User talk:Ymblanter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Puzzle x template.gif
If you leave a message here, I will answer it here. So check back later.
If I left a message on your talk page, please reply there. I will watch your page and reply as soon as I can.

Archives: 2011; 2012; 2013; 2014


Pavel Petrovich Korowkin[edit]

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

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

Donguz Formation[edit]

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

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

User talk:Ezhiki#List of Russian landscape painters[edit]

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

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

The Little Humpbacked Horse (ballet)[edit]

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

Вечером прилечу домой, посмотрю.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Конечно. И сначала вы отдохнете после дороги. Я там явно не справилась с английским. Воспользовалась транслейтером в Гугле и Яндексе, но после них надо вызывать живого переводчика. Спасибо. Ёжики сейчас на выходных. Извините, что я опять к вам. И опять со своим балетом. --Lawrentia (talk) 12:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Thank you, Ярослав. Вы очень хорошо перевели с моего английского на нормальный английский язык. Славочка, а там дальше - совсем непонятно? Дело в том, что этот балет стал краегольным камнем, окончательно определившим развитие русского балета. Может, это хоть кому-нибудь будет интересно? А потом, в 1930-х годах Сталин полностью довершил уничтожение Московского балета: он перевел в Москву ленинградцев, которые заняли все места. В результате балетное направление Московской труппы было уничтожено, его немного сохранил Игорь Моисеев в своем ансамбле. Ну ладно, спасибо. --Lawrentia (talk) 00:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
      Дальше ещё не смотрел, сегодня постараюсь продолжить.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)/

Canada lists[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Things this work does not do fix:

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

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

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


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[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

IP hopping editor[edit]

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

The best is to open an SPI.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
I've never done one. I'll start reading up. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


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

I will add sourced data on population now and will have a look at the rest after Monday when I am back home (writing this from a hotel in Italy).--Ymblanter (talk) 17:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Out of curiosity what hotel? Interested in Italian hotels :-).♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:48, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
We were driving from Livorno (from a ferry from Corsica) and I reserver Casa Betania in Pisa. Good place to stay for one night, and we did not care that it is far from the historic center.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

808s & Heartbreak[edit]

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

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

Russian article on Dobrolet Airlines[edit]

I posted a request at [1]

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

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

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

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

It is apparently an IP hopper, so that it does not make sense. If there is a long-time abuse pattern, a range should be blocked, but I do not have enough technical skills for this.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
He hasn't hopped IPs yet. This is the first time he's been on the site since April. Just extend the block on this IP for at least a month and block talk page access. He never requests unblock anyway.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
All contribution of this IP are from today. I revoked the talk page access since they were clearly misusing it, but I do not currently see any reason for a longer block.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
This guy has been vandalizing this site since 2008. You don't see a need to extend the block?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Again: All edits from this IP are from today, and the IP has no deleted contributions. It means if they previously vandalized Wikipedia they did it from a different IP. This, in turn, means that there is no reason for a longer block of this IP.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Did you not look at the list I have here: User:Ryulong/sandbox#Saban troll? This guy has been at this for longer than you've even had an account.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I have an account much longer than you think. I am afraid you have difficultie understanding my reply. Please go to ANI if you want to achieve smth. I am not going to reblock.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid that you have a difficulty in understanding the severity of the situation. But ANI's been dealt with already.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Indeed, will do now.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Do you think that in our purview as an admin you could send his ISP's abuse contact a line to get him off of our backs? I used to do this every time he resurfaced and it seemed to help but I'm bogged down at the moment.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
For a number of reasons, I would prefer not to. Sorry.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
All I used to do was say "individual with IP address violating terms of service" with some relevant time stamps and never actually got a response back from Bell Canada or Sympatico, but okay.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Yes check.svg Done, will remove the talk page access if they misbehave.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
you should revoke it anyway. He's doing his usual and I should not have given him a sentence with Saban in it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I did already. So far, they were not able to wait for more than five minutes.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

PC-protection expiring on or before August 16, 2014[edit]

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

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

War in Ukraine - request for review[edit]

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

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

Michael L. Brown[edit]

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

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

Ukraine administrative divisions[edit]

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

We have a long-standing convention for Russian settlements that a город with the population over 100,00 is called a city, and the one below 100,000 is called a town. There is no such convention for Ukraine, and the articles are in complete disorder, so it looks to me that applying the same 100,000 convention would actually be the least confusing.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
If it is to be done, it should be brought up on the Ukraine noticeboard with all of the other editors involved in administrative divisions, etc. so as to establish consensus and so that everyone involved would know what is what in the future. § DDima 17:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Good, I will do it, though my past experience with the Ukraine noticeboard was rather unpleasant: Users had a lot of ideas what I should do, but they were not willing either to compromise even tiny bit or to do it themselves.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you're correct with that. But it has been a pressing issue in the past, so we might as well finish it off once and for good now. And I know of 2-3 important users who's opinion would be valuable on the topic. Just send me a link with the thread. Thanks, § DDima 17:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ukraine#City/town, I assume this is a reasonable place to discuss.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Robin Williams#Full protection[edit]

