User talk:Ymblanter/2019

you locked the bee and puppy cat page. this is the post that is being put up and then taken down. ==Animation change== Following the release of the first episode many fans expressed upset in the change in animation style and overall tone from the pilot. The lack of communication between the Patreon funded team and changes made left many of those who funded the project upset. When questioned about this, creator Allegri responded on Tumbrl that "Bee’s design changed… cuz… I wanted it to. I wasn’t happy with how the animation studio interpreted the original design, so i counteracted the choices i made and hoped it would animate better… but also I redesigned it cuz i wasn’t happy with how I designed it either!!”^[1]. its the other guy that can't let the legitimate edit go. if your going to lock it at least see what content is being removed first, and if its legitimate undo the change. you still can and you should.

This content is not legitimate, and the source you were using fails the definition of a reliable source.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Also, two reliable sources for this are already cited in a sentence in the lead. That's probably sufficient mention without belaboring the issue. - BilCat (talk) 21:41, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Ymblanter. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 02:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC). 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.

VQuakr (talk) 02:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, I responded.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, i made those moves 'cause in Ukraine the only official language is Ukrainian, and i don't understand why there were also Russian names. I know that in some areas of Ukraine there is a large minority that speaks Russian, but it is not an official language. It's like if we put the names in Spanish in American cities page where Spanish is much spoken, if not a majority. However Arianatoreblink is my brotherMvvnlightbae (talk) 11:40, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Seriously, if you do not understand you should ask first before making several thousands of edits. Do you really think the Russian names are here just because in 15 years nobody noticed that Russian is not an official language in Ukraine, and users were adding them thinking Russian is official? An nobody knows what the real name for Chernobyl should be? And for Kiev (which is protected, so that you did not manage to move it)? Next I see disruption from your side, and I block you and your alleged brother as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:45, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Need protection for the page as its under massive edit of ten times in a day. need to put some more sources but till than need protection. also kindly suggest can i do new edit. or cann changes be undo so that i can edit sources.Rusianejohn (talk) 13:17, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Please achieve consensus at the talk page with your opponent concerning the changes you want to make.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:20, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Me again; could you have a look at President of Venezuela (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in terms of protection? Thanks again! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:31, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 13:35, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I have a pending revision on Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market which isn't accepted yet. 78.108.178.85 (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

My edit of the Khazar Hypothesis section of the Ashkenazi Jews article is NOT vandalism. It makes it accurate and politically neutral. There is evidence that the Ashkenazi Jews are descended from the Khazars. But, some people want to keep it out of the article to further a political agenda. ^{[1] [2]}

Please try to convince other users at the talk page that this is not vandalism.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Like I said, there's a political agenda at play here. Some people are afraid that it would weaken the Jewish claim to Israel if it came out that the Ashkenazi Jews were primarily descended from people other than the Israelites. They don't care care about the truth. They just want to turn the article into a propaganda platform.

Sure, we are just a propaganda platform funded by the Zionist Occupational Government.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Gimme a break! That's not what I said. Go look at the edit history of the article. I've been fighting this battle for over 2 years. Why do you think there's been so much opposition to my edit?

I do have an opinion about this, but this is not why I protected the article. I protected it because of your disruptive behavior. Please go to the talk page and discuss.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Do tell! What is your opinion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1703:45A4:358A:5DED:D422:A6C0 (talk) 20:32, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

No, the procedure is that you stop posting at my talk page and go to the talk page of the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Us ?. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 17:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I've seen that episode. It has no relevance to this discussion. But, what bothered me about it was the way the Nazis captured Kirk and Spock. One of them thought Spock's skin color was unusual. But, it wasn't. As a Vulcan, Spock's blood is green. But his skin color wasn't out of the ordinary for an Ekosian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1703:45A4:358A:5DED:D422:A6C0 (talk) 20:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Yesterday, I mistakenly submitted a request for page protection for List of Call the Midwife episodes. I'm not sure what I was thinking, but it should actually have been List of Call the Midwife characters that needed the request for page protection from the Harrisburg, PA IP. He/she is not stopping, and worse, has now started up on the main Call the Midwife article. Would you mind checking the two and applying page protection at least to the characters article? I'm sorry for the error! ----Dr.Margi ✉ 02:38, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• I dropped a rangeblock--maybe that helps. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks. There was one more edits afterwards, and I protected the page for three days--Ymblanter (talk) 05:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Hopefully that's enough for the jarhead to get bored. If not, I'll be back! ----Dr.Margi ✉ 06:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted an IP that added some extremely non-neutral language regarding Qarmatians. I would like your input regarding the edit of the IP. Thank you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:58, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

The IP has reverted with the edit summary of, "Vandalism, removed large, academically sourced fragments". --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I have undone their edit since they need to discuss it at the talk page first, but I do not have any opinion on the validity of the information they add. There are references which at the first glance look legit, though admittedly I did not spend much time looking at them.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

My concern was the addition of the term "heretical" and the addition of Shia views. AND, I have concerns about the reliability of World Bulletin. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I do not really know. Let them explain at the talk page what they mean.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for protecting Markazu Saqafathi Sunniyya. This diff referenced removing previous protection that had expired. Do you know what that was? Rupert Clayton (talk) 21:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, somebody added it , apparently just for fun.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I felt that you have put a indefinite protection for first offence without particular category arbitration on the Final Solution article isn’t very fair towards some good faith IPs. I’d recommend you to revert to pending changes, and see how that works. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.213.49.97 (talk) 05:33, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Godd faith IPs are welcome to submit protected edit requests at the talk page of the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

A new editor recently gave you a fish for some issue about an AFD. An old editor is now giving you a fish for some issue about an AFD.

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

On Sonia Hossain, you cited gaming of the system on Articles for Creation. That isn't a basis for deletion, because AFC isn't mandatory. The article is better than the draft. It isn't very good, but it is better than the draft. As presented, your AFD nomination could be closed with a Speedy Keep 1 as no basis to delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:38, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I made the point she is not notable but admittedly not in the best possible way. You make a good point, this is the third time in a couple of weeks I get negative comments about my AfD nominations. I will stay away from it for a while.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi YMblanter (and pinging co-closers Fish+Karate and GoldenRing): If you're comfortable doing so, could you comment on this COI/N post regarding that lengthy RfC you closed? The RfC opener, Guy Macon, apparently has doubts that the RfC's general finding applies in my case (as an acupuncturist) and is seeking admin guidance.

Thank you very much, and happy editing. --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 01:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Acupuncture: not sure what to do here --Guy Macon (talk) 03:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Anonymous editors have been vandalizing the Tulu Nadu content of Dakshina Kannada article, and also inserting fake demographic percentages. I request you to please give protection to Dakshina Kannada article.
106.206.41.230 (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned at this point there is no reason to protect the article. I would also have rejected a request at [[WP:RFPP].--Ymblanter (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For helping out at CfD, and being willing to make the fully-protected edits necessary to allow me close discussions. Thank you so much. DannyS712 (talk) 05:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

No, really, thank you for taking a chance on me. --DannyS712 (talk) 05:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Did you consider ECP? Doug Weller talk 18:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I had another look and I do not think ec protection would be needed at this point. I see one confirmed user who made problematic edits, the user has been warned (and if they make the same edit for the third time they must be blocked), and they are anyway only 50 edits away from becoming extended confirmed. I added the article to my watchlist, I hope this would be sufficient. If they return, I block them. If another confirmed user appears, I can always ec protect it.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

That's fine. I'll try to catch up tomorrow with giving new users DS alerts, that's also important. Doug Weller talk 19:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

A good idea, I have just given a ds alert to that user.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

This is Anon IP is 175.158.197.4 has been Vandalism on these article. Please Block this Anon IP on 175.158.197.4, Please Help. LG-Gunther :  Talk  14:17, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done, 48h--Ymblanter (talk) 14:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

You're the most recent admin to block Oreratile1207, so I'm contacting you. After you extended their existing block to 3 months for their personal attacks on Cullen328, they apparently socked to evade it (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oreratile1207/Archive), but the blocking admin did not reset the existing block on the master. Shortly after the block expired, the account resumed exactly the behavior that earned their previous blocks by adding false sourcing and unsourced information , and a short while ago they left a message for me not to revert their unsourced addition . The editor seems to have learned nothing despite multiple chances to improve. I've seen editors indeffed for a lot less, so if you're in the mood, I heartily support saving everyone a lot of time. Bakazaka (talk) 08:01, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

To be honest, they added unsourced info into articles already full of similarly unsourced or badly sourced info, so I am hesitant to block them indef just for this.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:50, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I understand. Thanks for taking a look. Bakazaka (talk) 17:16, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

User:6ullga is clearly the sock of User:Accopulocrat. They are editing the same pages and adding the same kind of content. القمر يضيء في الصباح (talk) 22:20, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I am afraid you would need to open an SPI. I am not comfortable blocking based on this evidence.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:36, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

The evidence is clear. Compare edits with User:Leavemydaughteralone, User:Underwritten and User:GoBotsters. They constantly move pages, edit genocide articles particularly List of articles, California genocide and those relating to Soviet war crimes. User:6ullga is a relatively new account that has begun editing similar pages in the exact same manner. القمر يضيء في الصباح (talk) 22:57, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

You extended-confirm protected this article as an Arab-Israeli conflict article. Did you make a mistake? It's a US-based website used by people engaged in short-term renting. Nyttend (talk) 23:57, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I know what airbnb is. There was an edit-warring concerning one of their Palestinian locations, and at the time it was reasonable to ec protect it (I was responding to an RFPP request). Afterwards, I discussed the topic with Galobtter at this page, and we decided it would be reasonable to unprotect after half a year.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, just wanted to let you know that I've asked Arbcom for a little clarification here. I don't think everything with tiny Israel-Palestine coverage should count (it seems a bit extreme to consider Sea level related, merely because File:Israel Sea Level BW 1.JPG appears near the top), so at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment I said basically "Ymblanter and I interpret things differently, so would you please tell us which of us is holding the interpretation you intended". As I said there, This is not some sort of complaint/argument/etc. Just trying to get an authoritative statement on this decision's scope. Please let me know if I've said anything that can be interpreted as hostile, because I'm not unhappy and don't intend anything to sound as if I am. Nyttend (talk) 01:26, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

No, this is fine, thanks for opening this. I will respond there.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:34, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Ymblanter, thanks for the quick work on what appears to be yet another HughD sock here [] Recently I suspect the same sock was active here. Would you please consider removing the comments. I tried but editors unfamiliar with HughD objected. [], []. Thanks, Springee (talk) 15:31, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Please look into/block this IP editor. This is the IP that added the material to the Signpost article above. [] Springee (talk) 18:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, here's an IP editor POV pushing and reverting, without edit summaries. It's a range: 2a02:8108:4dc0:27fc:b099:4157:db37:4218/52. You've reverted them once with the summary "???" so hopefully you understand the issue here. They may or may not be a sock. wumbolo ^^^ 08:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this is a sock. Every edit who makes edits exclusively to change Northern Kurdish language to Ezidi language, or Kurdish to Yezidi, is a sock (who I believe only used IPs, but I might be wring). I reverted a recent edit, but I am not comfortable applying a range block. The easiest is probably to revert on sight.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello,

You reviewed an page of mine so I was wondering if you could help me. My page on Ally Prisock has been nominated for deletion. For the life of me I do not understand why as it is sourced and she is a professional soccer player. How do I get an article that has been flagged as Nomination for deletion to not be deleted?

