User talk:Ymblanter/2016

Happy New Year, Ymblanter!

Happy New Year!

Ymblanter,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 11:13, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Thank you, also happy New Year to you.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:15, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Ymblanter!

Happy New Year!

Ymblanter,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:43, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Thank you, also happy New Year to you--Ymblanter (talk) 21:44, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Shivanshsinghrajpoot

You blocked this editor, and I see he's been blocked before. Could you take a look at the history of Government Polytechnic Soron Kasganj? I tightened up the article, including removing his name from both the list of students and the caption space in the infobox, but numerous IPs have been restoring some of the stuff I removed - and some that I condensed and moved to another place in the article. If the IPs are not him, I imagine they are his friends. The thing is, he/they are not doing any favors for the institution, in my view, with such trivia. I also cleaned up several of his other articles, and I'm concerned that unless he comes to understand the reason why I and others make such changes, he will continue to create very poor articles. I wrote him a note on his user talk after the first such IP appeared after his block. Maybe you disagree with some of my thinking, including with some of my changes to the articles; I'd also like to get someone else to look at them, to make sure I am not being overly harsh. Maybe on the other hand you can get him to listen so he does something more useful, like looking for sources. Thanks for reading this rambling statement, anyway :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 13:33, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I semi-protected the article for three weeks for persistent disruptive editing and I am prepared to protect it again if disruption continues. Adding the list of students is definitely over the top. I suspect the IPs are the same user evading the block, but I am not good at filing SPIs (and I believe CUs will never comment on the correspondence between IPs and a registered user). Anyway, now they have to go to the talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Ymblanter: Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters. North America1000 10:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

Thank you, also happy New Year to you.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:05, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

User:GeorgiaWikiWriter

Hello Ymblanter,

I have warned User:GeorgiaWikiWriter several times because of his disruptive editing and edit wars. He was also warned by @Flyer22 Reborn: and @Kunalforyou: but he ignored us all. I believe he is a pure vandal that should be blocked indefinitely. One of the last edits he made was on Westboro Baptist Church calling it "a group of fucking morons." His behavior needs to be addressed asap. Thanks. Jaqeli 16:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Blocked 48h --Ymblanter (talk) 16:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

He doesn't learn his lessons. After he got unblocked he is again vandalizing the redirects over Chichua article. This just needs to stop. Thanks. Jaqeli 10:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I do not see anything wrong with their edits after the expiration of the block. The name of the article should be properly discussed, and they seem to be participating in the discussion as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

He has moved the page to non-existent names like "House Chichuaa", "House Chichua", "House of Tchitchua". House of Chichua does not exist. This is just some petty Georgian noble family and he since got registered here is pushing into an aggrandizement of this surname and this needs to stop. Jaqeli 10:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I do not feel myself comfortably enough to intervene in this situation. You can try asking at WP:ANI but I am afraid chances are not very high, you would need to build up a fairly convincing story.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:37, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Just a question, is this user allowed to edit Armenia-related articles? I see he is TBAN'ed but interested if this applies today as well. He had made some Armenia-related edits recently. Jaqeli 07:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks like they are topic-banned from Armenian articles, see [Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log|here].--Ymblanter (talk) 08:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Recreating James Dumont Article

I have heard that the James Dumont Article has been deleted on October 5, 2015. I would like to recreate the article because he has been in big films such as Dallas Buyer's Club, Ocean's Thirteen, Lee Daniel's The Butler, and Jurassic World. He has also appeared in shows American Horror Story, Wild Card, Ravenswood, Hide, and Harry's Law. He has worked in numerous tv shows and in film, so should I remake it.

The easiest is to use the mechanism of articles for creation, create a draft and then let it get reviewed by community members. Otherwise, if you are sure the person is notable you can just go ahead, but there is always a chance the article could be nominated for deletion. Unfortunately since James Dumont does not seem to ever existed, I can not poin you out to the deletion discussion. Once you try to recreate the article, there should be a link.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

blocking of 14.140.220.82

The history of 14.140.220.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is rather complicated. The article {{la|Indian Badminton League]] (IBL) was usurped to Premier Badminton League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (PBL) somewhere about 18 Dec 2015, possibly by Vpgautham. The article was then moved to PBL by someone not involved and IBL redirected to PBL. 14.140.220.82 initially tried to add IBL info to the IBL page here but was informed here No, the article has been moved. So, it would appear that 14.140.220.82 has been trying to un-usurp PBL and restore it back to IBL. I thought the anon was attempting to remove the copyright vio tag. If I had known that, I would have directed the anon to IBL and resolved the redirect concern. I have since copied the anon's text back to IBL. (Not sure how to recover the page history properly here). Anyway, while the anon has been non-communicative, I would suspect that if pointed to IBL, few problems would occur. I request you either remove or reduce the block time. Best regards Jim1138 (talk) 05:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I just saw that the same IP was blocked for a week in September and thought a month is appropriate in the situation they are massively edit-warring. I can reduce the block to 10 days or smth. If you need a history merge, please let me know.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I now agree with you. It would appear that Arvabhi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is 14.140.220.82 reincarnated. Same edit thrice at this point. Neither respond to questions on their talk page. There are news sources stating IBL is rebranding to PBL. Interesting though, the IBL website is still up and does not mention the name change that I have seen. Request withdrawn! Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 10:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Supdiop4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi Ymblanter - could you block block-evading Supdiop4 as a sock of Supdiop? Thanks -- samtar ^whisper 08:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Already done, thanks Euryalus--Ymblanter (talk) 08:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

On the ball @Euryalus:! Thanks anyway -- samtar ^whisper 08:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Football records in spain

Thanks for protecting the page. However, you have forgotten to keep the article in the consensus version. A user just reverted a few seconds before you made the protection. Can you please revert it back to the consensus version? Thanks.SupernovaeIA (talk) 21:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

No, please read WP:WRONG VERSION. Sorry for that.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I did read it. And again you have made the same mistake. Please at least put it in the consensus version. The other user again sneaked through before you protected. SupernovaeIA (talk) 12:28, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

This is not my task to decide which version is correct. And you both will be blocked soon for six reverts anyway--Ymblanter (talk) 12:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm curious to know why you have simply blocked the two editors yourself? You don't appear to be involved and this hasn't attracted the attention of other admins. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Probably too late by now, it would look punitive. I wanted to have a second opinion, but it was not forthcoming.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!

I'd have given you a barnstar, but you don't like those. :) Thanks for helping out with ZOIDKIN - I figured that there was some mischief involved, but I wasn't quite sure from whom. You definitely saved the day here! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure, you are welcome.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• On a side note, I'm not entirely sure what to do with all of the Rajeshbieee pages. I've sort of stopped for the time being since there's a small chance that he could be unblocked and one of the requirements was that he go through all of his pages and deal with them, but I don't want to let them sit either. (sighs) I figure I'll start going through and at least get rid of a few more of the obvious ones, like the articles for the films that never released. I want to start back up with them, but if there's a slim chance that he may be unblocked and have to do the work instead of us, then I'd like to give him the chance to do this. Part of his unblock requires that he have an uninvolved mentor to assist him, but so far I don't know that there are any takers in this situation. Ah well. Still, we have to focus on the positives - we managed to help someone earlier! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  To be honest, I am pretty sure this is a sock - and the fact he says he is not but can not explain the incidence in the user name is not really helping, but we definitely need to wait for CU's. I user to PROD one article from the list per day, I guess I need to resume this.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

IP hopping by Alexiulian25

Hello, 31.192.108.216 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is the latest IP of Alexiulian25. Please block. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Noel Gugliemi

Thank you for the protection at Noel Gugliemi. Per this Tumblr screenshot, IP editors have found it funny to go through and reinstate what's displayed. Seeing this was what caused me to begin reverting on the page. Such protection should deter them. Thanks again. Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure, no problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Page protection

Hey Ymblanter, could you protect this page again? I saw you protected it some time ago, hence why I thought I'd bring it up to you. The same IP hopper is namely at it again with his persistent disruptive editing. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Configured pending changes instead.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Спасибо )) - LouisAragon (talk) 14:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Vera Songwe

I suppose she could have done a post-doc or something at Michigan, but I accept your reading as better than mine. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 04:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

That is exactly what I thought, but postdoc would for my qualieified as "worked", not as "studied", and I tried to write it in the most general way. Let us see, may be some other sources would show up at some point.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

ahmed saad al azhari

Hi Ymblanter I was hoping you would find the time to help me? From my limited knowledge for Wikipedia I managed to write my first article 'ahmed saad al azhari', however unfortunately it was deleted (by you I think?). I need to re-edit the page to make it less promotional. How do I do that as the ariticle is now deleted? Would I need to create a new article under the same name? To make matters worse, I have chosen a user name that makes it appear the subject of the article is the writer - where this is not the case. I am not Ahmed Saad. Please also could you give me general advice in areas I need to pay attention to on the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmedsaad.ihsan (talk • contribs) 22:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Could you please provide the exact name of the article? I do not remember anything about it, and without knowing why it was deleted it is not possible to recommend anything.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure, the link for the deletion log is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Saad_(Islamic_Scholar) I wanted to rework the article to focus on independent sources. However I still need to refer to some sources that has a relationship with the subject for factual information only. Is this ok? I just don't want to create another page again and get ahmed saad al azhari blacklisted from Wikipedia! Thank you for your time Ahmedsaad.ihsan (talk) 20:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I think there does need to be an article on him, as he seems to be quite a prominent Islamic personality in the UK and abroad. He has appeared in newspapers and was a panelist with Lord Cary on BBC's Doha Debates. Ahmedsaad.ihsan (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I see. There was a deletion discussion which I summarized, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Saad Al-Azhari. If you can find reliable sources which demonstrate his notability, then the easiest is to start Draft:Ahmed Saad Al-Azhari, and, when you are ready, nominate it for move to the article space.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good, I will get to work! Thank you for your help. It was my first article. Do you think I should create a new username? I don't want the community to think I am Ahmed SaadAhmedsaad.ihsan (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

It is up to you. You can also ask to be renamed, then the contribution gets preserved.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Football records in Spain again

With protection on this page having expired a few days ago, edit war has started up again. Could you please block the editors involved. Thanks. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I blocked one, though they are quite predictably unhappy.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Likely sock

XxKimJongUnLoverxX is probably the same as the guy you just blocked. Just wanted to let you know. Thanks, GAB^Hello! 21:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, blocked this one as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

People’s Artist of the RSFSR

Hi, hope you're well. Any chance you could start the missing article at the end of Larisa Avdeyeva? Russian wiki article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:05, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I will have a look later today. It should be in principle possible.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

i'm not a sock account

well first of all my "42" edits are correcting my own spelling mistakes but i wont bother doing it in future

also the sources i include the bellingcat team which you are happy to have as a source when it reinforces the pro-nato and pro-maidan narrative however based on new "research" by eliot higgins he states that the russian army crossed the border which completely contradicts the nato story that the rebels captured a buk system and for the record the ukrainian army also states that NO BUK WAS CAPTURED from them so both kiev army and bellingcat {eliot higgins} state that the german BND are wrong when the claim rebels captured a buk

you threaten to block me because even with the pro-nato journalist sources i show you that you are absolutely wrong when you delete information from them in an effort to peddle a narrative that even the ukraine army says is wrong

and in relation to "odessa clashes" you very disgracefully implying the victims burned themselves with your "building caught fire in unclear circumstances" when the videos and sources clearly show firstly the building being attacked with petrolbombs and then the escaping victims were set upon and beaten with billyclubs.

and given pro- maidan volunteermarek has chimed in proves wikipedia has no interest in information sources if sources even pro-nato one's dont agree with versions peddled by kiev

So you're "not a sock account" yet somehow you know that I'm "pro-maidan" (WTFTI).Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

based on the pro-maidan garbage you have been peddling yes marek you are pro-maidan ....you even call eliot higgins "unreliable source" when he posts info that doesn't support western narrative but when he posts a pro-kiev narrative he is totally legit why is it that bellingcat is a riable source for this .. but yet when bellingcat states this .he is an unreliable source why the double standards... And as for the trade union house "bursting into flames for no reason" apparently what you can see with your own eyes is not a credible source..OK then Bazzabobo (talk) 01:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not quite sure what the purpose of these messages is. First, you say I have done something I have not done (for example, I did not add or remove any Bellingcat sources, and I do not even have an opinion whether they are reliable. Second, it reads like you want that we make exceptions for policies for you (like WP:RS). I doubt this is going to happen. I still believe you are a sock, but as I said, at this stage I am not going to take any action based on this belief.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

References

AfD of Possible Interest

Based on your participation in an AfD for United States presidential election, 2020, you may be interested in this AfD. (This neutrally worded notification is being provided to every editor who registered a !vote in the aforementioned RfC, regardless of direction of their vote, and is therefore done in compliance with WP:CANVASSING and WP:VOTESTACKING.) LavaBaron (talk) 00:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Football records in Spain yet again

Sorry to keep pestering you with this, but now the other editor involved in the edit war on this page has now resumed edit warring also. Could you please block them as well. Thanks in advance. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I am now without internet for likely two days (just found one in McDonalds and need o run away in a minute); could you please post it at ANI or 3RRN indicating that one warrior was already blocked, and that I support the block in principle but have no time to go into details. Thanks, sorry for inconvenience.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Darts world rankings

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Darts world rankings. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Third time around at Bach Page and Bach Talk Page

Thanks for your page protection at the Bach page two weeks ago. The disruptive editor User:Francis who caused me to request that Full page protection has returned now a third time to continue edit warring and forum shopping on the Bach article. There is currently the history on the Bach article of your Full page protect of the Bach article, followed by another admin (MusikA) making a subsequent full page protect of Bach, followed by a third admin (SoftL) making a cautionary warning to User:Francis to follow RfC guidelines and to stop edit warring on the Bach article and the Bach Talk page. Other editors have complained about User:Francis's disruptive editing here [1].

I then rewrote the RfC into a format to allow User:Francis to bring his own version of the edit into the article by creating a separate section for him in the new RfC which I placed there last week. Instead, User:Francis then disrupted the new RfC announcement by pretending to be a co-author of the new RfC and changing its wording with the apparent intention of disrupting the RfC and deflecting all participation from other editors. The disruption of the RfC has led to a "broken" RfC with no participants joining the discussion following User:Francis's disruptive edits to the RfC.

