (creation of Khusf County in 2012), so disambiguating using coordinates still makes sense (although using census IDs is another possibility)
• Kalateh-ye Mad Hajji, Mohammadabad-e Pain, Birjand are clearly mistakes by Carlos or GEOnet Names Server, as they refer to another abadi with the id 129451 but in the same province, county, district, and rural district.

4nn1l2 (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm trying to finish off all the links to these stubs. I'm not sure I'll even succeed, there's just so many. One problem I'm having is Template:Nagorno-Karabakh conflict detailed map which links to Xanməmməd-Bünaən, Qoturlu, Qazarkı-Qomər, Qaradağlı, Kalbajar, Muratly, Maraldam, Kürd-Dam, Kaxat-Xəl, Binasli, Bakhyarkiyatag, Armudly. Also Template:Syrian and Iraqi insurgency detailed map, Template:Syrian, Iraqi, and Lebanese insurgencies detailed map and Template:Iraqi insurgency detailed map which link to Zalu and Sajar. And Template:Syrian Civil War detailed map links to Dudah and Template:Taliban insurgency detailed map links to Quchi and Bibi Maryam. I'm already putting too many hours into this, you know how it is. Breaking point is in sight, I can't deal with goddamn maps. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:07, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I've checked what pages have been moved to titles that used to be adabi stubs. There are only six: Darbari, Iran, Keshabad, Bahua, Koruza, Tolombeh-ye 22 Bahman and Lambu. I checked this because under specific conditions there could have been unintended collateral damage from my link removal. These conditions are that another page gets moved to such a title (turns out there are only six) or created at that title (unlikely to have happened) and redirects to that page having been resolved (but people rarely bother) and the links on the pages that link to it looking like a pipe-separated city list or asterisk list. It doesn't seem to have happened at all. I made a list of remaining links. I could possibly get rid of some more hatnotes. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 01:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• Alexis Jazz, Reywas92 and our host: I did the rest of the 1372 resulting in 3260 deletions. I checked "unlink backlinks" this time, it may be interesting to view and fix these pages: [112], seeing if any of these links are notability indicators for the deleted article. Let me know if anything needs to be restored. –xeno^talk 03:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks, I will have a look, but generally I expect we are done here.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:00, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  Xeno, ah crap. Just hours ago I got back on this and compiled a list of what was linked where. Can you easily nuke those unlink edits or may I revert them? I had the link list down to 400-something and wanted to do some more replacements. In most cases, it's something that should be removed entirely (not just unlinked) or it's actually valid, for example Baba Kuhi in 1050s in poetry. I need them to be linked to remove them. (higher risk of error otherwise) I am glad to see though this whole thing is moving forward. Edit: stupid me, Special:Nuke only deals with page creations. I see only 36 pages had something unlinked? I can deal with that. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 06:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  Xeno, thanks for all the hard work! I checked your 36 unlinks. I undid a few like Niaz Ali and completely removed unlinked entries for abadis. @4nn1l2: Takht-e Jamshid is mentioned on Fereidoon Tavallali and Kartir's inscription at Naqsh-e Rajab. Bahrabad is supposedly the birthplace of Saʿd al-Dīn al-Ḥamuwayī, but he's like a thousand years old.. wait only 800 and Iran has many similarly named villages so I'm not sure it's the same village. I've also cleaned up some more hatnotes. Still 300 links left. Ymblanter, Xeno, Uncle G, Fram: this has been a thrilling success, when will the next episode in this series (Oh my what a mess 2: Azerbaijan edition) air? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 03:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks for re-adding back the links: here (Tabaf), I almost started writing an article on a weapon (which might have been interesting) until I realized it was some kind of ocr typo. –xeno^talk 03:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

  Xeno, I thought it sounded strange. Now it makes sense. I don't think it was an OCR typo. the "f" is right below the "r" on a qwerty keyboard. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 03:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

  It's actually a typo in the referenced book. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 05:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Alexis Jazz: Takht-e Jamshid is the Farsi equivalent of Persepolis. I undid edits by Xeno.

