User talk:Ymblanter

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

I am busy in real life until 12 December.

Archives: 2011; 2012; 2013; 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021

Bosco Sodi

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

Donguz Formation

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

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

Japan

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

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

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

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

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

Cleaning up the Belarus geographical mess

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

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

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

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

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

Kirghiz Soviet Socialist Republic

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

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

Draft:Nikolay Antipov

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

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

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

Global renamer

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

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

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

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

Contest

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ulaankhus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subdistricts of Afghanistan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JsfasdF252 ban clarification

Could you update your ban statement from Special:Diff/1023798448 to clarify if that means specifically "Talk:", or more genetically all talk spaces such as "Template talk:", "User talk:", etc? Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:13, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, those were indeed all talk pages, in all user spaces. I have now made a clarification at the user talk page; [2]--Ymblanter (talk) 14:22, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Kryvyy Rih incivility

Hey, there's a lot of incivility in the edit summaries over at Kryvyy Rih, I left a warning on the ip's talk page. I figured I should flag it to an admin and you happen to be the last one to edit the page. Any advice on what—if anything—to do in these situations is welcome—blindlynx (talk) 18:07, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I hid two edit summaries, and the ip seem to be approaching the block if they continue. I will not block them though unless they start vandalizing the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:11, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Cool, best I can tell it's not clear if their edits are malicious or merely uncited—blindlynx (talk) 18:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I have no idea about the climate; the literal translations are uncited.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:19, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to bug you again, the ip is back, making not particularly useful edits. I tried to engage them on their talk page but given they're on mobile i doubt they can see—blindlynx (talk) 14:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I reverted and explained the revert in the edit summary; let us hope they at least are reading the edit summaries.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:34, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Dank je wel. Also, is my reluctance to revert and looking for help warranted (here or in general) or is there a better way to go about this?—blindlynx (talk) 14:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, ideally they need to communicate, but of they do not and we have tried all communication avenues, I do not quite see what we can do except for going for a block.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

True—blindlynx (talk) 15:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

About an edit conflict

Hello, I've noticed your recent edit in the article List of oldest church buildings in which you removed an entry of an ancient church (St. Thomas Syro-Malabar Church, Palayoor) from Kerala in the Malabar coast of India. Why was it removed ???? Simonjoust (talk) 06:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Because the building is not from 52. The institution is arguably from 52, but the page is for buildings.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Ymblanter, Oh so if the church is rebuilt then it couldn't be included in that article.... isn't it... Thanks for responding (Simonjoust (talk) 13:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC))

Sure, no problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:39, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Leila Velez

On 23 July 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Leila Velez, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that one of Leila Velez's reasons for expanding her Brazilian beauty-salon company is to fight racism against black women and their natural afro-textured hair? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Leila Velez. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Leila Velez), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

The List of Albanians in Greece article

Hi. A dispute started on July 11 over the ethnic feelings of a guy who lived 2 centuries ago. The dispute has not been solved, and today till now 6 editors have made reverts. I am not involved in the content dispute, but given the long history of disputes on Greek-Albanian topics, maybe a short page protection is needed to calm down the situation [3]. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Hopefully there will not be a month-long conflict over a name in a (obscure) list. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:29, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Sure, no problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian_politics. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian_politics/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 6, 2021, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian_politics/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 18:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

The Admin's Barnstar

		The Admin's Barnstar
		I know full well how difficult of a position you have been put in. Your extraordinary measure was no small feat and it most certainly is appreciated. For that, you are the first and only editor I have given this barnstar to. BOTTO (T•C) 19:15, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

City of David

Hi @Ymblanter:. Do you think that you can help us rewrite the lead paragraph in the Wikipedia article City of David? As you can see here, the lead paragraph does not accurately portray a summarization of the article, based on Wikipedia policies. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section calls for the lead section to summarize the content of the article using 4 or 5 paragraphs Thanks.Davidbena (talk) 14:33, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

No, sorry, I do not think I can help here.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

4RR edit war

Hello, hope everything is Okay this new User entered in edit war with others [[4]] on this page [[5]] with 4 RR under 24 hours. Can something be done ? Thank you. Theonewithreason (talk) 31 July 2021 (UTC)

The user needs to be blocked, but, as explained in the yellow box on top of this page, I can not take the administrative action in this case. WP:3RRN is probably the easiest place to get them blocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:18, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I will do it later, need to go to work. Theonewithreason (talk) 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Sure, no problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:20, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello! I am ex-user Scorpion-811. Help me, please... Волк (talk) 01:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Help with what?--Ymblanter (talk) 05:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I see. It looks like the oversighters have done their job. I will add your talk page to my watchlist as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:37, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Ок, спасибо! Но тут бы не столько оверсайтов помощь нужна, сколько чекюзеров. Надо бы организовать кросс-вики проверку, но не знаю как. Эти же деятели, которые угрожают, вчера были пойманы на вбросах голосов за одних кандидатов и против других на выборах в наш АК. И угрожают, насколько я знаю, не только мне. Волк (talk) 06:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Кросс-вики - это к стюардам, но там у меня нулевой опыт.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Abusive IP edit summaries

Many thanks for your prompt action with that IP. Personally I think all of the edit summaries in that list are abusive and could be oversighted. But I don't know what the exact rules are or (perhaps more importantly) if further action would have any effect. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I have not realized that they have edited several articles. Now hopefully everything has been taken care of.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

No worries. Thank you very much. If only there could be a process where an unblock was contingent on an editor cleaning up their own mess! And perhaps "wikimoron" and "wikistupidity" have wiktionary entries these days? lol Martinevans123 (talk) 12:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Sure, no problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:59, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

p.s. with a 248-item list here you might want to consider adding {{skip to top and bottom}}? I find it very useful. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:08, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I must just arxive it. Will do soon.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Cool. Oh and this looks kinda familiar... Martinevans123 (talk) 13:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

ANI discussion regarding your blocks of GCB and Marek

Here. Consider yourself notified. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Don't be rash; just have a KitKat. I think a prior unequivocal "this is not an exemption because it is an article and anything further will result in a block" on a user talk page would have achieved a more desirable result on all levels, be it for preventing further reverts, providing an opportunity for seeking clarification, or justifying a block if it continued in the absence of those steps. Even admins with gut and those who look at complex cases will see that in hindsight, but that doesn't mean they need to leave if they didn't that time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I am not leaving anywhere, I just have high blood pressure and can not sleep. Not really looking forward. The explanation is on the user's talk page, but the6y obviously disagree.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Please, everybody, do not post here. There could not be anything urgent, and I am not really in a shape to deal with non-urgent things. Just do not write anything.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Notice of clarification request

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Antisemitism in Poland and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:23, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you

I just wanted to offer a note of thanks. Existing with Wikipedia somewhere on the periphery of my life is exhausting enough; I cannot imagine having actual duties to the site and community. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, indeed it will likely kill me. I need to find some way to stop.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I would imagine that there are many time-pressed Admins who make rushed and/or poor decisions because of their perceived duty to the community. That's regrettable. I guess if things were "better organised" an Admin could choose to relinquish a given area of responsibility or something from the admin toolbox, instead of being pressured to relinquish all tools and be "desysopped." But no-one should feel they can't take a break from Admin duties for a pre-arranged, or even an indeterminate, length of time? Certainly no-one wants anyone to ever suffer health consequences. I fear this may be largely an untold story across the Admin community. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:01, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

My decision yesterday seems to be on its way to be validated by ArbCom, but, well, who cares. And the damage has already been done. There is no way I would be as active admin as in the last two years, I will just not survive physically another harassment exercise like the one from yesterday.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

That's a great shame, Ymblanter, because everyone (well, perhaps most people) can see you have acted in good faith. But if it's a choice between sense of duty and health, that's an easy call. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

This is not my reading of ANI and discussions which led to it. But, indeed, I will choose my health.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:15, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, those with a grudge will tend to use ANI to settle scores, while many who are neutral observers will choose to remain silent. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

User:JsfasdF252's block

I'm not sure how it works exactly, but it looks like you may have accidentally not blocked User:JsfasdF252 from the talk space because you wanted to keep his user talk space open. They made this edit request to an article's talk page recently. Just wanted to bring it to your attention. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 05:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks FormalDude but I do not quite understand: They are allowed to edit all talk spaces, what is the problem?--Ymblanter (talk) 05:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Ah I see now you mentioned that on their talk page. Sorry, my bad. I'd never seen a block like that before. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 06:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this is an unusual case, but that was consensus somewhere (AN?) to block them like this.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

A motion has been proposed

A motion has been proposed in Clarification request: Antisemitism in Poland where you are listed as a party. You may view the motion here. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 08:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Edit count gadget

Hi, you mentioned in a comment you left at ANI that you have an edit count gadget installed. I have one that shows me when users are blocked, and one that shows me user rights on the user's page, but I don't know of the one you mentioned. Your vector.js file doesn't seem to contain it. Would you point the way? ~Anachronist (talk) 02:14, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but I use User:PleaseStand/userinfo.js which does the job nicely. It displays blocked status, edit count, account age, time last edited, and user rights at the top of user and user talk pages. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 02:17, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@Anachronist: I think, based on User:Ymblanter/common.js that it might be User:PleaseStand/userinfo.js. The one that I use is User:Enterprisey/userinfo.js - and it looks like this: [6]. I'm not sure what, if any differences there are. ^{!ɘM γɿɘυϘ}⅃ϘƧ 02:20, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Huh. I've been using two different ones: markblocked.js to show users as blocked (this appears in the user page title as well as striking out the username in contribution and history pages) and sysopdectector.js (which shows the user rights like sysop, extendedconfirmed, checkuser, autopatrol, etc. as part of the user's page title). Thanks. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:25, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. It must be indeed User:PleaseStand/userinfo.js. Looks indeed similar to the above screenschot from User:Enterprisey/userinfo.js - may be there are some tiny details, I do not know, but the basic info is the same.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Marathon: had enough of the edit conflicts?