This type of disruptive editing I have not previously seen and it has occured three times now. I can offer to rewrite a new RfC a third time to try to come even closer to consensus, but User:Francis is consistently disrupting the edits and edit warring. Since there are 4-5 editors who have requested the User:Buxte edit to the Bach article, with only two editors opposed, it seems that the original 4-5 supporting editors should be given their chance to at least have a fair RfC and to let it run the full 30-days. I can rewrite the RfC a third time if you think it would help since there does not appear to be another way to get past the three previous edit warring attempts by User:Francis. Since you were the original editor to place the Full Page Protection possibly you know the best way to ensure a stable editing environment for the RfC process on the Bach Talk page given this disruptive edit history by User:Francis. Could you glance at this. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

No, unfortunately I am travelling now and can not commit any time to this issue. You may want to try WP:ANI, and when it failes, WP:DRN.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Turning deleted articles into redirects

Just to let you know, that a number of deleted articles (such as here) will be turned into #REDIRECTS. This is done in the context of a major revision of:

• clean-up of non-notable articles (removal as per WP:NASTRO)
• fixing the List of minor planets#Main index (removal of self-redirects and redlinks)
• several subcategories in Category:Asteroids (consistency).

Only previously deleted articles with a formal "number-name" designation will be turned into redirects, while articles for unnamed bodies are generally not affected. Rfassbind – talk 08:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for letting me know.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Tom Baigrie page deleted

I would like to re-establish and re-edit the wikipedia page for Tom Baigrie, which was deleted in 2013. The individual has become more noteworthy in recent years across UK financial services regulation and business and there are now multiple sources to which this can be referenced. Would it be acceptable to reinstate the page under these circumstances? Mattmorris100 (talk) 12:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

No, I do not think this is a good idea. The best way is probably to create a draft in the Draft space and then nominate it for move to the article space.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

New talk section

In the Football records in spain, i have opened a new talk section. So dont accuse me no more saying I didnt notice the talk section. This has been done many times but admins are too lazy to see talk archives. SupernovaeIA (talk) 18:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

VISA REQUIRMENTS FOR TUNISIAN CITIZENS

I AM NEW IN WIKIPEDIA AND I EVEN DO NOT HAVE THAT TIME TO BE A PRO HERE, WHEN IT COMES TO THE PAGE OF THE VISA REQUIREMENTS FOR TUNISIAN CITIZENS THE PAGE WAS BLOCKED PLEASE TRY TO READ ALL ITS TALK PAGE TO UNDERSTAND THAT MANY PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO GIVE INFOS IN OTHER WAYS AND THANKS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Majdiii (talk • contribs) 22:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

It was blocked because all these many people could not agree with each other and started edit warring. Try posting on the talk page of that article and agree with other users.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

MediaWiki_talk:RefToolbar.js#ref_names_needing_quotes

День добрый. Не могли бы вы поправить эту ошибку? Гаджет используется и в рувики (напрямую с енвики), а так у нас имена сносок зачастую на кириллице, то это становится проблемой. Исправить нужно в функции getQuotedString (я не знаю, почему там проверяется только на вхождение кавычек и пробелов, а не оборачивается всегда). --Dima st bk (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Так для меня слишком сложно. Я могу исправить, если Вы мне напишете, какую комбинацию символов надо заменить на какую.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Я бы заменил

CiteTB.getQuotedString = function(s) {
  var sp = /\s/.test(s); // spaces
  var sq = /\'/.test(s); // single quotes
  var dq = /\"/.test(s); // double quotes
  if (!sp && !sq && !dq) { // No quotes necessary
    return s;
  } else if (!dq) { // Can use double quotes
    return '"'+s+'"';
  } else if (!sq) { // Can use single quotes
    return "'"+s+"'";
  } else { // Has double and single quotes
    s = s.replace(/\"/g, '\"');
    return '"'+s+'"';
  }
};

на

CiteTB.getQuotedString = function(s) {
  var sq = /\'/.test(s); // single quotes
  var dq = /\"/.test(s); // double quotes
  if (!sq && !dq) { // Always quotes for non-latin alphabet
    return '"'+s+'"';
  } else if (!dq) { // Can use double quotes
    return '"'+s+'"';
  } else if (!sq) { // Can use single quotes
    return "'"+s+"'";
  } else { // Has double and single quotes
    s = s.replace(/\"/g, '\'');
    return '"'+s+'"';
  }
};

тогда оно будет ставить кавычки везде. --Dima st bk (talk) 10:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Исправил, проверьте, пожалуйста, что работает--Ymblanter (talk) 11:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Работает, спасибо. --Dima st bk (talk) 12:38, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

This was a request to edit mediawiki (the original request was filed at the talk page linked above).--Ymblanter (talk) 11:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Page Protection on Muhammad

thank you, thank you, THANK YOU!!! I have been trying to get an admin to help us out on this page for over 2 months with no avail. The one Admin, Neil, seemed to only hang out there to point fingers and "oppose" any potential solutions, without once freely providing any constructive direction or suggestions on how to resolve the MANY issues on that article (which as this is a highly sensitive religious topic, as one would expect are coming from two very borderline fanatical camps; both pro and anti-Islam). Today was a "miracle day" in that we actually made some very slight progress through compromise...and the usual suspects immediately slapped it down and reverted the page to back when they "ruled the roost". I've tryied RFM (they boycott it so their tactics won't be known outside the board), I've tried the DRN, where the assigned admin is pretty much afraid to do anything....is there ANYTHING we can do to get on-going, RATIONAL admins attached to simply look at proposed changes, the supporting proof/citations and foster a consensus? The "usual suspects" who will not accept anything from one side or another will very quickly make themselves known and can be subsequently banned from those topics, and it may be very easy to manage after that. Trinacrialucente (talk) 09:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

If DRN already failed, and Arbcom case would be the next step. Note that I am not going to be involved in the content, and to be fait, I do not even understand what the problem is. In three days, full protection would expire in three days, and I (or someone else) would just restore the semi-protection, that's it.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Putin khuilo!

There have been reverts this month. Extend PC? --George Ho (talk) 04:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 08:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Sheikh Fazlollah Noori

Last edit was a couple or few days ago. There have been reverts in December. Extend PC? --George Ho (talk) 04:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 08:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images

Could you look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images seems through the edit summaries....debate still on going while editing. Look this up-again?--Moxy (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I do not really understand whether the new edits are disruptive, and it probably would be better if a new administrator would loo at them.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Changing article name

Hi can you please help me: I would like to change the article Acer Iconia Tab to Acer Iconia (as i wrote in the page's talk page), since Iconia Tab is sub-brand inside the Iconia (which is the family of Acer tablets). The Acer Iconia article redirects to Acer Iconia Tab. So I would like to change the latter to Acer Iconia and redirect Acer Iconia Tab to it. Thanks, Rakoon (talk) 16:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 16:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Confirmation

Same question like here: Is that you? Greetings, Luke081515 16:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Seems to be abuse, thanks for spotting.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

(Global account log); 18:32 . . Luke081515 (talk | contribs | block) changed status for global account "User:Ymblanter@global": set locked; unset (none) ‎(Abusive user name: per https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=702955887)

Locked that accoutn global at beta. Greetings, Luke081515 17:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. This is fine for the time being, but if I would need to edit beta, whom should I ask to rename the account so that I could open one in my own name? You?--Ymblanter (talk) 17:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Page Protection

Ymblanter, thank you for protecting the MEDRS page during the dispute. I wanted to make you aware of the history of this ongoing dispute. Several months ago, we tried solving everything on the talk page, and when it appeared we wouldn't get anywhere, I filed an RfC on the page. The result came back that we should, indeed, make the change but a few editors on the losing side of the RfC had a problem with it and edit warred 1 2 3the change from being implemented. I tried resolving the dispute with them by contacting the closer, Elvey and he answered questions and confirmed the close. Yet these editors persisted in edit warring, so another editor, one who actually agreed with the close, filed for an administrative review here instead of going to drama boards to get these disruptive editors blocked. Upon review, an administrator, Jamesday, reviewed the close and made changes. So after filing an RfC and having it closed and some editors edit warred that result for months, an administrative review (which should have solved it) was decided, implemented, and that's also being edit warred by this same group of editors. I know you were unaware of the long history there when you told us to take the dispute to the talk page, we've done that and practically everything else and these editors are still disruptively edit warring valid changes from being implemented. At this point, is there something else that should be done? LesVegas (talk) 18:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I am afraid WP:DRN is the only viable option. If there are only one or two users edit-warring against clear consensus, you can try WP:ANI.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

OK thank you very much! LesVegas (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I was pinged. A single admin could have taken direct action when editors were wp:edit warring against consensus especially when it's based on an RFC. That doesn't require a visit to ANI, as I understand policy. What policy says that's wrong? --Elvey^(t•c) 03:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Once you have an admin willing to take such action (who has read through the RfC, studied the page history, looked at the contributions of the edit-warring users etc) the problem is usually solved. The problem is how to find such admin.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• LasVegas' description of the underlying dispute is quite tendentious. The RFC was sharply divided (I didn't say "closely divided", I said "sharply") and the close (by Elvey) has never been accepted as valid by the editors who "lost" the RfC, and there have been battles ever since. A Close Review at AN was finally opened. JamesDay did not formally close the Close Review and did not frame what he did as such - he boldly suggested a solution to the conflict, which has also not been accepted. (if you look at the two diffs LasVegas provided, the the subsection at AN where he described his approach is called

  "A decision of sorts from a previously uninvolved administrator"

  , and the edit note with which he implemented his suggestion read

  Decision from long-term and previously uninvolved administrator: re country of origin RfCs and WP:AN discussion: new wording to say how to proceed if you wish to use this factor. See WP:AN discussion"

  (emphasis added) It was BOLD and interesting but out-of-process.

The issue is still wide open, and yes, both parties are still fighting about it on the talk page and via edit wars. In my view what we need is for the Close Review at AN to finish and be closed, formally and in-process. If that fails to settle it then it will have to go yet higher level of DR. Jytdog (talk) 07:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

In any case, I am not going to take any action right now (except for page protection and blocking of occasional socks if pointed out. I do not even have the page on my watchlist.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your support

Thank you for participating in the Women in Music edit-a-thon
	January 2016 More than 250 articles were created Hosted by Women in Red (... check out our next event)

--Ipigott (talk) 09:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

No activated

Hello Ymblanter you forgot the activate the protection for 6 months Dyan Castillejo's article no log here [2] Oripaypaykim (talk) 11:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Strange. Protected now anyway, thanks for spotting.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

And it continues

With last round of protection at Football records in Spain having worn off two days ago, the on-going edit war has started up yet again. Considering its a small number of editors involved in this edit-war over very particular issue, might I suggest blocking the editors involved instead of protecting the page. If you look at the talk page, you'll find an uninvolved who doesn't seem to understand page protection, and who is growing increasingly frustrated with not being able to edit the page. Cheers. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 16:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

And now we get this. Could you block this editor as well please? Thank you. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, you just warned them, so it would be good to wait now. But generally I think the whole situation should go to ANI, since this is a long-term disruption.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk page vandalism

My talk page has been vandalised on five occasions ([3] [4] [5] [6] [7]) since your "block". Please protect the page as requested, instead of just blocking random IPs for block evasion, and please make it longer than three days. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, this is not a way you should request a favour. Please ask another administrator. I am not under obligation to protect your talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I already made a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, and you went and made an edit there some two minutes later. I'm only asking because you blocked the IP only one minute after that, and you were the one who helped me before. I'm sorry, I don't mean any disrespect; I just want to stop my talk page from being vandalised. It's now been vandalised seven times since the initial block half an hour ago, and nine in total from earlier. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done. I protected it for three days, since I believe this is an adequate duration of protection for a talk page. We will se what happens after the term expires.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Hopefully by that time, this pest will have gone away. Regards, 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Jaz Banga

Hi there,

About 4.5 years ago I created a page about "Jaz Banga." I saw that you recently deleted it. It had not been updated in a while. Would it be acceptable to re-build the page with better or more recent citations? I'm looking for your advice and thoughts since I only occasionally create tech industry related pages.

Thank you, TrinaMark — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrinaMark (talk • contribs) 00:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I deleted it following my summary of this discussion. In principle, there is nothing wrong with recreation of the article, but the best practice is to do it in the draft namespace (and when you are ready asking users to review the article) and definitely showing notability as in WP:N.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

From TrinaMark:

Got it. Thank you for the feedback. It's appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrinaMark (talk • contribs) 22:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Вопрос

Здраствуйте уважаемый Ymblanter, как я здесь смог поставить отметку патруля [8] ?, если я не имею флаг патрулирующего ?--6AND5 (talk) 15:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Думаю, что страницы участников могут патрулировать все автоподтверждённые участники. Скорее всего, Вы нажали на соответствующую надпись снизу.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Спасибо, да я нажал, просто интересно было...--6AND5 (talk) 14:42, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Ahmed Saad Al-Azhari

Hello again

I created a page for an individual known as Ahmed Saad Al-Azhari, under the username ahmedsaad.ihsaninstitute. Anyway the article was rightlfuly deleted by you, and the account was deleted by Orange Mike. I have written the article again and I hope it meets your approval.

I think there should be an article on him (previous attempts used too many references from the chaps website). I am trying not to make it promotional, however I feel there needs to be an article on him due to his media appearances and influence in combating extremism.

I also wanted to get advice from you in terms of getting the article (should it meet yours and the communities approval) among the top hits on google. On searching 'Ahmed Saad Al-Azhari', firstly I can't find it at all on google, and secondly, the top hits are promotional, therefore I think a well referenced, unbiased account should be among the top hits i.e. my article on him.

what do you think? Best wishes, Imran Imran 108 (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry, but this is not really my area of expertise. You may want to try a corresponding Wikiproject and ask there for help, or may be ask at the Teahouse. Concerning Google, this is not possible, the position in Google search results does not depend on what we do with the article (or if it does we do not know how it does).--Ymblanter (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Ymblanter. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

- LouisAragon (talk) 00:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Suresh

Despite infrequent editing, none of IP edits were very good. Renew PC? --George Ho (talk) 18:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 18:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

IP: 71.174.135.36

Thank you for your recent block on the above IP. However, they appear to be countering block evasion by editing under IP:71.184.177.154. Can I suggest that the pages concerned are protected from IP editing for a reasonable period of time? Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 22:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

About that thanks

Sorry about that, I used the wrong account. Sigh. Good protection; I'm going to extend it for another few days, as his death is going to be a political furor. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you should be sorry about, but thanks anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Gegard Mousasi

There is just one revert after semi-protection ended. Renew PC? --George Ho (talk) 03:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

It is on my watchlist, do not worry.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:04, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Steve Corcoran

Hi, you removed the page "Steve Corcoran" can you explain why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.119.109.194 (talk) 22:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I implemented this decision: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Corcoran (2nd nomination)--Ymblanter (talk) 06:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that

Ah, I didn't see that Volosovsky Municipal District was under Volosovsky District.

