User talk:Ymblanter/2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

based on the pro-maidan garbage you have been peddling yes marek you are pro-maidan ....you even call eliot higgins "unreliable source" when he posts info that doesn't support western narrative but when he posts a pro-kiev narrative he is totally legit why is it that bellingcat is a riable source for this.^[1]. but yet when bellingcat states this.^[2]he is an unreliable source why the double standards... And as for the trade union house "bursting into flames for no reason" apparently what you can see with your own eyes is not a credible source..OK then Bazzabobo (talk) 01:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Я бы заменил

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

на

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  "A decision of sorts from a previously uninvolved administrator"

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

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

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

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

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

More information Thank you for participating in the Women in Music edit-a-thon ...

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

Close

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi there,

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

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

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

From TrinaMark:

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

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

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

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

Hello again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quick facts Babel ...

Three years ago ...

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

Close

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More information You are invited... ...

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

Close

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Excuse me but there is pro-russian source ^[1] made by NATALIYA VASILYEVA (russian giornalist) so why i can't put some of ukranian sources to make it more closer to neutrality?? Yes this requires a discussion because this article offends me and some of ukrainians ^[2] That's why i decided to change it. But if you read this "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." so you cant say that institute of history of Ukraine isn't RELIABLE source. By the way if you read closely this article you will see that source i used "www.history.org.ua/" is already linked so you cant say that "not make it more neutrality".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best wishes,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

Hello again,

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

In this talk page post, 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. If you check the edit history of the article you'll see that was a removed see also link....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:35, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello Ymblanter,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello Ymblanter,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi there,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But the city was officially renamed on May 19, 2016 following law of decommunization. And this name is now widely used. RMN120501 (talk) 20:03, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion took place at Talk:Dnipropetrovsk, and the decision was taken not to move.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:07, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi,

I am trying to create an article on a Canadian rugby player by the name of Charity Williams, however only administrators are able to create the article at this point. I have a draft saved here . Can you please move this to the article status please? Thanks! Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:33, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 05:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thanks! Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:25, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Having calmed down.... I just realised that my behaviour to you on my talkpage today and regarding to the whole Kirovohrad be renamed and moved to Kropyvnytskyi discussion of today was rude. I am sorry about this and apologise for it. I do not really have an excuse other then me having had a Blue Monday today (and it is Thursday today!).
Fortunatly I do like the New Order song "Blue Monday" . — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

No problem, good that we managed to resolve it.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:16, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear Ymblanter, I have send you an email. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 18:08, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Just a reminder. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 10:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Based on this and this, he is simply refusing to let go of the situation that lead up to his block. I am not sure if this qualifies as inappropriate use of a user talk page, though. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 20:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

So far they are not do anything which goes counter to the policies. It is obviously a problem that they do not understand why they were blocked, but it simply means that soon they are going to blocked for a longer duration.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I think that his next block should be indefinite, because the current block log as it stands does not inspire confidence. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 21:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

The blocking administrator will decide on the duration of the block.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey sir, the 'citation needed' tag was wrongly added to the text that the sock IP was trying to remove as the text was sourced from the ref already present at the end of the paragraph . I have also added another ref . I hope it is alright? Thanks.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 20:30, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I am personally fine and have no interest in the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Thankyou.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 20:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I think you mixed up your ""keep vs. delete" rationale reasonings here on the close. Could you re-revierw your closing statement? MSJapan (talk) 15:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, I screwed it up. Corrected now, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:58, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

FYI: Block on Sibling expired a couple days ago. Anonymous user immediately started up again with disruptive edits. Cloudswrest (talk) 02:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 05:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Can you semi-protect the page and revert MariaJaydHicky confirmed sock IP 2a02:c7f:de18:a800:c9dc:22c6:8966:6e8d contribution. Destiny Leo (talk) 07:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done, protected, not goint to revert as I do not want to be involved with the content of the article. You can revert it yourself.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Jamala states herself that she believes in god and has mentioned her practicing Ramadan several times on her official Instagram account. She is a practicing Muslim.

This has been discussed at the talk page and rejected. Please start a new discussion and wait until it concludes if you want to add this into into the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

A little explanation about my edit on Lisove, Kirovohrad Oblast: based on how the article was written I thought that the urban-type settlement was de-facto a suburb of the city of Kropyvnytskyi. Now I realise it is far from that.... Thanks for the help! — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Sure, this is my fault, I screwed up last year when I for whatever reason replaced Vynnitsia Oblast with Kirovohrad, not Kirovohrad Oblast. Nothing wrong from your side.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I added a note at Wikipedia:Edit_filter_noticeboard#Special:AbuseFilter.2F782, please feel free to add any comments. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Great, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:50, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi there,

I just wanted to comment on your closing rationale over at the AN Translation tool edit filter thread. You said that "Articles are being created in great number". I feel that this is at best an exaggeration. 11 pages a day is not a great number, and any admin can spend 30 minutes a day to keep up with this problem. This isn't to say it's not a problem, but rather that it's not an urgent one. I am requesting that you reword that section of your close, and hold off on implementing the edit filter for 24-48 hours to give the language team time to respond. I think that your close is broadly correct, and won't push the issue further than this, but I hope that you will consider my points.

Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 20:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I can reword the closure (adding some number rather than great number), but I do not want to postpone the filter. It triggered 25 hits today (I guess 15 non-testing or so), which is still a big number given that the articles are not amenable to speedy deletion and need to be dealt with manually via PNT. This is clearly a temporary fix, and my closure leaves all options open to revert it, for example, if WMF comes with a good suggestion. However, if you not feel happy with my close, as I said in the rationale, just undo my close. (In this case, obviously, I will not be the person to reclose it).--Ymblanter (talk) 20:59, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Reworded the closure, going to sleep now, feel free to take action without me if needed.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:04, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

That more or less satisfies my concern- I still wish you would hold off, but I can definitely understand your argument. I was assuming that admins were going to use IAR deletion rather than using PNT. However, this is an acceptable temporary solution for me. Thank you for the bold closure. Tazerdadog (talk) 21:09, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I notice you have deleted the Wikipedia page on Christopher Holcroft.

What will be needed for the page to be undeleted please?

7Lawrence 02:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7Lawrence (talk • contribs)

It did not survive the deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Holcroft. It can not be undeleted. If you want, I can restore it in your user space or in the draft space. For the article to be moved to the main namespace, it should satisfy our motability criteria.--Ymblanter (talk) 04:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ymblanter,

Please restore the page on Christopher Holcroft to my user space as per above.

In relation to notability, the books mentioned in the article have been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the books themselves. This is borne out in the various references. This includes published works in newspaper articles and independent reviews. No media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book have been used to write the page. The three books written for teenagers have made a significant contribution to a notable or significant movement ie Scouts in Australia. No other books on teenage Venturer Scouts have been written and published in Australia, about Scouts in Australia by an Australian. His other two books are instructional on the afterlife through fictional adventure. The books' author is historically significant as he has been both a Journalist and Military Public Affairs Officer in the service of his country at home and abroad and for the United Nations. He brought this experience to the fore in his books through adventure. 7Lawrence 01:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7Lawrence (talk • contribs)

User:7Lawrence/Christopher Holcroft. You do not need to convinve me of the notability, I merely summarized the discussion. If you work on the article and will want to move it to the article space, it will likely be another discussion, where these arguments could be in order.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any independent reviews amongst the article's references, 7Lawrence, and none were provided in 15 days of deletion discussion. Unless sources are added that demonstrate significant coverage of Holcroft in independent, reliable sources, then I will have to request speedy deletion of the version in your userspace, per WP:U5. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi YMBlanter and Cordless Larry,

Please check out User:7Lawrence/Christopher Holcroft and note I have added independent, external, reliable review sources to the page. I believe the page should be restored because of the following:

In relation to notability, the books mentioned in the article have been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the books themselves. This is borne out in the various references. This includes published works in newspaper articles and independent reviews.