  Saʿd al-Dīn al-Ḥamuwayī was born in Bahrabad of Joveyn, so I undid the edit by Srnec. 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Race and intelligence

Let me draw your attention to this line from the additional comments section: 'I am here asking that indefinite extended-confirmed protection be applied to both the article and the talk page.' - MrOllie (talk) 21:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:38, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

IP edits by Posp68

Hello Ymblanter, an IP you've previously blocked as being Posp68 is back editing at Munich Agremeent, see [113], [114], [115].--Ermenrich (talk) 21:36, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I blocked the IP which edited today, for a week, to discover that I have already blocked them in January.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:40, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

You are still an admin

You are still an admin Ujjwal 20 (talk) 18:01, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think so.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Probably he still is. EdJohnston (talk) 02:35, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Why wouldn't he be? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 08:34, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it was a joke, related to the way the original question was asked.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

So it was the captain after all. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 09:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I guess so, and the OP contribution is a bit odd, but I do not have time now to go into it.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

They uploaded a copyvio and appear to have been Wikipedia:Gaming the system to become Extendedconfirmed. (quick glance at their contribs shows the obvious) Extendedconfirmed can't be revoked, can it? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Yes. ——Serial 11:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Cool, made a request on WP:AN. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:39, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello.

Page Involved: Postal addresses in the Philippines

I have reverted some popular-culture reference names on the page earlier.

Suggestion: Can the protection time of that article (or the semi-protection of that article) be extended for two weeks to a month? Or full protection to prevent any types of edit conflict in the future?

User:Ahthga Yram_{Talk with me!} 02:13, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

If disruption resumes after the current protection expires, the atraightfirward way to ask for an extension would be at WP:RFPP. Whereas the chance is very high, we do not protect articles preemptively.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Time to re-protect Ezra Miller?

Your semi-protection ended on April 25th. Of the 14 human edits since then, five have just been to misgender them, plus a sixth that added content but misgendered them in doing so; of the remaining nine, six were just fixing their pronouns. So, only 2½/14 were about something other than their pronouns. Misgendering versions of the article account for 13h54m of the 11 days since the protection expired, by my math. In light of that, do you think restoring semi, or applying pending changes, would be warranted? -- Tamzin (they/she) | o toki tawa mi. 00:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done for 3 months--Ymblanter (talk) 05:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Zack439 here in regards to Sham Ennessim

Hello Ymblanter, the Sham Ennessim article you put a full protection is the version which takes a side in the dispute & contains strong bias & too much false information. The pre-edit war version is the one on April 1 2021 in the history. If you’re going to put the page on full protection can you revert to that version first? Also how long will this be on full protection? Thanks.

No, I will nor revert it, see WP:WRONGVERSION. Please discuss the issues at the talk page of the article. The protection is for a week, but if edit-warring starts after the protection has expired, I will have to reprotect.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:08, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Cross-wiki stuff

Hi Ymblanter, as you recently blocked one sock and as you are an administrator on Commons as well, I was wondering if you would you be able to take a look over there regarding [116]. Thanks, CMD (talk) 13:54, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done, also reverted everything except for file uploads.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm afraid I find Commons more difficult to navigate than here. If needed, is there a semi-protection type of system that can be requested? CMD (talk) 14:14, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

It is usually requested at commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections, or ask any administrator. The problem there is that there is way more work than on the English Wikipedia, and way less administrators.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Someone moving pages

Hey, saw your 2016 edit on Osmaniye Mosque. Someone doing exactly the same, want to investigate? Edit found two users: [117] [118] Beshogur (talk) 18:31, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

This should be discussed at the talk page, but your edit has broken the page history. Please move properly, using the move tab.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I have done this myself--Ymblanter (talk) 19:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: sorry I messed up with the pages. Could you fix the others too? Thanks. Beshogur (talk) 19:49, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Also I couldn't use the move tab, saying those pages already existing. Beshogur (talk) 19:49, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