The whole "XYZ District" vs. "XYZ Municipal District" is confusing. I'm not sure if "XYZ District" is wrong (except when it isn't -- I don't know if all the raion were renamed, or what happened), or if it's just short for "XYZ Municipal District"... if the average person in the street (and, more importantly, the average newspaper/website/book editor) is continuing to use "XYZ District" then it's OK with me... unfortunately English language sources are hard to find at this level... anyway, thanks for looking over my work. I created Bolshekolpanskoe Rural Settlement as an adjunct to Rural settlement (Russia) (if you wanted to look over that one I'd consider it a kindness) sort of so I could point to it and say "Want an example of a rural settlement? Go there".

(P.S. sorry if I was testy over at Talk:Arkhangelsk... I'm not usually like that but I do get that way sometimes... it's a weakness. You won, so that's that, and congratulations.) Herostratus (talk) 09:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

P.P.S. I'm particularly vexed by how to render Большие Колпаны / Малые Колпаны... as always, I'm most concerned with getting fully idiomatic English, to the extent possible (and I believe it's always possible)... I just can't think of any examples of Big / Small in America... we do East XYZ and so forth... "Little Italy", yeah, but that's very informal... I guess Americans don't want to live in "Small" anything, heh... Great Barrington gave me Great Kolpany, but what to with the other one... I went with "Lesser" but that sounds odd to me.... maybe Little Kolpany... dunno. Herostratus (talk) 09:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for creating the article and raising the points. I asked Ezhiki, who is our guru in the administrative/municipal divisions of Russia, to look at the article and to comment. Let us wait for him and then discuss.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your work and erudition. If Ezhiki wishes to make a ruling regarding XYZ District vs. XYZ Municipal District (which could entail the renaming of many articles) I will support whatever he says. Also it's entirely possible I got stuff wrong at either this article or Rural settlement (Russia) and any corrections would be welcome (as is true of all my efforts, of course). Herostratus (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

No, that would not result in the renaming; at least for Russia, we standartized everything about the districts. I started making redirects today, and will continue, but this is optional anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

OK that's fine. Yes, redirects solve many renaming issues... Herostratus (talk) 20:47, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi!

I came across this edit. I am trying to understand what happened. The blockreason: "Personal attacks or harassment: likely compromized" is a bit puzzling. I am unable to see his most recent edits because they were hidden. Should I leave a message on his talkpage and ask what happened? Has someone hacked his account or something like that? The Quixotic Potato (talk) 16:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

There was a long ANI discussion. I do not have a link now handy, but it must be in archives around the date of the block.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 16:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

No problem. If you cn not find it, pls leave me a message, I will try after work today.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, maybe I am stupid (probably), but I tried this search and 3 of them seem to be unrelated and the last one is rather short, so I think you are referring to something else. The reason I am asking this is because I talked with Leo about improving the Hypocrisy article and he was really into kindness and stuff like that, not really the type to get blocked for PA's. If you can find some info I would really appreciate it. I am not in a hurry. I am thinking about leaving a message on his talkpage in the hope that the real owner of the account would respond so this may give some useful background info. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Found it: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive912#LeoRomero--Ymblanter (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I see, you found it as well. I do not know anything else.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah, that ANI discussion was not very long. Ok, thank you. I will post a message on his talkpage. Can he still use his talkpage? The Quixotic Potato (talk) 16:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, he has talk page access enabled.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again. I have left a message. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Mind dropping a small comment regarding your opinion?

Hey Ymblanter, would you mind placing your opinion briefly here? (bottom) It's about a comment you had made some days ago. I believe Damianmx is twisting your words, so I thought it would be at least fair to let you know. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 17:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Andrei Kobyakov

I have cited the seven years he served as Deputy PM. Are you contesting the reliability of EABR as a source? If you revert again I will seek a third opinion. Curro2 (talk) 19:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

As I said, please improve your communication skills and learn how to edit Wikipedia first.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, if you dont know how to edit Wikipedia, please refrain from contributing at all. You are on the verge of violating WP:3RR. You have improperly moved a reference. Nowhere in the reference does it identify the dates he served, only the position he held. Curro2 (talk) 19:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

May be you should learn to read as well. You clearly have difficulties.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I have reported this lovely interaction to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Curro2 (talk) 19:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Harut111/Archive

Здраствуйте уважаемый Ymblanter. Одна проблема есть, но может быть я на английском не очень хорошо буду объяснить, поэтому Вам пишу. Я думаю, что участники user:El-ßäbrega и user:Harut111 это разные участники, так как участника El-ßäbrega почти все знают в лицо, его зовут Норайр. Его для армянской Википедии проверили ЧЮ на мете m:Steward requests/Checkuser/2015-01#1221nor@hy.wikipedia в начале 2015 года, там нашли много его учеток, но Harut111 не был в этом списке, а он был активен в это время в армянской Википедии. Поэтому я думаю, что они разные люди. Я и Норайру на армянском Викицитатнике написал, но пока он не ответил.--6AND5 (talk) 20:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Я в это влезать не буду, но напишите, что участника проверяли на мете, они разберутся.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Veriko Anjaparidze

I'm not sure what's disruptive about my edits to this page or why including her full name is contrary to WP:LEDE as you suggested. Quite the opposite, WP:LEDE specifically states: While a commonly recognisable form of name will be used as the title of biographical articles, fuller forms of name may be used in the introduction to the lead. For instance, in the article Paul McCartney, the text of the lead begins: "Sir James Paul McCartney"... I think the problem is that you have developed an antagonistic relationship with me from day one and you Just Don't Like It that I edited a page that you created. Since you're an administrator and so fond of wiki rules, perhaps you should consult WP:OWN.--Damianmx (talk) 21:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I have not edit warred over this article, in fact, it is ironic that you're raising this issue considering that you yourself have an ANI lodged against you by another user precisely for editwarring. My assertion that you operate on WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT looks increasingly correct but you think that because you're an administrator you can talk down on me for one thing and yet get away with the same.--Damianmx (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

On a related note, there is no such thing as an "Iberized" name, Russian people do not own the name Vera simply because its Russian, just as Greeks don't own names like Sofia.--Damianmx (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I do not have ANI lodged against me, this is your phantasy. And could you please try to epress your ideas in a single edit and at one page. I edit-conflicted with you today already four times.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

"Ivlianovna" is Russianized.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Ivlianovna is indeed a Russian spelling but that's not what I wrote is it? I wrote Ivlianes asuli, which is Georgian for Ivlianovna. You said you didn't mind the "Iberized" Georgian version, yet through your revert you effectively removed the Georgian spelling and reinstated Ivlianovna.--Damianmx (talk) 21:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry that I have to repeat it for the third time. I am not going to do it for the fourth time, please read carefully. I am fine with replacing Ivlianovna with Ivlianes asuli, though it is not my preference. I am not fine with starting the lede with Vera Ivlianes asuli, because per WP:LEDE it should start with Veriko.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

And let me also once again repeat WP:LEDE which specifically states: While a commonly recognisable form of name will be used as the title of biographical articles, fuller forms of name may be used in the introduction to the lead. For instance, in the article Paul McCartney, the text of the lead begins: "Sir James Paul McCartney"... In other words, the Article Title will follow the most common name, but the introduction to the lede can and may contain a fuller name, which is what I inserted. --Damianmx (talk) 22:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mumiy Troll

I cannot see any consensus for this article to be closed as "keep". Your closure looks like a supervote to me. While I agree that the article should be kept, it would be more appropriate for you to comment on the discussion to explain your rationale why this should be kept, instead of closing it in this state. sst✈^(conjugate) 00:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I closed it under understanding that participation in the final of the Eurovision Song Contest makes the group notable according to WP:NMUSIC, and, since it was pointed out in the comments, I closed the discussion (similarly to like if a subject of the AfD nominated article suddenly is discovered a member of the parliament, the discussion should be closed as keep even if it is all-delete votes). Now, looking at the policy, I see that it can be read differently, and I would not object reopening the discussion - though, to be honest, I do not see a single chance how it could be closed differently from keep. The band is simply notable, with thousands independent sources existing even apart from the Eurovision.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Your deletion of WIP

Please see the following: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/World_Institute_of_Pain. I originally created the article and actually can't recall how or why the RfD managed to slip past me but it doesn't matter at this point. The following link is a RS that helps confirm World Institute of Pain's notability, [9] as does their journal, Pain Practice, which is a peer-reviewed medical journal with an impact factor published by John Wiley & Sons on behalf of WIP, further making it a clear pass of WP:NJOURNALS. In summary, the WIP is the sponsor of a notable journal, world conferences, symposia, and workshops, I don't see how it would not be considered a notable scientific institution; therefore, worthy of an article. Since you were the acting admin who originally deleted that article, I would very much appreciate your approval to recreate it. Thank you in advance. Atsme^📞📧 15:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Would it be ok if I move it to your userspace, you review the problems raised at AfD, modify the article and then move it yourself to the main space?--Ymblanter (talk) 16:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely and thank you kindly. Atsme^📞📧 02:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Here you are: User:Atsme/World Institute of Pain--Ymblanter (talk) 06:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Ymblanter need your help once more, please. I moved the article and created a redirect. Now that the article is up in mainspace, do I request a SD for the redirect? Atsme^📞📧 20:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I will take care of this, no problem--Ymblanter (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Uh oh - it's gone. Can't find the article anymore. Atsme^📞📧 20:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I was merging histories - now it is back.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

50km Walk.

There is no need to explain what WL means on an Athletics page, the same as their is no need to explain what PB, stands for or WR or OR. WL is a well known acronym for World Leading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basetornado (talk • contribs) 17:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I will take it to the village pump.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Unexplained abbreviations in articles?--Ymblanter (talk) 17:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sallekhana

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sallekhana. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Nitasha Kaul (February 25)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Nitasha Kaul and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to say, a very bad call.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello! Ymblanter, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Onel5969 TT me 13:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

If you;d care to submit iut, I'll accept it. (it would be even better to have reviews of the books, but that can be added later). DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, will add a couple of more sources and resubmit tonight.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Asian Championships and other sports events that deleted by you

Sphilbrick, this admin delet many correct page because of the selfishness and stubbornness and this vandal and Destructive user Mohsen1248, he prevent any edit and creat in sports events.

hi and please help from delet Sphilbrick admin. You just deleted many article because not adopt parsa amoli and allfutsal ip. You should not have deleted them because it was contested. Please restore the articles. A banned user might have created it, poorly, but it is a valid subject and if nothing else, their research and typing can be used if I or someone else chooses to improve upon it. the user Mohsen 1248 has a Destructive role that prevent to creat any new pages and any edit in sport events page. He with this destructive behavior caused others angry and make vandalism. He takes prevent any creation or constructive modification. he make the sports pages to his personal property. all of pages you delet have a correct and usefull content. 1996 concaf futsal many years not exist. The removal process is inconsistent with the values of Wikipedia and Of the selfishness and stubbornness. thanks a lot. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mohsen1248 • 19:12, 25 February 2016 Sphilbrick (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:World Judo Junior Championships (G8: Talk page of deleted page "World Judo Junior Championships" (TW)) • 19:12, 25 February 2016 Sphilbrick (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:Asian Junior Wushu Championships (G8: Talk page of deleted page "Asian Junior Wushu Championships" (TW)) • 19:12, 25 February 2016 Sphilbrick (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:World University Wrestling Championships (G8: Talk page of deleted page "World University Wrestling Championships" (TW)) • 19:12, 25 February 2016 Sphilbrick (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:Asian Wushu Championships (G8: Talk page of deleted page "Asian Wushu Championships" (TW)) • 19:12, 25 February 2016 Sphilbrick (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:Asia Pacific Bridge Federation Championships (G8: Talk page of deleted page "Asia Pacific Bridge Federation Championships" (TW)) • 19:12, 25 February 2016 Sphilbrick (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:World Judo Kata Championships (G8: Talk page of deleted page "World Judo Kata Championships" (TW)) • 19:12, 25 February 2016 Sphilbrick (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:World Pencak Silat Championships (G8: Talk page of deleted page "World Pencak Silat Championships" (TW)) • 19:12, 25 February 2016 Sphilbrick (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:Asian Sailing Championships (G8: Talk page of deleted page "Asian Sailing Championships" (TW)) • 19:12, 25 February 2016 Sphilbrick (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:World Para-Taekwondo Championships (G8: Talk page of deleted page "World Para-Taekwondo Championships" (TW)) • 19:12, 25 February 2016 Sphilbrick (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:Asian Junior Taekwondo Championships (G8: Talk page of deleted page "Asian Junior Taekwondo Championships" (TW)) • 19:12, 25 February 2016 Sphilbrick (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:World Judo Veteran Championships (G8: Talk page of deleted page "World Judo Veteran Championships" (TW)) • 19:12, 25 February 2016 Sphilbrick (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:World Military Wrestling Championships (G8: Talk page of deleted page "World Military Wrestling Championships" (TW)) • 19:12, 25 February 2016 Sphilbrick (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:Asian Sumo Championships (G8: Talk page of deleted page "Asian Sumo Championships" (TW)) • 19:12, 25 February 2016 Sphilbrick (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:World Junior Taekwondo Championships (G8: Talk page of deleted page "World Junior Taekwondo Championships" (TW)) • 19:12, 25 February 2016 Sphilbrick (talk | contribs) deleted page Tiger's Cup/World 5's Futsal (G 5 (TW)) • 19:12, 25 February 2016 Sphilbrick (talk | contribs) deleted page Asian Tenpin Bowling Championships (G 5 (TW)) • 19:12, 25 February 2016 Sphilbrick (talk | contribs) deleted page Sitting Volleyball World Championships (G 5 (TW)) • 19:12, 25 February 2016 Sphilbrick (talk | contribs) deleted page 2000 CONCACAF Futsal Championship (G 5 (TW)) • 19:12, 25 February 2016 Sphilbrick (talk | contribs) deleted page World Judo Junior Championships (G 5 (TW)) • 19:12, 25 February 2016 Sphilbrick (talk | contribs) deleted page Asian Dragon Boat Championship (G 5 (TW)) • 19:12, 25 February 2016 Sphilbrick (talk | contribs) deleted page World University Wrestling Championships (G 5 (TW)) • 19:12, 25 February 2016 Sphilbrick (talk | contribs) deleted page World Judo Kata Championships (G 5 (TW)) • 19:12, 25 February 2016 Sphilbrick (talk | contribs) deleted page IFSC Climbing Asian Championships (G 5 (TW)) • 19:12, 25 February 2016 Sphilbrick (talk | contribs) deleted page IPC Athletics Asia Oceania Championships (G 5 (TW)) • 19:12, 25 February 2016 Sphilbrick (talk | contribs) deleted page World Para-Taekwondo Championships (G 5 (TW)) • 19:12, 25 February 2016 Sphilbrick (talk | contribs) deleted page FIRS Roller Hockey Competitions (G 5 (TW)) • 19:12, 25 February 2016 Sphilbrick (talk | contribs) deleted page World Junior Taekwondo Championships (G 5 (TW)) • 19:12, 25 February 2016 Sphilbrick (talk | contribs) deleted page World Military Wrestling Championships (G 5 (TW)) • 19:12, 25 February 2016 Sphilbrick (talk | contribs) deleted page Asian Finswimming Championship (G 5 (TW)) • 19:12, 25 February 2016 Sphilbrick (talk | contribs) deleted page World Judo Veteran Championships (G 5 (TW)) • 19:12, 25 February 2016 Sphilbrick (talk | contribs) deleted page Asian Kabaddi Championship (G 5 (TW)) • 19:12, 25 February 2016 Sphilbrick (talk | contribs) deleted page Asian Junior Taekwondo Championships (G 5 (TW)) • 19:12, 25 February 2016 Sphilbrick (talk | contribs) deleted page Rollball World Cup (G 5 (TW)) • 19:12, 25 February 2016 Sphilbrick (talk | contribs) deleted page ICF Junior & U23 Canoe World Championships (G 5 (TW)) • 19:12, 25 February 2016 Sphilbrick (talk | contribs) deleted page Asian Beach Soccer Cup 2013 (G 5 (TW)) • 19:12, 25 February 2016 Sphilbrick (talk | contribs) deleted page World University Futsal Championship (G 5 (TW)) • 19:12, 25 February 2016 Sphilbrick (talk | contribs) deleted page World Pencak Silat Championships (G 5 (TW)) • 19:12, 25 February 2016 Sphilbrick (talk | contribs) deleted page IFSC Paraclimbing World Championships (G 5 (TW)) • 19:12, 25 February 2016 Sphilbrick (talk | contribs) deleted page Asian Wushu Championships (G 5 (TW)) • 19:12, 25 February 2016 Sphilbrick (talk | contribs) deleted page Asian Sailing Championships (G 5 (TW)) • 19:12, 25 February 2016 Sphilbrick (talk | contribs) deleted page Asian Yoga Sports Championships (G 5 (TW)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngasianboys1 (talk • contribs)