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

(talk page stalker) To Ymblanter: Conversely, I encourage you to maintain full protection because although the edit-warriors are eager to rejoin the battle, there's really nothing useful to be added since just a few hours ago when you protected the article. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I had a look at the talk page, and it seems that the infobox issue has been resolved. Are there any other issue requiring full protection at this point? (It will expire in the morning anyway).--Ymblanter (talk) 20:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I am on Central European time, and I am going to bed now. The protection will expire tomorrow morning.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Conversion of energy into matter = Original research???[edit]

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

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

The CCI[edit]

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

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

August 2014[edit]

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

Also here: List of tram and light rail transit systems--Ymblanter (talk) 15:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I cannort stress enough that there's no discussion at the moment, apparently there's someone called Instantball earlier this year and they all think anyone who think HKG flag is appropriate for use is that only user. It's just not possible to talk in the situation like that. GB Lothian (talk) 11:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
And this is the reason you decided to edit-war.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
They decided they don't want a discussion. More confusingly, they don't even allow a compromised consensus they agreed in the previous talk. They revert the edits just based on the people they think I am. (Which I am not)GB Lothian (talk) 12:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

is KYIV russian city?[edit]

Тобі нічого робити, «брат-словянин»? Це ж українська столиця - а ти маєш свою москву. Того з тебе й досить.--Бучач-Львів (talk) 14:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Ik spreek geen Oekrains.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Haven't translate? --Бучач-Львів (talk) 14:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Great, at least you speak English. I do not speak Ukrainian and I am not sure what you want to tell me.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Так у тебя ж родной русский - судя по личной странице. Или неправда? Что, не понимаешь братский украиский язык? Пользуйся переводчиком, рlease. I can speek Ehg so-so. Только если ты действительно хочешь ДЕЛАТЬ правдивый взнос в Англвики, или хотя бы немного поразмыслишь - украинским языком КИЇВ. Я ж не заставляю тебя говорить Москва, не пишу Moskva, Maskva. Так будь любезен - не выдавай русское название КИЄВА Киев за УКРАИНСКОЕ. Если только ты не разделяешь «великорусских» взглядов - тогда мне нечего с тобой говорить. Потому, что разговор з тем, кто не желает слышать правды, не имеет смысла. Московская оккупация Украины закончена. Спасибо россии за всё. СЛАВА УКРАЇНІ!--Бучач-Львів (talk) 07:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Бучач-Львів--Ymblanter (talk) 07:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jennifer Rubin (journalist)[edit]

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


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

I know. But I still do not want to be desysopped.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
This isn't a situation where one gets desysopped. Of all people I should know.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
This is a banned user or people indistinguishable from a banned user fucking up these pages. This is something you get a barnstar for.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Nabih Berri[edit]


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

Thank you,

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

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

dear admin,

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

thank you for reading

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


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

At this point, I do not see why they should have been denied access to their talk page. Just stop talking to them, that's it.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I am trying to extend the olive branch. And someone who's been wiki-stalking me has been communicating with him as well.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to give him one last chance to answer my question because I've sugested he could be unblocked because checkuser results were apparently not a 100% match but close enough.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Materialization (paranormal)[edit]

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

There is an ANI topic currently open for that article.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, started by a party and only being commented upon by the parties.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

List of cultural heritage sites in Sindh[edit]

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

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

Fomenko and rude introductions[edit]

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

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

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

PC-protection on pages expiring on or before 14 September 2014[edit]

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

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

Allow LungZeno to demonstrate he/she is not a sock[edit]

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

Once they started to use their talk page to express their views on political status of Hong Kong it became clear that they are NOTTHERE. They still have e-mail, and you can continue discussing over mail, or they can mail to Arbcom appeal subcommittee.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
This is helpful. Thanks. I suspect his best bet may be Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee.--Nowa (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, given that the checkuser found a likely intersecction.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Missing Russian women writers[edit]

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

I can write about Sedakova, but not about others.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
It actually already exists, and Yunna Morits as well. I will check the others.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
If there's any missing women writers from here and the sub categories it would be great if you could list them! Not asking for you to write articles, just to identify what is missing and redlink!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Olga Aleksandrovna Sedakova listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


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

Sorry to template you, Ymblanter. And thank you for correcting the link to the Russian category on the worklist. As far as I know Olga Sedakova doesn't have the patronymic Aleksandrovna, but I could be mistaken. We're still in need of an article on English Wikipedia for ru:Седакова, Ольга Александровна though. gobonobo + c 03:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
My fault, thanks for taking it up.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Adam Baldwin[edit]