If the history only contains redirects, you should be able to move back. What are the other pages?--Ymblanter (talk) 19:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The ohter ones are Noman Çelebicihan and Ismail Gaspirali. Other user moved it to weird spelling claiming those are correct in English. Similar what the other account did before. Beshogur (talk) 04:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I restored Noman Çelebicihan; for Ismail Gasprinsky, there was a RM in 2011 establishing this name.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Beshogur (talk) 09:05, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Sure, no problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Dmitry Kasperovich

Hi. Thank you for your work on expanding Dmitry Kasperovich's article, following the recent AfD. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Sure, no problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Query

What happened to Category:Archbishops of Izmir? It was unopposed at speedy for 2 days but now seems to have disappeared from all speedy pages. Oculi (talk) 01:05, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Apparently I have lost it while moving categories for processing, now corrected, thanks for noticing. My apologies.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

He's at it again

[119] - LouisAragon (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately in this area I can not take administrative actions anymore.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:51, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Misleading edits

Greetings, since the Balkan topic areas are being under watch, I am asking for an admin oversight and decision regarding recent edits by User Alltan. It seems that they conducted a series of edits regarding Tribes of Montenegro meaning they are posting some very contorversial edits putting them under part of Albanian tribes series which can been seen in Bratnozici, Kuci, Piperi and Vasojevici tribe. I have challenged them on Vasojevici talk page with 7 different sources,</ref>|last=Petersen|first=Roger D. |publisher=Cambridge University Press|year=2001|isbn=9781139428163|p=232}}</ref> }}.sources that are opposing their edits and are previously large discussed on same TP by other editors [[120]], but I cannot reach an agreement. All that I am asking is that if we have tribes that belong to Montenegro region and were or are of multiethnic origin that we do not put them under Albanian tribe series sidebar because it is misleading, those tribes went under centuries long cultural and ethnic changes (migrations, marriages) and as we can see part of disputes. Can something be done about it? User:Theonewithreason (talk), 17.May 2021 (UTC

The user is clearly willing to come to a consensus. Please stay calm and continue discussing,--Ymblanter (talk) 09:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

By the last edit I don't see they are willing to cooperate, [[121]] I think that the best way is that admin decides. I don't even wish to remove their edits even though lot of them are questionable, but the "Albanian tribe part of series sidebar". I think that giving the sources and the article page it is reasonable. User:Theonewithreason (talk), 17.May 2021 (UTC

No admin would ever go through all these walls of text. Especially when the links are not online. If you are sure they do not edit according to the policies and you do, you should file a request at WP:AE, there at least people would read it.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I do not wish to go through WP:AE because that usually means asking for some sanctions, I do not wish to post that on editor Alltan, they are a valuable member of wikipedia. Just wanted to evade edit warring and to ask to remove that sidebar, if it is possible to do it by admin great based on sources great. If not well someone else is going to challenge it in few months, that is why maybe it would be wise to reach stable version by admin User:Theonewithreason (talk), 17.May 2021 (UTC — Preceding undated comment added 10:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

What is this? I'm sorry for cluttering your talk page YM, but the user in question has not respected my wish to continue discussing and instead seems to be admin-fishing to get me punished or whatever. The editor in question has:

• not provided a single source which call the tribe in question of Slavic origin (check them, I have and can confirm this and have asked him to quote one on multiple occasions)

• Not answered a single question of mine regarding the reasoning behind his edit suggestions, instead preffering to go over the same points again ang again.

• accused me of bad-faith and misleading edits even though he can freely check and see that my edits are not so (I explalined this multiple times on the tp)

• literally asked the admins to come to an agreement on his behalf, while refusing to answer my questions "Yes I want that admins decide this because it is obvious that you are ignoring sources. If they are saying that they are Montenegrins or Serbs and you claim that they are Albanians then decision must be made by someone neutral."