Cheers

She is not yet a professional player. She becomes notable according to WP:NFOOTY as soon as she plays one game for the Dash.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi! Note that both Boneticore_1081 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 98.118.4.223 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS) have added the same content to Mitchell Johnson and Andrew Golden (here and here) and are likely socks. Both seem to also have a bit of a fascination with number articles. Should I report this to SPI? I'm not sure how that works. Isa (talk) 18:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

This is without a doubt the same person, but they have not edited since the block of Boneticore. There is not much we can do about it.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Is it worth requesting a CU to check for other accounts? Isa (talk) 18:35, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

You can indeed open an SPI but given the block is short duration and than they do not check Ips, I think chances are not big.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Hm. Can't CUs find socks created from the same IP? If I provide them with the account and the IP, can't they check if other accounts were created? This seems to suggest so, but I'm unfamiliar with CU in general. Isa (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I do not think I am more familiar than you, You can try.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. I guess I'll wait to see if there's at least a second account. Thanks! Isa (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Sure, no problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi-I added sources to the Hollingsworth, Georgia article. Many thanks-RFD (talk) 08:03, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Can you go to Category:Images relating to the Seventh-day Adventist Church and delete File:Brownsberger_sidney.jpg this photograph should have never been uploaded. There is already an older cleaned up version.Catfurball (talk) 17:03, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, this would be out-of-process deletion. Please nominate it for Ffd.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:28, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ymblanter. Thanks for all your work with page protections, etc. I know we didn't see eye-to-eye last year, and I apologise for everything I said, and anything that may have offended you in any way. I'm not going to make excuses, what was said was said, but I do regret the whole thing. Lets just say it was some off-wiki issues that dragged me down here too. I'm here to build content and do good, and I know you are too. I won't be offended if you don't think I'm being sincere and understand if you remove/revert this. Once again, apologies for what I said - it should not have happened. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:11, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for writing this. My responses sometimes were not ideal either.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:15, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello.

You removed a number of speedy requests this morning, but you didn't add all unopposed requests here. You missed at least one:

• Category:Burials in Queens, New York by place to Category:Burials in Queens, New York, by place

  Oppose Goes against the convention of Category:Queens, New York. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 October 8#"X in Queens, New York" categories reached a consensus against removing "New York" from four subcategories. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

  @Armbrust: ok, I have altered the request to instead include the missing comma, similar to the C2A requests immediately below. Do you approve? HandsomeFella (talk) 09:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

  Yeah, that's perfectly fine. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:47, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Could you please add it?

Thanks.

HandsomeFella (talk) 11:21, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing. I thought I added it there (I specifically remember removing these extra lines), but I might have lost it indeed. I will check now and add if I have lost it.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:28, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ymblanter, regarding , , , and , the template that goes on the talk page is {{ARBPIA}} while the {{ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}} goes on the respective edit notice pages (eg Template:Editnotices/Page/Amka). Those 5 all look like they have the edit notice already, but some are missing {{ARBPIA}}. I just wanted to let you know why I changed the template added (or removed the edit notice template entirely for the pages that already have {{ARBPIA}} on the talk page). nableezy - 21:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, this is fine, I was sure I have done smth wrong and this is why I only placed five notices. I will continue tomorrow.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:01, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi. regarding 2nd-millennium disestablishment in Europe I wished to sum up the entire millennium of disestablishment in Europe. There is the category Category:2nd-millennium disestablishments in Europe. This video does just that, neatly sums it up in a way that is a million times easier than going through all the sub categories of a millennium. The best place to put it i thought was in a dedicated article for the category. How would you suggest i link it up? I messaged the creator to see if they would link the actual viewo into the article however the best i could do was put a link to this very useful video.

You know, we are not a platform to promote youtube videos. The article had no text, only a link, and this is why I deleted it. You are welcome to recreate the article, but it must conform to our policies, and only after that we can discuss whether the link can be there (my guess is it should not be there, but this is just an opinion of one user).--Ymblanter (talk) 10:38, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Can you place on Neve Gordon? He's definitely reasonably construed. Icewhiz (talk) 15:05, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 15:13, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello, ymblanter!

I see that we've been editing the page for Marfa Kryukova. You removed my note about copy editing saying it was not needed. I'm curious about this because I definitely see things that aren't ideal grammatical constructions in English. For example, the use of prepositions is off: "interest in Russia to the Northern folklore"; "invited to perform to Arkhangelsk" -- both of these would more commonly be 'in'. There are other passages that I think could be made clearer.

Do you disagree that the grammar could be improved, or do you or someone else plan to update it? If you'd like-- though I'm completely unfamiliar with the subject of the article-- I could work on an update and either publish it, or show it to you first. Jkgree (talk) 17:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I have written the article. I am surprised to see things like "invited to perform to Arkhangelsk" (I guess it was "invited to Arkhangelsk to perform"), but generally I find it reasonably well written, and I do not think it requires additional effort. If you are planning to copyedit, you are most welcome to do it, but I am not happy to have a maintenance template on an article I have written which would stay there forever.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

OK. I will work on some updates. It seems that you watch this page, so if you see anything that you disagree with, you can let me know, or just change it. I expect, by the way, that any changes I make would be pretty non-controversial. Jkgree (talk) 19:05, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I have made updates. I included some hidden notes on the page; you may want to look for them and add or change something. Jkgree (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I went through the article and dealt with your comments.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:51, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello again YM, might you glance at 2019 Venezuela uprising to see if you think Semi is warranted? I thought the IP insertions of <various messes> would subside by today, but they aren't letting up. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I semi-protected for three days. The most recent IP seens to have found the talk page, but there were other instances earlier today, and it is better if the article stays protected for a while.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much; sorry to interfere during your time off! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Is it worth revdeling the stuff, or is that de Nile enough? Qwirkle (talk) 15:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I have not looked at all of their edits, but in what I looked at I did not see anything which would require revision deletion.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

No, there’s nothing there but virtual graffiti, so to speak, and I suppose scrubbing it off has its own set of problems. Again, thanks. Qwirkle (talk) 16:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as User talk:Ymblantor, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. bonadea contributions talk 08:32, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 08:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I was wondering whether you could cast your eye over this AfD please and let me know whether you think my relist rationale is OK. I'm not really sure that I should take any more administrative action, as I wonder whether I might be considered involved. It would be good to get your opinion as someone who has occasional involvement in football AfDs but isn't active in the project and so I think is independent. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 14:41, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I think relisting is a possible option, but I would say if they want to discuss the players individually let them discuss the players individually. Do you want me to close it as procedural close and renominate all these guys for individual AfDs?--Ymblanter (talk) 15:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

If you think that would be for the best I am happy for you to do that. It all seems rather bureaucratic to me, given no one has suggested anything for these players around GNG. I wanted people who had voted for procedural keep on the fear that it would be a chaotic AfD time to reflect given that has deomonstrably not happened, but some people seem to just want to try again for a third time. Probably best to close and reopen to get the proper engagement. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 15:15, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I will do this in a moment.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrators must secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:57, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi - can you place a 1RR template on Middle East Media Research Institute? It's already EC.Icewhiz (talk) 06:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 09:01, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Right now it is pending changes protected however it is also extended confirmed protected so can you remove the pending changes protected as it is extended confirmed protected indefinite and extended confirmed edits are automatically accepted and you can always add it back if the article is unprotected Abote2 (talk) 11:54, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done, though it also was not doing any harm.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:00, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 13:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• Ymblanter здравствуйте! Кажется, надежда только на вас. Никто так и не посмотрел статью, тема на форуме благополучно ушла в архив нерешенной. Можете выделить немного времени и посмотреть? Вот несколько ссылок, которые показывают значимость: Literaturnaya Gazeta (1), Izvestia (2), Zinziver (3) + 4, 5 and etc. Manager1kz (talk) 17:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Please, pay attention to the following article: "Totskoye nuclear exercise". A user whose contributions seem to be biased has removed tons of information from there, hiding every fact that tells us that the exercise did not have disastrous consequences, that "local citizens were offered temporary evacuation", that "experts of the Leningrad Scientific Research Institute of Radiation Hygiene conducted their own radioecological investigation of the area around the blast site", that "in 1994-1995 four Russian and four American experts formed a joint commission for studying the impact of the explosion on the blast site and the surrounding territories" and didn't find anything even remotely apocalyptic there, etc, etc, etc. He also removed the memoirs of those veterans who participated in the exercise, leaving only what doesn't contradict his own POV.

I highly recommend that you add that page to your watchlist and stop the user from removing extremely important and sourced content in the most inappropriate manner. 213.193.14.55 (talk) 12:49, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Please discuss with the user. My impression is that if anybody is editing disruptively there it is you.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I guess you have confused me with some other user, as I have only restored a large portion of the text that was removed along with highly important facts from primary sources. Well, anyway, thanks for the attention, I'll try to discuss with the user. 213.193.14.55 (talk) 14:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

"Tons of information" like this: "The degree of radiation exposure on the armored vehicles, clothes and military personnel was measured immediately after every combat mission. According to the data of remote control and measuring equipment installed at 730 meters from the epicenter, the level of radiation reached 65 R/h two minutes after the blast, dropped to 10 R/h after 10 minutes, 2.4 R/h after 25 minutes, and 1.5 R/h after 47 minutes". I think a semiprotection of this page is in order. My very best wishes (talk) 00:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

No, it was just a small portion of the text and even this portion is significant and supported by a RS. 213.193.14.55 (talk) 21:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I encourage you to resolve the current dispute on the following page Talk:Chaim_Rumkowski#Current_dispute

Cautious (talk) 20:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you but I am not going to be involved in the dispute.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Would you be willing to remove the move protection from File:Jyllands-Posten-pg3-article-in-Sept-30-2005-edition-of-KulturWeekend-entitled-Muhammeds-ansigt.png? As a file, it can only be moved by file movers or admins, and the odds of a file mover not being extended-confirmed are practically 0. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 06:20, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Whereas it is technically possible to have a lower level move protection than the edit protection, I do not think we have a single page here with this protection configuration, and this would also be a very odd thing to do. If you think this is a real problem it probably needs to be discussed in a more general setting on a village pump.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:04, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: the actual move protection wouldn't decrease - you still need file mover rights. Also, it is also a very odd thing to extended-confirmed protect a file - its the only page in the entire namespace that has extended-confirmed move (or edit) protection. Anyway, its not a big deal, just wondering. --DannyS712 (talk) 07:11, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Sure, I see your point, I just think that this is a more general issue worth to be discussed at a village pump.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:13, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ymblanter. You recently added the following to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working:

• Category:ARCA Racing Series to Category:ARCA Menards Series
  • Category:ARCA Racing Series seasons to Category:ARCA Menards Series seasons
  • Category:ARCA Racing Series drivers to Category:ARCA Menards Series drivers
  • Category:ARCA Racing Series teams to Category:ARCA Menards Series teams
  • Category:ARCA Racing Series tracks to Category ARCA Menards Series tracks
  • Category:ARCA Racing Series races to Category:ARCA Menards Series races

Cydebot has moved the articles in all the categories except Category:ARCA Racing Series tracks. Do you know why? (Is it because Category ARCA Menards Series tracks doesn't exist?). Note that I'm asking you because User talk:Cydebot suggests asking questions about category changes to the editor who added the categories to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 10:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

No, I do not have any ideas and generally regard the bot's work as random process (though I am indeed surprised they did not move the category). I will look into it, presumably some manual work needs to be done.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 12:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

A colon was missing in the wikicode.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting it out. DH85868993 (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Sure, no problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:15, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Since you undid my edit please provide an authoritative Russian Federation government citation to confirm your point that Russia has only four official religions. A citation from a author's book may correctly reflect that author's statement but be incorrect with regard to the actual official position and legislation of the Russian Federation. I would think that Wikipedia would prefer factual information.Moryak (talk) 18:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Is this one good enough for you? It is funded by the government.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Ymblanter, Hi. This past Sunday, I visited the Hebrew University library in Jerusalem to do more research on the Roman-era village, Kefar Hananya. I realize that I am under a topic ban in the I/A area, which topic ban I am willing to abide-by, without incident (until I am able to appeal the topic ban later this year), but I wish to know if the topic ban applies to adding archaeological information about the site (without discussing or engaging in matters related to the Israeli-Arab conflict), even though the article has a history related to that conflict. If I can remember correctly, there was once a discussion on one of the Boards where the question was asked about making an edit that was not connected or related in any way or form to the area of the topic ban, and someone there voiced his opinion that this was Okay. I may be mistaken, however, so this is why I am asking you. Of course, if I am permitted to add this archaeological information (data), I will not interject in those matters wherein, previously, other editors had objected to their inclusion.Davidbena (talk) 01:08, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I would say this material is related to the conflict broadly construed but not reasonably construed, so that should be compare to the formulation of the topic ban. If it is still unclear, or if you disagree with me, the safest way would be to ask at the ArbCom talk page (and start a clarification request if the matter proves to be more complicated).--Ymblanter (talk) 05:23, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay. I'll just wait patiently, when I have been allowed again to edit those pages. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 12:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, May i kindly request you to review the page and provide your feedback. Thamizhachi Thangapandian