No media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book have been used to write the page.

The three books written for teenagers have made a significant contribution to a notable or significant movement ie Scouts in Australia. No other books on teenage Venturer Scouts have been written and published in Australia, about Scouts in Australia by an Australian. His other two books are instructional on the afterlife through fictional adventure.

The books' author is historically significant as he has been both a Journalist and Military Public Affairs Officer in the service of his country at home and abroad and for the United Nations. He brought this experience to the fore in his books through adventure.

Many thanks for your consideration. 7Lawrence 02:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7Lawrence (talk • contribs)

I hope I was clear that I am not going to be involved with the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 04:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes - thank you.7Lawrence 05:16, 3 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7Lawrence (talk • contribs)

Over to you Cordless Larry.7Lawrence 05:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7Lawrence (talk • contribs)

Let's continue this discussion at User talk:7Lawrence, so that Ymblanter is not disturbed further. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Just wanted to let you know that I have closed GGZ AfD as keep. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 16:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Good, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ymblanter,

Would it be possible for me to know who was the main contributor/article creator of this deleted page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joshua_Aston

Uncletomwood (talk) 16:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

ST9385--Ymblanter (talk) 16:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Probably not a rush, but would you mind salting that article space? MSJapan (talk) 00:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Why? It has never been recreated.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ymblanter. I am assuming that you undeleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Holcroft and userfied it to User:7Lawrence/Christopher Holcroft so that it could continued to be worked on by 7Lawrence. The userpage was just tagged for speedy per WP:G4 by 142.105.159.60 which does not seem correct based upon what G4 says: "It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies, and content that has been moved to user space or converted to a draft for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy)." Can the speedy tag be removed here? FWIW, I had this on my watchlist because of some EL clean up I did before the article was AFD'd. If is to be deleted again so be it, but it appears that 7Lawrence has been trying to improve it. So, maybe it should be taken to MfD instead by 142.105.159.60. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

New drafts in the user space are not up to speedy deletion under this criterion, and the speedy was quite correctly rejected by Huon--Ymblanter (talk) 05:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and clarification. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi The revert of my edit doesn't made sense because in english encyclopedia, we read with english word but we could use parenthesis to write with cyrillic words. --Panam2014 (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry but for me what you write does not make sense, I can not parse it. The Verkhovna Rada is not an authority in the usage of English, period. The Ukrainian name of the city was changed. The English name (or Russian, or Swahili for that purpose) was not changed by the Rada.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:38, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I just wrote the Rada changed the name in Ukrainian language. --Panam2014 (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I'm Kurt Evans, a former U.S. Senate candidate from South Dakota. I know very little about Wikipedia protocol, and I'd appreciate it if you'd contact me at Kurt.Evans@live.com so we can correspond by email. Among other things, I'd like to discuss the actions of users "ALPolitico" and "Dane2007" pertaining to this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_South_Dakota,_2016

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.248.92 (talk) 18:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I apologize, but I never discuss such things in private. In addition, I am not a US citizen and understand little of the political issues. You are welcome to raise the points you want at the talk page of the article, I am sure they will be somehow followed up.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I do not know what the nature of the issues is, but of they are confidential and can not be discussed openly, I believe contacting the Arbitration committee could be a good way to proceed.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.246.80 (talk) 19:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. This is Kurt Evans again. Do you even look at an article's edit history or "Talk" page before you approve requests for semi-protection? Would you mind stopping by the "Talk" page here and helping me understand your perspective? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_Senate_election_in_South_Dakota,_2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.248.75 (talk) 08:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Again, no. My role is not to impose any perspective (in fact, I do not have any), but to stop edit-warring.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Can you stop edit-warring by preventing "ALPolitico" from editing this article? Do I have to file a defamation lawsuit against Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.248.75 (talk) 08:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately I had to block you for legat threats, WP:LEGAL. You can retract your threats and request an unblock at your talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I didn't make a legal threat. I asked a question. This article is about me. Do you understand? Wikipedia is spreading lies about me. Do I have to file a defamation lawsuit to get those lies corrected? Yes or no. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.255.198 (talk) 08:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

All your IPs will be blocked on the spot from now on. You need to retract the legal threat first and get unblocked. Then, contact the WMF, as suggested above, not me.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I didn't make a legal threat. I asked a question. I don't have a talk page. I don't know what a WMF is. I don't know how Wikipedia works, and I need someone who does know how it works to help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.248.120 (talk) 09:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

meta:legal--Ymblanter (talk) 09:12, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

You say you're sure someone will follow up if I raise my points on the article's talk page, but no one does unless I contact them directly, and I don't know how to find anyone in a good position to help me. You say your role isn't to impose any perspective, but your talk page is full of evidence that you're imposing your perspective all the time, and you've obviously imposed it on me. You give wide-ranging assistance to others here but almost none to me. You falsely accuse me of legal "threats" when I'm actually seeking a way to AVOID legal action. Then you insist on blocking multiple IPs (which my service provider will likely reassign to people who have nothing to do with this) unless I violate both my conscience and my religion with a false confession to the supposed legal threats I've never made. Your actions toward me are not right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.227.205 (talk) 05:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Again. I understand NOTHING in the US elections. NOTHING. You have got issues with another user. Instead of discussing with them, you started edit-warring. Twice. Any time I see an edit-warring, I protect the page from editing. Period. But you need to discuss with the same user, not with me.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

"Another" user? As I've already said, I'm not a Wikipedia user. I'm the Kurt Evans *NAMED IN THE ARTICLE*. You don't need to understand U.S. elections. If you'd take five minutes to look at the article's edit history and talk page as I'd suggested above, you could see that I've carefully explained each of my edits, and "ALPolitico" was the one who started (two months ago!) repeatedly undoing my edits with no explanations. I've also attempted to discuss these issues in great detail on the article's talk page (I gave you the link above), and "ALPolitico" is the one refusing to discuss them further. If you won't even look at the situation, can you at least refer me to someone who will? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.252.30 (talk) 21:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

