Jump to content

User talk:Ymblanter

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Zimm666 (talk | contribs) at 18:29, 17 May 2016. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

−

−

−

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


Archives: 2011; 2012; 2013; 2014, 2015, 2016

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

User talk:Ezhiki#List of Russian landscape painters

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

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

Canada lists

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

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

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

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

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

Things this work does not do fix:

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

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

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

Japan

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

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


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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

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

File:AMAA Statuette.jpg

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

According to our policies, if by the nomination time at WP:FFD there are no objections to deletion, the file gets deleted.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to WP:DRV--Ymblanter (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aristo

Hello again,

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

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

Deletion review for File:AMAA Statuette.jpg

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

Thanks,

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

There is indeed a "not" missing but I discovered it only after the topic was already closed and decided that it is not worthwhile to correct it.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. Doug Weller talk 06:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Compulsory purchase in England and Wales

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

In this talk page post[1], S Marshall wrote ' What will happen now, of course, is I'll wait three days because Ymblanter has actually protected the page and then I'll reintroduce the completely appropriate and needful redlinks in this article somewhere above the "See also" heading.' Ymblanter, does that constitute a threat to make bad faith edits in order to make a point? He's already done a similar edit here[2]. If you check the edit history of the article you'll see that was a removed see also link....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:35, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think it make sense to unprotect the page until the two of you agree on the changes.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of calendars, Muisca calendar added

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

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

Iranian legislative election, 2016

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

The two of you should agree at the talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I started a section in the article's page but the user not answered! 5.74.0.223 (talk) 12:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to mediate your dispute. Try their talk page next, possibly WP:DRV if it fails. Reverting back and forth is not a solution.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SPI for Rajiv Malhotra editors

Should we just let this SPI play out? Or do you want to make the blocks?VictoriaGraysonTalk 20:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mountain Jews

Hello Ymblanter,

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

You have broken the markup and removed info which was sourced, adding instead smth which was not sourced. This is not acceptable.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's ridiculous that an Ashkenazi jew that don't know his own history and origin is distorting and rewriting our history. So why havn't you reverted my last change it's also contradicts your false sources?!!! (Hebrew Mountain Man (talk) 21:09, 30 April 2016 (UTC))[reply]
May be you should read WP:RS before you continue editing. And do not start Ashkenazi vs Sefardi rant here, it is a straingt way to getting blocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:13, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What truth is hurting you. Get over it and do not threaten me with your ridiculous ability of blocking - I don't give a damn!!! You would better answer my last question, it's more relevant than your lousy feelings! Your last answer is more suitable for kindergarten. So be more serious and focused on our conversation if you want to get answers!(Hebrew Mountain Man (talk) 21:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC))[reply]
I am not going to talk to you like this.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Better answer my last question as you should have done the first place - So, why havn't you reverted my last change it's also contradicts your false sources?!!!(Hebrew Mountain Man (talk) 21:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC))[reply]
Still not good. You failed. Try again. And those are not "mine" sources.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are a total fail! Don't worry you can't change it so I don't give you a chance, it's in your DNA!!! (Hebrew Mountain Man (talk) 22:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC))[reply]
This user left many comments on my talk page; I think he still has issues in recognizing the cooperative nature of Wikipedia and recognizing that decisions are based on consensus...--Laber□T 21:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And they also seem to bring some conflicts here I have never heard about (why did they call me a New York Ashkenazi?)--Ymblanter (talk) 05:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help Please

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A not-barnstar for you!

The Not-A-Barnstar Award :P
For protecting Talk:Hillary Clinton for me. Peter Sam Fan 19:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:50, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mayor of London

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

I can not edit it either. Please leave an edit request at the talk page, one of the administrators would react.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! :) LoudLizard (📞 | contribs | ✉) 20:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, the BBC noticed! See Wiki war over who is the London mayor section. Liz Read! Talk! 20:54, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks Liz.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Check yourself before you Shrek yourself!

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

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

Incest

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

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

Re: Alexandros Jakupović

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

Could you please be more explicit? I am not sure I understand your request, and the edit history of Alexandros Jakupović does not seem to show my involvement.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:29, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see, the redirect does. There were two templates. AfD had a red link; moreover, redirects are not discussed at AfD. For speedy deletion, I do not see why it should be deleted and under what criterion. If you mean smth like merging editing history, pls be more specific.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Alexandros Jakupović. Since you had some involvement with the Alexandros Jakupović redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Rovingrobert (talk) 08:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some IP