If you fancy a go at something else, I reckon the individual pages of all involved athletes will need an update at some point (concerns about whether this is truly necessary thrown aside); as I've done for example here. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:16, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, but for me it is 2:30 am now, I will go to sleep now. What you mention is definitely necessary work, but I guess we will be still doing it for months.--Ymblanter (talk) 00:19, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Cheers, then, and good night! RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Commons

Hi Ymblanter - you peaked my interest. You referred to someone blocking a CU on commons and demanding that someone who unblocked them be desysopped. I don't know the case, any more background you can give me, or a link you can point me at? I've never had much to do with Commons, aside from finding images (and occasionally uploading photographs) to use in articles, but this recent encounter has made me want to understand how it works (or doesn't work) a bit better. Cheers Girth Summit _(blether) 12:29, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

This was a couple of years ago, and, as far as I know, this has not been written down in any comprehensive way, i.e. there was no post-mortem analysis. I will see whether I can easily find the diffs.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:35, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks - no rush, of course, but if you find anything I'd be interested to learn more. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit:, I think this diff contains three threads related to the incident I mentioned.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Bloody hell. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:49, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, pretty much. Shit on such scale occurs there approximately once in a couple of years.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Yegods. By 'such a scale' do you mean admins wheelwarring and calling for desysop is a regular occurrence? I'm trying to think what else could possibly rise to that level of drama. —valereee (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

The two other incidents I remember off the top of my head was (1) an admin deleted file out of process and refused to undelete it (on procedural ground); the file was accidentally mine, and I got a lot of feedback saying this is my own fault; the admin was later community desysopped; (2) someone canvassed a lot of English Wikipedia users to a discussion, to the point that they outnumbered the Commons regulars there, which obviously nobody on Commons liked, and there was a big shitstorm. Generally, admins accusing each other in all kind of inappropriate behavior is a pretty common situation but usually it does not result in desysops. On Commons, there is a possibility of community desysop, one needs to get consensus on a regular noticeboard that desysop discussion has merit, and then the discussion can be opened. I only remember three desysop discussion during my tenure on Commons (since 2007 I guess?) though I could have missed a couple. Wheelwarring does not occur too often there.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:41, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

AN revision delete

@Moneytrees and Favonian: I am not sure what happened, but I definitely did not intend to unhid the edit. I guess Moneytrees and me revision-delete-conflicted, and this is probably why it did not work as intended.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:34, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I guess we all jumped on it at the same time. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 15:35, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

community-placed site ban

Hey, Ymblanter! Does that get logged anywhere? I am asking for my own education, not because I think you neglected to do something! I couldn't immediately see that you had logged it somewhere, but maybe someone else beat you to it. —valereee (talk) 15:50, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

If I read WP:CBAN correctly it says community site bans are not logged, but of course I might be missing something. Not that I apply site bans every day.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:52, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, I missed that bit! And I would have sworn I searched for 'logged' on that page, sorry. And, yes, we don't see them every day either. I was like, oh, now I can see what's supposed to happen. :) —valereee (talk) 16:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Valereee (talk page stalker), We used to have Wikipedia:List of banned users, which was deleted at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of banned users (6th nomination)... Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 17:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. Always something new to learn here. —valereee (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

We still have Category:Banned Wikipedia users, and former administrators get special treatment, for example, here.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:10, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

OMG. What an unpleasant surprise. So many familiar and respected names on that list whom I thought were still administrators. I do hope you don't intend to join their ranks. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:54, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Me? No. Why should I?--Ymblanter (talk) 18:37, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Mizkif

Hi Ymblanter, thank you for ending the little edit war that was going on there. Could you take a look at the talk page and the BLP noticeboard regarding this issue and which of the two possible names is correct for this page? BreckenK (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry but I am not going to be involved in the content dispute. You can try WP:RM to move the page.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:04, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I understand not wanting to be involved in a content dispute while you have your admin hat on, but is there not a better solution than leaving up a name everybody (but the person who changed it) in the ensuing talk page discussion agrees is unsourced up on a BLP for three days? ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 19:22, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry but your edit has been reverted by at least two users. I do not have access to NYT article (it is behind the paywall, and I am not going to pay anything or even register). Sop what I am going to do is to unprotect the article, and then you guys can just continue edit-warring.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

(I'm not the person above and I didn't edit the article, apologies for the confusion) ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

My apologies, indeed, you did not edit the article. I see however more than one editor on each side of the edit-warring.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:00, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Lute88

Hello! Could you talk to this user or block him? He deleted my edits on his talk page. My edits is about Russo-Ukrainian War article, he also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russo-Ukrainian_War&type=revision&diff=1039961885&oldid=1039940418 reverted 1 edit from this article too. Thanks. --Brateevsky ^{(talk to me)} 14:49, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

This is a problematic user, but I can not block them as explained in the box on top of this page. At some point, someone should take them to the arbitration enforcement and topic ban them for Ukraine, but for this one needs to collect the diffs, which takes time.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:53, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

OK, thanks! I'll try to write on talk page of article Russo-Ukrainian_War the same that I wrote on Lute88 talk page, but in English. Maybe my arguments will heard. --Brateevsky ^{(talk to me)} 14:58, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted the translation since I believe it is grammatically wrong, but other than this I do not have any interest in the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:11, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

What's the issue with translation, if I may ask?--Aristophile (talk) 15:24, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

In proper Russian, if the term exists, it would likely be русско-украинская война. It looks like российско-украинская война is a translation from ukrainian, where росийський meand Russian. In Russian, российский as an adjective sounds very odd (most often applied to a species of cheese, российский сыр). I think Brateevsky is right that reliable sources are needed.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Why not simply correct it the way you suggested?--Aristophile (talk) 20:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Because it would be original research. I am not an authority in the Russian name of the war.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:55, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

And what is problematic with being sensitive on Ukraine-related subjects?--Aristophile (talk) 15:29, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

This is a recurrent topic, I believe this is the third time you ask this question at my talk page. The problem is that you refuse to discuss anything and keep reverting until the matter escalates somewhere (ANI, or now to my talk page). At some point it will escalate to AE, and if by that time you do not change your editing patterns and not start discussing changes and respect WP:BRD, you are likely to get a topic ban.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Migjeni article protection request

Hi, could you please make a page protection there to avoid more edit warring until it is solved via an RfC? Durraz0 (talk) 21:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I protected for 3 days--Ymblanter (talk) 22:35, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks u, 3 days are enough to calm the situation down. Durraz0 (talk) 22:39, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1041321277

Добрый день! Уточните, пожалуйста: «такие ссылки» — это какие именно? Ссылки на Викиданные в отсутствие статей в других разделах? И где можно ознакомиться с достигнутым консенсусом? (на странице шаблона, к сожалению, подобных указаний не вижу) --INS Pirat (talk) 21:48, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Был опрос, по результатам которого ссылки на Викиданные запрещены в тексте статей. Я попробую попозже его найти, это 2017 или 2018 год.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:34, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 204#New RFC on linking to Wikidata--Ymblanter (talk) 13:55, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Спасибо. Ну, автор итога просто посчитал участников обсуждения (хотя, может, так в enwiki принято). При этом, как я понял, по ссылкам с использованием шаблона {{Interlanguage link}} как раз указано, что консенсуса нет. Это подкрепляется тем, что, допустим, в самом шаблоне, собственно, не отключено отображение ссылки в основном пространстве. Кроме того, в изначальном запросе упоминались ссылки на элементы персон, статьи о которых удалены по их незначимости, а это не тот случай (участники ОИ значимы). Но я пока не прочитал обсуждение полностью. --INS Pirat (talk) 17:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Лично я скорее за использование шаблона в таком виде, как Вы его использовали, но обсуждение есть, итог подведён, и для того, чтобы его изменить, нужно новое обсуждение (причём никакие процедурные аопросы типа !итог подведён плохо" не будут приняты во внимание.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:03, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Anon IP insulting other users at their edit summaries.

Hello Ymblanter, I have seen this at a article, the edit sumary is a clear uncivil behaviour, the IPS have been doing the same in the last 48 hours.Mr.User200 (talk) 15:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 15:44, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

RE: Commons

Seriously, though, that place is wild — I don't know how you do it. Big respect! El_C 17:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, it is kind of wild.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Help

You warn me to don't remove red links so please reply in this page we have to remove red links or not https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoborella

No, the red links should stay at that page.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:52, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Can I remove link only not the full text

No, because these are valid redlinks. Articles can be written starting from these red links.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:10, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Muhammad Ali of Egypt

Hi. There is an ongoing dispute there. It started after an editor added some controversial content. They were reverted by me and 2 other editors. That editor made 5 reverts in 24 hours, reverting 4 editors who disagree with him, [7][8][9][10][11], although they got a warning after the 3rd revert [12]. They were warned for edit warring last week by an admin [13]. Should the article be protected or some advice or even a short block be given to that editor? Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:09, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I protected the page for three days and reverted to the pre-war version.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:15, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Now that I see the pre-dispute version, I realize that the editor made even more questionable changes than I previously thought. Anyways, 3 days should be enough to sort all these out on the talk page. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:26, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Sure, no problem--Ymblanter (talk) 19:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Partial block modification