I understand there is smth on Wikipedia you are unhappy with, but it is unfortunately impossible to understand from your message what specifically do you want. If you want the articles restored, talk to the deleting administrator first.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Nitasha Kaul has been accepted

Nitasha Kaul, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

DGG ( talk ) 16:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Great, thank you David.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Vladimir Putin

I am looking around for one or more experienced editors who might have an interest in the Putin article. As an admin I've received some complaints about the editing climate there. A glance at the talk page suggests incompetent dispute resolution. In the sense that, if the people had any patience, they might be able to come up with well-formed RfCs. That kind of thing. Russian speakers might have additional insight, and I know you've dealt with messy disputes as an admin. My contribution so far is that I banned one editor from the page under DS per a complaint at WP:AN3. Any thoughts about how best to handle this? If there is no hope of getting any cooperation from the most active editors then a month or more of full protection might be considered. One person suggested Arbcom but I consider this to be regular nuts-and-bolts admin work, unless people are too burned out. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I will have a look on what is going on in the article and come back here, hopefully today.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:48, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

@EdJohnston:, I just had a look. This is a situation which became typical for Russian and Ukrainian topic recently (see e.g. RT (TV channel) or Donetsk People Republic. There are essentially two parties, both consisting of experienced long-time users. (Occasionlly, new users show up; most of them are paid trolls and should be blocked as soon as possible, others are sometimes unfamiliar with our policies and are only interested to get THe TRUTH into the articles). Pro-Ukrainian (or anti-Russian, call them whatever you like) group is currently bigger and usually gets their way in most articles. Middle ground is usually ignored. Both groups claim the article is biased. If an article is protected at their version, they usually say this is a result of consensus; if it is protected at the opposite version they are somehow willing to discuss. 3RR is avoided by team-reverting. There is no good universal solution here. Possibly the article should be full-protected long-term (a month or smth), and the users should be forced to discuss at the talk page, preferably via well-formulated RfC (or series of those). There are two problems with this solution. First, they would need a moderator (for example, someone from DRN folks) who would clerk the RfC (help to formulate it, remove personal attacks etc). This is I believe solvable with some negociations. However, the RfC itself should have people outside the dispute, and this is a problem, since uninvolved users usually have no interest in going to the ethnic disputes, where one typically needs some background just to understand what the sides are talking about. And I do not have any good idea where all these uninvolved users would come from. May be if we are talking just about one RfC, it can be advertised at village pump(s). No, if RfC does not help or impossible to organize, DRN is another option, but I have seen DRN effectively derailed by the "winning" side who is not interesting in listening to the minority since they have their hand anyway. For arbitration enforcement or even arbcom I do not see much of a role here, if there are some users which are particularly disruptive they were most ikely already alerted of the existence of ARBEE sanctions, and some of them previously were sanctioned or even mentioned in the ARBEE itself, so that they can be immediately banned from the page without Arbcom. Sorry do not see better solutions at the moment.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:02, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Unblock request on hold

There's an unblock request at User talk:Spike1478, relating to a block you placed in 2013. You may or may not like to comment on it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, commented there that I do not object--Ymblanter (talk) 13:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Avi

Please come onto wp:aiv for a second because ti s filling up. 2602:306:3357:BA0:B1F0:2749:589C:B231 (talk) 18:35, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Did some work there yesterday.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:02, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Andre Miller

Hi! I was wondering if you could protect or semi-protect Andre Miller's page, please? There are a lot of anonymous posters trying to prematurely change him into a member of the San Antonio Spurs. At least until he officially signs with someone. Thanks in advance. Intruder007 (talk) 01:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done, for a week--Ymblanter (talk) 08:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! And I don't want to bother or anything, but could you do the same for Kris Humphries's page? He was just waived by the Suns and people are already making him an Atlanta Hawk. Again, thanks in advance. Intruder007 (talk) 03:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Did the same.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

You're the best. :) Intruder007 (talk) 06:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Similar requests to Intruder007's – could Ty Lawson and Kevin Martin (basketball) please be semi protected for the same reasons as above. Cheers. DaHuzyBru (talk) 12:36, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done, both for one week--Ymblanter (talk) 12:43, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Asia Cup

Hi! I was wondering if I could get permissions to change the points table for Asia Cup 2016. I have been fairly regular in creating / editing cricket related articles here on Wikipedia. Ankurc.17 (talk) 22:30 IST, 29 February 2016

This is not technically possible until March 12.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

The Daily Beast

The Daily Beast's Failure to disclose that a significant member of the Board of Directors of the IAC, as listed by Wikipedia, is the Daughter of one of the rival candidates when it editorialises that the rival is less electable is deceptive.... Spirot67 (talk) 19:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)spirot67

I am not American, and I do not care about the US elections. Would you please read WP:BATTLEGROUND.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting my edits to administration. I am confident that my edits are not biased. They basically state a truth which has important implications (and major conflict of interests) on balanced opinion when they editorialise on the Daily Beast when it comes to the prospects of the Democratic Primary Election 2016Spirot67 (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC) spirot67

With this attitude, you should not be editing Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I also am not an American, and I respectfully disagree with your last comment. I don't believe that comments and contributions should be censored or suppressed, BUT instead "are they true?". I look forward to WP administration's verdict. Have a nice day. RegardsSpirot67 (talk) 20:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC) spirot67

Wikipedia is not about adding the truth.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:17, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

→ Ok let's agree to disagree, but I'll await the WP-Administrator's verdict. Have a nice daySpirot67 (talk) 20:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC) spirot67

Samoylovich Nunatak

Hi. This is a result of an AfD regarding a different nunatak - please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tommeliten Rock. Simply makes sense for all these uncited geo articles, which will never be more than stubs, to be compiled into a single, well-cited list. Let me know if you still think AfD is needed, and I'll nominate, but was trying not to make more work for editors. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Give me a couple of days to look for sources, if I can not find anything, I will redirect it myself.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Cool. I'll hold off making any more changes to the list or the individual pages until I hear back from you.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I could not find anything reasonable, will be reverting back to a redirect.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Trump Entrepreneur Initiative protection March 6 2016

Could you make citations of vandalism that necessitated protecting Trump Entrepreneur Initiative? Was the effort directed towards my activities? and if so, why. There is so much lacking in the article and it needs to be enhanced to reflect the state of affairs as the issue heats up. I only see on prior vandalism attempt. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipietime (talk • contribs) 14:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I see two vandal edits by 2602:306:ce7a:430:6ce3:797b:acd3:7542 and four edits by McA**Hat, on the scale of one day. By my standards, this means that the article merits protection.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks.. I was editing and thought it may have been directed towards something improper by me, since I am still learning. --Wikipietime (talk) 15:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

No, this was not the idea. Happy editing.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raghunath Saran

Hi! Post the subject AfD, the article on Saran was deleted. I now found out that a certain Raghunath Saran has been recipient of Padma Bhushan award in 1962 in the field of Medicine. Through AfD I understand that the subject was a physician to the President of India. Can you please restore the article at User:Dharmadhyaksha/Raghunath Saran so I can check and work on the article and see if it's notable enough? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 10:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 02:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Aziz Sancar

There have been reverts, implying vandalism. Renew PC or upgrade to semi? --George Ho (talk) 22:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 06:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:RELIST

Re Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Driller (2nd nomination), WP:RELIST is quite clear: "if at the end of the initial seven-day period, the discussion has only a few participants (including the nominator), and/or it seems to be lacking arguments based on policy, it may be appropriate for the closer to relist it".

The above discussion is open from a month now, had over a dozen participants, four of them after the last relisting, and it is full of policy and gidelines-based arguments (more from one side than from the other, actually). I am involved as I voted there, but your relisting looks very inappropriate if not bizarre and suspect, there is no reason to relist a deletion discussion plenty of comments A FOURTH TIME and keep it open more than a month, except if the relistener does not like the current consensus and hopes to have a different one (trust me, I hate to assume bad faith, but that's what your actions here suggest). Please revert the relisting and let's have a close, one month is time enough. --Cavarrone 07:17, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

If you assume bad faith, go away. I am not going to discuss anything with you. There are several hundred administrators, and every signle one can close the AfD discussion any minute.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for dimonstrating my point. If you wanted me and others not assuming bad faith, you were simply supposed to explain WHY you relisted a one mounth old AfD with a clear consensus and with over a dozen comments for a fourth time, and you have not. I was extra-polite given your obvious violation of our deletion process, and receiving a "go away" response is just the proof of YOUR bad faith. You are not going to discuss anything with me because you have no suitable justifications, period. I have no time for now to scrutinize your past actions in this area, but it's better you stay away from AfDs, as long as you have not the competence, good faith and requested willingness to explain your actions. Bye! Cavarrone 12:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

If you do not assume good faith you should not be editing Wikipedia. Farewell.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Morgan dollar

Hi. Can you please reduce the protection of the article Morgan dollar? It was vandalized because it was the TFA yesterday. Thanks. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 20:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 20:53, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Putin is trying to destroy Western countries by inundating them with refugees from Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Syria, Ukraine and others which he is now bombing and planning to bomb in the future. He is building up and deploying nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles, perhaps, to bomb the United States. Some time Western countries should begin to resist his military aggression, and the sooner the better. Psychiatrick (talk) 23:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to contribute your spoken voice to Wikipedia

Please would you record your spoken voice, for the article about you (in English, and/ or any other languages which you are comfortable speaking)? See WP:WikiVIP for guidelines. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Andy, I am aware of this project. May be later.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:20, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

History of Iran

What have I edited that is wrong? Why are all my edits in History of Iran being reverted without any explanation? I just want to be treated fairly. If there is something I have wrongly edited, I am willing to compromise. As mentioned, bullying me and reverting my work without any explanation is unjust. This is in poor character. (2600:1001:B12D:24C8:1946:8B25:7E87:D3FA (talk) 20:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC))

Because you remove material without explanation.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Only material I removed was the unreferenced geographic area of Greater Iran. The article Greater Iran mentions the geography. This is about the history of Iran, geography of Greater Iran on the lead is not necessary. I am will to know why it is so important to have it on the lead. So, why were my edits where I improved the paragraph removed? I removed no content there. (2600:1001:B12D:24C8:1946:8B25:7E87:D3FA (talk) 20:29, 18 March 2016 (UTC))

I do not care about what you are willing to know as soon as you are removing material and edit-warring. Please stop doing it and discuss the issue at the talk page of the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I clearly mentioned my reasoning to the editor. I CLEARLY told the editor to explain in the talk page. But he refused to do so. Instead he went to name calling. You clearly read it, but you decided to take a partisan and unethical position by taking a side on a dispute, after you clearly read what was happening. You are not maintaining good ethics. (2600:1001:B12D:24C8:1946:8B25:7E87:D3FA (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC))

This is your responsibility to go to the talk page, per WP:BRD.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

User:24.157.56.12

Hi, Ymblanter,
You blocked this editor for "block evasion" and included a link to an edit from 2015 that mentions a different IP editor. Can you tell me which blocked editor you believe IP24 is and the basis for your suspicions? Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I included this link in the blocking rationale. Additionally, they made three reverts in India-Iran relations.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I see, this is not what you asked. The edit I referenced is identical to the four edits IP made today.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

So you believe that this IP editor is a sock of Bladesmulti? Because LouisAragon who he was warring with (who also made three reverts) did not believe it was the same editor (User_talk:Andrevan#India.E2.80.93Iran_relations). Can we ask a checkuser to check? Pinging @DoRD:. Because if it is Bladesmulti, a longer block is warranted, if not, well it's a case of mistaken identity. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I have no problem with checking, though even if this is not a sock, edit-warring restoring four times a long edit previously rejected means a block in my book.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@Liz: Given what I remember about OccultZone's location - thousands of miles from New Jersey - it seems unlikely that this IP is him. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:36, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks DoRD. Liz, do you want me to reblock them for edit-warring?--Ymblanter (talk) 21:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, I think that would be a good idea, just to establish the grounds for the block (which I hope you will shorten to 24 hours). I know that the IP shouldn't have added so much content without a talk page discussion but LouisAragon's response wasn't stellar either, they both edit-warred. I don't know why the edits, over a year apart, were so similar but there seems to be a fundamental difference of opinion on these "History of X" articles about how much history is covered in the article.