-Lesenwriter (talk) 08:58, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry to reply like this, but realistically, I just do not have time now for any activity which takes longer than 10 minutes. It is unlikely I will have this time until the end of August.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:29, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Hey Ymblanter, I'm seeing the same kind of issue at Ans van Dijk, new accounts and IPs inserting the same kind of material. Can you take a look? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I pending changes protected it for 6 months, but this is as much as I can do.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:14, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Think this would qualify? Valenciano (talk) 07:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. Whoever this is, they clearly need medical assistance.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

They were all Jewish by nationality and had Polish citizenship. The infobox person description clearly states that you can add a citizenship section where nationality and citizenship are different. Mathiasrex (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Again, there is an ANI discussion of this topic (with btw converges to an opposite conclusion), and your sudden apperarance in this topic right now, aftr a month of your inactivity and immediately after I have extended-conformed protected one of the articles, can not be coincidental. If you want your opinion hears, you should not be acting as a sock.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, what brought you to these articles, and why post on my Talk page about this? Jayjg ^(talk) 14:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I will not insist, especially since the state of Israel did not exist then. Mathiasrex (talk) 14:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Insist on what? If you are indeed a sock, your account must be blocked since it was used to edit a protected article the original accounts has no access to.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

insist my statements in discussion page, not in wiki main Mathiasrex (talk) 14:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Insist on what exactly? And what brought you here to edit those specific pages? Jayjg ^(talk) 14:35, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Ymblanter, in light of your statement at ArbCom Case request , which concerns mostly myself and Icewhiz, I feel it necessary to point out that 1) I have never edited the article on Chaim Rumkowski and 2) at the ANI you reference I supported Jayjg's contention that this stuff doesn't belong in the lede (or the infobox for that matter). This is some other crap I am not involved in, don't care much about (I kind of despise infoboxes anyway), and it just happens to be in the same topic area.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:51, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

This is fine, I do not think I ever said you are involved in this particular crap. I do not even know who is involved there.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:59, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

IIRC, although Russian is your native tongue, you are not fluent in Ukrainian. The above article needs a lot of work, and many of the sources are Ukrainian. I've been doing some clean-up, but I have to guess at a lot of things because I can't read the sources. Also, I suspect there is far too much non-noteworthy material (the article reads like a resume of every single thing he ever did), but again I'm not confident in my ability to make the best decisions. Assuming you don't want to, or don't feel able to, tackle editing the article, do you know of someone who could? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:45, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I would be willing to help, but realistically I do not have much time right now (real-life issues, I can be constantly doing easy maintenance work which does not require much reflection, but finding a slot for 30 minutes work on one subject is difficult), and also I am not as familiar with Ukrainian media (in the first approximation, most of them are just blog platforms as they only publish opinion pieces, but beyond that I know very little). I hope Iryna Harpy or Yuliya Romero might be interested. If something straightforward would be needed, such as checking a specific source (even if it is in Ukrainian) or translating a piece of text, I can do it as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:52, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately due to (also) real-life issues I am not as active on Wikipedia as I used to be (as you can check here). And.. when I edit these days I do it stylistically at the absolute minimum necessary level... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Yesterday, you blocked User:96.231.110.11 after I asked for help at ANI because he or she is stalking my edits and reverting them with no discussion. It looks like he or she has simply changed to a different IP address - 65.112.187.66 - and has continued making the same edits. Can you please block this IP address, too, or otherwise try to convince this person to collaborate? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 21:44, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

El C‎ took care of this. Thanks for your help with the first block! ElKevbo (talk) 21:53, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Sure, sorry, I was sleeping during the whole series of events.--Ymblanter (talk) 04:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello.
As you—unlike me—have an experience with this specific person, you can probably stop this bollocks more effectively than some thread on AN/I. Is escalation of trivial disputes her usual manner of conduct? If it is, then I astonished about the respective block log. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:50, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I will have a look but it is likely I will only able to do it after Monday (I am on holidays with very little internet and on a mobile)--Ymblanter (talk) 06:10, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

At least, hide please edit summaries from and and the incident may be dismissed. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I am afraid I do not see how I can revision-deleted them based on policies. (You can of course welcome to ask another administrator, but I am not sure they would agree). I will have a word with Iryna now.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Why did you come after me but you didn't warn Galassi? R2 (bleep) 19:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Because they were reverting to the established version, while you were edit-warring to add your edit. Per WP:BRD, you should have stopped after their first revert. I however included them into the ANI report.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think your chronology is accurate, but at least I understand your reasoning, thanks. In any case, could you please fix a small but confusing typo in your ANI report? You said I called your warnings "treats," when in fact I used the word "threats." R2 (bleep) 20:17, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Sure, no problem, will do now.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again. I went back through the archives of Talk:RT (TV network) and was surprised to find that, contrary to your representations at ANI, you are strikingly involved in the development of that article, and in particular in the closely related question of whether RT should be considered propaganda or disinformation. Now, what I find most disconcerting about your conduct today is that there has been an RfC pending on that on that exact issue, yet you chose to come after me instead of participating in the RfC. Why? R2 (bleep) 23:52, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Again, I have no interest in content in this case. You are always try to drag me into content issues. The only thing I am interested in for this article is to make sure there is no disruption (meaning policies have been observed etc). Unfortunately the topic has a high potential for disruption, and in the past it was edited by so-called Russian propaganda trolls (IP users or editors whose salary was paid by Russian government). I do not see why I should be participating in RfC, and I a not trying to push my political views here. (Btw our dispute does not have ny relation to my political views here, I have no opinion on how many times RT was caught on disinformation, I just know that this is not a subject one should edit-war over).--Ymblanter (talk) 05:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

That is totally inconsistent with your participation in the article since at least 2014. I think some honesty is in order here. R2 (bleep) 17:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I am honest, and it is not up to you to make such accusations against me. Additionally, you repeatedly asked me to fuck off, I fucked off, but you apparently can not stop posting here. Why do not you check all my 140 000 edits and make a report? Additionally, you were told by ALL USERS WITHOUT ANY EXCEPTION who had to say something that your behavior is not ok in this episode, and you continue insisting it is ok. May be it is time for self-reflection for you? So far you clearly demonstrate a complete lack of clue.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:43, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I was hoping for some degree of reconciliation with you, but I guess I didn't approach that very effectively. I'm sorry for that. I guess we just see many conduct issues very differently. R2 (bleep) 17:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi there. I think at Bikaner Technical University one revision too much were hidden. Not a big deal for sure. --Muhandes (talk) 11:31, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Corrected, thanks--Ymblanter (talk) 11:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ymblanter. Just wanted to bring your attention to User:Ineedtostopforgetting's recent edits, like this or this. Essentially he is Japanizing all articles about Kuril Islands, including article moves to Japanese names. Can you please have a look at it? Thanks. - Darwinek (talk) 23:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Darwinek, What exactly is 'suspicious' about my edits? I was correcting grammartical errors, adding in native names and new information about the region. In general, the articles weren't well-kept. Also, why did you not approach me directly on my talk page to clarify more about it so that we could possibly come to a consensus? Are you trying to vilify me by approaching another admin? Non-admins can't edit articles without being questioned now? - Ineedtostopforgetting (talk) 04:25, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I see indeed POV and not maintenance, and I am going to block your account if you do not stop. In the meanwhile, I will be reverting your edits.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:43, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Have you actually bothered to look at my edits though? How exactly is changing the correct capital of Hokkaido from 'Tokyo' to 'Sapporo', adding the flags of the 2 nations (Russia & Japan), adding the term Island to Shikotan to correspond with the Kunashiri Island article, adding the native name of the stratovolcanoes/mountains located on the islands 'POV'? - Ineedtostopforgetting (talk) 08:27, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Sure I did. If you do not understand for example why this edit is problematic, you should not be editing Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:32, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

If you found some of my edits an issue with you, you could have reverted that and explain the reasons as to why, so I could better understand it. But you probably decided that was too much work for you. Instead, you decided to revert the entire edit outright, reverse all the work, and threaten to block me. So much for assuming good faith. - Ineedtostopforgetting (talk) 08:45, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Would you please stop playing an idiot? Kunashir is located in Russia. All countries except Japan recognize this, and therefore the principal names of localities and geographic features located on Kuril Islands are taken from Russian, not from Japanese. Moving articles from Russian names to Japanese names is disruption. (Japanese names were already in the articles, for the record). Adding info about smth currently located in "Kunashiri, Japan" is disruption. You perfectly know this. If you do it once again, I will block your account. Is this sufficiently clear?--Ymblanter (talk) 08:51, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 23, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, – bradv🍁 15:05, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:32, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

A discussion has started about wrapper templates of {{Link language}}. You may be interested in participating because you participated in a related previous discussion. Retro (talk | contribs) 03:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

In Ukraine, the official language is Ukrainian only. Russian, Romanian and Hungarian do not have any, regional or official status. Please return my edits. Also today, the US Council on Geographical Names unanimously supported the decision to replace the official name of the capital of Ukraine from "Kiev" to "Kyiv" in an international base. The Embassy of Ukraine in the USA reports this on Facebook. We will seek to rename the article on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitaliyf261 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

You are already seeking this for years and so far failed miserably. You may want to look at Talk:Kiev/naming. Wikipedia operates on the basis of consensus, see WP:CONSENSUS, not on the basis of the opinion of the Ukrainian government. The current consensus is to keep Russian names.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Ymblanter: sir, it a request please revert 2 edit made by Sammy.joseph on the article Kasautii Zindagii Kay (2018 TV series) as it not a good faith edit. AR.Dmg (talk) 11:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I do not see any problems with these edits. Please discuss with the user or at the talk page of the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment here, but you might want to sign it? Risker (talk) 21:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Signed, thanks for noticing, I am way past the usual bedtime here, and the probability to screw up is already significant.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Please correct the mistakes written on that page to write correctly, he is Croatian and Croatian poet, here and the proof https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ivan-Gundulic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.71.107 (talk) 13:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I think I was pretty clear at WP:ANI that this is not going to happen. If you want to change anything, go to the talk page and discuss.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Let it be then falsehood written on that page when you so want — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.71.107 (talk) 13:56, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure why do you think that if you have changed the IP I am going to start all over again. I already said everything I wanted to say.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about ,how can i change ip? I spoke because I read the untruthful article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.71.107 (talk) 14:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

No unregistered editor really has a reason to edit a portal anyway, since portals are rather complicated. The vandal will now vandalize either other portals or other math articles, and subsequent admins will have to decide whether to use more semi-protection or range blocks. Oh well. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:53, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I apologize but I possibly do not get your point. The portal was semi-protected since 2010, and the protection was lifted in March 2019 with the comment that it is not needed anymore. The vandal proved that it is needed, and I reprotected it again indefinitely, on your request. Are you saying that I should have not done it, or that I should also look at other portals / nath articles the vandal can potentially be interested in?--Ymblanter (talk) 03:54, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh I see. Please let me know if you see any additional vandalism.--Ymblanter (talk) 03:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I am saying that we are playing Whack-a-Mole with the vandal. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. There is already a discussion on the talk page (in which there is no consensus to remove the flags); your report at WP:RFPP appears like a blatant assumption of bad faith (have you looked at the discussion???); reverts were to status quo as the page was before removal by User:Bondegezou (have you looked at the page history???). Filing a report at WP:RFPP and then going on to revert an editor which you disagree with and have managed to lock out of any editing seems really improper. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 18:06, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I actually looked at the discussion and I see that you are the only editor arguing for the flags. I do not particularly care whether flags are there or not, I am administrator, and my interest here is to stop the edit-warring. However, you were given a policy-based reason why the flags should not be there, and to restore them you would probably need to do a better job than just say "I am tired to repeat my arguments".--Ymblanter (talk) 18:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Tell that to User:Ozzie10aaaa. The only other editor I was "arguing with" was User:Bondegezou, who originally removed flags. I have also given policy based reasons why the flags SHOULD be there (and why MOS:INFOBOXFLAG is not the only policy which applies), and the arguments have been made also at Template talk:Infobox election where it is User:Bondegezou who is the only one "arguing" AGAINST (User:Ralbegen has also made a short comment) flags while User:Impru20, User:Number 57, User:Heb the best, User:Carter, have expressed their opinions. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 18:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Accusations of sockpuppetry (grounded in which reasoning?) and of IP hopping (while I have had the same IP for a long time) are also not what I would expect from an admin. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 18:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure why Infobox:Election should have any relation to the article about an epidemic. However, I am in principle fine with these arguments, of both sides. What I am not really fine with is that you make an argument, declare the discussion finished, go to the article and revert to your preferred version. We have certain policies which definitely apply to this case and which say why this behavior is not acceptable, do I need to cite them? Open an RfC and wait until it gets summarized either way, or, at the very least, wait for several days (well, now you will have to wait for a week) and see that no new arguments are forthcoming, announce that you are going to readd the flags, and then, if there is indeed no consensus, nobody would contest this.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:23, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