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mexican War of Independence[edit]

Face-wink.svg Thanks PKT(alk) 16:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Kirghiz Soviet Socialist Republic[edit]

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Oathkeeper[edit]

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

List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft[edit]

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

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

1993–94 New York Rangers season‎[edit]

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

Yes check.svg Done, for a month--Ymblanter (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, most appreciated! Resolute 14:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Integral Liberal Arts Program[edit]

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

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


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

I see, thanks. I only added those which I have just created on Commons, and apparently there was a caching problems so that I did not notice this.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, it sometimes takes a few minutes to pull through.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 1, 2014; 15:32 (UTC)

Putin khuilo! edit warring[edit]

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

You were edit-warring against several people, which is a blockable offense.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
No I wasn't. You decided that I was. (talk) 14:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
"Deciding that" is a privilege admins have. As another, uninvolved, admin, I fully concur. If you continue in the same vein, you will be blocked. Please review WP:EDITWAR to learn more about what is considered edit-warring and what isn't.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 2, 2014; 15:04 (UTC)
И ты, брут... (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Dobrolet (low-cost airline)[edit]

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

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

Your protection of Stephen Collins[edit]

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

(talk page stalker) @Lithistman: Page protection is preventative, not punitive. Wikipedia protects Saint Patrick's Day every March in anticipation of vandalism. Likewise, protecting the article about Stephen Collins after the recent news is only wise precaution. Feel free to "hash out" these issues at the talk page or simply wait until the protection is lifted. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, there was heavy edit-warring, I obviously checked the page history. The last dozen of edits were reverts, and they even involved five editors. On the other hand, if consensus has been reached at the talk page (which was not the case at the time of protection), pls ping me and I will unprotect the article, no problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
I guess we just have different definitions of "heavy edit warring", which is fine. One edit in the previous 6 hours seems (to me) to not represent that, but if you've reexamined and still think protection is necessary, then that's that, I guess. LHMask me a question 17:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Miss Intercontinental pageant[edit]

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

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


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

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

Covert vandalism[edit]

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

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


RFPP stuff is usually pretty thankless work. So thanks for the pending changes protection of Sistine Chapel. I genuinely believe that will reduce the pointless drive-by vandalism there. Keep up the good work. Cheers, Stlwart111 11:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Patrick Dangerfield[edit]

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

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

Adam Baldwin[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

An apology[edit]

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

No problem. I still feel though that people heavily editing in the area should be aware of the discussion. If the closed is a native speaker of English, they must be able to figure out what arguments are valid.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I think it is fairly obvious how the discussion is going to be closed. As you may imagine, I don't agree with the outcome. There isn't much to do, though. It greatly harms the encyclopaedia. RGloucester 20:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
If it gets closed in favor of the oblasts, I do not see how it harms the encyclopedia. We have French departments, Japanese prefectures, Turkish vilayeti, and I believe none of them makes any harm. Oblasts are no worse than these.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, the word "prefecture" isn't Japanese (it is English), first of all. In fact, in Japanese, there are many different things that are all translated into English as "prefecture". These are the ken, fu, , and to. "Ken" are bog-standard prefectures, "fu" are urban prefectures, "dō" literally means "circuit", and "to" is usually translated as "metropolis". However, in English, these are called lumped together as "prefectures". Try renaming the prefectures of Japan page as "ken, fu, , and to of Japan"! "Department" is an English word. The word in French is département. Furthermore, we do not have "vilayets" of Turkey. We have Provinces of Turkey. To be frank, I have no idea how to even pronounce "vilayet", even though I have great familiarity with the Ottoman Empire. Next time you try to use the word "oblasts" for Ukrainian regions, try and think about how absurd it would be to refer to Kyoto Prefecture as "Kyōto-fu". RGloucester 20:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
No, I do not find it absurd.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Japanese Wheat gluten Fu.JPG
You'd like to rename Kyoto Prefecture as Kyōto-fu? Does "fu" mean anything to you? In Japanese, it means nothing either, without the Chinese character 府 to parse the meaning. The sound on its own (ふ) could refer to many different things. As an example, see the picture at the right. That is a type of wheat gluten called fu in Japanese. Merely that the Chinese character is different (麩). Would you still like to rename Kyoto Prefecture as Kyōto-fu? What exactly is "Kyoto wheat gluten"? RGloucester 21:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Buffalo vandal strikes again[edit] (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) appears to be the latest sock of (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) and a reincarnation of (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks). Useddenim (talk) 03:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

RFPP. YLSS (talk) 09:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Protected for a year.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 19[edit]

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

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

Eliane Chappuis[edit]

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

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

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

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

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

Please comment on Talk:The Game (Queen album)[edit]

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

RE: CPSU Central Committee members[edit]

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

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

October 2014[edit]