I appreciate you reconsidering your block. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I reblocked them for edit-warring and shortened the block to 12h. I still do not like the similarity of the edits, but let us give them the benefit of the doubt.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Ymblanter, @DoRD:, @Liz:, I also don't necessarily think that the IP is directly connected to Bladesmulti, even though he reinstated a very peculiar edit of him and for the fact that its known that Bladesmulti very occasionaly hops in. What I however do strongly believe and am sure of (99%) is that the edit-warring/disruptive IP whom Ymblanter has blocked,[10] is the exact same WP:SPA IP hopper whos warring and ignoring BRD on the History of Iran page.[11]-[12]-[13].

• All IP's in question are from New Yersey, USA;[14]-[15]-[16]-[17]
• All IP's use the exact same types of edit summaries;[18]-[19]
• All IP's dont have any remote issue with edit warring/violating 3RR;[20]-[21]-[22]-[23]-[24]-[25]-[26]-[27]
• The IP's made the edits in a very rapid succession of each other ; 14:48 - IP 2600:1001:b12d:24c8:1946:8b25:7e87:d3fa - 15:18, IP 24.157.56.12 - 18:16 24.157.56.12 - 18:42 IP 2600:1001:b12d:24c8:1946:8b25:7e87:d3fa - 19:00 IP 24.157.56.12 - 19:07 IP 24.157.56.12 - 19:33 IP 2600:1001:b12d:24c8:1946:8b25:7e87:d3fa - 19:40 IP 2600:1001:b12d:24c8:1946:8b25:7e87:d3fa
• All IP's have roughly the same editorial interests.

Even if they're unrelated to Bladesmulti/Occultzone, this is not just a case of violating 3RR or edit warring, but also disruptive IP hopping/socking.

Furthermore, I believe that these other recently used IP's, who are also all from New Jersey, with the exact same interests and with the same type of edits/edit summaries, are also used by this user in question.[28]-[29]-[30] A range block could perhaps be helpful to deal with this. There's definetely something more going on here, and it should be digged out and dealt with accordingly. Look furthermore at their revision history how it further perfectly syncs with the other linked IP's. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:26, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Another one, same edits, same geolocation, same everything.IP 140.239.232.12 - LouisAragon (talk) 22:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Hina Rabbani Khar

Last revert was February 2016. Is that enough for PC renewal? --George Ho (talk) 09:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 09:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Ipswahabpora and socks

Hi! This is related to this incident Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive916#File_upload_issues. Another User:Manzoor2015 with similar habits is editing the same scope of articles. There is also a glaring WP:COMPETENCY issue. An article named Zirayats was created with the only content "Ziyarats is the plural form of Ziyarat." (I am not even look at the spelling mistake). Files (which are clearly copied) are being uploaded again. I have a feeling that this is the same user and it would be good to block him. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@NickW557: Pinging you since you were previously involved. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I saw the edits of User:Manzoor2015, and it might be the same user, but the account is one month old (so that it was clearly registered before the block, and not all edits are similar. I am kind of hesitant, may be an SPI should be filed. If the files were reuploaded though I am prepared to block the uploader.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the User:Manzoor2015 account is a year old. However, prior to editing on 18 March 2016 (after the block), the last edit was on 5 April 2015. Anyway, the account has uploaded files like [31] and [32] which are clearly copyrighted. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I see. Blocked them now.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! I will have a look at the other files uploaded by User:Ipswahabpora as well, just in case. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The plot thickens. Thanks Lemongirl942 for catching this and Ymblanter for handling the block. I'll keep an eye out also for any similar suspicious uploads from other accounts. Cheers, Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 16:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Ozone layer

Would two reverts after semi-protection justify renewal of PC? (I tried requesting one article in RPP, but one administrator could not do it without knowing other administrator's opinion. --George Ho (talk) 08:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I would say for the time being the level of disruptive editing does not justify any form of protection, but this can change of course.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:03, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

FYI

As you're an admin that commented at that page in the "closing" sect, please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FEmily_Temple-Wood.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 15:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me. I actually started the section.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Self-reverted AfD closure

After closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uncrowned (as "delete"), I noticed that you had previously closed it (as "no consensus") and then reverted your closure. I suppose you had your reasons, but since my closure led to the deletion of the Jack Andrad article, which you had redirected to the band's article as part of carrying out your closure, I thought I'd mention the matter here. Deor (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

It is strange that you closed it 8 hours after I closed the same discussion, but fine, let us keep like this, I have no strong objections.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I see, I accidentally reverted my own closure (probably hit rollback) and did not even notice it. This was not intentional, but either way, let us keep it like it is.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Happy Adminship anniversary!

Wishing Ymblanter/2016 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Peter Sam Fan 19:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Savchenko

How can you delete a minor edit in less than one minute? Big Brother does not even begin to compare with you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.216.154.188 (talk) 20:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

You certainly revert edits faster than you answer mail! Since my last edit I read enough of the article to see that it is pure propaganda. One example: in the fourth paragraph of the section, "Detention and trial in Russia" it is stated that "During her long trial in Russia, Savchenko has been held in a cage". Of course, this is a pure lie. Only the box in court is encased in glass, and this is not a special treatment reserved to her. If you are happy with such misinformation, be prepared to see less and less people trust you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.216.154.188 (talk) 21:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

That some part of article are POV is not a reason to introduce more POV edits.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually this statement in the article is correct.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Quotation marks are not POV. If she really has been "held in a cage" (ouside of court), please provide solid reference. If it turns out to be true, I will certainly apologize. As written, the statement is clearly a weasely attempt to mislead the reader into believing that she was held in a cage for the duration of her detention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.216.154.188 (talk) 21:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I do not see how the article says she was held in a cage outside of the court. It say she was held in cage in court, like a common criminal, despite a plea to treat her differently. Quotation marks may be (and in this case certainly are) POV. If I say you are brilliant I likely mean that. If I say you are "brilliant" I likely mean you are a stupid idiot.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

"Brilliant". However, you are certainly aware that the legality or illegality of her detention is disputed and, in such cases, quotation marks are needed (unless Wikipedia itself claims that her detention is illegal; which would be a breach of neutrality). Furthermore, how can you fail to see that a statement such as "During her long trial in Russia, Savchenko has been held in a cage" is not neutral? Not to say intentionally misleading. By the way, no one is a "common criminal" before being sentenced by a court. 82.216.154.188 (talk) 23:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

As soon as the statement is clearly attributed, quotation marks are not needed. The statement about the cage was changed in the meanwhile, and you could have also done it yesterday, before the page was protected.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Three years ago ...

Babel
... you were recipient no. 433 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Gerda.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Threatening me

When you talked on my talk page all you had to say was, "If you want to create a new article, please do it in the draft space and nominate for review when you are ready", but you didn't have to threaten me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.94.65 (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Why not? I did not block you on the spot only because nobody else cared to warn you about the edit-warring.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

But you didn't have to threaten me, all you had to say was that I could create a new article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.94.65 (talk) 17:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

This is fine, but you were told this three times at the place you were reverting. I assumed you would listen better if I explain what would be my next action. Anyway, sorry if you just feel threatened, please proceed with creating the draft but do not be surprised if it gets back to the deletion discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Ymblanter stop threatening people without a good basis. If you are an admin it doesn't mean that you can do anything you want. Ladaherra (talk) 15:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

You got your warning, and nothing prevents me from blocking you if you continue disruptive editing.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

...for this sensible move and close. I would have done it myself but felt it would have seemed self-serving under COI. Now in a proper name-space it is not hidden in draft-space from film editors willing to look in and improve. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		It is not always easy, but you took the bull by the horns to address the issue of an article at an Mfd rendered no longer suitable for that "type" of article. Thank you. Schmidt, Michael Q. 23:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

special:abusefilter/new

a — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.6.77.49 (talk) 06:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to our April event

You are invited...
	Women Writers worldwide online edit-a-thon Hosts: Women in Red, Women writers April 2016 #wikiwomeninred

--Ipigott (talk) 15:21, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

Thanks for letting me know.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ymblanter. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol.
Message added 06:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Drafts

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Drafts. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Stepan Bandera

Hi please explain me why my version is not good for you? I'm just trying to make it with neutral point of view! and i have added refils of NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF HISTORY OF UKRAINE so this sources IS reliable just like David.moreno72 wanted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olexis (talk • contribs) 16:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I do not think adding Ukrainian sources would ever make the article closer to neutrality, only further away from it. But, in any case, please start the discussion at the talk page of the article. As a matter of fact, you replaced a couple of sourced statements to ones with opposite meaning; this requires a discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

  Yes i replaced one source with another because there is only that "another" meaning at the beginning!

Excuse me but there is pro-russian source made by NATALIYA VASILYEVA (russian giornalist) so why i can't put some of ukranian sources to make it more closer to neutrality?? Yes this requires a discussion because this article offends me and some of ukrainians That's why i decided to change it. But if you read this "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." so you cant say that institute of history of Ukraine isn't RELIABLE source. By the way if you read closely this article you will see that source i used "www.history.org.ua/" is already linked so you cant say that "not make it more neutrality".

 SO please explain me why you change my version?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olexis (talk • contribs) 19:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC) 

Please discuss this at the talk page of the article, not at my user talk page. To be honest, if you came here because something offends Ukrainians, you will be out very soon. This is not a founding principle of Wikipedia, quite the contrary.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I understand that you are Russian and you change all articles that are without russian opinion,(just see Nadiya_Savchenko, Putin_khuilo! and another articles )

You will be out very soon please be respectful because this is a founding principle of Wikipedia!

P.S. You still didn't answer my questions. P.S.S. I will discuss this at the talk page of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olexis (talk • contribs) 20:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Sham Idrees

There have been reverts last week. Extend PC? --George Ho (talk) 20:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 03:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Rajinikanth

I earlier requested semi-protection, which was declined. There have been still reverts; extend PC instead? --George Ho (talk) 20:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 20:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Jordon Roberts

Hello Ymblanter, could you please delete this expired PROD Jordon Roberts. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 12:28, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 12:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Guardians of the Galaxy (film)

There have been reverts. Extend PC or upgrade to semi? --George Ho (talk) 17:28, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

A beer for you!

For protecting the Bad Girls Club series pages. Much appreciated. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Duplekita

Your close of the deletion discussion was completely reasonable and appropriate. But, there is an issue with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duplekita that isn't obvious: The content at Duplekita was moved from User:Trekie9001/Duplekita under the edit summary "stale draft that appears notable, covered by cbc in Canada" (not by the author whose namespace in which it resided). Per the guideline about such moves WP:STALEDRAFT "If suitable for mainspace, move to mainspace". If the content gets nominated for deletion and subsequently deleted, it clearly wasn't suitable for the mainspace. The user who moved the page actually !voted "Delete per nom, thanks for the good analysis" in the discussion (this among other things leads me to further question their move of the page). MfD would have been the proper forum for a deletion discussion as their move was inappropriate. AfD has higher standards than MfD, as they govern different namespaces, and what content can exist in each namespace varies per policies and guidelines.

So, that leads to my request, would you restore the content to User:Trekie9001/Duplekita or the draft namespace? Best Regards,—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 20:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

No problem, but why do you want it restored to the userspace of an apparently uninvolved user?--Ymblanter (talk) 20:44, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

My apologies, wrong link. I've had to make many requests of this nature, so I sometimes copy parts of previous discussions regarding the same issue. I forgot to change the link. I've corrected it above.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 20:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

The user is inctive, so I moved it to Draft:Duplekita. It will soon become eligible for speedy though.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I thought is was notable as the edit summary said, but was proved wrong. He is doing this to be disruptive - there is an open ANi thread about his antics. [33] Legacypac (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Would you mind offering your opinion regarding this at the ANI discussion? It seems like the concern was entirely about the location and basis for the discussion and there is seemingly no interest in the actual work on it. Was that your intention with restoring it, that the AFD itself was incorrect or was it for the purpose of hopefully seeing something being worked on? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I restored it under understanding that someone would work on the draft, otherwise it does not make sense.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

If you don't mind, then, if the purpose was entirely about disputing the move that brought about the AFD and the last discussion about that resulted in no admin action, is this approaching WP:POINT? I think we need to figure this out as there were multiple other drafts moved and deleted for CSD violations and so on. I don't see the point in having those restored if the goal is to put them all back into the userspaces of long inactive users, especially since non-AFC drafts have no set time period either so the MFD debate that will follow if there is no activity on the page will be like they are now. And yes I'm aware that nobody should have to debate the metaphysical debates that occur at MFD unless they absolutely have to but this is becoming the standard. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Be advised that the above comment is suggestive, and encompasses the opinion of Ricky81682. This is a very complex matter with truckloads of information that would have to be considered (multiple AN/I sections have been opened related to this situation).—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 09:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I am not interested in other drafts. I am closing several hundred AfDs per year, mostly as delete. For about 5%, I subsequently get requests for restoration in the user/draft space. I always do this. If there is no intention to work on the draft, it should be deleted, we have a CSD criterion for this. It can always be restored later.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

And I never put the draft to the userspace of a long inactive user.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Duplekita listed at Miscellany for Deletion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address Draft:Duplekita. Since you had some involvement with Draft:Duplekita, you might want to participate in the deletion discussion if you have not already done so. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Can we end this please

Could you please block User:Suitcivil133 indefinitely for continuing to edit war on Football records in Spain? A few days ago, User:SupernovaeIA, the other editor involved in the editor war returned from their latest block, immediately reverted the page to their preferred version, and was promptly indeffed by User:Drmies. Suitcivil then reverted to their preferred version, which I reported to WP:ANEW. The report sat their for a few before being archived unaddressed earlier today. Thanks in advance. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 20:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for Category:Companies subject to BDS actions

Cyphunk has asked for a deletion review of Category:Companies subject to BDS actions. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 16:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

No, I was not interested in any way in the category, just was going through badly outdated SDs. Thank you for notification though.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Mossack Fonseca Papers and Panama Papers

Due to the move, protection settings shifted to another page. Can you fix this? --George Ho (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 05:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't see Panama Papers protected yet. --George Ho (talk) 05:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Something must have gone wrong, now protected anyway--Ymblanter (talk) 06:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Close at AfD for European Graduate School