See the first comment I made on the Ebola page for why the discussions are related (in short, User:Bondegezou started massively removing flags from many articles citing INFOBOXFLAG). I am not reverting to "my preferred version" (and yes I am aware of m:The Wrong Version), I am reverting to status quo (which is, to my understanding, what should be done unless there is consensus to change, which User:Bondegezou definitively failed to obtain on talk page (in fact, he has made the exact same points on both pages in what seems like a case of WP:IDHT, per another user, see this and compare with this). 107.190.33.254 (talk) 18:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I have indeed heard your argument that this was a long-standing version. However, if there are serious arguments that it is not the version compliant with the policy, these arguments have to be considered. I happened to notice this edit-warring, I have not seen other discussions you are referring to. I have never heard of Bondegezou until yesterday and I have no idea who they are, but if you think they massively disrupt Wikipedia by editing against consensus, you should report them to ANI.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

As I said, those arguments have been discussed on the respective talk pages and have failed to gain traction (in other words, MOS:INFOBOXFLAG is just a guideline and the editors I mentioned previously do seem to think that this is a situation where applying it as though it had force of law is not warranted.) 107.190.33.254 (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I know that this is your opinion. Please now use it to convince your opponent, or, if this is not possible, to bring it to some way of dispute resolution. Edit-warring is not an acceptable dispute resolution avenue.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:42, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

That has already been attempted (on the two relevant talk pages), but the "opponent" (if use of that term is acceptable despite a certain policy) seems to be exhibiting WP:IDHT as I think has been demonstrated by the diffs of talk page contributions - despite the intervention of other editors in disputing the "opponent's" reliance on the letter and not the spirit of the "law". Which is why I feel ok reverting said editor who tried to reinstate their change on multiple articles without gaining consensus for their change and was violating WP:STATUSQUO which indicates that "During a dispute discussion, until a consensus is established, you should not revert away from the status quo". 107.190.33.254 (talk) 18:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

As I already said, if you think the behavior of your opponent is disruptive you should have reported them at ANI. You can still do it, and if your representation of the situation is correct, you will have flags restored much sooner than in a week. Concerning WP:STATUSQUO, may I please remind you that this is an essay. If there is a policy argument why the old version is not acceptable one does not have to revert to that version.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I'd rather avoid WP:Dramaboard because that is not constructive and usually leads to more bitter complaining by everybody involved. So an RfC should solve the matter (content-wise, for disruptive editing I'll see elsewhere)? 107.190.33.254 (talk) 19:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

RfC must definitely do the job, though it is a bit slow.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

On Margaret of Valois a new user, Chevalier d'Éon, first added unsourced information, then attempted to use Wellman's book Queens and Mistresses of Renaissance France to readd this information(which was not in the book) and then finally uses an obscure unviewable book to readd the information for a third time.

I find this quite suspicious given the first attempt was unsourced and the second attempt was falsifying information from the source. At no time did this editor go to the talk page and post a quote with a page number to verify this information, as I had asked.

Your thoughts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

It does not look an obvious sock to me, and it might be an it.wiki user who is new here, so I would say try the talk page first, and see whether they are responsive.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

That image looks to high quality to be public domain. Its gross, and I would like it to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.208.83 (talk) 07:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are talking about. What image, in which article?--Ymblanter (talk) 07:17, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Probably talking about Diaper fetishism, an article you recently protected, and its image File:Adult demonstrating diaper fetishism by wearing an adult diaper.jpg. —RainFall 07:22, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. In this case, the issue must be discussed at the talk page of the article. Reverting several dozen times in a day on the basis "I do not like this picture" is not a valid dispute resolution avenue.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I really insist that you remove it 66.190.208.83 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:50, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

This is not my role as administrator. You really must go to the talk page of the article and reach consensus with other editors.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The Day After does not take place in 1983.

2601:8B:C300:BAFC:1DF1:3F85:3BFD:D522 (talk) 19:07, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I totally do not understand the context of this message, but if it is aboutone of the articles I protected, you would need to discuss the issue at the talk page of the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for for warning me of my violation of WP:3RR , I apologize for my revert actions Londonboy88 (talk) 15:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Sure, no problem, but please be very careful in the future.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Dear Yaroslav!

At 17 January 2017 you had removed new page Chystyakove to Torez, and destroyed the long history of article Torez, with all its authors, at least from 2010, see log.

Please, restore history of Torez; also, restore talk:Torez + talk:Chystyakove.

Thanks,

— Yuriy Dzyаdyk (t•c), 10:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC).

 Done, I must have screwed up smth back then.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, cordially. — Yuriy Dzyаdyk (t•c), 10:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC).

Sure, no problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Check out ChubbEdretz, likely sock of ChubbEdtres. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:49, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Zzuuzz got them first.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

• hit the wrong button. Meant to thank. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:53, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Could you please block user:88.104.231.12? She is persistently vandalizing. CLCStudent (talk) 18:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 18:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with that... Maybe you could also redact the same edits from Special:Contributions/F*ckYou345? It's the same person (fyi, it's Shingling334). --IamNotU (talk) 18:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Sure, done these as well--Ymblanter (talk) 18:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Explain your last edit on this page. I used a reliable source, Encyclopædia Britannica, which describe him as "Ukrainian-born Russian painter".--KHMELNYTSKYIA (talk) 09:27, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

As you perfectly know, Ukraine did not exist at the time, and he can not be Ukrainian-born. He was born in the Russian Empire. Specifically for Repin, the question has been discussed multiple times, and, as far as I remember, the article was even protected for a while. Concerning other persons, I asked a question at MOS talk page, I hope somebody will point me out to more relevant discussions.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Of course, Ukraine did not exist as an independent state. But Ukraine existed as a country and there was a separate Ukrainian nation. Britannica is not a marginal source to Wikipedia editors rejected it. I do not insist on this case, but I think my other edits are correct.--KHMELNYTSKYIA (talk) 09:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Apparently, not: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Ukrainian-born--Ymblanter (talk) 09:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

FINA and LEN consider the Serbian national water polo team to be the direct and sole successor of the Yugoslavia and Serbia and Montenegro teams^{[1] [2]} Pelmeer10original (talk) 15:22, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

What you need is to stop evade your block, wait for half a year, and then, if you are still interested in editing Wikipedia, post an unblock request citing WP:Standard offer on your main account page.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:27, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

This is probably the most pointless edit I've ever seen on Wikipedia, with your trolling intent made clear by the edit summary. Do not disrupt Wikipedia for fun. If you are somehow not aware of the manual of style, you should read it. Avoid contractions, which have little place in formal writing. 46.208.236.142 (talk) 18:07, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Removal of {{asymmetric federalism]] from the sentence is vandalism.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:08, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

So you have not read WP:VAND and WP:NOTVAND either, it seems. You are welcome to disagree with my edit. You are not welcome to insult me with false claims. Your disruptive intent is once again clear. 46.208.236.142 (talk) 18:11, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

In case you haven't already guessed it, the fulminating IP is WP:LTA/BKFIP, recently returned from a successful tour of the Pacific. Favonian (talk) 18:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, no, I had a couple of other candidates in mind but not this one.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

The vandal keep adding fictional dates Ghirla^-трёп- 17:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, warned them.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

09:25, 27 July 2019 Ymblanter deleted page Talk:Bonin Islands/Archive 1 (G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page)

This is an invalid rationale... you were not "the author" of the talk page archive. You should have left the redirect behind after moving the page. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

It is perfectly my right to delete an absolutely useless redirect I myself created a minute prior to deletion which nobody else edited.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

From WP:Criteria for speedy deletion: This criterion does not apply to redirects created as a result of a page move^[1]

Note in the deleted history SS49 started a new archive (a fork of the existing archive), which likely would have been prevented had the redirect been left behind. The archive hadn't been moved back when your move was reversed, until I just did it. wbm1058 (talk) 16:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I still believe talk page redirects are useless (and people should move archives when moving the articles), but I have better use of my time than nominating every such redirect for MfD, so I will just stop deleting them. There are so many things in Wikipedia I disagree with, I can survive having one more.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:12, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I sympathize and understand the annoyance with the need for managing talk page redirects. But they are not completely useless. Category:Unsynchronized talk page redirects is populated by {{R from move}} which is placed on talk page redirects left behind after moves. You might be surprised at how often an article is moved without its talk, much less talk archives. I patrol this category and resync several talk pages with their articles every week. If those talk page redirects had been deleted, then these unsynced talk pages wouldn't be detected by {{R from move}}. This is a sort of kludgey workaround for limitations of the MediaWiki software, and it would be nice if the software didn't allow these unsynched talk pages to exist in the first place. wbm1058 (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, ideally, redirects from move should not have talk pages, but we do not live in the ideal world.--Ymblanter (talk) 02:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey Ymblanter, you just undid my edits on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Seaman

the info on the page is out of date. See her current info here government page^[1]

I'm also having trouble figuring out how to get my image for the page approved from flickr as the bot couldn't see the license.

Thanks

--DashiellHammett (talk) 00:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

It is ok to add the new info. I undid some of your edits because they were removing info, in particular, they removed the infobox.--Ymblanter (talk) 04:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

What it is https://www.instagram.com/crimeainfogram/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.34.187.142 (talk) 06:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I do not know.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Since when is the Aras River the boundary between Europe and Asia? - LouisAragon (talk) 08:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Added to the watchlist--Ymblanter (talk) 13:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Ymblanter, For what it's worth I suspect this IP editor is another HughD sock. It's a Chicago based AT&T IP. It's also odd that their only edits are in two very unrelated areas I'm currently involved with, firearms and LBGT rights. In this case the IP editor added some LBGT related information to a republican representative's page. I've never worked on that article specifically but the coincidence just struck me. The editor's edits in the area of guns looks like typical HughD. Rather detailed and methodical edit summaries, a bit of overselling sources or quoting damning lines vs just summarizing. Anyway, I've seen enough HughD socks that this one peaked my radar. [] Springee (talk) 17:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the report. Whereas it is likely that this is HughD evading the block, I am hesitant to block. If disruption continues, the best route might be to file an SPI, though CUs usually avoid identifying IPs of blocked users.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

This one has been active for the past few days. [] Springee (talk) 15:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 15:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

No where does it say on [[WP:PW/RS] the reference I have provided on Brian Blair can't be used. The source is valid and is from not only an Official site but also the company who runs the official site. No where have I been provided anything that says it can't be used. Please see for yourself this is a valid video that backs up the retirement of the person the article is about and when it happened which can be seen here. I have referenced nothing that is unsourced or poorly sourced and was targeted as an IP and I believe that 100% as this user has done it to me before over the last 5 years but when a confirmed user posts the exact same reference he does nothing and leaves it and has now gotten the article semi protected so he can once again remove the reference and take ownership of the article. When something vaild is shown to me that says it cant be refrenced then I wont add it but the user has failed to do so pointing me to an article that has NEVER said it cant be used and I have seen used in the past on other articles. User has now reverted the edits yet again for the 4th or 5th time and now says its per [WP:EL] which also does not say a post from Facebook cant be used.2601:805:8205:7E0A:901F:10F8:CFDB:D528 (talk) 10:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Please discuss this at the talk page of the article and try to convince your opponents.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:10, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