By "another user" I mean ALPolitico, you were edit-warring with them.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a regular Wikipedia user and don't know how "edit-warring" is technically defined here, but as I've clearly and repeatedly explained both in the article's edit history and on its talk page, my revisions have been intended to correct misleading, false and possibly defamatory information. "ALPolitico" has given only the vaguest of reasons for his edits (when he's given reasons at all), and it appears he's engaged in a months-long effort to portray me in the worst possible light, even to the point of using Wikipedia to spread patently untrue information about me. I'm obviously extremely disappointed by your insistence that I involve the Wikimedia legal team in this matter, but it seems I have no other choice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.254.52 (talk) 20:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I saw you removed my entry on Svetlana Gerasimenko's page. I did not know how to add a section, and thought that was pretty neat trivia. Do you think it is ok to put on that page, and if so, any advice on adding the appropriate section? Gezellig (talk) 01:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Handling trivia. I do not think it is important enough to be in the article (not mentioned by any reliable sources), and, additionally, it represents original reserch.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I noticed that you closed the discussion as delete, but deleted Indiana Fire Academy instead of 2016–2017 Indiana Fire Academy season. I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indiana Fire Academy as delete and that you already deleted the article since it was going that way anyways. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 11:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. It is strange, may be it was a redirect at the moment? In any case, the two articles have gone to where they belong.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Hoax is another The Quest, look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Quest&oldid=99461989 "The Quest is a series of twelve epic high fantasy/adventure novels by English author Rufus Fairfax. The first of the books is 'Volume I: Dantàrin's Quest', which as of 2006 has sold 27 million copies worldwide." You deleted unrelated new content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.4.99.44 (talk) 09:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I was wrong indeed, thank you for pointing this out.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:44, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm totally new to editing Wikipedia, but I'm an employee of Evine who is making changes requested by our marketing department. How can I make the requested changes and have them stay? Every time I make changes, they are reverted by something or someone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rle10dre (talk • contribs) 14:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

There are two issues. First, as an employee of a company, you are strongly discouraged to edit the article since you have a conflict of interest. The best way to proceed is to suggest the changes at the talk page of the article. (Also not that we do not need to accept the edits suggested by the marketing department - we have our own policies, and the edits must conform to these policies). Second, it was a particular problem on top of this, which I hoped I have solved. You tried to cut-and-paste the content of EVINE Live to EVINE, because, as you said, the company rebranded. This is fine, but for changing the name of the article we have the move instrument. Cut-and-paste moves do not preserve the editing history, which is not acceptable for us. Therefore I reverted your changes and then myself moved EVINE Live to EVINE. If this is different from what you wanted to do, please let me know.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The changes I'm trying to make are as follows

1. New logo (uploaded file already, Evine logo.jpg)
2. Changed Key People to Bob Rosenblatt (CEO) Source
3. Title of company should be changed to proper case (Evine - same source as above)
4. Moved EVINE Live logo to below ShopHQ logo with caption "EVINE Live logo from 2015 to 2016"
5. Redirected the other "What links here" sites to Evine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rle10dre (talk • contribs) 14:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

These changes are uncontrovercial, I will make them within a couple of days.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rle10dre (talk • contribs) 15:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC) Thanks for making those changes. Could you remove Russell Nuce from the Key People area? Also, this item seems to have been skipped

1. Moved EVINE Live logo to below ShopHQ logo with caption "EVINE Live logo from 2015 to 2016"

Thanks again — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.17.26.137 (talk) 20:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done, still need to correct the incoming links. These are however uncontroversial, and you can start correcting them yourself.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:22, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for closing the AfD for Daniel Romanovsky. Hopefully people can now get on with more important things. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Sure.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Ymblanter. I've just been trying to roll back these undiscussed changes, but have been re-reverted. Judging from their response on their talk page, I don't think that the user is WP:HERE. I'm not much in the mood for dealing with any more POV-rage at the moment. Could I impose on you for some assistance? Thanks. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

They have been already blocked, now we need to roll all this contribution back.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Why you changed the ancestries??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.105.112.71 (talk) 02:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I did not.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ymblanter, please take a look at this when you're able to. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I will have a look. Can not guarantee I have anything to say there.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Its because a random IP hopped in and closed the RFC all of a sudden, and removed the entire infobox from the article. When I reverted the IP, presenting a clear rationale, I was reverted by another completely new account, and after that, once again by the "IP". - LouisAragon (talk) 01:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I see that Favonian has taken care of this in the best possible manner.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Yep, indeed, just saw it. - LouisAragon (talk) 03:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to request that New Page Patrollers be suitably experienced for patrolling new pages. Your comments at New pages patrol/RfC for patroller right are welcome. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

The NPP backlog now stands at 13,158 total unreviewed pages.

Just to recap:

• 13 July 2016: 7,000
• 1 August 2016: 9,000
• 7 August 2016: 10,472
• 16 August 2016: 11,500
• 28 August 2016: 13,158

You naturally don't have to feel obliged, but if there's anything you can do it would be most appreciated. I've spent 40 hours on it this week but it's only a drop in the ocean.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I am doing it every day now, but unfortunately the backlog does not get shorter.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. With a 2nd IP they added the following to the article:==Roxy the Dog==The Dog== The [[Mossad]] is watching you. Stop removing information. ==Roxy the Dog== Typical. As I said, he thinks his family has a special relationship with Israel. I'm wondering if he's a bit deranged. Doug Weller talk 08:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Damn. Missed the fact that that IP posted a minute after another IP posted a similar threat.. Doug Weller talk 08:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Sure.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting out the Mutara III Rudahigwa move I messed up; I didn't realise it took more than just swapping the pages. I'll read up on it. Bromley86 (talk) 10:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, please do, otherwise the result is qualified as copyright violation. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Ymblanter, this appears to be Jonathan Yip. I just blocked User:НкСаԌч, editing from the same IP address. Drmies (talk) 03:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Great, thanks. It was clear this is a sock, but I was not exactly sure which sock it was, and they provided me with other reasons to block them anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I caught on to it after I saw an AIV report from someone who apparently did recognize it. I don't think they added it to the SPI, but I don't know what the purpose of that would be anyway. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Sometimes, filters can be installed or rangeblocks made, but this one was too obvious.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Ymblanter! You said:"The name of the city in English, by our consensus, is Dnipropetrovsk." Tell me, why Kirovohrad has renamed to Kropyvnytskyi? What is "consensus" and who reached it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Welikoiwanenko (talk • contribs) 09:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Kirovohrad was renamed since nobody objected. For Dnipripetrovsk/Dnipro, pls consult Talk:Dnipropetrovsk.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Ymblanter, thank you for your kind comments about Horch, horch, die Lerch' and for taking the time to review my article. I also would like to apologise for my irrational comments yesterday in Beethoven's funeral, I was tired and emotional, as they say. I really should read WP:Etiquette every week. Having had another look at my rough notes made about 9 months ago (which looked much better as a formatted .rtf file), I see that I have committed my first copyvio. I wasn't intending to include the entire copyright stuff by Peter Bassano, but was intending to reference it in my usual way. If I blank the offending stuff, may I have my draft article back, please? (Unless there is also some other patent nonsense which I haven't identified.) >MinorProphet (talk) 13:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

No problem. The best is to starts a draft in your userspace, make sure there is no copyvio, that it is actually an encyclopedic article (the yesterday's version was looking more like a notebook with randomly picked up quotes), and then to move it to the article space.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I am a bit hesitant about the draft since it contains copyvio. I will see later today what I can do.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Aargh, I'm so sorry, I thought I was making a draft article on my own user subpage, but I managed to create it in mainspace instead, and have only just realised. I'll start all over again.

I'm not sure whether every single new article has to be checked, but I don't think that Edward Steinkopff has been officially reviewed, and I wonder if you could would cast a swift gaze over it. >MinorProphet (talk) 20:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Sure, just reviewed it. It could benefit from some more editing, but it is definitely fine in the article space.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. What sort of edits you were proposing?