Would you please withdraw your close and allow the discussion to continue? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 07:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Why do you think it is necessary with about 20 votes and 2 weeks discussion?--Ymblanter (talk) 07:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. Several reasons - 1) this is a very thorny article that is sucking up a lot of volunteer time and we should have a very thorough discussion; 2) DGG's input would be very valuable here and he has not weighed in yet; 3) The main advocate for EGS was working out their COI issues since before the AfD opened and has only just joined the discussion (and there is an open ANI on that person that may draw yet more eyes to the AfD). Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 07:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 07:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks that was very gracious of you. Jytdog (talk) 07:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The Spook House

Yaroslav, could you restore the deleted edits? I attempted to contact the person who deleted the plot section, but she has not deigned to reply. --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

This seems to be a copyright issue, and I can just easily lose my mop over it. It is better to go in an open way: I guess WT:Copyright problems would be a reasonable step.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying sooner. The material was published in 1927, it still could be under copyright. The Wikisource page says the copyright was never renewed, but I don't know how they determined that. — Diannaa (talk) 22:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Paolo Monti

Dear Ymblanter, thank you for creating the english article Paolo Monti. We appreciate your help! --Marco Chemello (BEIC) (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Sure, no problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Donetsk bus shelling incident

Hello. You have made a page protection for Donetsk bus shelling incident. User RGloucester take an advantage over IP users using page protection request. Note, it was no any discussion (!) related to this article (neither merging nor deletion). User merged it without consensus. Many other users reverted this merging during the year, see [34] [35] [36]. Also user RGloucester violated 3-revert rule many times. The discussion about merging should start first. Note, four interwikies are present with big articles in ru-wiki and uk-wiki for this page wiht many sources in it. Please restore the article without redirecting before unconsensus merging. 46.211.253.73 (talk) 17:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

And you have not noticed that your edits were reverted over ten times, right? Just continued to restore the text like if nothing happened? And only came here because you technically can not restore it any more, right? Sorry to say, may be you should start a talk page discussion now. Otherwise, you are screwed.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Anita Saarkesian

Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia and I made an unreferenced edit to the Anita Saarkesian page which was removed. Following this I retrieved a citation from forbes.com and was about to repost my initial edit with the addition of the citation but the edit function on the page has been disabled. I'd just like to query why? And did it have anything to do with me?

The citation I will post is for this article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2015/01/24/anita-sarkeesian-releases-kickstarter-breakdown-raised-440000-in-2014/#5b2ea86b238c

Best wishes,

Barackaddict (talk) 14:17, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry to say, but if you are new, you are not allowed to edit this article. Please post the edit request at the talk page of the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:06, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Sara Ali Khan deletion close

Three keep votes, two from very experienced editors, one userfy/draft, no deletes other than nom. I can't see anything resembling a consensus to delete. Sorry, but this is a supervote and should be rescinded. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

You are right, I am sorry, smth went wrong. I will have a look now.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Reopened. I am not sure what happened, I must have completely misread the discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:59, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Stop threatening.

Hello! I'm here to remind you that you can't threaten other people without a good reasoning. As a admin you should know that. Ladaherra (talk) 15:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Conflict

Sorry about that. Guess we hit the button at the same time. Feel free to go with semi, I don't mind. Widr (talk) 10:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

No problem, let us keep PC (as it is now) and see what happens in a month.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

MOS

Would you please point me to a Wikipedia:Manual of Style section or subsection that relates to this diff? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:39, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

MOS:BLPLEAD--Ymblanter (talk) 17:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

vandal

Could you please revert this nonsense? --Ghirla^-трёп- 18:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done. I am afraid they would be back under a different IP, so it might be good to watch some of the pages.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:25, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

No problem. --Ghirla^-трёп- 18:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Angela Lansbury

Last revert was sixteen days ago. Extend PC? --George Ho (talk) 02:48, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 05:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I was too fast on the Category deletions on Central Forest Reserve Reply

My apologies for dropping the categories. You are right, if there are multiple "established" and "disestablished" years they should all stay. An important feature of Protected Areas is knowing how long they have, in fact, been protected. Since I'm marching through PA's in Russia, I'll go back and check the start/stop days of each. There is some history there. Every-leaf-that-trembles (talk) 12:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Sure, no problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Chimamanda Adichie

Hi, user ymblanter, take the time to review cited references. Firstly, I am personally close to Chimamanda. Secondly, as you are native to russian and kazakhstan (sp.) I am native to Nigeria-America. Thirdly, follow the already existing biography in her content - she went to school in the US (requiring j1 visa), continued on to her Masters, and a fellowship (requires LEGAL residency, in turn a Green Card). I live in MD. Her husband is a Nigerian-American doctor who runs an active practice in MD. She has a child and by (https://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship/citizenship-through-naturalization/naturalization-spouses-us-citizens) she becomes a US citizen. How is this confusing for you?

Timurid Empire

Thanks for blocking that disruptive IP. If he/she returns with a new IP, should I report him/her, or submit page protection request? --Zyma (talk) 07:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I have protected the articles for 3 days as well. If disruption continues after 3 days, pls resubmit at RFPP.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks again. --Zyma (talk) 08:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

File:AMAA Statuette.jpg

Hello, can you please explain to me why File:AMAA Statuette.jpg was deleted? The nominator provided no prove of copyright problems. The copyright status of the image is clearly explained in the description. The nominator claims that I said i didn't own the image, which i never did. What I said was that the image couldn't be free even if took it, since it is a derivative work. This is what the user misinterpreted to mean that I didn't own the image. I thought any admin deleting the image would investigate properly before deleting, that was why I just ignored the user's deletion request. Also you closed the discussion as delete, even though no discussion took place and it was actually without a concensus. I'd like to know what informed these decisions. Thanks.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 15:20, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

According to our policies, if by the nomination time at WP:FFD there are no objections to deletion, the file gets deleted.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

• I was not aware of that! Can the image be restored and the discussion reopened, so I can state my objections?--Jamie Tubers (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

You are welcome to WP:DRV--Ymblanter (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Aristo

Hello again,

I just realized you are the same admin who protected Aristo. Why isn't the page restored back to it's long standing version before being protected?--Jamie Tubers (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:WRONGVERSION--Ymblanter (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for File:AMAA Statuette.jpg

An editor has asked for a deletion review of File:AMAA Statuette.jpg. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Thanks,

But you wrote "We are an institution that certifies...." There isn't a "not" missing there by any chance, is there? Doug Weller talk 19:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

There is indeed a "not" missing but I discovered it only after the topic was already closed and decided that it is not worthwhile to correct it.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Works for me. Doug Weller talk 06:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Compulsory purchase in England and Wales

Hi Ymblanter, would you please be kind enough to unprotect the page so that I can do all the needless work these 3RR-breaching editors have caused me? Thanks very much—S Marshall T/C 22:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

In this talk page post[37], S Marshall wrote ' What will happen now, of course, is I'll wait three days because Ymblanter has actually protected the page and then I'll reintroduce the completely appropriate and needful redlinks in this article somewhere above the "See also" heading.' Ymblanter, does that constitute a threat to make bad faith edits in order to make a point? He's already done a similar edit here[38]. If you check the edit history of the article you'll see that was a removed see also link....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:35, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I do not think it make sense to unprotect the page until the two of you agree on the changes.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

List of calendars, Muisca calendar added

Hi Ymblanter, the article itself is just a stub for now, will be expanded in the coming days, but I've added it to the list, see here. Can you review the addition please? Cheers, Tisquesusa (talk) 09:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, looks good to me.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Iranian legislative election, 2016

Hi Ymblanter. I want to know why you reverted Iranian legislative election, 2016 article to the edit that User:Pahlevun done? The user is removed two referenced sections that is correct and article needs it. I think the user's edits are vandalism not mine! 5.74.0.223 (talk) 12:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The two of you should agree at the talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I started a section in the article's page but the user not answered! 5.74.0.223 (talk) 12:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I am not going to mediate your dispute. Try their talk page next, possibly WP:DRV if it fails. Reverting back and forth is not a solution.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

SPI for Rajiv Malhotra editors

Should we just let this SPI play out? Or do you want to make the blocks?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 20:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

No, I have no experience with SPI, and I was not planning to block them.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Mountain Jews

Hello Ymblanter,

I am myself a mountain jew and know everything about my people. Why have I been reverted? I just corrected false information. May be you will revert the part of Dagestan occupation also?! May be Azerbaijan was also occupied?!! and may be just may be Caucasus is Poland and mountain jews started to speak Yiddish?!!! Ridiculous and distorted information was provided on this article by earlier editors. There are many mistakes made by Ashkenazi jews on this article and I simply corrected those mistakes. I want that my remarks will be reviewed and the information I have provided be restored and not reverted.(Hebrew Mountain Man (talk) 21:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC))

You have broken the markup and removed info which was sourced, adding instead smth which was not sourced. This is not acceptable.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

It's ridiculous that an Ashkenazi jew that don't know his own history and origin is distorting and rewriting our history. So why havn't you reverted my last change it's also contradicts your false sources?!!! (Hebrew Mountain Man (talk) 21:09, 30 April 2016 (UTC))

May be you should read WP:RS before you continue editing. And do not start Ashkenazi vs Sefardi rant here, it is a straingt way to getting blocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:13, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

What truth is hurting you. Get over it and do not threaten me with your ridiculous ability of blocking - I don't give a damn!!! You would better answer my last question, it's more relevant than your lousy feelings! Your last answer is more suitable for kindergarten. So be more serious and focused on our conversation if you want to get answers!(Hebrew Mountain Man (talk) 21:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC))

I am not going to talk to you like this.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Better answer my last question as you should have done the first place - So, why havn't you reverted my last change it's also contradicts your false sources?!!!(Hebrew Mountain Man (talk) 21:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC))

Still not good. You failed. Try again. And those are not "mine" sources.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

You are a total fail! Don't worry you can't change it so I don't give you a chance, it's in your DNA!!! (Hebrew Mountain Man (talk) 22:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC))

This user left many comments on my talk page; I think he still has issues in recognizing the cooperative nature of Wikipedia and recognizing that decisions are based on consensus...--Laber□^T 21:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

And they also seem to bring some conflicts here I have never heard about (why did they call me a New York Ashkenazi?)--Ymblanter (talk) 05:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Help Please

Hello! Can you please look at Draft:Alex Gilbert. This article has had on going issues. More sources are being added all the time. I don't understand why this article is not notable? Every source is reliable and the coverage covers for about 3 years. I added a new source from https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/alex-gilbert . I don't understand. Also the source http://www.sbs.com.au/topics/life/family/article/2016/03/01/website-could-help-you-find-your-birth-parents-through-social-media is not related to the single event issue. What is really wrong with this article? --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 08:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

He is borderline notable. Since there is no specific notability criteria, what applies here is WP:GNG. If it gets to WP:AfD I would probably vote keep, but I am not sure it would survive. Let us see first of your help desk request gets any response.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank You. I really just want the article to be unsalted! So I can move this and then I can simply see what will happen. It is really disappointing. The conflict and on going discussions have been going on for too long while more sources are coming to light. This new news clip is clearly about his new project, YES with a little bit of a back story of the original story, but that is not the main idea with this new source. Same with the SBS source. --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 08:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I vaguely remember that the Russian article also had troubles.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes it was on going for a long time. Can't the article be unsalted and then just moved? Can find out what will happen then? I don't know what do do anymore! --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 09:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Once it is in the draft space, it should be accepted. Then of course people still can nominate it for deletion via a regular procedure.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I understand! I hope it gets accepted. It actually got reviewed last year and accepted, but it just got deleted by someone who was watching the page as it was previously deleted (for a totally different reason). Was a waste of my time. If the article gets accepted which it should by now, I just hope the article doesn't get deleted again. Alot of work on this article. I have got it under review once again. Thank You for your help! Please let me know if you can review it or not! :) --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 09:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

If the article is different to the deleted version, it can not be deleted without first going to AfD, where a minimum period of 1 week discussion is in place.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok perfect. Will see if this article can get reviewed and looked at and will decide from there. If it goes to the mainspace and a AfD takes place then that can decide it's fate. I just want it on the mainspace. I do believe it is notable. Really! Thank You! --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 09:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• Are you able to unsalt the article? Or review it yourself? Thank You! --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 19:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

  No, I had rather bad experiences recently, and I currently prefer other people to do it.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• No problem Ymblanter. Thank You for your help! I appreciate that! I fixed up the introduction of the article, making the camera and TV work irrelevant as that is not what the article is about. :) --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 20:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
• Hello Ymblanter. I have added 3 sources that are independent of the subject for Draft:Alex Gilbert. Though it does talk about a single event, the coverage has been on going and this balances it out with the notability of the article does it not? I am wondering if you could take a look as they are in Russian. Or please ping someone who can help. This goes through borderline notable? The sources are [39] , [40] and [41]. Thank You! --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 00:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

A not-barnstar for you!

	The Not-A-Barnstar Award :P
	For protecting Talk:Hillary Clinton for me. Peter Sam Fan 19:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:50, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Mayor of London

Hi, thanks for putting protection on Mayor of London after the brief edit-war that happened there, which by the way made it into BBC News. I have noticed that the "List of Mayors" section of the article still has Sadiq Khan listed as incumbent, and this is technically incorrect as the result hasn't yet been officially announced. Could you correct this please since I am unable to edit it due to full protection? Thanks, LoudLizard (📞 | contribs | ✉) 20:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I can not edit it either. Please leave an edit request at the talk page, one of the administrators would react.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! :) LoudLizard (📞 | contribs | ✉) 20:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Sure.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Hey, the BBC noticed! See Wiki war over who is the London mayor section. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:54, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Great, thanks Liz.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

RE: Check yourself before you Shrek yourself!

Hi again. Sorry to have to contact you again. Thanks for blocking "Check yourself before you Shrek yourself!". They moved my user page and talk page. RickinBaltimore kindly moved it back, but there was a typo in the redirect, which has left my talk page and user page as LoudLIzard rather than LoudLizard. Could you move this for me, since I seem to be unable to. Thanks, LoudLizard (📞 | contribs | ✉) 21:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Never mind! BethNaught just did it. Thanks anyway LoudLizard (📞 | contribs | ✉) 21:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Incest

The last apparent vandalism is April 27. I'm unsure about the May 8 edit, which was reverted. Although editing frequency is low, almost no edits by IPs have been accepted. Extend PC? --George Ho (talk) 06:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 08:36, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Re: Alexandros Jakupović

Why is this not a valid CSD request? Rovingrobert (talk) 11:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Could you please be more explicit? I am not sure I understand your request, and the edit history of Alexandros Jakupović does not seem to show my involvement.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:29, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I see, the redirect does. There were two templates. AfD had a red link; moreover, redirects are not discussed at AfD. For speedy deletion, I do not see why it should be deleted and under what criterion. If you mean smth like merging editing history, pls be more specific.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Alexandros Jakupović. Since you had some involvement with the Alexandros Jakupović redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Rovingrobert (talk) 08:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Some IP

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you..