There is only one opponent who has now reverted the article for the 5th time who I tried talking to on their talk page who in turn because they knew they were wrong filed a false claim of unsourced references and got you to lock the page from IPs so he could do as he wished after he violated 3rr and edit warred with me with no valid reason to remove the content. If I had a user name this wouldn't have happened but because I'm an IP user and have been for the last 5 years now I get locked out and he gets ownership of the article and no punishment for violating 3RR and editing warring, Must be another Admin in his pocket like has happened before when he has pulled this crap and then let the content stay because a confirmed user posted it and not an IP. This is why IP users and new users are afraid to edit here because Users are allowed to do this crap and Admins allow it. 2601:805:8205:7E0A:901F:10F8:CFDB:D528 (talk) 11:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

This is a good point to stop this conversation. Why should you talking to an "admin in his pocket" if you can talk to them directly.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Eurovision Asia Song Contest 2019 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Ymblanter, the "edit warring" at Gawli has been to remove the re-addition of self-promotion by socks of Yash gawli. Protection from non-autoconfirmed would be fine, but please revert to the 00:50, 11 March 2008‎ version, before Yash gawli attempted to hijack the redirect. As is, this "article" is WP:G5. Pinging @Bbb23: and @NinjaRobotPirate:, CUs familair with this case. Эlcobbola _talk 19:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 19:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, same IP range as a few other Yash Gawli socks. I blocked him. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: FYI: see here Эlcobbola _talk 20:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Geez, he's been busy. Ymblanter, you're an admin on several of the wikis this guy has been spamming (Commons, En.Wiki, Wikidata); I think WP:RBI (plus Special:Nuke) is a very safe option if you happen to see anything related to "Yash Gawli". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I will have a look. It is probably easier to find a steward and have them globally locked though.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

That I've been trying. Эlcobbola _talk 20:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @Bbb23: and @NinjaRobotPirate:. That puppetmaster is at it again: see User: Abhishek gupta2. Pichpich (talk) 22:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I know all about WP:WRONGVERSION but still... When you protected Gawli, you locked a version which could be speedy deleted as G11, possibly G12 (a section is copied from IMDb) and close but not quite A7 (check out the woeful sources consisting of essentially the same vanity bio posted in various sites that let you do that. Even the IMDb page is BS since I'm pretty sure he wasn't writing his first screenplay at age 6). Any chance you can restore the redirect until this is sorted out? Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 19:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

See the above topic.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:59, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Tianbei New Area and Kuytun are not the same thing, that Tianbei New Area is directed to Kuytun is a fault. delete "Tianbei New Area" please, i'll write the title. thanks. Cncs (talk) 14:31 22 Auguest 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry, I can not just delete it. This would be against the policies.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:41, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello. As you are the admin who blocked Openlydialectic, do you know of any connection to 5.44.170.9 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS)? The comments/trolling at ITN/C is similar, and the IP began editing a month after the account was blocked. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:55, 23 August 2019 (UTC) Also, overlap on Soma (video game) and other articles. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• I took my liberty to block the IP per WP:DUCK Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

  Thank you, looks indeed like it.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:13, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

This IP is back editing again after the block expired. Hrodvarsson (talk) 03:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 06:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

S'cool.--Brogo13 (talk) 20:49, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry, some scripts load slowly for me, and I accidentally click rollback from time to time.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:37, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

misclick^{"it's cool"}
--Brogo13 (talk) 23:24, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Just noticed the truckload of substubs this editor created earlier in the year like Concepción District, San Rafael. As if the canton articles didn't already need enough work. They're needed articles but should have been generated with a bot or something to at least contain information. I see you've just blocked him, doesn't surprise me. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:57, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Indeed, he created quite a lot of articles of low-level administrative divisions. Some of them were incorrect, and I corrected the factual information, but I am sure there are quite a lot I did not find, and all of them need work anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:00, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Yikes, I was just looking through User:Shevonsilva. He's created about 100 years work for 100 wikipedians there!! He seems to have gone through geohive or or one of those province databases type sites in an A-Z of countries and blue linked every missing municioality worldwide!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. And some of them with errors.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

What might they say in Russia, "dryan"? I've been learning a bit of Russian, Bolshoye spasiba! The cryllic lettering scares me though! We need another contest just to expand some of his stubs!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:51, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Ymblanter: After your semi-protection of Template:Pakistan Armed Forces sidebar, User:ShahabKhanJadoon1 has been making changes which appears to be similar to another user with similar name called ShahabKhan302, this user has been blocked for six months, I am sure its a sock. Kindly check.--Aakanksha55 (talk) 14:26, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 15:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Дорогой Ярослав!

Возможно, это вызовет твой интерес: «Принцип Блантера и решение 800», ru:АК:1111. По крайней мере, я обязан сообщить. В заявке цитирую твой итог (май 2011), и ответ мне (декабрь 2016).

С искренним глубоким уважением,

— Iurius Galileo 17:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC).

Спасибо, но к русской Википедии я не имею никакого отношения с 2011 года и не планирую там участвовать в будущем.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Главное, я известил тебя. Успехов! Принцип очень общий! — Iurius Galileo 17:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC).

Да, конечно, я совершенно не в претензии.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:42, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Дорогой Ярослав, Вы можете пожалуйста защитить страницу User talk:Adavyd от частог спам вандализма, и пожалуйста сделайте запрос на глобальную блокировку для 188.32.110.178. Причина кросс-вики спам в адрес администратора OneLittleMouse. 85.26.164.190 (talk) 11:46, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Нет, по нашим правилам, спама недостаточно для защиты страницы. Запрос на Мете можете сделать и Вы. Айпи давно уже заблокирован.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:51, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The Megafon user obviously wants to block the adversary globally. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?diff=336753611 is neither spam nor vandalism, although stewards lock accounts used by the broadband-188-32-110-178.ip.moscow.rt.ru user – user:Никита-Родин-2002 maybe? IMHO a feud between two LTAs, dismiss. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:03, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Дорогой Ярослав, запрос на Мете, на глобальную блокировку могут делать только автоподтвержденные участники, но ни как не анонимы. 85.26.164.190 (talk) 12:10, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) This is just what do I suggest. A user is preoccupied with Wikimedia global blocks whereas has not an account suitable for Meta-wiki. Meta.Wikimedia is not known for especially widespread repression of dissidents, so sapienti sat… Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Времена меняются (sorry, can’t get how to translate it to English). IMHO moot by now. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Дорогой Incnis Mrsi ответьте пожалуйста, а почему тогда Никита-Родин-2002 со своим кросс-вики спамом всё время нападает на администратора OneLittleMouse и Adavyd? Как Вы это можете про комментировать? 85.26.164.190 (talk) 12:26, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Я не занимаююсь защитой тех, кого полно кому защитить. Я занимаююсь защитой тех, кого некому защитить, а также себя.

I do not defend those individuals having a plenty resources to defend. I defend those having nobody to defend, as well as myself. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:34, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Уважаемый Incnis Mrsi, если Вы сделаете запрос на глобальную блокировку для 188.32.110.178, Вы тем самым защитите страницы обсуждения участников OneLittleMouse и Adavyd. 85.26.164.190 (talk) 12:44, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Dear Ymblanter, I request you to please keep a watch on changes in the old consensus version of the article Ivan Kozhedub. See: 1, 2, 3, 4. Best regards, Ушкуйник (talk) 11:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

To be honest, I do not see any issues with these edits, except for adding "Ukrainian-born" in the lede.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:05, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Though they are at three reverts now, one more revert and I block them.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

An article you recently created, Parabel (rural locality), does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Nnadigoodluck (talk) 11:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@Nnadigoodluck:, it has enough sources. Please move it back immediately.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:47, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:52, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Sorry about that. Didn't even knew what I did, until I looked again. Nnadigoodluck (talk) 14:54, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Sure, no problem, but please be careful in the future.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I will be. Thanks! Nnadigoodluck (talk) 15:13, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Concern has been expressed at WP:AN#Why_is_Ibn_Saud_under_restrictions?? that this page should not be under such protection. Your input would be appreciated. Buffs (talk) 05:10, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for notification.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:21, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I went ahead an put it at WP:AE for more eyes: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Buffs Buffs (talk) 05:25, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

...and you're welcome. Buffs (talk) 05:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the collegial discussion! Buffs (talk) 17:30, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Sure, no problem--Ymblanter (talk) 17:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the time you took in considering my candidacy for adminship. Your early support was very appreciated - it was a long 16 minutes between posting the nomination and your support. I hope I live up to, or exceed, your expectations for me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Any Idea What The Heck Is going on here? Is this an LTA I don't know about or just a bunch of spammers? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 07:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Not anybody I can recognize. You may try WP:AN for a bigger pool of responses.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Are you sure Kiev is English? Can you provide any proves?

Kyiv is the right version as decided by UNCSGN (United Nations Conferences on the Standardization of Geographical Names) and UNGEGN (United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names) ."Kiev" is in Russian. AltRNative (talk) 21:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I am really amazed at how people seriously think that we have such a grave mistake on a world's fifth most popular website for 20 years, in every article, and nobody noticed this yet. In fact, we have a dedicated page, Talk:Kiev/Naming, with all discussions collected there over many years. Your argument has been also addressed there multiple times.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Sometimes people confuse learning something for the first time with being the first to learn it. – Levivich 05:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

This is certainly correct. I also have another explanation, but, since it does not necessarily apply specifically to the topic starter, I will better keep it to myself.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry if there's a better way to send a message but I think you misunderstood what I meant.

I meant that nothing else in the article suggested there was ANY ethnic implication with that word, not that it did carry an implication. FusionTorch (talk) 09:11, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I see, indeed, I misunderstood your point. I will now restore the text, my apologies.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:13, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you for your work on copyright issues. Lately I have run into a serious problem: I have been doing an extremely high proportion of the reviewing of the listings at CopyPatrol, having done 50 to 75 reviews daily for the last few weeks. It's not realistic to think that I can keep this up indefinitely, as it consumes many hours each day, and it's not good for me to spend so much time in front of the computer. And if for some reason I become unavailable the results will be dire. What I'm hoping to do is recruit a small group of experienced users who visit Copypatrol daily and clear 5 to 10 cases each, to help spread the burden around a little bit, as well as create a cadre of people who can take over if for some reason I am not able to edit any more. Since you've got some experience in copyright clean-up, I am inviting you to consider visiting the page on a regular basis – even daily, like I do! – and clearing a number of cases. It would be a really big help if you could! Thanks for your time, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I am actually trying to do it daily, but sometimes I am just too busy during the day and forget.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Thanks for taking care of this.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:39, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

A r m i n i u s (talk · contribs)
This editor has, since 16 October 2016, been changing Byzantine to "Eastern Roman" in articles covering issues after the 6th century. A r m i n i u s has been warned about this by me and user:Cplakidas, both warnings still present on their talk page. Is there anything you can do? --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Gave them the last warning.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:39, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Your protecting the page by allowing pending revisions isn't working out too well because the same editor has come back twice already to again re-insert false information into the article....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:48, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I now semi-protected it for one week on top of the pending changes.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:55, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Sure, no problem--Ymblanter (talk) 15:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

The PP expired, and the vandal came back almost at once. Can you please page protect it again?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:58, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, need to run now, I will have a look when I am back in three or four hours.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:59, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 18:58, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. The vandalism has been going on for a couple of years at least. PP for a year was long overdue. Cheers....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:50, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I added it to the watchlist--Ymblanter (talk) 04:57, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

There is an error in the redirect for The Night Before Christmas (1941 film). The redirect code should be on the topmost line. As it is protected, most users cannot help to edit it. JohnThorne (talk) 06:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done, thanks for letting me know--Ymblanter (talk) 06:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Good call on protecting this. It is part of long-running edit war between Koavf and others across multiple related articles (also The Midnight Snack, Tom and Jerry: The Mansion Cat). But the stable version of all three was not a redirect, so I think you've protected the "wrong version" here. Koavf blanked-and-redirected The Night Before Christmas (1941 film) on 31 August, it was contested a few days latter, and they have reverted to their preferred version 5 times in the last month. Similar story on the other articles. I've since blocked Koavf for continuing the edit war after being advised by multiple editors to take it to AfD/a talk page and restored the stable versions of the other two. Do you have any objection to me restoring this revision of The Night Before Christmas? – Joe (talk) 07:57, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: The protection has expired, and I do not have any opinion on what is better (though I see indeed that the article was around for several years before edit-warring started in August). If you want to restore it please do it by all means.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh, didn't notice that. Thanks! – Joe (talk) 08:15, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Sure, no problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Ymblanter. I see you deleted The Kidd Creole; could you please restore it to User:Launchballer/The Kidd Creole because I suspect his 2017 incarceration, which happened after his article was deleted, may put him over the line for notability? Thank you. --Launchballer 18:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 19:05, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Can you please review this image for it’s rationale?—VaibhavafroTalk 01:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 05:23, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Can you please delete this image? I had recently uploaded it. There are technical issues with it. It is not the exact logo and may tarnish its value.