I feel like the block imposed on me was a bit excessive. It has been over 3 months since I was blocked on Wikipedia for the first time, and it is only one of the "new normals" I was forced to experience. The block extends to the Help, Draft, and File pages, even though my edits in these namespaces weren't as disruptive as those in Template, Category, and Article pages. Since the initial block didn't include article space, I was able to make edits in articles throughout May and June. Many of these edits were minor style fixes, and I avoided doing disruptive edits that I did in the past, such as attempting to reimplement subpages for articles. Now that I have been blocked from editing articles also, I need to use a template on a talk page just to fix even the smallest error. Also, I encountered some potentially false statements, such as those in Technology doping and De Rham Curve. I have made constructive edits in other wikis as well, such as the OSM wiki. I have learned that hybrid templates, article subpages, and non-notable categorizations have been the reasons for the block. I would like to wake up one day and find out that I could edit much of Wikipedia once again. It may take a long while, but a partial unblock from at least one other namespace would still be okay. JsfasdF252 (talk) 05:38, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

This was a communty-imposed block. To modify it, you need to appeal to the community. You obviously can not do it dorectly as you can not edit WP:AN, but you can post an appeal unblock at your talk page, and someone will move it to WP:AN. However, I would advise you to read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks carefully before posting it.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Help

why you revert this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_B._Lacson_Foundation_Maritime_University&diff=1042123976&oldid=1038193660 I remove that passage because it was copied from here https://www.jblfmu.edu.ph/home/logo.html it was copyrighted content so I remove it Dr.Ji (talk) 13:09, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

This page does not contain the text you reverted, and, in any case, it was not clear from your edit summary why you removed the text.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

New York (state) vandal

Hi Ymblanter, is there any reason to think Therobloxguy3009 (talk · contribs) was not the original account related to the two you blocked? Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:12, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, thanks. I have blocked the account indef.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:20, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

ANI

Checkusers would not check since all three accounts are already blocked. As a categorical statement, that's not accurate - more like it depends. BTW, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SarayuGujja2004.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Great, thanks--Ymblanter (talk) 05:17, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Request for Reconsideration

Ymblanter, I ask for reconsideration to unprotect the page Robert E. Clark II. To allow it to remain as is seems to contradict the reason for protecting - to prevent vandalism, which seems exactly what Jonboi199 is doing. The previous section (below) seems to accurately, with a neutral tone, and publicly available references, explain what transpired - Clark was President for ~ 6yrs; members of the faculty published a no confidence resolution two months before the College became part of Delaware State University that was forwarded to the Board of Trustees for action; the Board took action - dismissed the resolution; and then subsequently the Board of Trustees bestowed upon Clark President Emeritus for reasons stated. Their replacement (which seems to be a repeated "cut & paste" without justification or cause), which remains on the site, was protected with a section that seems biased, incomplete, and violates Wikipedia's POV policy. Thank you for your consideration and time. XTC7YV32 (talk)

Education Administrator

Clark served as 17th President of Wesley College in Dover, Delaware, beginning July 15, 2015. On March 1, 2021, two months before the school's closure, some members of the faculty published a no confidence resolution against Clark that was forwarded to the Wesley College Board of trustees. The Wesley College Board of Trustees voted unanimously on March 20,2021 to dismiss the resolution. Additionally, the Board of Trustees voted unanimously to bestow upon President Clark, President Emeritus in recognition of his leadership, and service to the College and the community. '

I am sorry but you call Jonboi199;s edits vandalism, whereas they call your edits COI editing. Nobody cared to start a talk page discussion. I am not going to take any side here.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for at least listening/considering...but why not unprotect to allow talk page discussions to take place & resolve...I will initiate. Not sure I understand COI charge...edits did nothing but provide a neutral and complete account, based on references, to what apparently happened...but, again to your point that could, and should, be resolved in a talk page - I am just requesting that opportunity. Thank you again for your time and I hope you are having a good day. XTC7YV32 (talk)

The talk page is not protected, one can have a discussion. If it gets concluded soon, I can always unprotect the page.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:42, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Thank you again for your help and time. I will add my thoughts to the "talk page" and hopefully Jonboi199 will participate so we can collaboratively complete this section with a neutral, valid, and complete section. Have a great afternoon. XTC7YV32 (talk)

References

Thank you!

Thanks so much for catching (& adding) my missed tag of Category:Female composers by century over in Categories for discussion! I've been going through piles of them & must have missed it, so I appreciate the help. Hope you're well! // Knifegames (talk) 06:54, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Sure, no problem--Ymblanter (talk) 06:55, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Proposed decision posted at the open Iranian politics case

In the open Iranian politics arbitration case, the proposed decision has now been posted. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. You were notified as you made comments in the case request. For the Arbitration Committee, Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 01:49, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

How to Panel Close

Hi Ymblanter. I'm wondering if there are any guidelines for how a panel close is to be collectively drafted. Are they drafted on-wiki, such as in a sandbox, or are they usually worked on off-wiki until they are posted as a close? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:35, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

No, I do not think there are any instructions. In all cases I participated to closing text was discussed off-wiki, in an ad hoc mailing list, and then posted by one of the closers and signed by all of them.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:54, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

WT:Requests for adminship/2021 review/Issues#Long-term vision

That's unthinkable! Right up until the point when it's inevitable. - Dank (push to talk) 19:41, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

It looks like we are not yet at this point.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Not yet. - Dank (push to talk) 19:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

GripeO COI template

Hello. Thank you for protecting the above mentioned page. I seemed to have accidentally removed all of the templates at the top of the page, including the COI template. I was hoping you could restore them. Thank you. 205.154.245.36 (talk) 01:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• I blocked a few socks, Ymblanter, and an IP. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks. I am pretty sure I have not removed any templates, and if editors of the page deem it necessary they will add any template they want.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

  That was actually my bad. I removed the templates that were at the top of the page when I reverted to the last revision before the edit war started. I was hoping you could restore them. Thank you. 205.154.245.36 (talk) 22:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Recent move war at NEC Software Solutions

Greetings Ymblanter. Regarding your recent move protection of the above-mentioned page (which I endorse), I'd like to ask for your opinion further to those regards. I had replied to a posting on my talk page[14] and was in the follow-up phase of drafting a request, in my sandbox, to have my actions reviewed. In long form summary, I was lured into this war by a so-called "uncontested technical request" but I should have been more diligent in my responsibilities wp:before moving the page. In my own defence, I did verify search results indicating the requested title appeared to satisfy wp:commonname, and I verified the companies website which showed there current use of the company name as reflected by the request. Factor in a reasonable assumption of good faith which I felt the user requesting the move was entitled and the defacto right of a company to declare the correct form of their own name, I proceeded to complete the technical request without further review. It turns out that the request was in clear bad faith and succeeded in drawing me in to the move war in progress. With the page protected, which I intended to request, the only thing left is a review of my own fitness for the page mover flag. To expedite the entire process, will you please make a wp:3o decision to that end (I have trust and a high regard for whatever decision you make). The only mitigation I can offer is to state in earnest that I will increase the level of due diligence on my part, and never again log a page move without checking the article's talk page and recent edit history (if you allow me to retain the page mover rights). Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 18:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I do not see any issues with you moving the page, but it would be great if somebody could open a requested move at the talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:02, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll gladly see to the RM directly. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 19:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Amanda Stoker

Hi. You recently blocked editor Catcafe at the Amanda Stoker for 31 hours for edit warring. However it seems you removed the other indefinite block on this editor Catcafe over their previous edit warring at Jessica Yaniv by applying the new unrelated block. Once this expired it took away the indefinite underlying block on their account. Can you restore the indefinite block please. Honestyisbest (talk) 02:20, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done, it is technically not possible to have two concurrent blocks at the same time.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

USS Snook (SS-279)

Hi Ymblanter! I think this revdel'd edit to USS Snook (SS-279) in the public domain, since I found it at here (U.S. government works are PD). The IP made the same edit to Iriomote Island, where I added the citation and PD attribution template, so if you agree with this and are willing to un-hide the revision, I can add the citation for this article as well. Thanks! DanCherek (talk) 22:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this. I have unset the revision deletion, I will appreciate if you could properly reference the text. The source I found did not specify PD (though they might very well have copied the text produced by the US government without attribution).--Ymblanter (talk) 05:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! I've added it now. Yes, I think copying from the government website is what happened in this case. DanCherek (talk) 05:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Great, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Your edit at Makwan Amirkhani

Hello Ymblanter, I noticed you made an edit and removed a sentence, but the sentence seems to be backed up below in the article, see specifically Makwan Amirkhani#Amateur wrestling. It would have been better to provide the sources or possibly reword it instead of outright removing it as it flows with the purpose of the text. --TataofTata (talk) 13:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I removed a sentence because it had a source but the source did not back it up. Moreover, without a source it was overstating things as it creates an impression that Amirkhan had notable achievements in amateur wrestling whereas he would not be notable by Wikipedia standards for his amateur performance. The information can obviously be reinstated if backed by reliable sources and rewritten appropriately.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I'll avoid semantics as I did not add the original text nor do I know enough about his achievements being notable, but like I said it would have been better to simply improve/correct it. I have now hopefully improved the line. --TataofTata (talk) 16:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

SPI Check

Greetings, hope everything is okay, there are this 2 new accounts with the same interest on the same subject that appeared today and both have the same geolocation, is there a possibility to check are they the same editor using multiple accounts ? [[15]] and this one [[16]] thank you. Theonewithreason (talk) 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Only checkusers can do this, but most likely this is just the same person who changed their ip around 20:30.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes I think that too. Theonewithreason (talk) 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Well they are now removing referenced material, obvioulsy WP:NOTHERE [[17]] [[18]]. Theonewithreason (talk) 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I blocked this IP for four reverts, but thay will likely login under a different IP and continue.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:22, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Still thank you. Theonewithreason (talk) 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Sure, no problem--Ymblanter (talk) 05:14, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Ratheesh Ambat / Rathish Ambat