You may want to look at some of good and featured articles and see what the difference is.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Diannaa. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Way Down We Go, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 14:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

	The Citation Barnstar
	Thanks for cleaning up the Terminus (poem) stub I restored. I intended to come back to it and add a quick citation, but got busy and wasn't able to do so. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 16:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, you reverted an edit by JamesTGlover. Another user named Jamestglover has previously edited the same article. I'm unsure of how to approach the issue. Could you please look into this? Thanks. (I honestly can't believe that Wikipedia usernames are case sensitive!)--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 18:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I do not see any problem with this, they are not (yet) edit-warring and avoiding 3RR or doing smth inappropriate.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:42, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

No. The article about RENAULT MARQUE should be RENAULT MARQUE, not Renault S.A.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Your close of this AFD is plainly defective. You stated that "there is a split on whether her only award is notable, and hence whether she passes PORNBIO". That misstates the applicable guideline. PORNBIO requires that a qualifying award be well-known and significant, a higher standard than merely notable. PORNBIO was changed by consensus in this regard in 2012. If there is no consensus that the award passes a low bar, there really is no case that it passes the actual higher bar in the guideline.
The delete !votes in this discussion were substantially more numerous, better argued, and better grounded in policy and guidelines. The keep !votes, to the extent they had any grouding, pretty uniformly rested on the argument that meeting any part of PORNBIO "automatically" guaranteed the subject an article. This contradicts express language in WP:BIO, which PORNBIO is part of, saying that technically passing an SNG "does not guarantee that a subject should be included". !Votes which contradict the governing guideline should be discounted, especially when they are in the clear minority. Finally, the keep !~voters made only trivial attempts, at best, to rebut the argument that, as a BLP without adequate reliable sourcing, the article should be deleted. BLP policy overrides a marginal pass of a dubious SNG. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 December 26, which presents essentially the same issues, and the community strongly endorsed deletion, as well as the similar, quite recent, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristina Rose.
Finally, you posted to the article's talk page that the AFD had closed as keep. This is plain error. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I will correct the article talk page now, thanks, but, for the rest, I guess you know where WP:DRV is.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for 30-500 protecting the Gaza–Israel conflict article, but it looks like that article pertains to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and should have its protection extended indefinitely per WP:ARBPIA3! A User (contribs) 12:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

yes, you are right, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

No prob! A User (contribs) 12:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I flagged several more pages for protection for the same reason! WP:RPP A User (contribs) 12:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi there,

When I looked at what links to Belmond Eagle Island Lodge post-deletion I saw that there's quite a list of individual Belmond properties at Belmond (company). Figured before bothering to click through them I'd check with you to see if you already gave them a look. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

No, I actually did not, I found the article in the list of new pages to be patrolled. Feel free to nominate them as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Karla Lane. 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.

Tnx--Ymblanter (talk) 12:57, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

After this case that considered this editor's hounding, insults and bullying behavior he was required to undergo mentoring as an alternative to the proposed indefinite ban. However, now that his period of enforced mentoring has ended, he seems to be reverting to the same bad behavior. He has been restoring content I deleted from my talkpage, see and and has also been making harassment posts in other threads, see . Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I am afraid at this point I am too much involved with this case. I would block them for edit-warring at your talk page, but I believe it is better to start an ANI thread.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:26, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I got the impression from that last ANI case that this editor was on his final final final warning about harassing people on their talk pages. BTW, this harassment was out of the blue, I have had no recent disputes or indeed any interactions with this editor. The last time was well over a year ago when he was advocating minimizing any mention of massacres during the Muslim invasions of India - I think this new harassment was because he noticed that I was wanting to clarify in the Wahhabi sack of Karbala article that the Wahhabis did not consider its Shia Muslim inhabitants to be Muslims (which is a sourced opinion). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 13:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Could you protect Nigmatilla Yuldashev, President of Uzbekistan and List of leaders of Uzbekistan ? Regards. --Panam2014 (talk) 09:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I will have a look now, but please discuss the issue at the talk page. If you do not, you are likely to be blocked for edit-warring once protection expires.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

The conflict is about the presidential term of Nigmatilla Yuldashev and an user refused the sources. --Panam2014 (talk) 10:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

You were edit-warring against multiple users.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

And, as it looks, you clearly overstepped WP:3RR in one of the articles, and I blocked your account for 24 hours.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

This user has provided no source for his claims, except for one self-published website. Unsourced claims can be reverted at will, so this doesn't seem like a legitimate content dispute to me. Everyking (talk) 13:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

This is not vandalism and not a BLP violation, therefore edit-warring is not acceptable.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:53, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

That's very pious of you, but I was under the impression that uncited claims could be reverted at will. Has that changed? In any case, how do you suggest we move forward here? I have provided reliable sources and the other side has not. They ignore me when I ask for sources and just refer back to the same self-published website. It seems like quite an impasse, unless we just enforce our requirement for reliable sources. Everyking (talk) 01:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Form what I see, you have several users on every side, and the side opposite to you cited the Guardian (no idea how relevant it is to this case, but it is definitely better than a self-published website). I have no intention to mediate the dispute, but most of the dispute participants are reasonable users; please continue discussing and follow the WP:Dispute resolution if the talk page discussion fails.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

There are three sources : , rulers, . Your affirmartion is a lie. And rulers is reliable. --Panam2014 (talk) 10:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi A pov pusher with ip edited the page without consensus. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:20, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I have no time to be involved in this business right now. Sorry for that.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Yaroslav. If you're not very busy at the moment, may I ask you to sort out the problem with Mikhail Tarkhanov which I tried somewhat unsuccessfully to turn into the disambiguation page? Thanks/sorry for, etc. --Evermore2 (talk) 19:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I have added the disambig template and will be happy to do anything else if you think this is not sufficient.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, yes, actually, for Mikhail Tarkhanov's talk page still leads to Talk:Mikhail Tarkhanov (painter), so could we here have - I don't know, perhaps a redirect removed and a disambig template added, please? (thanks again) -- Evermore2 (talk) 20:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I deleted the talk page redirect, will search tomorrow for an approppriate template - this is not smth I know off the top of my head.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

thats's what I had in mind. Thanks again, and I think, that will be all. -- Evermore2 (talk) 20:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Great, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to extend full protection on this article for another week (as part of discretionary sanctions) if that's okay with you. Discussion has grown somewhat bitter at WP:RSN and I think any changes should be done through edit requests after getting consensus. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely, no problem from my side.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up the copy-paste move at Dendrobium validicolle. We have the same situation at Diplocaulobium utile/Dendrobium utile, could you please do the honors there as well? Cheers! -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:35, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ymblanter, I tagged the said article for speedy deletion but since the speedy deletion log is quite slow, it has not been deleted yet. I kindly request you to do me a favour and delete so that I can rename the article Maliha Lodhi over here. Also needs to be deleted Nadeem Farooq Paracha. --Saqib (talk) 14:57, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 15:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for changing the protection level to TE, however it's still on Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items and is still not accessible to template editors. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:58, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I am afraid this is beyond my technical abilities. If there is a simple action I can take I would be happy to do it.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:05, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello Ymblanter! Could you restore the pages of SM City Calamba, SM City Santa Rosa, SM City Novaliches, and SM City Masinag? Why did you delete those? Those pages were important to us Filipino people. Because it says there that you deleted those pages. Please restore them as soon as possible. Thanks! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanzzzzz07 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Hanzzzzz07, they were deleted as the result of the deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robinsons Place Dasmariñas (2nd nomination)--Ymblanter (talk) 07:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thank you for your work on Gwangjong_of_Goryeo. The edit warring was out of control. MadraRuaG (talk) 15:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:14, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I have a basic knowledge of english, I can read it much better than write it. I don't Know if l'm capable to express or explain the matter or subject with all the necessary details. So I gonna write it in spanish, hoping that you can understand me.