Note my doing, but letting you know. HighInBC 17:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I will have a look.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Mistake

I believe you unfairly lock an article. The article in question is the "Real Life Comic" article. In the discussion on the page I have listed reasons and evidence that it should be listed as abandoned. If you can give please give me an explanation as why it shouldn't be labeled as such. Leaving that space empty is misleading. Also saying it's on hiatus would also be wrong since no mention of a hiatus has been posted. What would your definition of abandoned? Or can you tell me why it will not be labeled as such? ShallowGun (talk) 21:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I have absolutely no desire to be involved in the content of this article, but if at the talk page you come to consensus any administrator can unprotect the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Ribbon of Saint George issues

I would like to inform you that I have issued administration ticket: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Ribbon_of_Saint_George_issues Thank you. 87.78.236.178 (talk) 18:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Kulchytsky

WHy don't you translate his article from Russian. It would be a lot more appropriate for the critique.--Lute88 (talk) 20:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

It is just too long. If I ever have time, I could. I may translate the Kulchytsky related pieces, they are relatively compact, but, again, this would still take at least an hour even more, and i can not invest so much time on a working day.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

It is not that long. Anyway, RFC would have been an a lot more gentlemanly an act than ANI, wouldn't you say?--Lute88 (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Now I understand you want me to translate the article about Kulchytsky from Russian Wikipedia. No, first, I am not interested in the topic, second, I never translated anything from Russian Wikipedia since it is biased and unreliably sourced. Concerning the ANI, if this would be out first intersection of this sort, I would continue discussing. However, precious intersections convinced me you are only interested in removal of the material you do not like, does not matter how well it is sourced. This is an ANI matter.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Only if you enjoy power-trips, if you know this americanism!)) BTW, are you related to Matvei?--Lute88 (talk) 20:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Since you happen to know what my name is (and I am sure I did not tell you this), you probably can find the answer to this question as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I just did! It is funny that we have not a single Facebook friend in common, although I have many in common with some of your friends. I might friend you one of these days!--Lute88 (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Do not worry, I never accept friend requests from unknown people.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:48, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Sikorski BLP

That IP on the Radoslaw Sikorski article is not going to go away. Here they are again [42]. This problem came up previously (check the edit history in Nov '15 and Aug '14, among others) and they'll basically keep on doing it until the page is protected. Ideally, the page would be put under flagged revisions.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 19:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Let us see what happens after two weeks, right now it is too intensive for pending changes.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Socks

Seems like there have been a lot of edits about Israel to Palestine in Le Trio Joubran. What would you recommend? Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 11:17, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I will just protect it, no problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:24, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Battle of Ain Jalut

The last edit was two months ago. The vandalism was three months ago, not two. Even then, would this justify extension of PC? --George Ho (talk) 16:33, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

It is on my watchlist, I will take care of the protection if needed.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

SPA IP account

Hi Ymblanter. I'd welcome your thoughts on 213.57.185.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). They seem to be adding political views on BLPs of non-political articles, namely Sergey Karjakin and Igor Sklyar. On the former, they're sort of engaging in talks, but every edit has been reverted by other users. On the latter, they keep re-instating text that I don't think is relevant to the subject matter. I'd be grateful if you could take a look or advise on where I should raise these concerns. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I alerted them of discretionary sanctions and blocked them for 3RR, but please start a talk page discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:42, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:54, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi again. The IP has come back from their block, and first edit was to revert an edit on the Sergey Karjakin article that Sophia91 (talk · contribs) did and then go back to reverting the other article. I've invited them to talk on the latter too. Appreciate if you could look at this. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Sent on a one week break.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Me again. The IP user 192.115.97.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is now doing the same reverts on both articles. Let me know if you wish me to raise an SPI, but it looks like a clear case of WP:DUCK to me. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done, taken care of--Ymblanter (talk) 07:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:09, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Random removal of edits

Hi Ymblanter. You have just removed two of my edits, on Simferopol status and on "constitution" of "republic of crimea" as POV edits, basing your decision on discretionary sanctions system. I believe that you misused the system here: the articles contained heavy factual mistakes and provided incorrect and/or incomplete information on the topics, thus correcting them could not be considered POV. I kindly ask you to restore the mistakenly removed edits, thank you. AMartyn (talk) 08:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

The community worked for several months trying to find neutral formulation of events in thee articles. You are apparently unaware of these efforts, since you did not edit Wikipedia between 2009 and 2016. Additionally, some of your edits just miss the point: For example, the Republic of Crimea has no relation to Ukraine (and never had any), and adding Ukrainian categories is just wrong. Please first familiarize yourself with the multiple discussions which occurred in 2014 concerning Crimean localities and institutions. If subsequently you still feel the formulations can still be improved, please raise topics at relevant talk pages.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

First, even if your claim that I "did not edit Wikipedia between 2009 and 2016" was true (it is far from that), it should've not make any impact on the discussion.

Second, your claims like that the so-called "Republic of Crimea" has no relation to Ukraine are a perfect example of a politically motivated POV. We all know, that the "Republic of Crimea" have never been internationally recognized: neither as an independent entity, nor as a part of the Russian Federation. Hence, the self-proclaimed "Republic of Crimea" is actually a Ukrainian Autonomous Republic of Crimea under Russian occupation, which justifies adding Ukrainian categories. There is no need to raise discussion topics to fix politically motivated openly incorrect and misleading formulations. For the second time, I kindly ask you to stop promote your political views and to restore the unrightfully deleted edits, thank you. AMartyn (talk) 09:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Not going to happen. Please read the discussion, which apparently you still failed to do.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

For the third time, I kindly ask you to stop using Wikipedia to promote your political views. If you fail to cooperate, I'll have to elevate the subject. AMartyn (talk) 09:44, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Community elected me administrator to enforce consensus. I never edited Wikipedia to promote my political views, and I am not planning to edit Wikipedia to promote my political views. I refuse to cooperate with you to add material to the article which goes against consensus of editors. WP:ANI is that far away, if you feel the community should evaluate my actions.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

"I never edited Wikipedia to promote my political views, and I am not planning to edit Wikipedia to promote my political views." - ok, let's do it again. Fact#1: Neither Russian annexation of Crimea nor the "referendum" have been recognized by the international community. Fact#2: the article on so-called "constitution" does not reflect the Fact#1 and misinforms the reader about the legal status of the subject: it is heavily biased in favor of the Russian political POV. Nevertheless, you throw away an edit, which puts light on the topic and moves the article in accordance to neutrality. Furthermore, you abuse the discretionary sanctions system to keep the article in its current, deformed state. The same goes with Simferopol: the chapter refers to legally void things as they were legitimate, misinforming the reader and promoting the Russian political agenda. Eg, it refers to territories, internationally recognized as occupied by Russia, as they were Russian legitimately. And again, you remove edits which move the chapter towards neutrality and refuse to restore them. This is obviously an attempt to promote a politically motivated POV and an abuse of administrator rights. Trying to resolve the situation on a basis of consensus and Wikipedia rules, I urge you to reconsider and to restore the deleted edits. AMartyn (talk) 10:12, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with what you write. The text is a result of long and painful discussions within the community which resulted in consensus. The edits will not be reinstated without discussion with the community.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I've got zero cooperation from you, but a clear intent to keep certain articles politically biased. I have no other choice then to question your neutrality. AMartyn (talk) 11:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#FIA_Super_Licence

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#FIA_Super_Licence. You were the protecting admin so I think you should have a look at this. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)Template:Z48

Dnipropetrovs'k has been renamed

Hi, i would informs you that today ukrainian parliament has renamed Dnipropetrovs'k to Dnipro. Ukrainian wiki has allready renamed the article and it was doing by an administrator (you can check the history on ukrainian page). So i want ask you to rename this on english wiki too. Thanks and sorry for my bad english i hope you understands what i've writed.--Andriy.v (talk) 14:06, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

We do not obey Ukrainian parliament, nor do we have the same policy as Ukrainian Wikipedia. We use the most common name for the city. Please open the RfC at the talk page of the article (assuming this has not yet been done). If the RfC gets consensus to move the article, the article will be moved.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Dnipro

Dnipro is new name of the city Dnipropetrovsk. http://112.ua/glavnye-novosti/rada-pereimenovala-dnepropetrovsk-v-dnepr-312443.html

Please, rename the article--Мечников (talk) 15:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

An administrator will close the discussion and rename the article if there is consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Please explain

Hi there. Forgive me for asking but why have you just accused me of disruptive editing? An editor added that Crimea was annexed by the Russian Empire in 1783 and you deleted it saying that that was unsourced. When I looked into it, I see that other articles contain that same piece of information including 'Autonomous Republic of Crimea - so I readded the statement along with a source. So why is that disruptive? It is helpful as it was dealing with the reason why you deleted the original edit. Qaz1984 (talk) 20:36, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Let me repeat what I said in the edit summary. Almost all of your edits to the article were reverted by other users. This usually means that time has come to start a discussion at the talk page, whether your edits in this forma are needed in the article, or possibly this information is not needed. Concerning 1783/1792 issue, it is complicated (the Khanate was forst occupied and then formally annexed), and the discussion of this issue is in my opinion not a subject of this article (which is supposed to deal with post-2013 situation). However, this is a topic for a discussion at the talk page of the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:43, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Nickelodeon Arabia

Hello! For the past few months, the same user has repeatedly used different IP addresses to remove the logo from the Nickelodeon Arabia article, claiming that it is "unofficial" each time. Their statements are difficult to understand, as they use improper grammar and never provide references for their claims. The user has never logged in and refuses to participate in a discussion about the changes. This is becoming a problem, because after the article's temporary protection expired, the user simply returned to make the same disruptive edits. Would it be possible to permanently protect this article or to find another way to keep the user from doing this? Thank you, مضحك (talk) 00:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I protected it for a month, but the problem needs to be solved somehow. They claim the logo is fancruft.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm in You (song)

The IP vandal from New Jersey is back, removing cited content. Any chance the page protection can be reinstated? 91.211.125.85 (talk) 07:11, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 07:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The same IP vandal has now moved onto the I'm in You article. 91.211.125.85 (talk) 06:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 06:33, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Question

Hello Y. Thanks for deleting the "Patrick Doherty (coach)" article. It still exists at the User:Pato2486/sandbox so can that be deleted as well or does it have to go through a separate deletion discussion? Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk

Since it is in the user space, it would be safer to let it go through MfD.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

The vandal is back

Please neutralize. --Ghirla^-трёп- 08:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

To start with, I blocked them for 31h.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Dunkirk (2017 film)

Hi, I hope you can help me since you’ve semi-protected this page. Don’t know what that means exactly, but I think I’d better not change that page even if I would be able to without contacting you first. The problem is, I’ve been trying to correct an obvious error on this plage, but this Glitchygirl insists on having things incorrect and accuses me of vandalism and sockpuppetry and has been posting threats on my talk page. No sockpuppetry on my behalf, so at least two different people, maybe three, have tried to correct this error and have had their edits reverted by this Glitchygirl. She decided that part of the filming will be in the Dutch region of Holland (that article is what she’s be linking to) because that’s what her source says. Here she clearly says she is talking about the region and seems certain the press release she refers to did not use "Holland" as another name for the Netherlands. Having been Dutch for over 47 years now, I think I know about my country better than she or some Hollywood marketeer does, and I happen to know that for as far as the filming for this movie in the Netherlands is concerned, it’s not in the Holland region at all, but on the Ijsselmeer near Urk, Flevoland. I tried changing Holland into the Netherlands, which seems correct enough to me, but have even been more precise. All my changes have been reverted by this Glitchygirl. I have this source in Dutch, but since she insists that sources should be in English I saw no point in adding it. Well, perhaps you can settle this matter? Fnorp (talk) 08:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Just try to discuss at the talk page. Changing Holland to the Netherlands should not be a problem, if they revert, just come to me again. Whether a more precise location could be added to the template I do not know, it probably depends on the standard practice on film templates. If you have sources (Dutch sources would do as well) the exact location certainly can be added to the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)'

Thanks. I'll mention the source on the talk page and change Holland to the Netherlands again and see what happens next. Although the article I referred to is quite specific, I think mentioning the country correctly is good enough. Fnorp (talk) 10:25, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Chris Kyle

Since you were the one who closed the previous WP:RFPP on Chris Kyle could you take another look? IP vandalism is getting worse on it again. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 03:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

It has already been protected by EdJohnston--Ymblanter (talk) 05:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

"Muhammad" Page

Hello, may i ask why my recent revision was undid? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaltut (talk • contribs) 13:52, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Because you replaced a figure with an equivalen figure, and it was not clear why this replacement is needed.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 2 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Administrative divisions of Donetsk Oblast page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Advice on page protection

Hi thought I would quickly ask you this. I know how to make a page protection request. My issue is whether I should. The page Saltwater Crocodile has been the subject of an edit war. Which has been reported here I am not asking you to intervene with that I am happy to wait for the process to conclude. However, the reported editor has continued to edit the page, taking it even further from the consensus being discussed on the relevant talk page. All other editors have held back and waited the outcome. But significant damage is being done. Is it possible to request the page be protected until the edit warring report has been dealt with? cheers Faendalimas ^talk 18:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is possible, no problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Trafford Centre

Why was my request for protection of a a page declined? Tony Fan123 (talk) 11:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Because this is a content dispute, and you try to use the instrument of protection to get an advantage over the version of your opponent. This is not what it was designed for.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but it's not a content dispute. On purpose he is reverting the page as he thinks he is correct,, when numerous citations prove him wrong. It's not right to mislead other people who view the page. Tony Fan123 (talk) 18:21, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Both of you think they are correct. This is a content dispute. If you do not like my conclusion, you are welcome to open a topic at WP:ANI.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Not wanting to be rude, but I don't think I'm correct, I know that I'm correct because citations prove it. Furthermore, on the CompanyHousing Website, UK, it clearly states the official name. Now since this is a government website, do you really think it would be wrong?Tony Fan123 (talk) 20:31, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I do not have an opinion on who of you is correct, and I do not want to have such an opinion. Obviously your opponent also knows the are correct.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:35, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem, a page is clearly being vandalised and you are just keeping silent, because you are too scared to say something. Very disappointing behaviour and totally unacceptable.Tony Fan123 (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I obviously disagree with you judgement.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:43, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to hear from you again. Clearly, you disagree because you have your head in the sand and you don't know what on earth you are doing. As is agreeable by many, very disappointing and unacceptable.Tony Fan123 (talk) 20:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