Hello, this involves an Admin action you performed in 2019, and I'm not sure if this is eligible for WP:ANI. If I'm in the wrong place, let me know and I can post this where it belongs. Anyway, I received a request from an anonymous IP user to move the article Ratheesh Ambat (a filmmaker) because the man's name is spelled wrong in the title, and his true name is Rathish Ambat. I found that you salted articles with the true spelling because someone kept re-creating them, presumably because the filmmaker is non-notable. Here is your Admin action: [19]. You did that in 2019, then in 2020 someone created the latest version of the filmmaker's article by simply spelling his name wrong, at Ratheesh Ambat. I'm not sure if this newer article could be deleted immediately under your 2019 block, or if we need to discuss the fillmmaker's notability again, etc. Please advise. Thanks! ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I do not remember any details, but I guess one needs to discuss the notability again - for example, by sending the article to AfD. If it survives it can be moved to a new name.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I can start a new AfD. But what is the procedure if the filmmaker is deemed notable this time, and then we need to move the existing article to the correct spelling of his name, a title that you indefinitely blocked back in the day? Thanks. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:06, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I will take care of it if you remind me.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay, here's the discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ratheesh Ambat. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:42, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much

Hey, i had no time to thank you properly this morning due to job duties. I wanted to thank you very much for swiftly indeffing that vandal (ScottMartini25) who was vandalizing Susa weddings. Cheers. ---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:45, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Sure, no problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Copyvio Request in Vaccine passports during the COVID-19 pandemic

Hi Ymblanter,

I noticed that you've denied a request for copyvio revdel in the Vaccine passports during the COVID-19 pandemic article. During the revisions listed in the note, there was a sentence taken nearly verbatim from this website, with the only change being the transformation of "NI" to "Northern Irish". While the source is cited in a footnote, it's under crown copyright, and don't think that expanding an acronym is enough to get around the crown copyright in this case. I'm wondering if you'd be willing to take another look.

Best, — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:45, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

If it is just one sentence, I would not revision-delete over hundred edits over more than a month (which were previously taken from a sandbox, and that from another sandbox, and at the end of the day it is difficult to trace who has written what). Thanks for removing the sentence.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Bagdasarian Productions

Hello, Ymblanter,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Wakowako and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I have tagged an article that you started, Bagdasarian Productions, for deletion, because [[{{{2}}}|a consensus decision]] previously decided that it wasn't suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. If you wish to restore a page deleted via a deletion discussion, please use the deletion review process instead, rather than reposting the content of the page.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the deleting administrator.

For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Wakowako}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Wakowako (talk) 12:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

User creating unnecessary pipes

Hi Ymblanter,

I was wondering if you might intervene with TheLionHasSeen. He's been going around creating unnecessary pipes of things like [[Eastern Orthodox Church]]es to [[Eastern Orthodox Church|Eastern Orthodox church]]es claiming that this is "grammar". When I confronted him about it at Saint Sylvester he just reinstated his changes. He's been doing this on many other pages, e.g. here.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello Ermenrich and Ymblanter. We are in a zone of hairsplitting but I think there is an argument for the changes by User:TheLionHasSeen. ('Eastern Orthodox Church' is a proper name, but 'Eastern Orthodox churches' could be seen as generic, so not proper). By analogy, there were four presidents in the room, one of whom was President Smith. Of course, people should not edit war. I would recommend opening a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters. EdJohnston (talk) 14:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I in fact asked them to provide an argument compatible with WP:MOS, will send them to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters now.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:58, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

My solution was this.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Yohani

Hello sir Ymblanter, Sir I requested a semi protection for the page of Yohani, Please be kind enough to concern about my request, (talk) 16:44, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Editor making inappropriate comments

After Djks1 breached the 4RR by reverting 3 other editors on Markos Botsaris, another editor and me went to his talk page to suggest he be more careful and better familiarize with Wikipedia's guidelines. However, Djks1 insists on making personal attacks, including nationality-based ones. That is the discussion. The last post seems to be the most unconstructive one. Can you take a look if/when time permits? Should a DS alert regarding the Balkans be given to him? Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:14, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

The inappropriate comments include: "It's already been reverted by the Greeks. The self delusion is too much for others to overcome it seems", " I am well aware of the rules and frankly am not too concerned about "constructive editing environment" which does not exist thanks to some incredibly biased individuals, deluded in their world views", "There is clear political motive to vandalise, in a "correct" way, Albanian articles from these people", "I am not concerned with upsetting xenophobic extremists", "one person and The "Brave" Koward", "a pathetic Wikipedian basement dweller", "wise arse mockery". Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:35, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I gave them a Ds alert and a warning.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:51, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Ktrimi991 (talk) 01:11, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Sure, no problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:18, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Bathurst New South Wales

Thankyou for bringing to my attention that the information I added was not changed enough to prevent it from being a violation of your copyright rules and therefore was deleted. This informtion was not verbatum from the source as I had made some changes to the text and I had not completed the area with the citations necessary as I ran out of time. I apologise for this inconvenience. Can I recreate this section rewriting the text and submit for publishing again as I think its worthwhile information? Magenta158 (talk) 03:15, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, sure, please re-write the text so that it is sufficiently different from the source.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:19, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

For the record

... I'm starting to warm up to you. EEng 19:45, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Good to hear.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:05, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

RfA 2021 review update

Thanks so much for participating in Phase 1 of the RfA 2021 review. 8 out of the 21 issues discussed were found to have consensus. Thanks to our closers of Phase 1, Primefac and Wugapodes.

The following had consensus support of participating editors:

1. Corrosive RfA atmosphere

   The atmosphere at RfA is deeply unpleasant. This makes it so fewer candidates wish to run and also means that some members of our community don't comment/vote.

2. Level of scrutiny

   Many editors believe it would be unpleasant to have so much attention focused on them. This includes being indirectly a part of watchlists and editors going through your edit history with the chance that some event, possibly a relatively trivial event, becomes the focus of editor discussion for up to a week.

3. Standards needed to pass keep rising

   It used to be far easier to pass RfA however the standards necessary to pass have continued to rise such that only "perfect" candidates will pass now.

4. Too few candidates

   There are too few candidates. This not only limits the number of new admin we get but also makes it harder to identify other RfA issues because we have such a small sample size.

5. "No need for the tools" is a poor reason as we can find work for new admins

The following issues had a rough consensus of support from editors:

6. Lifetime tenure (high stakes atmosphere)
   Because RfA carries with it lifetime tenure, granting any given editor sysop feels incredibly important. This creates a risk adverse and high stakes atmosphere.
7. Admin permissions and unbundling
   There is a large gap between the permissions an editor can obtain and the admin toolset. This brings increased scrutiny for RFA candidates, as editors evaluate their feasibility in lots of areas.
8. RfA should not be the only road to adminship
   Right now, RfA is the only way we can get new admins, but it doesn't have to be.

Please consider joining the brainstorming which will last for the next 1-2 weeks. This will be followed by Phase 2, a 30 day discussion to consider solutions to the problems identified in Phase 1.

---

There are 2 future mailings planned. One when Phase 2 opens and one with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Best, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Infobox blank parameter with a ref

Hello, I don't see any use to include a "reference" for a parameter of an infobox that is blank. You may find it helpful, but that is something I have never seen in any infoboxes on WP, and it is not a reference at all. It's a footnote, but it still shouldn't be included. That begs the question, why not add "none" to other parameters? Why not add a "none" to the holiday parameter, and add a reference with a law permitting the oblast to have an oblast holiday? That just makes no sense to me personally. I've made a sample in User:PerpetuityGrat/sandbox2; if you look at the successor... this just seems so commonsense to me. Why would we provide a ref/footnote to something that doesn't exist? Again, I have never seen this type of information in an infobox before. It may be "useful" to you and maybe others, but that doesn't mean that it belongs in the infobox. Right? --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 21:29, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the changes you made to Tver Oblast, that's more of a comment anyway. There just doesn't seem to be a reason to indicate the law that allows something, when that something doesn't exist. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 21:33, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, it is just some non-trivial information. (Note that it was not me who added it). Not all our readers speak Russia, and not all of them have access to this document, so I think it is more useful than not. Concerning the holiday, if we have a similar reference, why not?--Ymblanter (talk) 05:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I understand that you didn't add these originally, but you're still defending their inclusion. And concerning the holiday... because we don't include "none" in the infobox parameter for something that doesn't exist. There is not content about the lack of an anthem in the article, so how could it possibly be useful in the infobox? It is a comment, not a reference, and at best a footnote. Can you show me a few other places where this actually is allowed? Where a parameter is either blank and has a reference, or a parameter says "none" and has a reference? I know you didn't create these... but these really make zero sense. Why not add references to every blank parameter at that point? Let's just fill in all the blank parameters with "none..." --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 13:41, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I think the anthem is treated in this way pretty much for every Russian federal subject which does not have it, see for example Pskov Oblast.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:32, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok I know you are a seasoned editor, and I hope this doesn't come across as rude or insensitive. But adding a "ref" to a parameter that doesn't exist is an improper use of a citation and the MOSinfobox. It's trivia at best, and if it's really that important, the user who added these (several years ago) should have added a section about it--though I doubt a section to indicate that some law passed that allows oblasts to have anthems would have much significance (which is probably why it doesn't exist, it's just trivia. If there's some WP:NOTE about the (lack of an) anthem, then sure, add a section. To have this kind of thing in an infobox is just wrong.