How come he just skips the discussing part and just jumps right into name calling? I don't think the user is editing in good faith, its more of a JDL case. However if he does wish to continue discussing in a respectful manner I will very much oblige Alltan (talk) 10:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

All I am asking is that you remove Albanian tribe part of series sidebar based on discussion on TP, since you also confirmed that they are Serbs or Montenegrins, also your agressive approach shows lack of cooperation an d calling Cvijic an "Albanophobe Jovan Cvijic" means you are not willing to acknowledge authors with different opinions. User:Theonewithreason (talk), 17.May 2021 (UTC

from wikipedia article on Cvijic: Cvijić' s scientific impartiality has been criticized for his support of Serbia's political advancement;[10] his geographic work was used to scientifically justify politics of territorial expansion and further territorial claims.[10]

... For economic independence, Serbia must acquire access to the Adriatic Sea and one part of the Albanian coastline: by occupation of the territory or by acquiring economic and transportation rights to this region. This, therefore, implies occupying an ethnographically foreign territory, but one that must be occupied due to particularly important economic interests and vital needs.[10] 

and another quote: According to Croatian historian Igor Despot, Cvijić's studies of Albanians depicted them as an isolated people with no culture. His research was published into Serbian press which resulted in a chauvinistic denial of any great value of Albanian culture, depicting them as armed robbers ravaging through Christian cities.

So no, you can not use Cvijic. If you don't know why after reading the above maybe you should not edit articles related to Albanians. Cvijic was one of the biggest Albanophobes of his time, so although I respect your opinion on him, he has no place on wikipedia. Anyways come to the TP so we dont clutter this one too much Alltan (talk) 10:42, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Protection request

Caste system in Nepal

• Caste system in Nepal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Semi-protection: Sir/Madam, this article need to be protected. High level of vandalism, despite multiple attempts to stop it.Dr.Pinsky (talk) 16:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

No, I only see one non-autoconfirmed user editing in May, and some reasonably good edits from IPs in April. This is not a protection situation for me.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Hromadas?

Hello, Ymblanter,

It looks like an editor has emptied out some categories involving Hromadas, a Ukrainian term I am not familiar with, and I saw that you edited one of the categories that I looked at. I was hoping you could give a quick look at the last additions to Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion and judge whether these categories have been emptied out-of-process. The editor, Delasse, also created Category:Zolotyi Potik settlement hromada which another editor has tagged for speedy deletion which is unusual for a category. Thanks for any insight you can offer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi User:Liz. Hromada is the third level of the administrative division in Ukraine (below Oblast and Raion), which was introcuced in 2020. Before it was introduced, there was something called amalgamated hromada, many (if not all of these) became hromadas. I guess the editor wants to move categories of amalgamated hromadas to the categories of hromadas but is not familiar with the process. I will try to engage with them in their talk page, could you please hold the categories for the moment (not process speedies). Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

DS 2021 Review Update

Dear Ymblanter,

Thank you for participating in the recent discretionary sanctions community consultation. We are truly appreciative of the range of feedback we received and the high quality discussion which occurred during the process. We have now posted a summary of the feedback we've received and also a preview of some of what we expect to happen next. We hope that the second phase, a presentation of draft recommendations, will proceed on time in June or early July. You will be notified when this phase begins, unless you choose to to opt-out of future mailings by removing your name here.
--Barkeep49 & KevinL (aka L235) 21:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Admin activity in AA and other ex-USSR topics

Dear Ymblanter.

On 27th March 2021 you wrote:

I have stopped all administrator activity in the areas I edit — everything related to the countries of the former Soviet Union. I may occasionally make fully uncontroversial actions, such as blocks for and protections against obvious vandalism and obvious BLP violations.

Then, on 19th May 2021, after proposing a controversial ban in AA topic (which is ex-USSR topic), you wrote:

Ok, fine, I will not deal with Armenian-Azerbaijani mud throwing anymore. I do not have any personal interest in this conflict. I have a lot of other things to do.

Could you kindly clarify what are your long-lasting plans about AA topic; are you going to stick to the declared plans? In your mind, do you allow a chance to the possibility that constantly accusing Armenian and Azerbaijani editors of "mud throwing" and constantly expressing a wish "to ban them en masse" may be perceived as systemic bias and intolerance towards both sides, that makes any significant activity of yours in that topic highly controversial?. Please take this as critical appraisal of your activity in this particular topic; this is not an attack on your personality. Some introspection and reflection hasn't harmed anybody yet.