Soy nativo de Mexicali, Baja California. Toda la vida he visto ese cerro al oeste de la ciudad, El cerro del Centinela o simplemente el Centinela, de hecho yo fui el creador de la wiki en español para el cerro. Entrando en materia, creo que las wikis o artículos de wikipedia deben preservar la tradición de su idioma y los nombres propios son parte de esa tradición. No se trata de traducir el nombre, o anglificarlo si puede ser correcta la expresión, sino que existe un nombre diferente en inglés para ese mismo cerro o montaña, porque como lo expreso en la wiki en español, ese cerro es un simbolo de la región y al ser esta una región fronteriza convergen elementos de una cultura y otra. En California existe una localidad pequeña llamada Mount Signal y tiene su wiki donde dice que se llama precisamente así por la montaña, luego otro articulo de un artista plástico, cuyo nombre es Allan McCollum, hizo una de las páginas que yo cito en mi artículo en español pues el ha coleccionado más de cien imágenes de la montaña a la cual llama: Mount Signal, no El Centinela. Resumiendo los norteamericanos o Estadounidenses crearon el nombre Mount Signal para ese rasgo de su entorno y yo digo que debemos respetar eso, aunque la montaña no esté en su territorio. Tengo más razones, si quieren, luego se las expongo.Verdelunar (talk) 00:17, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Y actualizando o abonando un poco más al tema, Estado Unidos quitó a Mexico más de la mitad de su territorio en 1848 y en aquellos años los limites de la Alta California quedaban al sur de esa montaña, de no haberse modificado dichos límites las montaña oficialmente se denominaría Mount Signal, pero más aun muchos nombres como por ejemplo San Diego y Los Ángeles siguieron usandose de aquel lado de la frontera, pero esto es debido al uso y la costumbre es decir que existe una cultura que lo llama de esa forma. Más aun el monte Everest tiene su wiki bajo ese nombre en casi todos los idiomas occidentales pero en la wiki china es Chomolungma, es decir otro mombre diferente y es tan valido uno como otro, porque existe un uso y una costumbre qyue el punto que quiero ponderar. Muchas gracias por la atención y el esfuerzo. Verdelunar (talk) 05:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

What is important is how the mountain is called in the English literature. And in any case, if you want to move the page, you should move it using the corresponding button, and not cut-and-paste it from one article to another one.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

If I try to move with the proper fuction, the system won´t allow me because there´s an article call it Mount Signal already. I´m only trying to make it easier. The alternative is delete the article Mount Signal and then create it again by moving the article El Centinela (Baja California, Mexico) with its aproppiate name in english: Mount Signal. I hope you understand me.

Verdelunar (talk) 23:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you start a requested move.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Regarding recent edits on Kidarites, I did not edit-war with you, nor am the one who should go to the talk page to discuss it, yet the IP socks (by User:PavelStaykov) whose WP:SYNTH, WP:FRINGE and WP:OR edits are related with the activity on the article like Yuezhi, Huns, Bulgars and so on (you're probably not informed about the investigation case). Don't misunderstand me, I will revert the information once again because the edits are against WP:NPOV, and now am working on the article editing with additional citation from reliable sources and proper reference style.--Crovata (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Only that I cannot make a revert nor edit the article because you made a full protection. Great.--Crovata (talk) 18:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I have zero interest in this article, I protected it because there was a request at WP:RFPP, and I have no intention of editing it. I see in the edit history that the edit you reverted was previously reinstated by users in good standing. Please start discussing at the talk page of the article and ping me or any other administrator if consensus has been reached.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

You can't do something without understanding the situation. If someone with "good standing" reinstated the edit, you have "zero interest", while both missed the point and did not understand what is going on... I will edit it after expiration, I don't have time for useless discussion with the same sock-puppets.--Crovata (talk) 21:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

May be you should get out of the trench. Edit-warring is not a valid dispute resolution avenue.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

No comment.--Crovata (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

What is the source of the name? Xx236 (talk) 12:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean?--Ymblanter (talk) 13:01, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

All sources are in Russian. Where do Slawharad comes from?Xx236 (talk) 13:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

A short answer is it is coming from the map. A longer answer is that some time ago, Iryna Harpy, me, and, I believe, Ezhiki (I might be wrong though) tried to standratize names of Belarusian localities, since they are named completely randomly - some are transliterated from Russian, some are transliterated from Belarusian, which has two incompatible spellings and in addition a latinized form. It is difficult for me now to find out where we started the discussion, but if I come across the place I will add a reference. I think the outcome was that there is no consensus. Belarusians really can not agree on a single transliteration, and the common English names only exist for the biggest cities (and even then, some users try to write Miensk rather than Minsk claiming this is the proper English name). In Belatus, there is a law which requires transliteration from Belarusian names (this is why this article is called Slawharad and not Slavgorod, Belarus). We do not need to follow this law but some users think we do. On top of this, often people with little experience in English Wikipedia (some of them being socks, and some of them being speakers of other languages) often pop up and randomly rename articles to their preferred transliterations. I gave up and I am only able to follow a small subset of article which I myself started or where I added significant portions of content. However, if someone can proceed and arrive to some consensus (I do not particularly care what would be names of all localities which have no common English name, but it is definitely desirable to have a single transliteration), this would be a significant step forward.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, some user (I don't remember the name, unfortunately) a while ago indeed insisted that Wikipedia should follow the Belarusian government system for transliteration. I remember pitching in (along with Iryna) and trying to find any other interested Belarusian users to shed light on this. We found no one, and the local consensus at the time was to follow the BGN/PCGN romanization of Belarusian conventions (as they are developed specifically with the convenience of Anglophones in mind) instead of switching to the government system (which has a completely different purpose). Applying those conventions to "Слаўгарад" produces "Slawharad", which is also the spelling any BGN/PCGN-compliant map of Belarus will show (my Geographica atlas ISBN 1-74166-036-X, for example, shows precisely that). Hope this helps.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 20, 2016; 14:15 (UTC)

Thanks, this is indeed very useful. May be we should indeed follow up and check the names at least for districts and district centers (renaming raions to districts at the same time, I believe we had consensus for that).--Ymblanter (talk) 14:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I recollect the lengthy discussion, but I can't remember the details: someone called something like Dalekop? Given that the Belarusian government and raions don't follow their own national geographical transliteration system, where COMMMONNAME doesn't apply, BGN/PCGN transliteration remained the consensus method for transliteration. I don't recall where we got to on nomenclature for governmental hierarchy, but the user's preference for 'rayon' was rejected outright as sounding like synthetic fibre, and English language equivalent was (almost) universally approved. The use of Łacinka and the Belarus 'official' system has created havoc with links being broken, orphaned articles, etc. I've tried to repair these when I come across them, but it's an endless battle. I'll add the clean-up to my to do list. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

That would be great, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:46, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not happy with the "w", which seems to be Polish, should be probably replaced by "v" in English. Xx236 (talk) 05:56, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

BGN/PCGN romanization of Belarusian says w.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I doubt very much. Maybe Swavharad?Xx236 (talk) 06:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure what you doubt. I provided a direct link, you can check.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