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

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

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

Mistake

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

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

Ribbon of Saint George issues

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

Kulchytsky

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

It is just too long. If I ever have time, I could. I may translate the Kulchytsky related pieces, they are relatively compact, but, again, this would still take at least an hour even more, and i can not invest so much time on a working day.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is not that long. Anyway, RFC would have been an a lot more gentlemanly an act than ANI, wouldn't you say?--Lute88 (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now I understand you want me to translate the article about Kulchytsky from Russian Wikipedia. No, first, I am not interested in the topic, second, I never translated anything from Russian Wikipedia since it is biased and unreliably sourced. Concerning the ANI, if this would be out first intersection of this sort, I would continue discussing. However, precious intersections convinced me you are only interested in removal of the material you do not like, does not matter how well it is sourced. This is an ANI matter.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Only if you enjoy power-trips, if you know this americanism!)) BTW, are you related to Matvei?--Lute88 (talk) 20:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since you happen to know what my name is (and I am sure I did not tell you this), you probably can find the answer to this question as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I just did! It is funny that we have not a single Facebook friend in common, although I have many in common with some of your friends. I might friend you one of these days!--Lute88 (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do not worry, I never accept friend requests from unknown people.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:48, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sikorski BLP

That IP on the Radoslaw Sikorski article is not going to go away. Here they are again [6]. This problem came up previously (check the edit history in Nov '15 and Aug '14, among others) and they'll basically keep on doing it until the page is protected. Ideally, the page would be put under flagged revisions.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 19:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let us see what happens after two weeks, right now it is too intensive for pending changes.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks! Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Socks

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

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

Battle of Ain Jalut

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

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

SPA IP account

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

I alerted them of discretionary sanctions and blocked them for 3RR, but please start a talk page discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:42, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:54, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. The IP has come back from their block, and first edit was to revert an edit on the Sergey Karjakin article that Sophia91 (talk · contribs) did and then go back to reverting the other article. I've invited them to talk on the latter too. Appreciate if you could look at this. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sent on a one week break.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Random removal of edits

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

The community worked for several months trying to find neutral formulation of events in thee articles. You are apparently unaware of these efforts, since you did not edit Wikipedia between 2009 and 2016. Additionally, some of your edits just miss the point: For example, the Republic of Crimea has no relation to Ukraine (and never had any), and adding Ukrainian categories is just wrong. Please first familiarize yourself with the multiple discussions which occurred in 2014 concerning Crimean localities and institutions. If subsequently you still feel the formulations can still be improved, please raise topics at relevant talk pages.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First, even if your claim that I "did not edit Wikipedia between 2009 and 2016" was true (it is far from that), it should've not make any impact on the discussion.
Second, your claims like that the so-called "Republic of Crimea" has no relation to Ukraine are a perfect example of a politically motivated POV. We all know, that the "Republic of Crimea" have never been internationally recognized: neither as an independent entity, nor as a part of the Russian Federation. Hence, the self-proclaimed "Republic of Crimea" is actually a Ukrainian Autonomous Republic of Crimea under Russian occupation, which justifies adding Ukrainian categories. There is no need to raise discussion topics to fix politically motivated openly incorrect and misleading formulations. For the second time, I kindly ask you to stop promote your political views and to restore the unrightfully deleted edits, thank you. AMartyn (talk) 09:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not going to happen. Please read the discussion, which apparently you still failed to do.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the third time, I kindly ask you to stop using Wikipedia to promote your political views. If you fail to cooperate, I'll have to elevate the subject. AMartyn (talk) 09:44, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Community elected me administrator to enforce consensus. I never edited Wikipedia to promote my political views, and I am not planning to edit Wikipedia to promote my political views. I refuse to cooperate with you to add material to the article which goes against consensus of editors. WP:ANI is that far away, if you feel the community should evaluate my actions.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"I never edited Wikipedia to promote my political views, and I am not planning to edit Wikipedia to promote my political views." - ok, let's do it again. Fact#1: Neither Russian annexation of Crimea nor the "referendum" have been recognized by the international community. Fact#2: the article on so-called "constitution" does not reflect the Fact#1 and misinforms the reader about the legal status of the subject: it is heavily biased in favor of the Russian political POV. Nevertheless, you throw away an edit, which puts light on the topic and moves the article in accordance to neutrality. Furthermore, you abuse the discretionary sanctions system to keep the article in its current, deformed state. The same goes with Simferopol: the chapter refers to legally void things as they were legitimate, misinforming the reader and promoting the Russian political agenda. Eg, it refers to territories, internationally recognized as occupied by Russia, as they were Russian legitimately. And again, you remove edits which move the chapter towards neutrality and refuse to restore them. This is obviously an attempt to promote a politically motivated POV and an abuse of administrator rights. Trying to resolve the situation on a basis of consensus and Wikipedia rules, I urge you to reconsider and to restore the deleted edits. AMartyn (talk) 10:12, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with what you write. The text is a result of long and painful discussions within the community which resulted in consensus. The edits will not be reinstated without discussion with the community.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've got zero cooperation from you, but a clear intent to keep certain articles politically biased. I have no other choice then to question your neutrality. AMartyn (talk) 11:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ymblanter&oldid=720745207"