Best regards --Armatura (talk) 12:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry to totally disagree with you. You are welcome to take me to WP:AN of course.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I know my rights. I also recognise your right to disagree with me. It is not clear what are you "totally" disagreeing with, however, as you did not answer my question - what are your future plans about AA topic - are you going to keep your word? Yes or no.

Best wishes

--Armatura (talk) 13:08, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

You know, you ask loaded questions. I do not think I can answer a loaded question with yes or no. For a starter, I left indeed a message on the top of this page on March 27. I believe after leaving this message I have taken exactly zero administrative actions in the areas I indicated. I have never hinted I will start taking these actions. What are the reasons you are asking me whether I am going to keep my word if I have never broken my word? If the ArbCom would revise their decision and remove this point I am referring to, or if the policies change, I may start doing administration in these areas again.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok, "cannot answer a question" is some sort of answer as well I guess. The reason why I asked the question were your repetitive conclusions about Armenian-Azerbaijani "mud throwing" and your repetitive wishes "to ban them en masse", which, as I said, may be perceived as systemic bias and intolerance towards both sides - you disagree but I do perceive them as such and I am sure there are others - I came to you to make you aware of that, instead of rushing to WP:AN. Separately from your 27th March note about ArbCom, you later wrote that you do not have any personal interest in AA conflict and that you are not going to engage with that topic anymore; I hope you will stick to your word, both as an admin and as a regular user. Good luck.

--Armatura (talk) 14:43, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

This is not what I said. I said that if say an Azerbaijani user A would in the umpteenth time show up at ANI trying to get an Armenian user B blocked, or viceversa, and the discussion would go to several screens yet again, I am not going to intervene. I am also not going to block an Armenian (or Azerbaijani, or Paraguayan, for that purpose) user C who edits disruptively an article on Azerbaijan or Armenia. However, I do not see why I can not open an ANI/AN/AE topic on disruptive users myself, bring sufficient arguments, and have the user topic banned. If you are right, and I am biased, then surely nobody is going to support me, and eventually I am going to be topic-banned myself from the topic area. However, so far I see that in the Serbian-Croatian conflict, where I proposed to establish a very low tolerance bar for violations, it worked, a few users were topic-banned, and the disruption has been significantly reduced. I do not see why this would not work in the Armenian-Azerbaijani topic area, but it is up to the community of course. Apparently it is not yet fed up with this disruption.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

You also wrote on 18 May 2021

Fine, as I already said, I am going to ignore future AA threads. 

You did not write "I am going to ignore them unless X, Y or Z". As a physicist (a person versed in exact sciences), I am sure you write what you mean, rather than writing "A" but meaning "B". And as an admin (a user thought to be credible enough to get a high rank in Wikipedia community), I hope you will stick to your own words, otherwise they may lose their current high value. As for "blocking en masse" I don't know how would you feel like if somebody suggested to block Russian users, or Jewish users, or Black users or LGBT users on masse, for example. Just some food for reflection. Bringing an admin to WP:AN should not be the primary way of letting them know that what they say (and how they say it) may hurt others. Good luck. --Armatura (talk) 23:39, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

What I say is that there is a lot of disruption of this editing area, and users disruptively editing must be blocked en masse (even though the expression is coming from other user, but let us not discuss the details). I do not see what is wrong with this. This is the decision of the Arbitration Committee, if you think it describes the situation incorrectly you can appeal. I do not think I have ever proposed to block or sanction in any other ways users who are not editing disruptively. If someone suggests to block disruptively editing Russian users, I would certainly support, and I have done it myself in the past in the the framework of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict as well as in some other situations. And, yes, I am going to ignore pointless AA threads, until unless something changes.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:18, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Perceived lack of good faith and stereotyping towards Armenian and Azerbaijani users (I am sure based on your previous negative experiences) is what's wrong. If you stick to the "block disruptive users" correct language that you used above there would be no questions. However, calling Armenian and Azerbaijani users who engage in disputes "warriors" and suggesting to topic-ban them en masse sounds incorrect to me. There are no "warriors" in Wikipedia, there are users and users who express disruptive behaviour (regardless of nationality). That kind of language ("pointless AA threads" belongs to the same language) incites emotions instead of calming everybody down in already heated disputes and raises questions about emotional neutrality to the topic and capacity to act as a neutral mediator / proposer. Hence I think you made a right decision to not engage in those threads anymore. Regards, --Armatura (talk) 19:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not feel that you make any effort in listening to me. I suggest that we stop here.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:02, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