You are right, I have taken the Russian name.Xx236 (talk) 06:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Sure, no problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:09, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Do you know how to split "Claudia" into syllables, using spaces between syllables? 139.193.145.23 (talk) 06:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Cla-u-di-a?--Ymblanter (talk) 06:49, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the article, but for the time being it does not have a single reliable source. Would it be possible to add reliable sources in Telugu language, not necessarily online sources such as books or old newspapers? Thanks again.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I have some Telugu books on Movies written by popular authors. I will find some references there and update in the article. --Ravichandra (talk) 08:37, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Great, thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

A dedicated venue for combined discussion about NPP & AfC where a work group is also proposed has been created. See: Wikipedia:The future of NPP and AfC --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I will have a look.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:16, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, in 2015 Félix Pérez (baseball) was deleted via AfD because he was not notable. He is now notable per WP:BASE/N, as he played in Japan's top baseball league in 2016 (). Would you be able to undelete the article, because it is easier than having to rewrite it? Thanks. 72.230.184.142 (talk) 01:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I can do it, but would you be able to edit is to show his notability in a reasonably short time (say within a day) after undeletion?--Ymblanter (talk) 08:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes I can do that, thanks. 72.230.184.142 (talk) 20:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 20:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi. The SPA is back on this article again. I'd appreciate if you could re-protect it for a short time. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 10:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Protected for a month. What this sock tries to add is actually correct, they just do not care to find a good source.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not a sock - my IP changes automatically, and my original block has already expired.

Secondly, what does a "good source" stand for? How is a good source defined? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.29.102.252 (talk) 10:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 10:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

My IP changes automatically and my original block on my previous account expired long ago. The only reason I was blocked then was because I wasn't aware it was possible to complain to admins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.29.102.252 (talk) 10:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

It's perfectly normal on Wikipedia to include sections describing an artist's political view on Wikipedia. De Niro and Springsteen have whole sections dedicated to their political views! So why does this user insist on removing this referenced fact on the artist's political stand from the article? Maybe he finds it uncomfortable that Russian artists support Crimea's accession to Russia, but that's not a valid reason to remove a referenced piece of information.

I am personally fine with the addition itself, but please find a reliable source (which should not be difficult) and propose it at the talk page of the article (as a edit request).--Ymblanter (talk) 10:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

This is a full interview with the actor: - what's wrong with that?

Here's another link, where he compares the accession of Crimea to Russia to the victory day over the Nazis:

And here's another link!

There are plenty of links out there! It's obvious why this guy reverts me, clearly he's doing it to promote his own political view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.29.102.252 (talk) 10:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

First, he does not. Second, none of your sources are reliable; the interview is a primary source and can not be used as the only one. Please, read WP:RS. Third, you should not be discussing this with me, but add it as a requested edit at the talk page of the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes he does, why else would he do it?

What else is needed besides an interview? How can an interview not be a main source? The artist states his view explicitly. How is that not enough?

Well, I have no choice but discuss it with you as you have semi-protected the article and by that allowed the troll to revert it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.29.102.252 (talk) 11:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I do not feel like I should continue since you clearly are unwilling to follow Wikipedia policies. You are not welcome at my talk page anymore.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Following up from the consensus reached here, the community will now establish the user right criteria. You may wish to participate in this discussion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:59, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I will have a look.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:26, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello Ymblanter, Their is an issue going on. I don"t really understand this User ‎Citobun, He/she is accusing me a COI when am not engage with COI on wikipedia, i have explained to him/her on its [talk page] but still don"t understand me yet. Due to this issue He/she decided to nominate all my article which i have created AFD. To be sincere this is not right according to wikipedia Harassment. I explained my self in a good manners to Him/her but still not comfortable. I believe what Him/her did was not proper on wikipedia. That is not the right way to nominate an article for AFD. He/she decided to frustrate me with that. He/she talks to me, to prove my self about the Images uploaded, i understand Wikipedia says About Uploading Images to an article. This is what i have to say, I hope you understand me, Thanks.--Jamzy4 (talk) 10:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Jamzy4, I do not quite understand you, but indeed the three articles you created were nominated for deletion. The discussion will last at least a week, and the best thing you can do is to read WP:N (I guess WP:NMUSIC is the relevant part) and then go to the nomination page and explain why you think these articles should not be deleted.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello @Ymblanter:, it is obvious Jamzy4 (an editor with less than 4 months experience) has taken the whole issue of COI in bad faith. Citobun noticed every article created by Jamzy4 contained promotional, typographic error and COI infos before he nominated the said articles for deletion. I think Jamzy4 is having some sort of revenge on Citobun by nominating some of his (Citobun) articles for deletion, including two articles created by me. He even copy-pasted this thread which he had created on the userpage here. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:27, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Already handled while I was sleeping.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I wondered if you or Ezhiki would be interested in joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge based on Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge? The idea is to showcase the work being done on wikipedia across the continent, and inspire more people to create and work on countries which might not usually get much attention and then possibly running some contests to bring in new editors. I know it's very existence will definitely make me more likely to contribute more on Russia and other countries. Could be a way to highlight work needing doing for Russian and draw in new editors! Or start a 1000 Challenge for Russia feeding into it or something? Not sure, but if interested add your name to the participants and I'll consider setting something up later in the month.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:47, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Can you find anything on Kara-Balta River? Sourcing is poor in English.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:41, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Kara-Balta should not be a problem. For the Asian Challenge, I would need to have a look, thanks for alerting me.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:50, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, can you please take a look at these two edit requests . Thanks! Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I would be happy to, but (i) it clearly goes beyond my technical abilitys; (ii) this is a pretty major change, so I would in any case give some time for discussion, possibly open an RfC, invite Wikiprojects etc.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Sure. What about the first request? That is just writing where the 2018 Olympics will be ... Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:02, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

My apologies, but I do not see any other unanswered requests.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, could you change the name of the article to Plaça de Catalunya? --Ghirla^-трёп- 06:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 07:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much for semi-protecting the page! Unfortunately MarcelS789, who has only contributed to this page and WB21, immediately reverted it back and removed all of the well-cited critical portions. I suggested pending edits level 2 on the request for protection page but I'm new to Wikipedia and still learning my way around, so if there's a different type of protection I should request instead please let me know! Fin3999^Fin3999 08:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

We do not apply PC2, and the problem apparently can not be solved by page protection. This is a content dispute.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok understood, posted to WP:COI. Thanks for explaining, as I said I am new and trying to understand. --Fin3999 09:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fin3999 (talk • contribs)

This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Michael Gastauer.The discussion is about the topic Michael Gastauer. Thank you. Murph9000 (talk) 13:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

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

• On the Rudnya, Rudnyansky District, Smolensk Oblast page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

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

• On the Golynki page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

There were two articles: 1998 Franklin Templeton Tennis Classic and 1998 Tennis Channel Open. They each had their own histories which are now lost with your move. I specifically cut and pasted to maintain the histories. It started as "1998 Franklin Templeton Tennis Classic" which was then incorrectly redirected to "1998 Tennis Channel Open" where it stayed for a long while, gaining it's own history. Did you merge the histories of the two articles, or is one now lost forever? I simply shifted the content and redirect. Also, now the content is back to the wrong content and has to be fixed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