I promise that I will immediately re-upload a clean version of it after you delete it.—VaibhavafroTalk 12:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 12:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: I have re-uploaded the image, keeping my promise! Please license review it for it's rationale.-VaibhavafroTalk 13:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 13:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Yuri. Could you point me towards the rejected Arbcom filing that Fram made against you, probably in 2017? I am writing a lengthy opposition to his attempt to regain Administrative tools and am having a hard time finding it. Thank you. —tim /// Carrite (talk) 12:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Tim. You probably mean this one, I had to resign from the ArbCom Ec because for whatever reason the ArbCom did not decline the case right away, but continued discussing until the election started. I am actually Yaroslav, but I am used to people not remembering this, so you do not need to feel sorry.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Your comment "You are currently edit-warring in Nontrinitarianism, and you edits show that you are not well familiar with Wikipedia policies, in particular on verifiability and reliable sources." demonstrates bias and corruption by you. You are expressing your opinions, not fact, and your opinions are false. They demonstrate an arrogant, smug, and condescending attitude, which is fairly common on Wikipedia. Just because you do not *agree* that something is, in fact, verifiable and reliable doesn't therefore mean that it is not.

You would do well to consider these things. It is perhaps the greatest flaw of Wikipedia that opinion is to be found within almost every page, disguised as "fact" because it is merely repeating the opinions of others shared elsewhere. It's what makes Wikipedia so useless: bias, in every article, and encouraged by people like you, who cite "the rules", but don't actually follow them yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timber72 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry but I have difficulties understanding what you are talking about.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I see, my comment from 2015. I do not remember anything related to that situation, however, I see that you have indeed been blocked by another administrator for edit-warring after my warning.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:53, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ymblanter. User:Sakiv filed both at RFPP and at AN3. In S.A. Julio's response to the AN3 he made the claim that the football project has decided against live updating while a match is in progress. Do you want to look at Sakiv's AN3 complaint? EdJohnston (talk) 15:52, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I protected the template after a RFPP request has been filed (there was indeed edit-warring), and I did not yet look at AN3, but I can have a look now.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

What's your say to S.A. Julio's breach of the three-revert rule. He reverted four times and if you don't take action this will be an offense to Wikipedia.--Sakiv (talk) 16:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Replied at the talk page of the user.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:21, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello Ymblanter! I've found this bit of code very helpful in reducing those accidental rollbacks. Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I am indeed tired of that, I make them every day, and I have a global rollback I which I really need and can not relinquish. I will give the code a try.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:23, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@28bytes: It works perfectly, thanks again--Ymblanter (talk) 20:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Excellent! I am glad you found it as useful as I have. 28bytes (talk) 20:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey! Can I (re)create the deleted article of Rathish Ambat? I believe the person passes the notability test. If you also do believe so and could do something about the administrators' block, it'd be great. Else, I could try to start it as a draft. What do you think? — JosephJames 09:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I think it is safer to start in the draft and the have an administrator moving it (for instance, by submitting it for approval).--Ymblanter (talk) 09:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Can you please license review File:Aeronautical Development Agency logo.jpg?— Vaibhavafro ^💬 05:19, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 05:21, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

In August 2019, the Arbitration Committee resolved to open the Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case as a suspended case due to workload considerations. The Committee is now un-suspending and commencing the case.

• The primary scope of the case is: Evaluating the clarity and effectiveness of current remedies in the ARBPIA area. More information can be found here.
• Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4/Evidence. The evidence phase will be open until 18 October 2019 (subject to change).
• You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4/Workshop. The workshop phase will be open until 25 October 2019 (subject to change).
• For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.
• If you do not wish to receive case updates, please remove your name from the notification list.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:09, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Concerning the topic ban, I do not see a clear consensus. Whereas most of the commenters supported some form of topic ban, there is no consensus whether it must be one-way or two-way.

You mean interaction ban, right? – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:07, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, thanks for noticing. I will correct now.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, there is a new controversy around the name of Maxim Berezovsky. User Ушкуйник changed lasting articke name from Maxim Berezovsky to Maxim Berezovski using the false pretext: "According to Greene's Biographical Encyclopedia of Composers". But this book uses the name "Maxim Berezovsky". Other sources also have name "Maxim Berezovsky": Eighteenth-Century Russian Music, On Russian Music, History of Russian Church Music, 988-1917 etc. The old name should be returned. --KHMELNYTSKYIA (talk) 13:19, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I am afraid this very message violates your topic ban. I am not going to block you for this, since you might misunderstand the scope, but the next time you can be blocked. When I have time, I will look into the Berezovsky article.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:04, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, the article Yeh Rishtey Hain Pyaar Ke is being subjected to frequent disruptive edits and was requested for protection which was declined by you. Do consider it again for page protection. Noobie anonymous (talk) 09:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

As far as I see, I blocked the only user who caused recent disruption.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

You courtesy deleted User:LauraHale and User talk:LauraHale. I thought that, normally, while an individual could get their main User: page deleted, User talk: pages were normally preserved, so that third parties could understand, and learn from, whatever controversy lead to their departure. Normally aren't user talk pages usually only courtesy blanked?

I don't know anything about User:LauraHale, except I gather that she had a conflict with Fram, some time ago, and, in several fora, Fram's defenders are now saying stuff like, "Oh yeah? What about all the people Laura Hale harrassed?"

Was there something exceptional about her departure?

Was it intentional that her contribution history can't be examined?

If there was something exceptional what kind of summary can you offer? Geo Swan (talk) 16:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I found User:Vanished user adhmfdfmykrdyr, so I can look at the history. I am still interested in the question of deletion versus blanking of User talk:LauraHale. Geo Swan (talk) 16:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

(ec) She vanished during WP:FRAM, and got renamed into a vanished user. The page and the talk page I believe are still available under that new name (which I do not have at hand, but which would not be difficult to find, for example, at the talk page of the recently closed ArbCom case). What I deleted were redirects, which otherwise were getting some regular mailing she was subscribed to and did not care to unsubscribe.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• Okay, thanks for the quick reply. Geo Swan (talk) 21:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, User:Milindvaradan is a sock of User:Rajisharmaofficial85. This user has been constantly reverting, disrupting and removing content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4055:201:34DE:0:0:2549:F8A1 (talk) 17:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done, thanks--Ymblanter (talk) 17:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, User:Selfmade323 is another sock of the above. Please revert their disruptive edits on Yeh Rishtey Hain Pyaar Ke ad well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4055:50F:1769:31D6:279A:56B6:F24D (talk) 17:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I do not see sufficient grounds for this conclusion. Please open a sockpuppet investigation.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Can you please delete this. Someone sent me this saying it’s official. I thought it was legitimate.But a simple google search revealed that it’s a filtered (png to jpeg) version of the one available here. Please. I don’t want to get into trouble because of this. — Vaibhavafro ^💬 15:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I put it up for deletion, you could have done the same.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:47, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for protecting the page of Phoenix. The amount of vandalism going on that page is ridiculous. I was thinking of protecting the article myself, but you beat me to the punch. Thank you once more. Tony the Marine (talk) 13:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Sure, no problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Though the PC protection expired, the "Andrew Rannells" has seen reverts of mostly unsourced info in past months. Should the protection be reinstated? -- George Ho (talk) 02:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 05:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Please license review this image. It’s quite important. Thanks.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 09:48, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

This is not quite my speciality. Would you mind asking the Military History wikiproject?--Ymblanter (talk) 09:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ymblanter:Not at all. Thanks, — Vaibhavafro ^💬 10:36, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Yaroslav, could you revert this copypaste move? Ghirla^-трёп- 10:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Sure,  Done--Ymblanter (talk) 16:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I created User:Isaacl/Community/Defining community norms of behaviour after our last discussion on shepherding a discussion on behavioural norms. As I linked to in the opening paragraph on that page, English Wikipedia already has lots of essays on "do this" and "don't do this" behaviour. In previous discussions, a lot of people chip in with "here's a scenario we should cover", but I don't think adding more piecemeal recommendations on behaviour will be much more helpful than the existing mass of guidance pages. Thus my idea is to try to extract common themes from the many different scenarios that have arisen, and then, based on these, draft some behavioural principles.

I'm still occupied with the other set of discussions I wanted to initiate, so am not ready at this moment to assume primary responsibility for shepherding discussion in this area. (Plus, it's not an approach I really feel passionately about.) Are you interested in taking the lead? isaacl (talk) 11:09, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I need to think about it, will come back soon.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I though a bit about this, and I currently do not think how it could work. May be one person can read all the essays and see whether there is a significant overlap, but I plainly do not have time for this now, and I do not see how it can be crowdsourced. Sorry for this. I still have the page on my watchlist in case something would start happening there.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:43, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't anticipate there being a lot of people wanting to work on extracting common themes. I'm guessing it will either be one person (such as me) or a couple of people splitting up the work. A lot of the essays are pretty short and their titles are a fair summary of the content. For the first phase, what's needed is someone to publicize the initiative and keep contributors on track, putting digressions into a parking lot for later discussion. I appreciate your interest and understand time commitment is always a problem, particularly given that these types of initiatives fail most of the time, as consensus decision-making doesn't work well in a large group. isaacl (talk) 10:28, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

As Bart Simpson says, "Ay, caramba!" As an unbiased (but involved) editor, what appears to have happened at Justin Trudeau is that an editor has puffed it up with biased pro-Trudeau BS the day before the election, and now the article is locked. I trimmed excess puffery a few days ago, but the editor who has been filling this article with pro-Trudeau text added it back. Now, "An publication based on the investigations of 20 respected academics" who praise Trudeau is back and cannot be removed. If this isn't gaming the system. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I had a look, but I can not determine to which pre-war version I would need to revert, and reverting to an arbitrary version is not really an option since I can not use my administrator privileges to get involved into edit-warring by editing fully protected article. I would recommend resolving this question at the talk page; if there is consensus please ping me or any other administrator who is online, and the edit can be done very quickly.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Unbelievable that an editor would make these kinds of accusations. Magnolia you left out major content from the source which you call puffery. I discussed my concerns on the talk page, which you requested, and my edit summaries clearly indicate what I am doing. Yet here you call me sneaky. Perhaps I should have quoted the source which described the academics as renowned, but I didn't I toned it down to "respected". I summarized the important points made in the sources as documented by yes, renowned academics, and I was clear to leave in the positive aspects of Harper's government as well as Trudeau's. Further, how would I have known the article would be protected. Are you accusing me of controlling the protection as well as your other accusations. Your comment that the content from the source are "pro Trudeau BS" when that content is the main focus of the book are both confusing and problematic. How could you miss the main points made by the book. I am an experienced editor who strives to be neutral always. That you see any pro Trudeau content as biased may point tO your own editing. As I said on my page this kind of accusation is anger making. Please retract or at the very least don't make these kind of accusations again for anyone. And by the way I have not "filled" the article with pro Trudeau content. I did with discussion and support remove a few lines which I felt were violations of BLP and Weight. A few lines removed does not equal "filled" a falsehood you are posting as if true. I am ticked off! Littleolive oil (talk) 18:43, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

As suggested, I have started a discussion on the article's talk page. User:Littleolive oil, could you please comment there? I'd like to reach a consensus and allow the article to be edited again. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