IP disruption

Hi, that IP is removing content and modifying content in a way that it counters with what the given source says. Examples include [122][123][124]. It has already been warned by another editor but disruption continues. The IP range was blocked some time ago, but after it expired the disruption resumed by several IPs. Can you do sth? Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:27, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

They have stopped an hour ago and is unlikely to come back, and I do not feel confident to block the range. The easiest is to open an ANI topic and present a few diffs clearly demonstrating disruption (possibly even explaining why), and to ask to block the range.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your advice. As a note, they came back and made another disruptive edit 15 minutes ago [125] - as the Demographics section makes it obvious, not all people there are Greeks. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:13, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Now I blocked for 31h, but I will not be reverting, someone knowledgeable should do this.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:16, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. No worries about reverts, other editors always revert the disruption made on those articles. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:19, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Sure, no problem--Ymblanter (talk) 18:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Please, this IP too 77.28.11.254Bes-ARTTalk 13:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 13:19, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Bes-ARTTalk 13:24, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Sure--Ymblanter (talk) 13:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, and forgive me for raising this issue again but it has been done persistently for almost a year by the same person 1. A few months ago the User: El C admin made a range IP block and it seemed had solved but as soon as the restriction was over the editing by this person started again using different IPs. These articles have a significant problem as they are in a so-called minority area wherein some of these villages are populated by a Greek community. How many is their exact number for each village? No one knows because the censuses made by the Albanian state are refused to be accepted as a reliable source by other members in Wikipedia and in many cases, it is "tolerated" even by members who have a different opinion about that. These village articles were created only to show that there is a Greek community in these areas and this is usually done only for those villages that have one, based on a private study by Kallivretakis, Leonidas (1995). The same study mentions villages that have a totally Albanian population, in some cases Christian and in others Muslim. This has led to the creation of articles for the latter, creating a certain balance because otherwise, they pave the way for irredentist and nationalist theories. And here begins the problem we are currently facing. Every village that has an Albanian population or with an absolute Albanian majority is attacked by such IPs by entering names in the Greek language, inserting texts that do not match the source, etc. while in those that have a Greek community deleting the use of the Albanian language which is the official language of the state where these villages are part of and as is common use in every similar article on Wikipedia ... especially in the Balkans.

I do not know what may be the best solution as long as the IP range block failed to protect it from such edits. Blocking IP one by one is also tedious for everyone, both for the admins who block it every one per week and for us having to undo the edits. So two may be the most permanent solutions. 1) Merge several articles of villages into a single article based on the highest administrative division, i.e Municipality. Maybe an article called "Villages in the municipality of Finiq" where the villages can be listed. 2) Page Protection for all villages for at least 1 year, hoping that this person has lost the passion to make such edits.Bes-ARTTalk 09:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Just request a range block at ANI (you can also mention this discussion). I am not sufficiently technically apt to apply range blocks.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Possible block evasion

Hello. Seems I smelled some possible block evasion from Korvex (talk · contribs), this his sock Editshmedt (talk · contribs) has similar topics and edits with this IPs 142.116.103.55 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 142.116.0.52 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 142.127.171.177 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 142.127.154.241 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) especially, about Biblical numerology, Gematria, Muhammad and the Bible, Gabriel's Revelation. So much similar edits and at one article Biblical numerology restored sock edit by Editshmedt (talk · contribs) by listed ip, 25 February 2021. So I suspect to it is all the same user. Would be good if you check, seems to that user could be one obsessive sock editor.109.92.10.14 (talk) 01:07, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• I am afraid I can not do anything here. Most of these edits are old, and today's edits are not exactly the same as those of the socks, definitely not to an extent which would give me confidence to block the IP.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)