I see how some other Russian oblast articles have them, but again, how does that make it correct? To add a "ref" to a blank parameter is just so wrong. Make a section about it if it's something useful rather than add a comment-like reference. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 15:16, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I made a non-blank parameter but you did not like it either.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure - do you think that deleting a ref from Pskov Oblast while we are discussing it makes your argument stronger?--Ymblanter (talk) 15:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

In what world is it okay to add "none" to an infobox parameter? Is there another place where this exists? And no, I'm deleting it because it makes zero sense to include a "none" parameter exists... --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 15:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Look, you made a change. I disagreed and reverted. You went to my talk page to discuss, but all your arguments are "makes no sense" and "just so wrong". I am not really convinced by these arguments. What does WP:DR says? That it is ok to continue reverting?--Ymblanter (talk) 15:27, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I mean, if you want to take it to a dispute resolution you can. I've mentioned the MOSinfobox, and really could invoke WP:CITE (though it's already obvious that citations are meant to provide information about a source and not act as a comment/footnote). All you've really said is that it's useful. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 15:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry but this is your responsibility to take it to the dispute resolution, not mine. This is what our policies say.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Guess I'll do it. But still waiting on a policy you can point to justify adding "none" to infobox parameters and adding a comment-like citation as an FYI. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 15:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry but I do not need any policy to justify it. You need to point out the policy which prohibits it. It is quite possible that this policy exists, but I am not aware of it. Until it has been found, we just have opposite opinions concerning WP:MOS.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

This is something that wouldn't even be mentioned in MOS:Infobox or anywhere because of how trivial it is. It's akin to explaining that a period is necessary after a sentence. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 15:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Again, this so far has a status of your personal opinion. Btw the period is not always necessary after a sentence.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:45, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

As a courtesy, there is a dispute resolution involving you that you may want to check out. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 16:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Opening a topic at WT:MOS would have been much easier.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:20, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah you're probably right, probably would have been more constructive in any MOS talk page, but you did invoke DR. Oh well. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 16:27, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Infoboxes#Adding_a_citation_to_an_empty_parameter,_or_a_parameter_listed_as_"none". Cheers. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 04:02, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Good, thanks--Ymblanter (talk) 05:27, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

CatCafe

Hi, on September 20 you indefinitely partially blocked the user from editing certain pages. I just sitewide blocked CatCafe for one week based on a report at WP:AN3. I'm not sure what will happen when my block expires, meaning will the partial block continue. That's what I think should happen because otherwise I'm lifting a block that I am not entitled to lift, even if I wanted to. How do we handle this? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:11, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I guess when your block expires then the user is fully unblocked. I do not think there is a technical tool to handle this, we just need to come back to their page in a week and block them again. I have their talk page on my watchlist, I can do it.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay, sorry for the extra work. Stupid system.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:38, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

No problem, you obviously had to block them anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:45, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Please Help Me!

@Ymblanter: I Had Request The Right Of IP Block Exmeption From LongHair before 2 days ago,They Have Given Me This Right For 1 Month Asked To Reviwew After 1 Month But I Still Dont Understand Which One He Will Review What Happened Will They Block Me Please Help me ,Please see my talkpage Lazy Maniik.Best Regards. Maniik ^{🇮🇳Any Help🇮🇳? Contact Me.} 14:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are asking. Please follow up on your talk page with the administrator who granted the exemption.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

note

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_football_league_system

i league 2nd division - State leagues need capital letter please. although next time better ban vandals instead of locking pages. kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.140.235.55 (talk) 19:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Please write it there, someone will take care of this.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:10, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

page got locked (although better to ban) since most users dont care about details, hope you can fix before its unlocked. kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.148.193 (talk) 18:03, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

The talk page is not protected. You can leave a message there.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:16, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

can you unlock article as other admin did with related league, if already wont correct one letter... and i know few main indian users wont either. or i fix in few days, but sad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.148.193 (talk) 22:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

The problem with the article was that ip users were constantly adding unsourced and unverified information. I do not see any reason why this should not happen again.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Indigo children

You protected this one before, and I'd like a second set of eyes on what's been going on with an IP with a bad case of WP:IDONTHEARYOU. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:49, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I think your protection is perfectly fine, both due to the behavior of the ip and also because the article is under discretionary sanctions in the area of pseudoscience.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:25, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Don't give me orders

I told you I wasn't interested in the opinions of other editors so why don't you listen? Your views are valueless and nonsensical. The intoduction is supposed to reflect the body of the article, which is does now after I edited it. It certainly didn't before I got to it. If you weren't happy with it then you should have done it yourself instead of waiting for someone else to do it for you and then annoying them with your drivel. I can only assume you are yet another obessive editor with some vested interest in the subject. You ought to be banned not me. Now go away and don't bother me again.--Murky Falls (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Vyborg District

I updated Vyborg District in Leningrad Oblast based on Finnish and Russian pages of Wikipedia with adding urban and rural municipalities of her since 2010. But, you cancelled them despite I added source. Please you add ″Since 2010 Vyborg district has been divided into 7 urban settlements (Kamennogorsk, Primorsk, Roshchino, Sovetsky, Svetogorsk, Vyborg and Vysotsk) and 6 rural ones (Glebytshevo, Goncharovo, Krasnoselskoye, Permovayskoye, Polyany and Seleznyovo)″ sentence to it. Yours sincerely Cemsentin1 (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Right. First, the Finnish Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and thus no information can be added based on it. Second, and more importantly, you confuse administrative and municipal divisions. Here we use the administrative divisions as primary ones, and the administrative divisions of the districts are cities/towns, urban-type settlements, and Selsoviets. The corresponding municipal formations are urban and rural municipal settlements. This information obviously must be added, and I have done it for example for the districts of Arkhangelsk Oblast, but this is not my immediate priority right now.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:34, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Edit summary

What's the point of mentioning that? All of the content on that page came directly from BTS. We're especially not going to copy from a fanwiki of all things. Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 17:59, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I will correct this. We need to point out the provenance of the free material, copying without attribution is copyright violation.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

recent IP

Hey Ymblanter, hope you’re doing well. I think the recent IP you blocked is IP hopping now, see [20]. Same range/location. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 07:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 07:45, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Dear Ymblanter, somehow that IP you blocked 2 times is back again. Didn't know it's possible to IP hop so many times. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 02:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

They are already gone. You should go tp ANI and ask to calculate and possibly block the relevant range.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Porzhensky Pogost

Вы загружаете старо фото 20 летней давности. А я свежее. Не вводите людей в заблуждение! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shel1983 (talk • contribs) 12:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Просто эта старая фотография по качаству много лучше Вашей.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:14, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Чем это она луче? У меня оригинал не сжатый он не может быть хуже старой фотографии. Тем более место уже изменилось. Езжайте туда, сделайте свою хорошую фотографию и зхагружайте.

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Shel1983 tries to restore a low quality photographs--Ymblanter (talk) 12:25, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

2601:C3:8002:6800 ...

Hello, I've just blocked 2601:C3:8002:6800::/64, which had some contribs that I needed to rollback. In short, remember to just block the /64! Graham87 16:06, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I am sure I looked at the possibility of blocking the range in the morning, but decided against it - do not remember why.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Inappropriate language by a user in talk page

Hi, the user {{noping|Çerçok} has been aggressive since the beginning of the discussion in the Greek war of Independence making inappropriate comments for the ethnicity of other editors, using aggressive language [21] and ignoring the advise of 3 editors regarding the way to talk in WP. Would you be able to have a look? Thank you in advance Othon I (talk) 13:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry, I am really very short on time until Tuesday. Just ask at ANI.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

ANI required notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#HK_unregistered_ip_cult_again. Thank you. Matthew hk (talk) 10:21, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for notification, but I am on holidays and it is unlikely I could react.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

User:A r m i n i u s

Hi Ymblanter, I hope you are safe and doing well.

I noticed your September 2019 warning to this editor concerning this very issue. They appear to use their sporadic editing behavior as a way to avoid too much attention. They change "Byzantine" to "Eastern Roman" on some article then slip back into the shadows. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:11, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I have blocked the account for 31h, though I doubt they will notice the block.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Article that has had edit warring for more than a week

Hey, can you take a look [22]? Maybe a page protection or sth. They apparently agree on tp and then disagree again over the same thing. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:03, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

The talk page discussion is ongoing, I do not think anything is needed for the time being.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:06, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Nice, however please keep an eye on that article, if possible. The topic of ancient Epirus is one of the most controversial ones in the Balkans. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

RfA Reform 2021 Phase 2 has begun

Following a 2 week brainstorming period and a 1 week proposal period, the 30 day discussion of changes to our Request for Adminship process has begun. Following feedback on Phase 1, in order to ensure that the largest number of people possible can see all proposals, new proposals will only be accepted for the for the first 7 days of Phase 2. The 30 day discussion is scheduled to last until November 30. Please join the discussion or even submit your own proposal.