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

Great, go to ANI and complain that multiple editors are not happy with your constant reverts. In addition, here you removed info about administrative amd municipal divisions without any explanations, copied it into several unrelated articles, and started edit warring when I tried to return the info. Usually such activity soon or later results in blocks.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
And your message here contains personal attacks again.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
And you are clearly a sock, so that we do not need to collaborate. Sorry.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Squidward Tentacles[edit]

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

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

Halloween cheer![edit]

Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome :) –Davey2010(talk) 17:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer![edit]

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

Request for mediation rejected[edit]

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

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

Weekly Shōnen Jump[edit]

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

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


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

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

Thanks for the tip. It would be great if you could open an SPI. New editors do not behave like that, and they create too much disruption anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
FYI, SPI for Conradi. Pinging User:Iryna Harpy as well. Even if he's not a sock (and I'm quite convinced it is), he's highly disruptive. No such user (talk) 14:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
No such user, there's a definite resemblance to Androoox aside from just the fact of hitting the ground running from the moment the account was created. Even if a new user is extremely organised in terms of the changes they want to make to the organisation of Wikipedia's administrative territories, categories, etc., the plausibility that they could acquaint themselves with more technical aspects (redirects, renaming categories, et al) without pausing to draw breath would have to be highly unlikely. More to the point, although it's not uncommon for new users to be paranoid about harassment and being attacked, even manifestations of Derianus and Androoox's behaviour runs along parallel lines: obliterating any perceived negative comments on their own talk pages with derisive edit summaries and attacking/accusing other users of tendentious editing.
By the same token, of course, the MO could be coincidental. Nevertheless, Derianus is really running amok. S/he has shifted and changed large tracts of Wikipedia based on executive decisions with no attempts at communicating with other editors, or trying to establish consensus until pushed. Even there, no interest is displayed in curtailing his/her forward push according to their personal 'grand plan'. At best, the user is WP:NOTHERE, but I'd suggest that s/he is simply a WP:TE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for following up on Derianus's disruptive behaviour. I'd only just booted up for the day when I saw that, not only had you opened another ANI, but it had already been closed. Unfortunately, I'd missed the earlier one you'd opened before it was closed. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
No, I actually only opened one ANI which was closed yesterday evening.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I could have sworn... Well, I guess it's official: I'm senile! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Aha, I just realised I confused the Kenfree ANI and Derianus. They've all been merging into one big POV blob of aggression. Keep up your admirable cool-headed approach. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Kenfree was unsuccessful--Ymblanter (talk) 06:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Averil Power[edit]

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

Yes check.svg Done for 12 hours, it is usually not a good idea to protect talk ages for a long time, especially since the article has been protected as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, hopefully it will be enough to discourage the vandals. Snappy (talk) 18:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[edit]

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

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

Armyansk Urban Okrug listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


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

Feodosia Urban Okrug listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


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

Feodosiya Urban Okrug listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


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

Yevpatoriya Urban Okrug listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


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

Saki Urban Okrug listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


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

Sudak Urban Okrug listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


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


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

By translate you mean transliterate? According to WP:RUS, it is Komarov, Nikolay Pavlovich. There is an article in the Russian Wikipedia, ru:Комаров, Николай Павлович, not sure whether this is the guy you need since the name is pretty common.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes thats what I meant ... Question, is this guys name Валентин Месяц really Valentin Month, seems like a strange name. He was a member of the 27th Central Committee as well as serving as First Secretary of the Moscow Regional Committee (de facto governor). Sincerely, --TIAYN (talk) 22:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Valentin Mesyats is a real person. The name is Ukrainian I guess.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:32, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Another one; Чаплин, Николай Павлович .. Its transliterated as "Nikolay Chaplin" - Chaplin can't be correct, can it? See 13th Orgburo of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks). --TIAYN (talk) 21:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
It is correct, and I am actually suprrised we do not have an English article about him, he was pretty well known.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:58, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
The problem with Western writing on the Soviet Union is that very much has been written about Stalin, and some about Lenin, Khrushchev and Gorbachev. Its not so much about the system as the leading men, however, the field seems to be improving, with works on Stalin's comrades being published as of late; for example, a book entitled Stalin’s Team: The Years of Living Dangerously in Soviet Politics, will be published next year - but you have to wonder why no one has thought of publishing such a book when Nazi German provincial mayors get their own biographies. One of the reasons why I'm planning to apply for Russian courses at the university is so I can get access to the Russian books (which have more range, and I'm guessing more closeness to the subject). Anyhow, another question is Дании́л Сули́мов best transliterated as "Daniil Sulimov" . I literally can't get any hits on it. --TIAYN (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it is Daniil Sulimov. You may want to check WP:RUS, it is pretty much straightforward.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion[edit]

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

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

User: [edit]


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

Yes check.svg Done--Ymblanter (talk) 15:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