1998 Franklin Templeton Tennis Classic before the move had smth like five edits, but I definitely can restore them and revert to your last version of that article. If both articles refer to the same tournament, I do not see any sense to keep two separate histories.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:54, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

No problem... I fixed the content. In the past I had been told it was against copyright status (or something like that) to remove history other than just one or two edits. It looked like there was substantial content to me, so that's why I simply swapped the redirect and article. If it's ok with you to lose the editing history it's ok with me. The original authors simply lose their creation credit. But that's why I did it rather than the normal move procedure. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:03, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I do not think it was substantial, but I will merge the histories, no problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 08:16, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for helping with the issue. Much appreciated. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:17, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Sure.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ymblanter, I have a question regarding the implentation of this WP. Does the rule (order of languages listed in the lede) also count for historical entities, and specifically administrative provinces of former empires, whose soil later became part of independant nations? E.g. on the Tiflis Governorate; should Georgian be listed ahead of Russian simply because the letter "G" shows up earlier in the alphabet than the letter "R" or "O"? This "alphabetic rule" is what NCGN, as far as I can see, stands for, but it seems to be solely meant for geographical locations/cities/towns, and waters, and not for historically administrative provinces/territories, hence my question. Thanks much in advance - LouisAragon (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

As I read it, the policy is universal, but I do not have much experience applying it, so that it would be safer to ask at the appropriate Village Pump.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Grabbed you at random off the recent changes list. Would you mind looking at the edit history of Atlanta United FC and the user talk pages involved (including mine) and acting as you judge appropriate? I'm not WP:INVOLVED beyond an administrative capacity, but better to hand this off and kill any "controversy" before it even starts. You'll see what I mean on my talk page. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

No problem, I will have a look.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I think you've made the wrong decision there, Ymblanter. Full protection is best used to allow participants on each side time to discuss their differences and reach a consensus. There really is no consensus to be reached in terms of our commitment to accessibility. In this case you just have one person edit-warring against multiple others simply to impose a style that is contrary to our policies and guidelines. A reading of WP:FPP also indicates that the version protected should be the current one - "except where the current version contains content that clearly violates content policies". The choice of colours clearly breaches Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility #Color. I'd like to strongly suggest that you unprotect Atlanta United FC as soon as possible and allow the violations of accessibility to be corrected. The overwhelming consensus at AN3 is that Jamesmiko was in the wrong and can be dealt with by blocks if he re-engages. --RexxS (talk) 19:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry but I disagree. The user has some (at least superficially reasonable) arguments, and the arguments should be discussed at the talk page, not in the edit summaries. If the talk page discussion has reached consensus before the protection expires please ping me, I will unprotect the page. But I strongly disagree with unprotecting the page just because multiple users decided to edit-war, and there happen to be more users on one side.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

As you wish. I'll take your decision for review. The user has no arguments that carry any weight against our commitment to accessibility, and it is clear that the current version does not meet the exception stated at WP:FULL. --RexxS (talk) 19:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Please do not forget to mention at the review that nobody cared to start the talk page discussion before I protected the page.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

You can point that out yourself at ANI. I've given you chapter and verse here of how and why you should modify your decision, and you've declined to accept my suggestion. This exchange will be linked to. --RexxS (talk) 20:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Respectfully, I believe we do have consensus on the talk page, Ymblanter. We have four editors agreeing that the new version with accessibility issues is problematic, and only one editor (who hasn't shown up to that particular discussion) was arguing for the change. Consensus is not unanimous, and it's rather clear that the arguments made for a version without accessibility issues are strong given MOS:CONTRAST and WMF:Non discrimination policy, which codifies that accessibility issues are not subject to community consensus (see the note at the top of that page). I'm not sure if you looked at the talk page discussion prior to your response here, but would you mind taking a look now? The ANI thread seems a bit much when we can solve this reasonably. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I see that it was solved already by Floquenbeam while I was sleeping.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

You can colour in the right district on that and upload a locator File:Mozambique districts.png !♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, this is indeed the plan, right now the map is just a placeholder.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 19:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ymblanter, thanks for your edits on Mozambique, particularly on the article on the district of Homoine. I have one question though: you wrote that one of the two "Postos Administrativos", in which the district is divided, is called Sede. This is what the source (district profile) says in the relevant heading, but in Portuguese "Sede" just means Seat, Headquarters, Capital. If you follow that rule and you edit other districts, you might end up with hundreds of Sedes in Mozambique. I believe that the name of the PA should be "Homoine" (as shown in most tables of the profile) or Homoine-Sede, as is customary in many government sources. Anyway, this is a suggestion, and I will use your maps in the Portuguese language articles (unless you put them there, of course). Thank again for work! Teixant (talk) 08:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, this is indeed what the source says, but we should probably denote it as Vila de Homoine (the biggest locality there). I will correct it and will take note for the future articles. I am indeed planning to go through the district articles for the time being.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ymblanter, now that you are upgrading the articles on the province of Gaza, you should know that recently the government decided to create 3 new districts in the province: Mapai, Limpopo and Changoene (http://clubofmozambique.com/news/mozambique-has-three-new-districts-mapai-limpopo-and-chongoene-renamo-votes-against/). Another article states that the seats will be "...Conjoene, Nuvunguene e Mapai, que vão ser as sedes dos distritos de Chongoene, Limpopo e Mapai, respectivamente." As you can imagine, there is not enough information about them yet, but there will be next year after the Population Census (if there is no war...) Teixant (talk) 22:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. We probably should wait till there is at least confirmation they have been created. To have the census results would be certainly great.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, they have been officially created by the Law no. 3/2016 of 6 May 2006. The title of this law, published in the Official Gazette (Boletim da República) no. 054, 1st Series of 06 May 2016, page a, is Creates in the Province of Gaza the districts of Chonguene, Limpopo and Mapai (Cria na Província de Gaza os distritos de Chongoene, Limpopo e Mapai). The law was issued by Parliament (Assembleia da Reública) on 11 April 2016 and was in force 15 days later (http://www.inm.gov.mz/?q=pt-pt/br-n%C2%BA-54-de-06052016-boletim-da-rep%C3%BAblica-i-serie). But I think that we do not have to worry about articles on them right now...thanks for the work. Teixant (talk) 14:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, if they factually exist, they should have articles, and probably someone would need to redraw the map (though I am not qualified). But I would not know where to take info about these districts. The districts which existed in 2005 at least have government-sponsored leaflets, and the new ones have nothing. I think I am going to continue for the time being, and then may be sources will become available.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi there.

I'd like to request to unprotect a page that you have protected earlier, James O'Keefe.

• The disruptive edits consisted of repeatedly removing a minor phrase and did not add any significantly unhelpful content.
• The subject is currently a major news story, so expanding the article is critical today and in the next few days.