There is 1 future mailing planned with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

16:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Usedtobecool. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Second Kishida Cabinet, and have marked it as unreviewed. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Huh! I had thought these messages didn't go without asking anymore. Good thing I checked. Anyway, I am not sure about this article, as this is his first cabinet and there is already Kishida Cabinet. I unreviewed it because worst case scenario, it seems like this could be a hoax. I have asked the wikiproject, and will resolve it based on their response. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I checked indeed that Kishida Cabinet exists and thought this is a new incarnation, since the starting date is a month later. Let us wait whether there is any reaction from the project, it is probably safer to keep the article unreviewed.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Vandal returns

User:175.33.47.243, who you earlier blocked for vandalism, has returned to vandalism after the block expired. A longer block may be required. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 06:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done, blocked for 2 weeks.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:17, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello Y. Thanks for the R/D at ANI. That was the second go round (that I am aware of anyway) for that VxFC trash. The first was 2A00:23A8:4C31:5900:D1C5:AADE:54EA:C3EE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I altered it here and Blade of Northern Lights deleted the thread two edits later. I know it can be tricky r/d ing older posts but I thought I'd let you know what went on anyway. MarnetteD|Talk 12:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. No, that one stayed too late before being removed, I would not go to revision-delete 50 edits.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:05, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

That was my hunch. Thanks for taking a look and enjoy your weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 13:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Shusha page protection

Hey, I thought Shusha was semi-protected indefinitely - it currently has no page protection, could you possibly readd it? There are often IP:s and new users making disruptive edits to the page. AntonSamuel (talk) 17:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 17:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Melua

There's literally a Wikipedia page on this lastname. See also the page on Georgian surnames. 46.242.14.229 (talk) 18:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

So what? My aunt had an Armenian name and she was 100% Russian. Please bring the sources showing that Katie Melua is Mingrelian.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

That's not the best comparison since Mingrelians aren't a seperate ethnic group from Georgians, but I get your point. 46.242.14.229 (talk) 18:26, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Posp68 ip

Hi Ymblanter, the block on Posp68’s IP address seems to have warn off, he’s back at it contributing at e.g. Expulsion of Germans from Czechoslovakia.—Ermenrich (talk) 13:11, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I blocked the latest IP for a week, but somebody more competent than me should have at the range, what could reasonably be blocked and for which duration.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:09, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Styyx. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Lenina, Verkhnekhotemlsky selsovet, Fatezhsky District, Kursk Oblast, and have marked it as unreviewed. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 20:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Styyx: What is the problem with this page? It is perfectly fine as far as I am concerned.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:26, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

It was a misclick, I've marked it reviewed back again. Also had no idea it automatically sent a message to you, apologies. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 20:29, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Sure, thanks, no problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:38, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

What a mess?

what do you understand as unauthorized sources? normal sources, especially 24smi.org. And in general, how do you KNOW about whether this person is significant or not? Do you live in Russia, or what? Yes, she pops out of every iron, she was on a TV show, etc. A very famous person. Redaktor me (talk) 20:39, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, it is up to you to add reliable sources to the article and convince the community she is notable.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:44, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

What do you think, if she was invited to a TV show, if she previously had a popular account, as much as 4 million subscribers, is this called unknown? Yes, Irina sounds from every smoothing-iron, all our TikTok (Russian) knows her! She participated in famous TV shows, and in general, despite the relatively small number of subscribers, she is really very, very famous. They constantly slander her, do nasty things, then support her. I find this silly delete request inappropriate. Delete immediately! Redaktor me (talk) 23:38, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I do not think you are in a position to give me orders, and more so in the situation whey you are not familiar with our policies.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Listen, there are freaks who are much less well-known than Irina Kostyleva, why do you doesn't have any questions about THEM, but about a real Russian star? Who are you? Who are you for Russia? You don't know which stars are popular with us and which are not. So, if this template was inserted by a Russian-language user, then I would still understand. But you, by all means, are not. So, I'm asking this to stop and remove this deletion notice. sorry for being rude Redaktor me (talk) 11:43, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

If you continue this bullshit on my talk page I will take you to WP:ANI.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:49, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Right WP:N and WP:Deletion, your suggestions are completely absurd.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:55, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Where is the bullshit? Judging by you, you are on your side, even when you force obvious arguments. Yes, easily, I will not write here anymore. I just got the impression of you a stubborn and angry person, who is her only obvious things. I am immediately removed from your page. Redaktor me (talk) 12:18, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I see, you also do not speak English on top of your incompetence. Bye.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:24, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Preysbolls

Preysbolls is asking to be unblocked, saying they "will edit about horses" (LOL). Looks like talk page access will need to go in the near future? Either that or give them some WP:ROPE? Mako001 (talk) 09:38, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Since I am now involved, I can not act on their unblock request. Another administrator will do it. and talk page access may be revoked at that point. Realistically speaking, I do not see them getting unblocked solely as a result of this request.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:45, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Arvanites

Hi. The article is having massive edit warring and even personal attacks. Can you take a look? Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:51, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry but I am not going to deal with this.--Ymblanter (talk) 23:55, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

No worries. After I asked for your attention, I got myself involved in the dispute. So I am probably in no (honest) position to ask for admin intervention anymore. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I thought that the pic description on Commons was the issue, but I had the wrong impression. I left a suggestion for them on the talk page. I do not care anymore. Maybe my suggestion helps them. It is a tiny detail, a waste of time. I hope I did not waste you precious time with my request for attention. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:17, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Ukrainian translits

Hey, I noticed you posted a WP:AE notice on the talk page of an editor that's been changing a bunch of Ukrainian transliteration to some system of their preference, i've changed a bunch of them back but should i hold off until the AE is over? Also there are a lot of them and i'm not sure if i can get all of them or if this constitutes hounding. Any advice is much appreciated.

Alvast dank—blindlynx (talk) 22:27, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I would say their actions are so much against consensus that it is ok to mass-revert it. I have done some a week ago, but only the edits which showed up on my watchlist (they in addition removed Russian names of some East Ukrainian localities, which is against established consensus as well).--Ymblanter (talk) 22:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay, i'll keep going tomorrow, hopefully with a few people looking at this it will get sorted quickly—blindlynx (talk) 22:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

CfD request

Would you want to close Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_November_12#Category:1989_Tiananmen_Square_protests as it falls under CFDS criteria? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 07:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Why did you lock the GameStop Short Squeeze page?

There’s some really factually incorrect data on that page and now nobody can edit it… for example; there’s a Reuters article that’s quoted which describes GameStop’s short interest falling from 140% in January to 15% in March, yet that article quotes S3 for the data, and fails to mention that the 140% short interest was calculated with a completely different formula than the 15% number they quote, since S3 changed their formula to calculate short interest. 2607:FB91:141D:1F96:A595:4E59:BB70:CC5C (talk) 17:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I am sure if you make an edit suggestions at the talk page of the article and other editors agree someone will correct the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Accidentally?

In this comment do you perhaps mean "anecdotally" rather than "accidentally"? Thryduulf (talk) 10:57, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I actually meant "incidentally". I will correct it now.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:04, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. You just had me confused! Thryduulf (talk) 11:33, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Sure, no problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:33, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Question regarding a potential SPI case

Hi Ymblanter, I have a question regarding an IP you blocked earlier this year for trolling: [23]. Not sure if you’re aware, but that IP is an alt account of an extremely prolific commenter in the race & intelligence topic area whom I would categorize as consistently disruptive (for ID confirmation, see [24]). On that account’s userpage [25], they state that they often edit as an IP out of laziness but I suspect that they may be doing so to avoid scrutiny, i.e. by making it harder to put together the various behavioral warnings and blocks they've received in the past. Note that, until I called them out on it, their userpage simply stated that they Formerly posted from IP 73.xxx, address now defunct, which, I argued, appeared to be a misrepresentation [26], [27]. In any case, they have now escalated from posting long rants at FTN and article talk pages to ArbCom [28], so perhaps an indef is coming their way regardless. Just wondering if you might have any insight to offer here, especially as to whether there is an SPI case to be made. Thanks for all the work you do, Generalrelative (talk) 18:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

No, I am sorry, I do not see how I can help. I do not even think I can block this IP now - whereas their edits do not look to be constructive, I do not think they are at the level of a block at this point, and they do not edit so much.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:09, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks for your reply. Generalrelative (talk) 19:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Sure, sorry I can not help more than that.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:32, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Requesting your possible help

Hello Ymblanter, if possible, I'd like your opinion and possible help. I misunderstood this technical move request, and contested it in accordance with that misunderstanding. When I published the contest, an edit conflict indicated that another editor had answered the request and moved the page. Still believing the contest was valid, I requested that the move be reverted and the requested move be discussed.[29] A clarification published in the move discussion engendered my realisation of the misunderstanding, and my further realisation that the original request was uncontroversial. And that it should have been actioned as a technical request. After thoroughly considering the guidelines regarding RM discussion, I do not see a provision that would allow me to close the discussion early (being clearly involved) yet I am convinced that it should be closed and moved in full accordance with the original request. I have already caused enough unnecessary extra work for others that I am hoping the mess can be cleaned up now instead of seven days more. If you are agreeable, and will close the request as contest withdrawn or some such, I'll gladly move the pages and do all of the post-move cleanup. And if you think the discussion should instead run its course, I'll abide by that just as well. I'll be glad, either way, just knowing I've sought thoughtful insight like yours. Thank you for considering this request. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 09:17, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I see there was some activity yesterday, which included multiple moves and a history merge. I believe in this situation, it is best to have the discussion, even though it seems fully uncontroversial, run its course.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:34, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration and reply. I understand, and agree. And that is how things will proceed. Thanks again and be well.--John Cline (talk) 09:58, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in COVID-19, broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

LondonIP (talk) 03:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for notification.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Cathal O Searcaigh

You need to familarise yourself with your subject before removing edits and locking pages. Educate yourself and stop covering up sexual exploitation: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairytale_of_Kathmandu

There is an organised campaign by members of the organisation Aosdána, to which O'Searcaigh belongs, to conceal these events. They were the subject of widespread media and government discussion, and was the largest event in this niche irish-language poet's life.