Barnstar of Reversion Hires.png The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thanks for your good work, Huldra (talk) 22:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Galactic envoy[edit]

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

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

Pirates of the Caribbean (film series)[edit]

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

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

Reference Errors on 8 November[edit]

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

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

SNL season disruptions[edit]

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

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

PC-protection expiring on or before 15 November 2014[edit]

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

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

Undid revision 633090702 RT article[edit]

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

Look, you opened already a dozen of threads of this, and in every single one there is a convincing consensus that the tag should not be there. May be you should learn to respect consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Please respect WP:NPOV: "This policy is nonnegotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editor consensus.". It doesn't depend on the editor consensus if the tag is up or not, the purpose of the motion is to verify the claim if a consensus for not npov tagging even exists, but not that this consensus supersedes general WP:NPOV policy.Spotter 1 (talk) 14:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
The policy does not say you can disrupt Wikipedia by opening new and new discussions and keeping the NOPV tag for the durations of these discussions. It says in fact that you can and should be blocked for such activity.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
There are no new discussions, the points I made are quite consistent and answering to accusations on different pages doesn't qualify as an opening of a new discussions. Replying to a revision is also not a new discussion but a follow up.Spotter 1 (talk) 15:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
... and disrupt Wikipedia, you are not "wikipedia".Spotter 1 (talk) 15:11, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
{{Reflist-talk}} put by  Revi 17:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for intervening[edit]

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

Sure, no problem. To be honest, I am tired of "new" users who are now showing up in highly contentious areas and start edit-warring or disruptive editing pretending they are not familiar with the policies.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
The most frustrating and exhausting part is that, rather than getting on with improving articles, every moment is consumed with patrolling existing articles and cleaning up the messes left behind. Assuming good faith becomes an inhuman feat of endurance. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Buzequity Edit Reverts[edit]

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

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

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

Most of it was unsourced and original research. Please also read WP:BLP very carefully before you continue editing Wikipedia. Unsourced and poorely sourced accusations are reverted immediately.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. By this definition of original research, the unsubstantiated claim of 13 million business valuations is original research, to wit "facts, allegations, and ideas - for which no reliable, published sources exist". Why is this allowed on BizEquity page?--Slowestonian (talk) 07:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Try to understand it, and if you start editing before you get the point, I will block you for an indefinite duration of time, given that you do not have a single good edit here.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
You refuse to listen to reason. Who are you to issue these threats? Who gave you the right to block other editors on a whim? What is your authority here and how do I appeal it? --Slowestonian (talk) 08:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
You said you have read the policies? They have answers to your questions.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, being new here it seems to me you have some admin privileges. However, according to Wikipedia policies, you must not use the admin tools against an editor with whom you have a dispute, see WP:Administrators. Your revert is an obvious example of disagreement. You seem to ignore my arguments offered in good faith in defense of my edits. Please desist from making threats, it does not sit well with new editors. --Slowestonian (talk) 09:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I do not have any dispute with you. You do not seem to be an editor in good standing, not having made a single good edit, and I am perfectly entitled to block you for an indefinite duration. The only reason I have no done it yet is that I still have some slight hope that I am mistaken and you genuinely want to learn how to edit.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Infelicitous wording[edit]

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

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

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


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

I am indeed completely uninvolved, the problem is that I have very little time until the end of December. I will try to have a look today and estimate whether it can be done relatively quickly or not. If not, I will come back here.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I think I first misunderstood the request. I added now the page to my watchlist and will try to react, but until the end of the year expect long delays from me.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


  • I don't doubt your goodwill. Maybe you and you will stay away from Ukraine.--Бучач-Львів (talk) 09:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
    May be you should finally read policies. I am going to edit any topic I like, at least before someone imposes editing resrictions on me.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Malaysia Flight 17[edit]