My position, given what I have recently witnessed, is that the article should stay locked and that the decision should remain in the hands of the admin.Littleolive oil (talk) 19:18, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Given your edit history I was sure you would choose forward. Anyway, thanks Ymblanter for your help and hosting some good banter. Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 23:06, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what choosing "forward" means nor should you think it's possible to understand an editor from their edit history. While I had deliberately stayed away from Canadian politics, to avoid contentious articles, I was very concerned by a wave of editors with clear agendas, often stated, and given those articles fall under BLP or have BLP content I decided to edit on some of those articles, never thinking how convoluted such editing can become. The Andrew Scheer article is pretty well written and quite balanced, the Trudeau leaning articles were not so much that way. I do not like personal attacks; I've had a fill of it myself as an editor, I don't like attacks on our BLP subjects, whomever they are, and I like our articles to adhere as strictly to policy as possible. Littleolive oil (talk) 16:40, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Добрый день. Можете посмотреть на изменения в этой статье про украинский вариант РАЕН? Дифф. Тут и написание хвалебных текстов на основе интервью и пресс-релизов, и удаление ссылки на критику с заменой на "Citation needed", и меня обвинения в спаме и вандализме. --Wanderer777 (talk) 03:52, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Пока откатил к последней нормальной версии, но, боюсь, этим дело не кончится. Надо бы ещё добавить источников.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

At least leave it open long enough to finish commenting on and then close it on its policy merits per the policy. You left this open for 1.5 hours! and It's not a vote. WP:Administrators'_noticeboard#(Self-requested)_Closure_review_of_Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2019_October_11 C

Can you answer the question posed? Johnvr4 (talk) 19:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I am afraid the only way you can avoid a block is to drop the stick. We are not going to hold a review of a closure of a closure of a DR.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:24, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Ymblanter Just cram the stick argument. Please comment on the argument put forth at AN--if one can be mustered. Johnvr4 (talk) 19:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

No. The topic has been closed. You had enough chances to put your arguments forward. This is the end of it.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Just a heads up that I reduced the protection on Justin Trudeau back to semi. The election happened yesterday, so the edit war that was happening is now moot, and the article needs to be updated with the results. I'm honestly not sure if I was supposed to check with you before doing this, but I trust you won't mind. Cheers. – bradv🍁 04:18, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. As soon as there is no edit-warring I am fine with lowering the protection.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --DrPoglum (talk) 11:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I will have a look.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

After the expiration of protection of Yeh Rishtey Hain Pyaar Ke, edit wars has begun again. Do consider it for increased protection level. Noobie anonymous (talk) 08:50, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done, protected for three months, indefinitely blocked one of the warriors for legal threats--Ymblanter (talk) 08:59, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Distributive edits in this article. Do protect this article. Noobie anonymous (talk) 15:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done I happened to be around, but please leave future requests at WP:RPFPP with possible exceptions of re-protection of the articles I recently protected, or if I screwed up. You will generally get a faster and more competent response than here.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Dear collegue Ymblanter, I dont't want to take any part in an Edit-war with KHMELNYTSKYIA. See (3RR): 1, 2, 3. Ушкуйник (talk) 19:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Topic ban violation by KHMELNYTSKYIA--Ymblanter (talk) 19:39, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

The IP has returned from their block and is doing the same thing again:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Royal_Rife&diff=prev&oldid=922907987

BullRangifer (talk) 02:57, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for a week--Ymblanter (talk) 05:25, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

The workshop phase of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case will be extended to November 1, 2019. All interested editors are invited to submit comments and workshop proposals regarding and arising from the clarity and effectiveness of current remedies in the ARBPIA area. To unsubscribe from future case updates, please remove your name from the notification list. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi,

IP's are adding recurrently content without consensus/discussion though in the talk I asked them for discussion. It is totally ignored, at this point some action is needed. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 21:22, 26 October 2019 (UTC))

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 21:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks...similar issue I just noticed at Goldie Hawn. It starts to be heavily recurrent, another user suspects a block evasion...(KIENGIR (talk) 22:18, 26 October 2019 (UTC))

Protected this one as well--Ymblanter (talk) 22:27, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ymblanter or MER-C,

Hope this question finds you well and that your evening is otherwise going well. : )

As the CfD closers for several closed, or supposedly closed, CfDs that I had initiated, I had a procedural question for either of you to answer. Rather than post on each of your talk pages, I decided to pick a talk page and ping you both.

With AfDs, I've noticed that when closed as delete, the AfD closing administrator unlinks the backlinks, deletes the page and associated talk page, and closes the deletion discussion. When closed as merge or redirect, the deletion discussion is closed and the talk page(s) are updated with the results.

With CfDs, it seems to be similar with AfDs in that if it's closed as delete, the resulting pages are upmerged or split, as applicable, into related categories and the discussion closed. However, with Category:Credit union centrals of Canada, in my nomination, I recommended the possibility of dually merging to each of Category:Credit unions of Canada and Category:Credit union leagues. It was merged to the former, but not the latter, I presume, because that was specified at the very top of nomination? In such cases, when formulating a nomination like that, should I not put the dual merge in the textual description of the nomination and instead format it at the top? If so, how should I format that?

With regard to Category:Mayors of Kelowna, I noticed it was closed as merge even though, functionally, the result was an upmerge and delete. Who handles the upmerge and how do we get the resulting empty category deleted?

Finally, Category:Credit unions of Manitoba's result was an upmerge and delete, which was done, but one or more editors notionally !voted to dual merge to Category:Companies based in Manitoba. Similar to my first question, was this not done because it is to miss these sort of requests that follow in the discussion body? If so, is there a best practice to format, or otherwise handle, such side requests? --Doug Mehus (talk) 02:04, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I am not closing so many CfDs, but these are categories for discussion (whereas AfD is for articles for deletion), and this is why a discussion at CfD can sometimes take unexpected turns. I assume you have expressed yourself correctly at the nominations, it is just the voters presented arguments which eventually convinced the closer to take the decision what it was.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:27, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

And concerning your first nomination (Credit union centrals of Canada) I can not read at the nomination page what you say here, so probably you indeed should have been more explicit.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Здравствуйте, уважаемый коллега! Прошу Вас рассмотреть вот этот запрос. Для полноты картины (раз и два).--Tempus (talk) 17:46, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Вроде, уже всё откатили.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Просьба объяснить участнику Tempus что тут не ру-вики и буллинг вроде такого: "Поскольку с данным участником не представляется возможным ведение какого-либо диалога" тут не уместен.--Nicoljaus (talk) 22:16, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Вы бы лучше перестали ютьюб добавлять под видом авторитетного источника, может, и проблема бы не возникла.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• • • • Вот здесь вы ошибаетесь. Цель Tempus-а это всех перебанить с ним несогласных (как он это делает в руВики, там он без конца жалуется A.Vajrapani = Alexandrine, которая всегда выполнит любой запрос Tempus-а и всех перебанит). Я уже писал что под ником Tempus пишут несколько человек, поскольку один человек физически не может писать 16 часов в сутки без перерыва, внося правки в статьи через каждые 2-3 минуты. Вы почитайте обсуждение этой статьи в руВики, там же настоящее хамство от Tempus, в обсуждении других статей руВики такое же хамство Tempus-а, вместо ответов на вопросы – пушинг, вместо обсуждения – забалтывание темы. РуВики давно превратилась в откровенную пропагандистскую помойку правительства РФ благодаря A.Vajrapani Tempus и подобным.Wlbw68 (talk) 01:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Я не понял при чем тут WP:NOTCATALOGUE. По ссылке была критика, в том числе от Massimo Introvigne.--Nicoljaus (talk) 22:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Далее, вы зачем-то обвинили меня в "добавлении ютьюб под видом авторитетного источника". Как легко убедиться, я отменил удаление внешней ссылки, сделанное под надуманным предлогом, исходя из пункта 4 правила WP:ELMAYBE: Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• Коллега Ymblanter обратите, пожалуйста, внимание на вот эту правку. Насколько я понимаю данное правило не отличается от того, что в русскоязычном разделе. И то, что сделал участник Nicoljaus является войной правок, поскольку никакого предварительного консенсуса достигнуто не было (в 07:34 написано сообщение на СО, а уже через минуту, в 7:35, сделана указанная отмена отмены). И он вряд ли будет достигнут без третейского посредника, что показал опыт в русскоязычном разделе (особенно вот это обсуждение ru:Обсуждение участника:Nicoljaus/Архив/2017/2#Блокировка 03.06.2017). --Tempus (talk) 07:47, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
• (кр) Информацию, что Дворкин якобы известный ученый-медиевист добавил недавно сам Tempus: . Когдя я это убрал, он начал войну правок. Обсуждать в специально созданной теме не хочет, вместо этого продолжает преследование оппонента.--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:21, 30 October 2019 (UTC) upd: 08:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • (кр) ″якобы известный ученый-медиевист добавил″ — А вот это приписывание мне того, что я не делал. Карточка учёного ставится независимо от степени известности (это вообще нигде не прописано). И добавил я только её.--Tempus (talk) 08:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Если он неизвестный ученый-медиевист, значит статья о нем вообще не нужна: Wikipedia:Notability_(academics). Что, удаляем?--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Disruption at Alexander Dvorkin - need advise--Ymblanter (talk) 08:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
• Дворкин вовсе не учёный и совсем не медиевист, обычный религиозный проправительственный пропагандист, причем очень топорный. Нет ни одного серьезного религиоведа, который бы не прошелся бы с резкой критикой по вопиюще безграмотной деятельности Дворкина как сектоведа. Tempus же пытается сделать из мухи (Дворкина) слона, поэтому и ведет войну правок, а всех с ним несогласных стремиться перебанить как в руВики.Wlbw68 (talk) 02:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
• Уважаемый коллега Ymblanter, скажите, пожалуйста, есть ли необходимость подавать отдельный запрос к администраторам по Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks в связи с репликами участника Wlbw68? Вы только посмотрите что здесь (Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Alexander Dvorkin‎) происходит, а ранее тут (User talk:Nicoljaus#ruWiki).--Tempus (talk) 04:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• Especially for you: Wikipedia:POV railroad--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Коллега Ymblanter, смотрите — отмена отмены. Это война правок или же всё ещё нет?Tempus (talk) 14:09, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Конечно, война правок. Сейчас обоих предупрежу.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:27, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Было бы неплохо объяснить коллеге зачем существует механизм отмен, как правильно отменять и что такое на самом деле консенсус.--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:50, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• Коллега Ymblanter, а все правки внесённые участником Nicoljaus за последние два дня так и останутся в статье? Они что вдруг стали консенсусными? По какой причине не был произведён возврат к той версии, которая была до того, как данный участник вдруг решил обратить своё внимание на данную статью?--Tempus (talk) 14:52, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

  Нет, у нас нет таких правил. Откатывают только явный вандализм или грумые нарушения правил о биографиях ныне живущих людях. В данном случае я не вижу ни того, ни другого.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

  Хорошо, а чем по своей сути отличается видеонарезка Никитина, которую удалил другой администратор, отличается от того анонимного pdf-документа с сайта некоммерческой организации, который добавил с раздел ″External links″ участник Nicoljaus?--Tempus (talk) 16:39, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

  Простите, Вы и ваши оппоненты пытаетесь втянуть меня в обсуждение содержании статьи по существу. Этого а делать не буду. Это не русская Википедия, где элементарные вопросы обсуждаются годами, и не удаётся принять никакое решение. Тут есть механизмы разрешения конфликтов, много и самые разнообразные.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

(ec) Especially for you: Wikipedia:Reverting#When_to_revert--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for semi protecting the Bejte article. The IPs have made a similar thing with this article too. I am rather confused, so can you take a look, and semi protect the latter too, if it is needed? Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:37, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done, thanks for letting me know.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. The person who is using the IPs is a LTA account on the Albanian Wikipedia. After socking with several accounts there, it seems that he has shifted focus to enwiki. I hope he reflects and opts for constructive editing only. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:44, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. LTAs unfortunately rarely turn to constructive editing.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Hehe. That cheered me up. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 20:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC).