And most importantly, the subject has admitted and never denied having sexual relationships with the teenage boys dependant on his financial charity in Nepal. No BLP breach.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.228.200.69 (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC) 

Make this argument at the talk page of the article. I certainly need to familiarize myself with the policies of this project, but I am sorry to say disruptively editing IPs are not the editor group I care much about.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:06, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Your redaction is what qualifies it as disruptive ? And you're 'not interested' yet see fit t9 interfere without checking the (undisputed) facts? You deleted an accurate and pertinent paragraph essential to the accuracy of the page, and then suggest that the matter be taken to the Talk (after locking the article) ? Have you any self-awareness ? Did you check up on anything in the subject before deleting it, or were you just trigger-happy in your uninformed perusal of edit notifications? The previous person who deleted the paragraph was suspended immediately afterwards for operating sock-puppet accounts. Earlier this year another one was warned that he should not be editing the pageas he was a personal friend of the subject (and by his own admission didn't want the case to be brought up as it was difficult for O'Searcaigh, and was a member of the same State Artist Organisation that had come in for public criticism for the attempts by some of their members to obscure and downplay the events in question - discussed in the hyperlink above) And way back, prior to that, as you can see in the Talk page as it stands there was a concerted campaign by a faction of editors to keep the matter off the page - all of their arguments are redundant; most rested on the situation as it stood prior to the airing of the documentary where O'Searcaigh admitted using his position to get sexual favours from several sixteen-year old boys (when asked how many of the the fifty odd boys involved with the charity were targeted, O'Searcaigh refused to give an answer but said not all of them...) This is an Irish-language poet, a niche subject, who used his charity work in Nepal to access numerous teenage boys dependant on his charity and gain sexual favours from them. It was the subject of media coverage in Ireland, Britain, India and of course Nepal. It was the subject of debate for months in all of the main Irish newspapers, National radio and Television. It was the subject of discussion by Irish government ministers and heated debates in the Second House of government. A campaign was carried out by friends of the poet to conceal or obfuscate the matter, using witnesses that were later found out to be false (discussed in the Fairytale of Kathmandu page). Some of the same people took part in a campaign to have the matter censored on the wikipedia page. The matter has a section on the documentary which uncovered the scandal here on wikipedia, but the substance and facts of the documentary and the events in question (to which, it should be repeatedly emphasised, O'Searcaigh has numerous times admitted in several interviews) are redacted and censored from the page.

For the record, the basis of the defense that O'Searcaigh has made was that intergenerational sex was part of his personal definition of a homosexual lifestyle, and that as he didn't physically coerce his victims he did nothing wrong. And the editors who have defended him (and blocked coverage of the matter) have used practically the same reasons as to why tbey believe it should not be included. Here is what the Rape Crisis Network had to say of this - https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-20055915.html ' Fiona Neary, director of the Rape Crisis Network, said Mr Ó Searcaigh was clearly not sorry. “Ó Searcaigh has made a disturbing appearance of an apology which included a further failure to recognise any wrongdoing. Indeed, Ó Searcaigh seeks to defend his actions,” she said.

“These words are put together by a man of words, a man who knows how to measure each individual word for its meaning and intention. To deliberately and intentionally confuse the sexual exploitation of boys in a poverty-stricken country with a ‘gay lifestyle’ is insulting to gay men and women, and a ploy to confuse matters.” '

By deleting the paragraph you have involved yourself in this. This isn't vandalism or personal wikipedia arguments, this is a concerted attempt at censoring facts deemed inconvenient by a faction of editors with personal and professional ties to the subject. And this is what you are backing up, inadvertently or otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.228.200.69 (talk) 20:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I am not going to read this rant and/or enter into any argument with you. Please make the point at the talk page of the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:49, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

You locked the article... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.228.200.69 (talk) 20:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Please make the point at the talk page of the article--Ymblanter (talk) 20:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Reliability of Wikipedia

Hey Ymblanter,

Can you PP Reliability of Wikipedia?[30] Thanks in advance. François Robere (talk) 12:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Protected for a week.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:05, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Question

Hey Ymblanter, I hope all is well! I have a question for you about the reliability of sources from the former Soviet Union since I know you edit a lot in that area. I found a really good source about the Orontid dyansty by the distinguished Tajik historian Bobojon Ghafurov published in 1971, here is the encyclopedia Iranica article on him[31], but got reverted because it wasn’t a western source and published in Moscow. I was always under the impression that it was fine to use sources from Russia/The Soviet Union, especially in an area such as ancient history. I know English language sources are generally preferred for verifiability, but can you advise me on the Wikipedia policy regarding eastern sources, especially those coming from the former soviet union? here is the source[32] (not just for this specific case but in general since I use them quite frequently), Thank you! TagaworShah (talk) 14:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

This is an academic source, from an academic published, and looks perfectly fine. If it contradicts to some other sources (which might be the case) it can be mentioned as one of the sources.If your opponents thing this is fringe they must come with some arguments better than the language of the source.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:29, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! TagaworShah (talk) 16:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Armen Smbatian and revdels

Hi, I saw some revdels on Sergey Smbatyan and thought you might want to look at the article for his father. best, -Roxy the dog. wooF 22:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. This one at least has a source, and I can not immediately determine the reliability of the source. In this situation, I do not feel confident to revision-delete the edits, though the page must be protected if this gets restored.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:25, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I understand. I've been watching and I cannot figure out what is going on. I shall continue watching both. -Roxy the dog. wooF 22:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Sure, please let me know if it becomes more clear.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Ka_Kit_Pang

Thanks for your help with this user. I added a Uw-disruptive1 warning to his talk page but he deleted his talk page, so he's on his first or second warning by now. Tollsjo (talk) 07:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I thought about blocking per NOTHERE, but they had a contribution on an unrelated topic earlier this year. If they continue the current activity, a block is likely.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

PIA topic ban

I am not sure what is meant by your comment on AE. Does this mean that I am already banned from this topic or that you are considering it? Also, please take into account when I say that I need clarification as to whether a 24 hour period mean 'a day' or 24 hours between two edits, that I have a diagnosis of Autism and tend to take things literally. 24 hrs usually means to me 'a day' and the edits were done on two seperate days. If you cannot see why I need a clearer explanation here then perhaps it is because your mind may work differently to mine. I am trying to co-operate and have been since my edit was reverted earlier today, by talkpage discussions and refraining from making further edits until a consensus is reached. Amirah talk 22:01, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

No, you are not yet topic-banned. I proposed a topic ban in my role as uninvolved administrator.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, and please also bare in mind that I removed the text because the way it is stated is original research and it is defamatory to suggest that their primary motive was to 'become Shaheeds' while it is obvious in the sources that their primary motive was to bring aid to Gaza. This suggestion even caused one editor to write on the talk page that they should have been labelled as terrorists. Yet, the editors of the page completely ignored what was said in the sources about their primary motive and cherry-picked the text that their motive was to become Shaheeds. They did not embark on this with a wish to die, although they realised that they may die in the process. They were unfortunate victims of a tragic event. Even if it is not a BLP it is still defamatory. There are special rules for removing defamatory material from BLP's and it is still unclear to me how these rules should apply elsewhere, but IMO there should not be defamatory material anywhere on Wikipedia. I would have thought that these rules should also have applied in this case. Amirah talk 22:22, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I am not going to discuss this here. If you think this is relevant please post it at the AE page so that other users might react as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

ok Amirah talk 22:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

FYI

Someone created this, which was already deleted twice (one of these earlier versions must have been on my watchlist, that's how I noticed this new creation). No idea if you want it to stay, but I thought it best that you were at least aware of it. Fram (talk) 07:59, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I am not sure what is this but will have a look.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

That page

I have also taken the action of salting that page as I see it has been created a few times over the years. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:10, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Great, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I am terribly sorry. I had no idea that I could not do this. If you could, please delete the other ones I created. Words cannot express how sorry I am. Scorpions13256 (talk) 15:03, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

No problem, I was very clear that I think you have done this in good faith.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:39, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I always had a cautious approach to that policy. I guess I overestimated my knowledge. I have not read the deletion discussion, and I never plan on doing so. Would you mind deleting the G7's I tagged for the same reason? Scorpions13256 (talk) 15:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Fastily has taken care of them, thanks--Ymblanter (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry it took me so long to get back to you. I "locally locked" myself with a 3-day wikibreak. I just came back to assure you that nothing like this will ever happen again. I committed a BLP:CRIME violation back in May, and learned from that. I will take this time to read all policies on living people more thoroughly so that this will be the last time I screw up like this. Scorpions13256 (talk) 03:46, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I do not think anybody is accusing you in anything, though of course reading policies is always a good idea.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:16, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Posp68

Sorry to bother you about him again, but he just won't give up. He's making personal attacks now as well, see [33].--Ermenrich (talk) 18:13, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 18:20, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Scholz cabinet

sadly you freezed the page in the wrong version, fellowmellow pushed his imaginary translation, giving a source that doesn't support it, over the official translation used for decades Norschweden (talk) 14:19, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:WRONGVERSION--Ymblanter (talk) 14:21, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

tbh the page mad me laugh, but afaik, usually the pre-edit war state is the one that is to be blocked from editing, now the vandal "won" the editwar, even tho multiple users showed that he was wrong Norschweden (talk) 15:14, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I can block both of you, and, to be honest, unless you start discussing this is what I am going to do.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:15, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

You see, Norschweden continues to mislead, unfortunately. His edits are unsourced. I requested a proper English translation, he failed to provide an English translated source. The name was changed and the translation goes to construction. I have told him, on numerous occasions, that he can’t edit something without sources. He claims he did, but he didn’t provide the necessary source. I ask of you not to remove the protection because he is the actual vandal, who is trying to get his way. The users… "one user" to be precise actually was editing about "community (with interior), not construction." The source as I requested was provided, for building there was no providing. So his claims that "multiple users" proved me wrong, is nothing, but a bizarre allegation. FellowMellow (talk) 20:34, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

There was a good reason why I moved the ANI thread to Talk:Scholz cabinet and not to my user talk page. Please discuss it there. The protection expires in three days.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:36, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

A more in-depth explanation

Coming from here, in my course of countering both COI and UPE it is very common practice for editors who have a vested interest in the article they are creating to vehemently move back to mainspace articles which has been drafitified. sometimes, rather than even moving the article back to mainspace, they copy the source code and paste it and make into a new article thus making drafitication impossible. I get worked up sometimes and kick the article out of mainspace by sending the article to their user space, but per WP:Draftify that isn’t good practice, what you want to do is officially make a complaint of the editor and the relevant article here thus more eyes can be looking at it, then what you do next is to proceed to nominate the article for deletion. I hope this helps. Celestina007 (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

In the two examples I cited I believe there is no vested interest. Both users really believe they help Wikipedia and whoever sends their articles to draft makes harm. One of the articles I AfDed and it was deleted; the creator did not react properly, voted keep multiple times, and generally insisted that the topic is notable without bringing any arguments. Both had issues pointed out at their talk pages and decided to ignore them. I am afraid if it becomes too bad topic bans might be in order, but otherwise there is nothing to do here.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:14, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I very much agree with you. Celestina007 (talk) 20:19, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Close discussion

Regarding [34], where do you discuss the close? On-wiki of off-wiki? If onwiki, I would like to read the discussion, so I would appreciate it if you provided a link. Thanks 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:19, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

It is off-wiki and not supposed to be public.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:34, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:AN misplaced message?