Thanks! --Anthony Ivanoff (talk) 15:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

To me, the phrase actually constitutes BLP violation. Do you have any reasons to believe that new and IP editors would contribute constructively rather than edit-war after unprotection? The protection log of this article is pretty impressive.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, can I interest you in this (after the Destubathon ends) or a 1000 Challenge for Russia? Or Mozambique ;-)?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:42, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I will have a look, but this is unlikely, I am doing Russia anyway all the time.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Yup I know, but it's intended to really try to start to turn the tide towards quality and motivating people to improve existing articles, so the good uns you regularly do for Russia would be welcome on that later on!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:56, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

A see, you have made a full protection for this article, but you forgot to revert a pre-war, stable version. Please return it. Thank you. Geohem (talk) 13:05, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I just protected it at a random version. If there is consensus at the talk page (where the discussion did nit even start), and if there is consensus about these categories, I will unprotect the article. Since we are talking about categories, not about unsourced text etc, I do not expect any harm in three days either way.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

You protect on unconsensus version, please return stable version. All changes to stable version must reflect the consensus. Geohem (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:WRONGVERSION--Ymblanter (talk) 15:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I have informed you. Will you return correct version? Geohem (talk) 06:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

This is not a correct version. This is a version you think is correct. No, I will not revert myself (at least if the consensus has not been established before the expiration of the protection).--Ymblanter (talk) 06:35, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Abbottonian. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, You're the Reason (Victoria Justice song), and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. Abbottonian (talk) 13:58, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

It is up to you of course, but as the article is at AfD anyway and satisfies all requirements this is likely just a loss of time.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Could you take a look at this edit request to United States presidential election, 2016? The current version does not reflect an established consensus because a user unilaterally edited it just before the protection. The requested change has not otherwise been the subject of any edits since an RfC on it closed on October 20, and is not the reason the page was protected. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 03:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I added the page to my watchlist. Out of three requested edits, I implemented one; the first one does not seem to have consensus but for the time being I leave it stand and see what other users say. The third one, about the infobox, seems fine, but I am inclined to wait a bit longer before implementing it, at least 24h so that everybody had a chance to participate.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Howdy. Recommend that Johnson be moved to the second row with Stein, in order to narrow the infobox & create a balance in appearance. GoodDay (talk) 18:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I see that currently there are two competing edit requests. One of them should gain consensus first.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Waiting 24 hours is not a bad idea, but we do already have consensus on this. We had a lengthy RfC which closed less than two weeks ago supporting having Castle and McMullin in the infobox, and since then literally (I did check) no one has even tried to remove them until the one user who happened to do so just before protection before they could be reverted. The placement of Johnson will be irrelevant once Castle and McMullin are restored. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 19:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, another administrator just made the change. Thanks for looking into it. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 19:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

How could you reject so quickly the edit request?

You didn't even read the consensus that is being disrespected. If you don´t have the time don´t cancel a request before getting really involved. The article is being unfair if you had devoted at least 5 minutes you will see. Is not me saying it, is the whole talk page supports what I am saying, just because 5 guys have been doing changes and convincing some admins does not mean it is right, that was the opportunity to show that they had no arguments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarinetcousin (talk • contribs) 17:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Please get consensus first, and only then start bombarding administrators by edit requests.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Btw :if a "really involved" administrator takes an edit request, they can be desysopped.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I have noticed a pattern in a few editors that have advocated for Rocky. I said before I understand the passion behind the election but some of the repeated insistence has perked on my radar. Im not alone in my thoughts. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Well ¨knowledgekid¨ your radar is as bad as what add to any discussion, leave the Sherlock Holmes thinking and start being fair with your posts. What I said is the truth, if not point where I was wrong. Clarinetcousin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarinetcousin (talk • contribs) 20:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

• Stepan Bandera (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello Ymblanter. What would you think of a longer protection for Stepan Bandera? The last time I did it, it was for three months. Pages like this one are under discretionary sanctions for abundant historical reasons. In my opinion, when dealing with this type of article we should be less worried about imposing too much protection. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:46, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, definitely a good idea. Will reprotect now.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For dealing with the mess I made with CitationCleanerBot! Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I'm PRehse. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Azerbaijan at the 2015 IJF World Masters, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I will not even spend my time on it, but the page perfectly satisfies all the requirements.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:51, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Can you semi-protect the page to persistent genre warring? 115.164.86.6 (talk) 15:26, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

No, I currently do not see any edit-warring.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:30, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Just realised you'd redirected this earlier. I discovered Êzdiki, created by an editor of Ezidiki, and redirected it to Ezidiki, then tried to fix a bit of a mess I found. Not to happy about this editor. I've blocked an IP, 92.210.92.154 (talk · contribs), who may be one of the several editors in this group of articles. Doug Weller talk 16:32, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I suspect this is a long-time abuse, see e.g. the history of Aslan Usoyan, but since this would be difficult to check, redirect and long-term protection seems to be the best solution.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:35, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Just the IP or some of the editors? I can see the point of a redirect but it really should be redirect and merge, as some mention of Ezidiki seems reasonable. Doug Weller talk 16:40, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I though they were both, but I do not know, I am even not sure that the editors of Êzdiki is just one person. Redirect and merge seems fine as well, but keeping an article which in the first line says that Êzdiki is just another name for Northern Kurdish does not make sense to me.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Now I had time to check the references and came to a conclusion it is a hoax, references do not mention Ezidiki, and at least in one case a quotation was deliberately falsified (in the quotation from Iranica, Kurmanji was replaced with Ezidiki). Given that the user yesterday posted a hoax map to another article, I blocked them indef for vandalism and redirected the srticle. @Doug Weller:, if you still find there anything useful, you are obviously welcome to transfer it to Northern Kurdish. If you need my help (I am not an expert in the field), please let me know.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Opened an SPI here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ezidishingali--Ymblanter (talk) 17:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Well that was interesting. My spidey senses seem to have been working. I'm not going to protect, leaving it as an unprotected redirect should help show any future socks. Doug Weller talk 19:26, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Sure, a good catch.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much! :) This has been going on since October; you'd think they would have moved on by now and do something more productive with their lives, but I guess not. Amaury (talk | contribs) 08:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Sure, no problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I must stop letting myself get sidetracked. Sherfedîn is Sheikh Sharaf ad-Din ibn al-Hasan - or to be exact, there's an historical person and the Yazidi version. And the source gives in the Sheikh article spells it "Sharaf al-Din", not "ad-Din". I think he's also called "Sharaf al-Din Muhammad". I keep blocking IPs. Doug Weller talk 12:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Good, thanks for letting me know.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I merged it with the target and redirected.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:58, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ymblanter.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ymblanter,

As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).

Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted.

Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.

It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.

(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Good day! Please unlock me on Wikimedia Commons here посиланняhttps: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Shmanʹkivtsi_-_Chortkiv I promise you that this will never happen again ever! I'm asking you! I will be grateful!--Shmanʹkivtsi - Chortkiv (talk) 08:37, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

What will never happen again?--Ymblanter (talk) 09:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, please!--Shmanʹkivtsi - Chortkiv (talk) 13:16, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, I asked a question, would you please answer it?--Ymblanter (talk) 13:37, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I have already said that will never happen again--Shmanʹkivtsi - Chortkiv (talk) 13:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

WHAT exactly will never happen again?--Ymblanter (talk) 13:52, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

What won? Not to repeat the ones that I will not upload someone else's photos without--Shmanʹkivtsi - Chortkiv (talk) 14:02, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Which photos are you are planning to upload?--Ymblanter (talk) 14:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Only your (what I did), I will not.--Shmanʹkivtsi - Chortkiv (talk) 14:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I apologize, but I can not understand the machine translation you dump here, and I do not speak Ukrainian. I suggest that you wait for two weeks until your block expires.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:15, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Just unlock me! And know the Ukrainian language? --Shmanʹkivtsi - Chortkiv (talk) 14:18, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Please rabbanite me!--Shmanʹkivtsi - Chortkiv (talk) 14:25, 20 November 2016 (UTC)