You seem to forget that this is my talk page. If you do not want to hear from me again, just stop posting here. To be honest, you wasted about half an hour of my time already, and it was not really pleasant.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Question

Hi. I did as you want but it didn't work! Now, why you don't attention my request?!Sarbaze naja (talk) 18:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

First, you are expected to wait at least couple of days, and you barely waited several hours. Second, page protection should not be used to get an advantage in a content dispute, and this is exactly what you are trying to do.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

If you think I'm in a mistake, Why you don't return back the valid images and see the result to prove me you right? Sarbaze naja (talk) 18:35, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the content, and I do not want to have any.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:37, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I wish you don't answer like this! You know the result and afraid of it! hopelessly! This is very heavy for you, do rest.Sarbaze naja (talk) 18:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand your English, but in any case I doubt what you wrote is compatible with assuming good faith. I would appreciate if you stop using my talk page for your rant.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:59, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Creating new Article

Hi,I create the new article of Dinesh soi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thakur Anant Singh (talk • contribs) 08:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

It will be speedy deleted as a copy of an article which failed an AfD.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

so, what is the best method to receate this article.(talk —Preceding undated comment added 09:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, what is the best method to recreate this article of Dinesh Soi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thakur Anant Singh (talk • contribs) 09:24, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The only method is to start it in your own namespace and eventually nominate it for WP:AFC. However, the AfD clearly showed he is not notable, so unless you can find qualitatively new argument this will be a waste of time.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:27, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

User still at it

Hello Ymblanter, how are you doing? Remember the issue with user "Damianmx"? Even though he's hanging on a thin rope, he is still continuing with his disruptive edits. One would think he'd "knock it off" by now regarding his highly disruptive editorial pattern after two consecutive blocks and so many issues/argues with users and moderators numbering in the double digits. But no, unfortunately this is not the case.

• Here he entirely removed well-sourced content written by historians which mentioned the extensive Iranian cultural influences prior to the Russian era on Georgia, and blatantly replaced it by a source written by a journalist (Thomas De Waal) and a traveller. This under the fake edit summary that this material was "duplicated", which was not the case as you can see.[43]. This is literally the 50th time he's doing such stuff.

• Here he keeps removing information regarding the demographic history of Tbilisi (which notably mentioned that the city was once majority Armenian)[44]-[45], even though on the talk page everyone opted to have the information, or at least part of it, re-added.[46]

• Here he sneakily removed sourced content regarding the cession of eastern Georgia by Iran to Russia per the Treaty of Gulistan, while his edit summary only told "Old Version, Format".[47] Notice that the "old version" still contained this information.

• More diffs which demonstate that he still posesses over the same disruptive obesssion with "Iran" in historical contexts related to Georgia, as he always had. [48]-[49]-[50]-[51]. Notice though how even though he was reverted on numerous occassions, he still tried these changes in.[52]

• Also another beautiful one here; First he changed the first sentence of the Georgia article into; "a country in Eurasia, located on the crossroads of Eastern Europe and West Asia." , then shortly after he changed it into often considered part of Europe, and ultimately some days ago he made it into "generally part of Europe". This whole content overhaul was pushed in by himself sneakily over a relatively short time period, changing the content every once in a while.

Overall, his editoral pattern continues to be what it used to be; desperately trying to drag Georgia into Europe,[53]-[54] keeping a "Near Eastern-free" sphere around Georgia-related articles, and trying to break all extensive historical bonds it has with the Near East. Some more diffs; [55]-[56]. You've seen completely similiar diffs from the same user some time ago. Just like back then, he does so by either removing sourced content, changing sourced content, using fake edit summaries, as well as by replacing WP:RS with non-WP:RS sources, just to back up his own agenda and to warrant for the removal of matters he doesn't like to see. He does it quite cleverly, by making a certain "amount" of edits on the topic every month/few weeks, so that it doesn't drag too much attention.

Some time ago prior to his second block, as you might remember, I gave you another list of disruptive edits made by him. The editorial pattern is still very much the same. From his Iran-related obsession,[57]-[58]-[59]-[60]-[61]-[62] to making partisan edits, as well as removing sourced content. I can literally ping another 10 users if needed that would be willing to give their voice regarding his constant disruption and partisan editing. I can list another 30 diffs that demonstrate his continued disruptive editorial pattern as well, if needed. Please keep in mind as well (as you know) that no talk page discussion with said user, regardless of whether the disussion was with me, or others; it has never ever proved to be of any use. I will repeat my words I said during my very first encounter that we both had with him; I'm fully convinced that he's not a new user (simply look at his editorial pattern from the start up to including now), but until we find out who the sockmaster is, all we can see are the rest of his WP violating edits. Obviously its up to you regarding what actions you'll take, but I just wanted to leave his here as its completely undoable for the rest of the editors to deal normally and not-time consuming with this constant nuisance. I won't dispute that he has made several good and useful edits as well on several articles, but his editorial pattern as a whole is still way too much in conflict with Wikipedia's guidelines. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:07, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I am not going to deal with this case at this point. It is too time-consuming, and I currently do not have time.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I know its time consuming (any matter in general concerning said user, as you know) and I didn't necessarily expect any immediate admin action, but given that you and me have been involved with this user since the start, I thought I'd at least list it here and give a brief heads up. For the record, as they say. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 18:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

How is MoS supposedly "disruptive"?

If the Wiki founders wrote up an MoS demonstrating their preferred method of doing things, then why should some people have to fight to make articles that way, even though when they break MoS in other places they get told they can't do that, and then here you are claiming that it's supposedly "disruptive" to make an article MoS-compliant?

And if you plan on saying something "nifty" like, "Uhh, because you didn't secure a consensus," then why should any more consensus than what the MoS already is even be needed? Why do we have the manual if we're just gonna be reverted against and scolded for using it? 2600:100E:B108:359F:2855:2189:4343:D428 (talk) 08:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Please go and use the talk pages. Period.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:08, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Um... using the talk pages won't tell me why you labeled my MoS-bound edits as "disruptive." Perhaps if you'd be willing enough to actually give some input instead of just being stubborn, an editor might actually learn what the supposed "problem" with doing what the founders and any other members of the MoS consenus want us to do could possibly be. 2600:100E:B108:359F:2855:2189:4343:D428 (talk) 08:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

The problem was that your edits were reverted by multiple users, and instead of discussing you started edit-warring changing IPs. I am not going to give input since I am not interest in discussing the content. My role is to force you to the talk pages.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Why should people continue to go to the talk pages when consensus was already established by MoS? Why even have a MoS, then, if showing it doesn't end disputes 2600:100E:B108:359F:2855:2189:4343:D428 (talk) 08:54, 11 June 2016 (UTC) And even when I do use the talk pages, I can't get enough response to complete a discussion. So how can you even expect me to do that when you don't expect the others to, and therefore I can't even get conclusive enough participation? 2600:100E:B108:359F:2855:2189:4343:D428 (talk) 09:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

You need to read WP:COMMONSENSE. Getting too wrapped up in following the rules can be disruptive. Sro23 (talk) 08:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, really, sro? And how do you figure that your constant reverting of edits that were already made to fit those is so "common-sense"? 2600:100E:B108:359F:2855:2189:4343:D428 (talk) 09:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, editing while you are indefinitely blocked can be disruptive too. Cheers. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - General Health ‖ 09:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Right, so no matter who tries to edit those to MoS, you're gonna think they're a sock because you think one guy was the only one who cared about that? I bet if a named user went into one of those and made the same format, you'd assume the same thing, no matter when or where, right? 2600:100E:B108:359F:2855:2189:4343:D428 (talk) 09:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

If they made the same kind of edits on the same articles with the same edit summaries, then yes. There's this thing called WP:DUCK. Cheers. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Welfare State ‖ 18:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Ahmad Thomson

Hi @Ymblanter:, just a friendly note re. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmad Thomson. There were actually three editors there arguing for "keep" (E.M.Gregory, AbstractIllusions and Caseeart) and six for "delete" (including me). However, I believe we should not touch upon !vote numbers in closing remarks at all as you did - sound, policy-based argument is what matters, not !vote count. Here, both sides presented policy-based arguments and I don't see there was a consensus for delete at this stage. Regards, — kashmiri ^TALK 08:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion, but I disagree. You are welcome to take the article to WP:DRV--Ymblanter (talk) 08:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Not sure why you invited these three users to my talk page, but they are welcome to file WP:DRV as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Passing this message to them was the intention. — kashmiri ^TALK 22:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Reprotect?

Maybe protect this user's page permanently? A bot removed the protection template and the user immediately was harassed again... [63]. Montanabw^(talk) 05:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

it is generaly not a good idea to protect user talk pages permanently, but this time I protected it for three months. I hope this would be sufficient.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Here's hoping. No idea why the user attracts such nasty anon IP trolls. Quite obnoxious. (I know of a few other users with protected talk pages...). Montanabw^(talk) 03:34, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Content dispute re human shields

Hello Ymblanter,

There has been a content dispute at Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War regarding inclusion of sourced material showing that ISIS has used human shields in an attempt to prevent Russian bombing attacks. Several editors have argued that it should not be included because of SYNTH problems, or because the material is said to be not relevant to the topic of the article. Others (including myself) say the material should be included for NPOV.

The matter has been disputed since April at the article talk page, and Tobby72 opened a ticket at the NPOV noticeboard on May 21 at: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Islamic_State_war_crimes_.26_POV_tag

I am wondering if it would have made more sense for Tobby72 to have done an RfC, since this would customarily be closed by an uninvolved editor or admin. As matters stand, I see no obvious finding of consensus, but the editors who want to exclude the material are telling me that I need to WP:DROPTHESTICK.

Do you agree that the discussion is over? Or would it be possible for someone to do a "closing" as if it were an RfC?

As a relatively new user (here since ~February) I am very interested in your view on the matter. I saw that you cleared up a very similar dispute at Human rights in Ukraine simply by inserting and cleaning up the disputed material, and no one has dared to revert you. JerryRussell (talk) 17:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for asking me, but I prefer not to be involved at this stage.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Nephew and niece

Hi there,

Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nibling, any opinion on second-degree relative as a merge target instead? Was the only reason for using nephew and niece, as some argued, because it's not a neologism and existed first? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I would be fine with merging the two, but I believe it should be discussed. From the AfD page, I do not see such merge being properly discussed.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Your AFD closing

Hey, thanks for closing this AFD discussion. However, I think the final result was not policy based as I believe that the subject was notable enough. As you saw, beside the two sources in persian which came long after the first appearance of the subject in the News outlets, I provided a ref by Simon Wiesenthal Center adding to its notability. Anyway, I'm bound to discuss the matter with you before going to deletion review. Thanks Mhhossein (talk) 11:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I am afraid deletion review is your next step. It was sufficiently discussed during the AfD, and, as far as I am concerned, consensus is very clear. All the info has been merged into Ali Khamenei.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift response...! Mhhossein (talk) 11:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Because you're awesome. :-) Katietalk 11:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

HarveyCarter

If you come across a HarveyCarter sock again (they're almost instantly recognizable by their pro-German/anti-UK/US attitude about World War II and the articles he edits; and they geolocate to Bury St. Edmunds in Suffolk in the UK or nearby) notify Favonian, who will check it out and block them. BMK (talk) 22:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok, but I only noticed this one because they started soapboxing on Talk:Vladimir Putin.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

www.saint-petersburg.com

Are these really references? They look like spam to me. Ghirla^-трёп- 07:25, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

These are not the only contributions of the IP, but I removed the links to this website from two articles.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Requesting TE protection level downgrade for modules

Hi Ymblanter, I'm in the middle of refactoring {{Pp-30-500}} and am expecting to sync to its sandbox when the RfC concludes. But before it does, Module:Protection banner (and its config) should be aware of the extendedconfirmed protection level.

If you're unwilling to do the protection downgrade, I request that Module:Protection banner be synced at some point soon.

If you were interested in more details... I currently have a set of changes queued up, including a sync of Module:Protection banner to its sandbox (this is ready), and Module:Protection banner/config to its sandbox (this is not ready). The tricky part of this is that the current {{Pp-30-500}} puts the page into two categories, and my current implementation puts it only into this one for now. (I think I know how to mitigate this). Also, it makes sense to have two separate ECP templates, one for arbcom, and one for generic ECP, that puts the pages into the appropriate category (1 or 2).

Thanks, let me know if you have any questions. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 23:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 05:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Would you be willing to apply the same to the config subpage? Thanks for your help :) Actually, scratch that. It appears the page, and the banner are cascade protected. I'll use edit requests when need be. Thanks anyway — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 06:17, 6 July 2016 (UTC) 06:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Did not get it. Do you still need the config protected?--Ymblanter (talk) 06:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so. The pages are cascade protected, so downgrading to TE didn't help me. I can manage through edit requests, so no further unprotection is needed. Thanks — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 07:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Alain Andrianov

Just a heads up - you closed the AfD on Alain Andrianov as delete but the article is still up.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, deleted now, not sure what happened.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Naghar (Pashtun tribe)

Hi. I see that you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naghar (Pashtun tribe) as delete, but you don't seem to have deleted the article, Naghar (Pashtun tribe). Was this an oversight, or have you just not got round to it yet? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done, thanks--Ymblanter (talk) 07:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

too frequently edited!!!

That's the best excuse yet for unwarranted SP. Well done! 141.6.11.25 (talk) 10:20, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:PC--Ymblanter (talk) 10:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Stakhanov, Ukraine

Hi, I've noticed you reverted a move which was done by Ykvach. In the same time as Ykvach moved Stakhanov, Ukraine without discussion he also has moved Category:Stakhanov, Ukraine to Category:Kadiivka. Could you please review this move as well? --Martin Urbanec (talk) 16:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done, reverted--Ymblanter (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 19:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imerman Angels

Hi you forgot to delete the actual article. Thanks. LibStar (talk) 07:04, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I did delete it, unless you mean smth else.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:06, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

oh unless you did it in last few minutes. That's ok. LibStar (talk) 07:15, 9 July 2016 (UTC)