Should [35] be in WP:AN#Donation rather than WP:AN#Proven socks belonging to a LTA? DMacks (talk) 17:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, sure, will correct it now.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Resoruce

A complie of all ancesty pages in to one to show reaL data of modern racial compsition with the sources there.. and it is removed.. very bad editing from you and xuxo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bikkustra1 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are talking about.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh, now I know. Will block now.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:56, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Better decentralization.gov.ua instead of gromada.info

Hello! I noticed that you use a lot gromada.info for links. I think that better to use decentralization.gov.ua links instead like [36] (this is just example). And below I will explain why it is better.

decentralization.gov.ua is an official governmental website which is maintained by Ministry of Communities and Territories Development. And gromada.info is the website of a private IT company, whose business is to develop web-sites for different institution, the last year mainly new hromadas. Yes, they borrow a lot of info from decentralization.gov.ua (which is under public license, thus all is OK), translate it to Russian and present it in a nice way. But it is much more reliable to refer to an official governmental website. First, because any company may much more easy to closed website than any ministry. Secondly, because this way you (not knowing this) promoting a private IT company, which is also is not nice. --Heanor (talk) 17:23, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I see that in hromada.info I can immediately find all information I need: for a given locality, which hromada it belongs; for a given hromada, which raion it belongs and which raion it belonged to before 2020, and in a structural way. Whereas the two first points should be on the government website (though the navigation is horrible, and they put context ads pretty much as well), the third one, which is crucial, is not there, or, at least, I can not find it. Whereas we could probably be fine with localities citing the government website, it is certainly not ok with the articles about raions, which I am also working on. They can indeed get down, and I hope they are going to be arxived before they get down (the fact that we cite them helps the arxivation). In my workflow, however, using hromada.org is way more convenient, first, because of the structure, and second, because they use Russian, whereas the ministry understandably do not. So I am afraid I will stay with them until I finish the job sometime middle of the next year.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I really did not understand your point about context ads, I see completely the opposite: here I see no ads, and here I see 7 (!) context ads. --Heanor (talk) 17:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Old raion it belonged to before 2020 is here, down below (though it is quite difficult to find, I should admit). --Heanor (talk) 17:42, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, what I thought are ads are their own materials. Ok, I think I would be willing to use the ministry refs on the pages about localities, but I would stick to the hromada.info on the pages about districts, since the info on the former raions is much better accessible.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:59, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Holiday greetings (2021)

Ymblanter,
I sincerely hope your holiday season goes well this year especially with what we went through last year. I'm optimistic that 2022 will be a better year for all of us: both in real life and on Wikipedia. Wishing you the best from, Interstellarity (talk) 18:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, also best wished to you.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:55, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

AllatRa

I'm reaching out to you because you're the only Russian speaker that I've seen around on-wiki, and I'd like to know if this article seems notable. It may be that this movement is clearly notable and because of my location I've simply never heard of it. Unfortunately, I've had to rely on machine translations of the cited sources while doing cleanup, but several are PDFs, or other publications, which prevent me from assessing their reliability and independence from the article subject. I'd really appreciate it if you had time to take a glance at this. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Concerning the reliability of the references: 1 - an academic article in a conference proceedings book, the book was reviewed, but no indication separate contributions were peer-reviewed; 2 - a student presentation at a conference, not peer-reviewed, I would say not a RS; 3 - similar to 1; 4 - low-impact journal published in Ukraine, presumably peer-reviewed, an academic work (the journal is published by a university); 5 - a deadlink, and is supposed to reference the fact that the organization is legally registered, would not establish notability in any case, a primary source; 6 - typical for Ukrainian media, looks like a media publication, but in fact is just a report of a blog of a non-notable person, definitely not a RS; 7 - slightly better than 5, looks like kind of RS, Daily Mail level; 8 - a web portal controlled by the Orthodox church, I would say hardly a RS; 9 - slightly better than 7; 10 - would never pass RSN, not a RS; 11 - see 6, cites a primary source. I have never heard of the movement (which by itself does not say anything, I do not live in Eastern Europe), but for me the notability is on the edge. AfD could go either way.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:28, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a ton. I appreciate it. I don't suppose you know any eastern european editors who I might be able to bounce this off? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

No, sorry, do not know anybody.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. If I do open an AfD, would you mind if I quote your source analysis? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Sure, feel free to quote me.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a ton. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Sure, no problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

You may want to see this.

This may be of interest, relating to the user you just blocked. They have repeatedly socked and disruptively moved pages related to this band. Mako001 (talk) 12:53, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I have actually seen this (it is linked from the ANI), thanks. I do not think anything else from my side is needed for the moment.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:37, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Snowboarding Athlete Edits

Adding a link to each athlete's profile on Infinite Degrees is not promotion. It's clear if you visit the site, it gives a catalog of tricks that each athlete has done. This is purely for reference and learning about what each athlete does. The goal by linking Infinite Degrees pages is that people have a better idea of what these athletes are doing when they are doing these death defying stunts. If you want to progress the sport and make things more transparent into what they are doing, it makes sense to add the links as Wikipedia is one of the main sources that people go to when they look up these riders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmichigan7 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Adding text referenced with videos to the site is certainly not ok. I believe adding the external links is also not ok, but you can try WP:RSN.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:57, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

And using Wikipedia to promote the site is certainly not ok. When reliable sources start referencing it, we may consider adding these external links.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:58, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Clearly by linking the site, I'm not promoting the site itself. The link references the athlete's page on Infinite Degrees which contains videos of tricks that they have done. It is promoting the athlete and their athletic achievements. It's the same thing when someone references an X Games profile or FIS profile, except this site is enriched with video. Furthermore, adding text referenced with video is the definition of what an external link is for from here WP:ELMAYBE. Finally, adding text referenced with video is providing a primary source of what these athletes are doing. Unsure where you are coming from here bud. --Bmichigan7 (talk) 20:41, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry but I fail to see how spamming Wikipedia articles by links is not promoting the site. I do not think we are going anywhere from here. Primary sources btw are not allowed.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:06, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I was mistaken, these are not primary sources, these are secondary sources attached with video of the event. Furthermore, spamming would imply that these links are not providing any value. In fact, they are providing detailed information about the run or trick they did to quantify why they placed they did. There are plenty instances of video attached to the articles that have been edited.--Bmichigan7 (talk) 21:13, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

No, they are primary sources and are not allowed. I am not sure how you decided they are secondary sources. Btw are you associated with this website?--Ymblanter (talk) 21:14, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Primary in the sense where it is a direct account of what happened, but secondary in the sense that the publisher is not the one doing the trick. Primary sources are allowed if they are unbiased WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD which it's clear that these videos are. And no, affiliated with the US Ski and Snowboard team but not the site. Just trying to bring more understanding to snowboarding before the Olympics and this is the only site that has reliable information on what athletes do. Even snowboarder great Danny Davis said that half the time american news outlets get the trick names wrong and it frustrates the living hell out of riders who do this everyday.--Bmichigan7 (talk) 21:40, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry but you have to go through WP:RSN. I do not think your understanding of the notability policy is aligned with consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:42, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Unsure how you are deeming this site not reliable or where you are getting this idea that there is no consensus. Out of all the edits I've made in the last week, you are the only one that seems to object. It's clear you don't have much knowledge of freestyle snowboarding or skiing given one click to the website would explain what athletes are doing. Not going to go post on a page where people are asking wikiislam and victimsofcommunism are reliable sources when what I am posting is direct, unbiased, and knowledgable insight with Infinite Degrees.--Bmichigan7 (talk) 22:00, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Then WP:ANI is the only option.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:02, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Indefinite semi-protected request for Hitman's Wife's Bodyguard due to vandalism

Hi, this is your boy here. As I already requested it in the other page, due to that guy putting Caillou in Hitman's Wife's Bodyguard, I would like you to semi-protect the page, the same way you did with The Nut Job 2: Nutty by Nature, because he also thought it was the first film from a company that doesn't exist, 'PBS Kids Movies'. AVeganKid (talk) 07:20, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done for 3 months. Would you please finally read our policy, Wikipedia:Page protection, most of your request for indefinite semi-protection are baseless. And please use the noticeboard.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry about that, but I have an obsession on them. I guess that's fine with me on those pages, but except on Wednesday when I get access to the 30-day extended-confirmed protection, I need to extended-confirmed protect the untitled Mario movie due to vandalism regarding of voice actors whom are unsourced.--AVeganKid (talk) 07:27, 28 December 2021 (UTC)