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

Both avenues would work, though my personal preference would be that AE or Arbcom case be filed by a third party. Further threads at ANI about this topic are useless and should not be opened.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
AE is not productive, in this case. A new case should be drafted. RGloucester 21:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Also fine.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
The question is, who should write the case? RGloucester 21:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I think that should be whoever is fed up with what is going on at the article and at the talk page. It could be one of the sides who believes that the other side blatantly violates policies. It could be also a neutral user tired of seeing all this shit around on a regular basis. I do not think I should do it: All my attempts (a few) to resolve the situation, including the last ANI filed, led to me being reverted, some users claiming I am a POV pusher, and neutral admins somehow assuming I am representing one side of the conflict and want to get advantages. But my main point was that this shit should not return to ANI, and I believe there is consensus for this. It has been there many times, and no action was ever taken, even when there were several reverts of the same material within hours.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, I'm not that familiar with the arbitration process. I've not been involved in the article, though I've been plenty involved in other Eastern Ukraine conflict matters, as you know. I'm not sure I feel comfortable writing such a case, for that reason. However, I do think a case needs to be brought forward. RGloucester 21:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Let us see, may be someone takes the initiative.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
@Iryna Harpy: I'm sure you don't want to be burdened with this nonsense, Iryna, but you are better at dispute resolution than anyone else that edits in this topic area. I'd be happy to help with drafting a case, but you strike me as a good candidate for bringing it forth. If you're interested, it would be appreciated. Otherwise, I'd appreciate any suggestions on editors that might be good for the task. RGloucester 21:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't think any of 'us' (and I use 'us' as a descriptor for those who do their utmost to abide by policy despite any personal positions on the issues being addressed) want to be 'burdened by this nonsense'. For the sake of the project, however, we are obliged despite the desire avoid it. I wouldn't be able to even pretend to approach renewing discussions as a genuinely neutral party as I've had heated dealings with all of the editors I consider should have been topic banned long ago.
AE isn't a desirable venue as it would require user by user submissions or a 'bulk' submission. Both methods are bound to end as protracted fiascos ending in stalemates (read as too messy and confusing for admins to have any desire to follow through on trying to work out what's what as the result of lobbying) or, even worse, the wrong editors being penalised. A new Arbcom seems to be the only method of reviewing positions taken and their pro and con arguments. Given my history with parties I'd consider to be tendentious editors of the most disruptive kind, I certainly am not in a position to present a case as a genuinely neutral editor. By no means should this be interpreted as my backing away: it simply means that I need to consider a strategy by which I'm able to open a new case striking at the heart of the matter. That's not an easy task as we know that the same editors feature on dozens of related articles making the same accusations, and disrupting content development using the same strategies.
The third option - being that of enlisting an editor who has the requisite mediation skills, neutrality, as well as the intellectual prowess, to open a fresh Arbcom - leaves me with only one person in mind. I would be reticent to call on him as he's currently bogged down in articles surrounding affairs in the Middle East. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Whatever we do, we ought to it quickly. Letting this fester is not likely to produce positive results. Luckily, ArbCom cases don't require huge amounts of overhead, as the Arbs do most of the fact-finding. We simply need a 500 word statement and some diffs. RGloucester 00:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Agreed that speed is of the essence. I know that Yaroslav is sick to death of a recent spate of sheer idiocy from socks and new muppets trolling all issues surrounding Russian and Ukrainian articles, so I'm going to assume that he would like to be informed of the Arbcom but, understandably, doesn't want to be involved putting the submission together. If it's okay with you, Your Grace, I'll email you with my take on the problems plaguing the article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Go right ahead. RGloucester 03:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Shall do. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I am not sure what you agreed about, but please keep in mind that a new arbitration request will probably be rejected on very simple grounds: this subject area is already covered by discretionary sanctions. If anyone has complaints, he/she must be able to present their case on AE, especially if this is something of a limited scale (a specific user or specific article). New arbitration can be opened only if AE administrators decide they are not capable of dealing with a new case presented to them. My very best wishes (talk) 03:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
DS are not the sole purpose of arbitration. WP:ARBEE isn't working, and we can show it quite easily. RGloucester 03:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
How can you "show it" when there's been no AE requests in relation to this article so far? Or are you talking about other Ukrainian conflict related AE requests? Stickee (talk) 04:45, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
No man, AE is working. My very best wishes (talk) 04:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
By and large, the purpose of WP:ARBEE is for uninvolved administrators to enforce discretionary sanctions at their discretion. Arbitration Enforcement, i.e. WP:AE, is not meant to be applied to whole articles, or to large groups of editors, but only to one particular editor at a time. Instead, per the "WP:ARBEE discretionary sanctions", administrators are supposed to comb the talk pages and articles and make judgement calls about disruption, sanctioning where appropriate. That simply hasn't happened. The one administrator who said he might start enforcing the sanctions fled, fearing threats on his life. The result is that there has been chaos at the article, no enforcement whatsoever. AE is not the solution. The solution is ArbCom. RGloucester 05:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Admins have no obligations to enforce anything. An admin decided not be involved in something - this is their personal matter. This happens all the time. If the problem was with an article, this has to go to AE - there are specific article-level sanctions. But honestly, this is just one of many "hot" articles around, and I do not see any reason even for AE complaint. BTW, this your edit shows poor judgement. My very best wishes (talk) 05:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
My very best wishes and Stickee: while AE may work to a limited extent for individual users, it hasn't worked for investigations of POV pushing by numbers of users on any given article for a long, long time. As I noted above, bulk submissions are a waste of energy. The only way to address problems is to bypass individual users in favour of examining the development of an article and serious policy-based infringements by contributors to a given article. Yes, AE is fine for a single contributor who is easily identified as going against policy. It is useless as a method of identifying targeted articles and establishing en masse patterns across numerous articles, particularly as the same tendentious editors are travelling together in order to impact on the content of an entire genre. Policies and methods of dealing with problematic editing practices have not always existed. When they being to fail and are probably due for revision, there is no reasonable argument for returning to these venues where admins do not wish to participate for genuinely valid reasons. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
This article is already covered by discretionary sanctions by Arbcom. What else can you possibly want? My very best wishes (talk) 14:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Article sanctions are possible, as are sanctions and admonishments for editors found to be disruptive. RGloucester 14:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Which brings the question: what is disruptive, exactly? For example, it is disruptive to waste other people's time by filing unsubstantiated accusations and complaints to various noticeboards, such as ANI, AE, or arbitration requests... Do not do it. My very best wishes (talk) 16:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
It is for the arbitrators to decide whether someone's behaviour is disruptive, not mine. RGloucester 16:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I only provided you a peace of advice (do not do it) and explained why, since you said that you are "not that familiar with the arbitration process". Good luck! My very best wishes (talk) 00:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Brenton Thwaites[edit]

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

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

Your unexplained reversion of my RT edit[edit]

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

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

Dushanbe Tojikiston Soveti[edit]

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

It might be difficult, but I will have a look.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I wonder if it's this one. If so, it was established way before 1955 (when it was renamed for the last time) and does not contain "Dushanbe" in the title.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 19, 2014; 16:09 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

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

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


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

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

Please comment on Talk:St. Francis Dam[edit]

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

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

Article protected changed[edit]

You had protected an article and yet they have changed it: . It is filled with bias, and I exposed them on the discussion page. Could you please revert it? Thanks in advance. (talk) 23:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Deletion of No1 Model of the World[edit]

Hi there,

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

Yes check.svg Done--Ymblanter (talk) 06:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection[edit]

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

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


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

"Washing my hands" is correct, I only protected the page because I witnessed disruption. I encouraged discussion as that's how you resolve the matters that lead to the page having to be protected. RGloucester, if these SPAs were "assaulting" you as you say, you should report to a more relevant venue like WP:ANI. I would have not blocked them anyway, even if warranted, with your continued inquiries on my talk page it may have appeared I was persuaded to side with you. To be clear, I have not looked into any of this at all. My involvement ended with protecting the page, and I stand by that. — MusikAnimal talk 20:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I am perfectly uninvolved, since I know nothing bout the subject, and five minutes ago I did not even know that the subject exist. I see two problems here. First, usually we let merger discussions run for a week, or even longer, if the discussion is ongoing. Second, I see indeed a large number of opposes from new users, who were obviously canvassed from an external site (in this case, the best way of dealing with them would be to write in small print that they have very few or no edits outside this page. Typically, such votes are discounted by the closer, or at least given little weight. However, at least superficially, I see several opposes from users in good standings and with a long tenure. My guess is that if the RM gets to run its way the most probable outcome would be no consensus, and this is unrelated to SPAs. For the time being, since you closed the discussion and merge the article anyway, I would let it stand as it is, but if someone would want to unclose the discussion and to undo the merge, I would not say that this is completely unreasonable.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Ymblanter, the merge discussion started 34 days ago. It was obviously stale. There has been no real discussion for weeks, other than a few SPAs making a muck-up. I agree that there were a few opposes from users in good standing as well, but I've refuted their arguments, as have others. I've taken pains to show that reliable sources do not support the existence for such a school of thought. All you need to do is read the last version of the article before my merger, which will show you that this article was nothing more than a coatrack. There is nothing more convincing than actually reading what was written in this article. If you read it, you'll see why I did what I did. Policy does not support the existence of this article. Reversion of the merger would be a disaster for Wikipedia, and would facilitate more disruption by these SPAs. RGloucester 21:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Then I probably only found the second part, which started on Nov 29. I will have a look again.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I see, it is 29 October, not November. Good, let us then leave it where it is now.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Would I be wrong in asking you to semi-protect that page? If an editor reverts my merge, I'm fine with that. I don't think, however, that SPAs or IPs should be allowed to manipulate the page. We know that they are there, and we know that there is severe disruption. Links to the offending websites have been provided. Isn't that enough to justify a semi-protection? RGloucester 22:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
That would amount to a preventive protection, and I would rather not do it. However, I added a redirect to my watchlist. If an SPA starts disruption, I think I could handle this.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
An IP has begun restoring the article, and is now engaging in personal attacks. RGloucester 21:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I was offline. I see that it ha been helped already.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
No problem. I'm happy that this problem is finally resolved. RGloucester 07:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
It has been resolved for a month, b ut I continue watchlisting it.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I shall be doing the same. Thanks for your previous assistance. RGloucester 20:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Request to close stale merge proposal[edit]

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

I will have a look in the (European) evening if nobody taks it before that. I have now six hours of teaching ahead.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:22, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Please unprotect death of Eric Garner[edit]

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

There have been vandalism from non-autoconfirmed accounts though, and there are too many of them.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • If you say so. You may have analyzed the revision history more thoroughly than I did but I still don't agree with you. Just out of curiosity though, can you see who's autoconfirmed on the history page itself or do you have to hit "contribs", count the number of edits and then hit "user rights" to find out date of creation like the rest of us?-- (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2014 (UTC)Aka Googleman
    No, one needs to check the userrights, but a red talk page and a red userpage are good indications that a user is new.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • In case you are not paying attention to some cabal IRC right now, let me ask you myself. Are you ok with another admin overturning the protection?-- (talk) 15:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)aka Googleman
    I am not on IRC. Yes, I am fine with an admin overturning the protection assuming sound reasoning has been presented.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


Sorry, I saw it now;

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

It is possible, theough usually is applied for retired users. I can fully protect it if this is really what you want. Just wanted to double check.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Please go ahead. :) I think I have some kind of paranoid about my userpage being edited by others :p  Revi 17:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done--Ymblanter (talk) 17:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks; btw, please make the template small.  Revi 17:22, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

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

No problem, thanks for handling this.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Just a note, the page was on semi before your full protection. Perhaps it should be returned to semi again? Stickee (talk) 02:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
It was on semi because the IP reverted the redirect to the previous version. Now it is not needed. The page is watched by a bigger number of administrators than it had ever been watched, and I am sure they will react if there is any disruption ongoing.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

WFAHM - Voyeur[edit]

Dear Ymblanter, I spend a whole day in creating a wiki-article for the missing last Album by WFAHM, adding cover artwork, links to articles and a brief text about. As detailed as others did for the previous albums. Less than a second after I posted it, it got deleted, and I don't understand this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kausalitaet (talkcontribs) 17:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

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

America: Imagine the World Without Her[edit]

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

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

CC articles[edit]

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

I will have this in mind. For 27 and 28, many people are actually still alive.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
That I now, but the main problem with the 28th is I can't find their birthdates (az-lib seemed not to have created entries on them). And as you may know, people don't always die of natural causes; Alexander Dubček died in a car accident of all things. --TIAYN (talk) 11:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Junaid Jamshed[edit]

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

Yes check.svg Done--Ymblanter (talk) 06:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Requesting page protection on Adele[edit]

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

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

Eurasian Economic Union[edit]

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

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

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

Number sign[edit]

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

Yes check.svg Done--Ymblanter (talk) 19:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. -- Calidum 19:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Spectre (2015 film)[edit]

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

Hi again[edit]

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

Yes check.svg Done--Ymblanter (talk) 21:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Again, in the spirit of shortening titles, could you move Secretariat of the Communist Party of China Central Committee to Secretariat of the Communist Party of China? It would be similar to the Secretariat of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the Secretariat of the Communist Party of Vietnam and the Secretariat of the Lao People's Revolutionary Party. Thanks. --TIAYN (talk) 17:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done as well--Ymblanter (talk) 17:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Could you please...[edit]

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

Yes check.svg Done--Ymblanter (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas[edit]

Christmas tree sxc hu.jpg
Merry Christmas!!
Hello, I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,

Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia! Face-smile.svg

   –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 19:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, also merry Christmas to you.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome and thanks :) –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 19:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Derek (TV series)[edit]

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

Yes, but vandalism gets reverted pretty efficiently, and there are clearly good edits from IP. I am hesitant to semi-protect, and the traffic is too high for pending changes, but you can of course leave another RFPP request, citing this thread (to avoid automatic rejection).--Ymblanter (talk) 16:52, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
I disagree that it gets reverted efficiently in this case. It is the legitimate content that gets vandalized efficiently in this case. I've erased the same vandalism three or four times already in the last 48 hours, manually, even after some bots acted on it but failing to remove it. I see some registered users doing the same. Anyway, will proceed as suggested. Ultranol (talk) 18:08, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Deletion:Bamidele Ojo[edit]

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

PS:, 26 December 2014 (UTC)Del2003 (talk)

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

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

Darwin Zapovednik[edit]

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

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


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

Sorry, this is not what Wikipedia:WikiProject Rivers#Naming says. I would appreciate if you stop renaming items counter to consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:16, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but the only places where "Foo River" is the proper name are the USA and Canada - if you look at the examples you will notice that. The problem is that some editors, especially in Eastern Europe, have used "Foo River" as a disambiguator instead of "Foo (river)" and then others seems to think we add the word "River" to all rivers in English - we don't. Please stop reverting changes that are in line with the convention and Wiki practice and have a discussion at the project page if you're still not happy. I promise not to change your Russian river articles... --Bermicourt (talk) 19:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
You have already renamed a Russian article. Please stop renaming until you present RS - and let us start with Latvia and Finland. If you continue renaming, I will take you to ANI.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2014 (UTC)