You are cordially welcome. Thanks also for blocking the range.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Can you please delete the higher resolution version from the file history of this fair use image.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 06:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 06:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ymblanter, I'm afraid I'm not quite happy with the speedy move you performed on a couple of "Greek antiquity" categories (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Working&diff=924863642&oldid=924842780). I can see the logic of the nomination, but in the case of "Kingdoms in Greek antiquity", the new category name now doesn't match the existing category contents. The thing is, that category was widely used in a rather loose sense, including kingdoms that roughly belonged to "Greek antiquity" as a wider historiographical/cultural sphere, but weren't actually Greek in an ethnic/linguistic sense. Examples include Kingdom of Cappadocia, Paeonia (kingdom), Kingdom of Pontus, Odrysian kingdom, Minoan Crete, etc. How do we proceed now? Purge the category of about half of its present entries, which no longer fit, or revert the move? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise:, I think we need to go for CfD (which is what always happens with contested speedy moves; in this case I waited for 48 h after the last reply, assuming that all interested parties had a chance to give their opinion). Whether we need to revert the move before going to CfD - I would say no, just because this increases the world's entropy unnecessarily, and the CfD would decide it anyway, but if you feel really strongly about it we can revert the speedy move (technically, move the category back).--Ymblanter (talk) 13:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I've never cared much for categories, but I would also contest this move. The old category was useful in that it marked places that were part of the ancient "Hellenistic world" -- which is a useful thing to mark, and also something distinct from being completely "Greek". Way back in the day, this distinction was pretty meaningful, even if today it is obscure -- for example, the Hasmonean Kingdom was quite heavily influenced by Greek... everything, yet its foundation was resistance against the form of Hellenization that threatened the native cultural identity. --Calthinus (talk)

Thank you, but now somebody has to open a discussion at WP:CFD and add these arguments there.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with objections above, and maybe @JJMC89: may do it. Jingiby (talk) 06:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Where? Ctrl+F reveals it the string "Kingdoms in" is nowhere to be found on the linked page. Please ping us. Thanks, --Calthinus (talk) 19:25, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@Calthinus: Someone has to create a discussion. I am not feeling comfortable presenting somen=body else's arguments, but if you want, I can create a request and you could write there your arguments.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

You, the mover, are not active in the topic area; three people who are including one admin contest it. We could all waste our time with some discussion on some board. Or we could go back to the status quo, and move on with our lives. But I understand if there are procedures and wikibureaucracy and whatever -- if so, please copy paste my arguments.--Calthinus (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, we can not just revert it. I will now create a request and let you know.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

For the record, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 November 7#Ancient Greek categories--Ymblanter (talk) 19:56, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello there, from Portugal,

please read this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mattythewhite#Andr%C3%A9_Gomes), as you reverted me in this person's article (intro) as well as the other user. Even though my approach was correct as the user/admin says, I now drop the WP:BURDEN.

Attentively, happy editing --Quite A Character (talk) 13:47, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

My apologies, I see indeed that the information was sourced in the body of the article. You were just unfortunate to make this edit after a series of bad users of non-autoconfirmed edits and just at the time I was checking whether the page needs protection. No problem from my side to restore this material in the lede.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ymblanter,

I was wondering whether you'd considered running for ARBCOM this year - we're in need of quite a few good candidates and I thought you'd make a great arb, especially with your experience on ru-wiki. Apologies if it's been asked and answered before. Cheers. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:14, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, but I still remember this too well. It was not really a pleasant experience, and who cares that it later turned out to be related with WP:FRAM. May be in several years.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:19, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Nosebagbear, In my limited dealings with Ymblanter, I would wholeheartedly concur for your recommendation for her or him to run for ArbCom. Ymblanter is an experienced, neutral XfD closer, and was thoughtful in her or his reply to me on this talk page when I asked about the process for double merging and upmerging of categories post-close. Doug Mehus (talk) 19:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

По совету Shakko пишу вам. Проблема замечена в русской вики, но она касается и множества других вики, в том числе и англ. В статьи о Бенвенуто Челлини на многих языках под видом "Автопортрета" оказался вставлен портрет неизвестного человека работы неизвестного художника. В качестве Автопортрета" Челлини его атрибутирует исключительно владелец картины, мировое искусствоведение эту фейковую атрибуцию игнорирует. Шакко несколько дней назад этот портрет на викискладе переименовала и везде вычистила. Однако сегодня этот портрет в другой версии вновь был везде проставлен. Вы не могли бы проконтролировать этот фейк в англовики? --Netelo (talk) 18:42, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Картинку заменил, юзера предупредил, но, боюсь, дело этим не закончится.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

он сейчас везде занимается массовыми откатами. В мелких вики пишу на страницах обсуждения статьи, тут -- может прикроете ее от редактирования? Это явно проплаченный пиарщик. --Shakko (talk) 18:48, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Я ему это уже написал на странице обсуждения. Статью я защитить по правилам не могу, а его заблокировать, если это продолжится - легко.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Продолжилось, заблокировал--Ymblanter (talk) 18:56, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Я по иконографии Челлини не специалист, если есть лучше, чем то, что сейчас в статье - ставьте--Ymblanter (talk) 18:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

обход блокировки User:Oliver Kotinos. Оч. упорный чел, давно заметила --Shakko (talk) 18:51, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Заблокировал тут и на Коммонс.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

очень благодарю! на коммонс их много, под разными именами, все грузят и грузят. Также русским чекюзерам тоже список собрала. --Shakko (talk) 20:46, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, an IP is keeping on reverting, ignoring completely other users along with the talk page. Please revert & protect the page. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 22:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC))

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 22:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with my report.

I couldn't help but notice your signature on User talk:RobBoy1 doesn't show. I think {{Uw-block}} requires substitution for that to work? - Alexis Jazz 19:19, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I see you have a bot for that. My bad. - Alexis Jazz 19:22, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. It would be great to adopt this template on Commons too.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:27, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Здравствуйте, уважаемый коллега! Прошу Вас взять под наблюдение данную статью, чтобы в ней строго соблюдалось правило BLP и добавлялись только проверенные сведения (включая нынешние трагические), поскольку в русскоязычном разделе администраторы её несколько раз ставили на защиту. Tempus (talk) 12:00, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 12:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for closing the discussions at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Yet_Another_Proposal. Did you miss [[Part 1 though? — MarkH21 (talk) 02:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. No, I specifically mentioned it in my closing statement.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Ah, sorry! I didn't see the close of the entire discussion at the very top. Thanks again :) — MarkH21 (talk) 06:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Sure, no problem--Ymblanter (talk) 07:16, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Death appears to be a tasteless hoax. See Talk. --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 14:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I have already replied there.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi! Out of curiosity, is there anything you'd personally like to see before accepting requests for rollback permissions? Thanks - Chip🐺 • #TeamTrees🌳 23:24, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Nothing special, I check the need for rollback (motivation and justfied reverts in recent history), generally editing history, and whether the candidate has come recently against some problems with other users which could suggest giving rollback is too early.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:20, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

hello, we kind of clashed with protection; it is now at 3 days semi I think, but if you want 1 week, go ahead. Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 12:23, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

No, 3 days is also perfect, let us leave it as is.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi,

IP vandalism is heavily high and ongoing...please protect the article and revert until the most recent last stable version by Flyer22 Reborn. Thank You.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:13, 16 November 2019 (UTC))

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Ymblanter. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard.
Message added 08:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Harshil ^{want to talk?} 08:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I responded in like-kind to you accusation of ABF in this section of ACE2020. . Since you are still working some time later, maybe you have missed it.

Per WP:ADMINACCT broadly construed, and in particular the linked article relating to effective communication by Admins towards members of the general community WP:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand#Communication, I would ask you to clarify your reason for intervening on my "discussion" with If you disagree with the proposed solution you will have all the chances to oppose it next year.. My comments were in relation to the preceding "discussion points" by an Admin. editor. Bearing in mind what has been defined there:- This page is literally nothing more than a list of things to discuss ahead of the 2020 elections and that the section is a think tank, why was Kundpung's very lengthy support discussion permitted without rebuke when my comparatively short rejection discussion of his wish list was summarily criticised by you? I am not an Admin, he is. I hope you are able to see the concern here. Comments about a mere suggested point for discussion in 10 months time should surely be treated evenhandedly, regardless who makes the pont and which side they agree with? Leaky caldron (talk) 12:36, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

My reaction to your reply ans the absence of such reaction to Kudpung's message was because I believe that your message is borderline personal attack, and his is not. In addition, you did not mark offsets so that it was not clear that you are replying to specific point of Kudpung, it looked like you made a general statement. I did not write anything about admins there whatsoever. May I please also remind you that you do not "own" discussions, and that all users are welcome to participate in open discussions. There is no policy on Wikipedia which would require me to justify why I entered the discussion, and, in particular, why I responded to you within 8 minutes (the correct answer would be because the item appeared on top of my watchlist).--Ymblanter (talk) 12:53, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

This is not really an acceptable answer. The indents were added. They were removed and I have added them again for clarity. You have taken sides, unfairly and without objectivity. Kundpung's wish list is a discussion and has no more place there than mine, or, mine has the same right to be there without being challenged by you. You cannot have it both ways. I think Kudpung's remarks about my use of English parts of speech is also a borderline personal attack. Are you intending to do anything about that, please? Leaky caldron (talk) 13:07, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I am afraid I disagree with you. I will now ask an uninvolved third party to look at the situation.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:09, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I have opened this topic, I hope someone will act as a third party. You are of course welcome to add your vision there.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:27, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi again. Someone has hatted part of that section against the discussion at WP:AN. I am not satisfied that my comments have been hatted and the Admin's prior comments remain despite also being part of the general discussion rather than the actual proposal which you have outlined there. Leaky caldron (talk) 10:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 11:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Your comment in the edit summary of a revert “this is clearly incorrect, we are not a propaganda vehicle for the Ukrainian government” is uncivil, presumes bad faith, and represents a serious accusation against me personally. Please reconsider your words, retract and apologize for this comment.

I’ll respond to your factual assertion separately in the naming convention’s talk page. —Michael Z. 2019-11-27 17:40 z

Good, I apologize for this comment. I guess you have been here long enough to know that edit summaries can not be retracted. Please have in mind though that you are edit-warring all over the place for already several days, and this is not compatible with WP:ADMINACCT. Please stop and think whether what you are doing helps up to build an encyclopedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:45, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Please cool it with the accusations. You reverted my good-faith edit and I responded in talk. I accept your apology and there’s no more need to keep up the hostility. —Michael Z. 2019-11-27 18:16 z

FYI: I didn’t edit Kobenz at all, and got the system message that you reverted an edit made under my login. I just changed my password to a strong because the only explanation I can think of is someone guessed my password. —Michael Z. 2019-11-27 18:13 z

I am afraid if you were not in control of your account we have a serious problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:16, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

It’s the only suspicious edit in my global contributions. I’ve asked someone to check-user on that edit. Hopefully no more problem. —Michael Z. 2019-11-27 18:27 z

Good, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for that. I don’t know how it happened. Assumed a confirmation click would have been necessary. —Michael Z. 2019-11-28 00:41 z

And I’d never visited that article. I must have looked at your edit history and mis-clicked when looking at another app. —Michael Z. 2019-11-28 00:43 z

Indeed, this is most likely what happened. No problem, it happens from time to time.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Can you please delete the thumbnail from the file history of this file? (I am asking since I don’t want an upload-war like the one that is happening here)— Vaibhavafro ^💬 12:41, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

And please only delete the thumbnail; please don’t delete the entire file history. Regards— Vaibhavafro ^💬 12:43, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 12:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ymblanter. Re the Ancient Greek categories, what should be done now? The discussion has not attracted new opinions for days, though nobody is closing it. Should a request for closure be made somewhere? Or, since you are not involved in the content dispute itself, could you make the closure? Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:46, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

No, I can not close it. I think we just need to wait for an uninvolved administrator to close it. You can also request closing, but CfD is usually a horrible mess and people try to avoid it.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:19, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

No worries. You should not close a discussion if you do not feel sure that is the best way to go. The discussion there is messy also because it concerns a controversial Balkan dispute. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Hullo Ymblanter, I am NicholasNotabene. I see your name on the semi-protected status of the Beto O'Rourke article.

I am not familiar with Wikipedia processes, but I would like to request some kind of arbitration on this article as I keep trying to make edits and a second editor keeps simply reverting or deleting my edits wholesale. I have also attempted to communicate with the editor on his "talk" page to no avail. Can you please enlighten me as to the proper steps I need to take ?

NicholasNotabene (talk) 03:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Please wait a bit longer for the talk page reaction. You left a comment several hours ago. If there is no reaction at all say within a day and the user keeps editing other articles, you can try to engage at their user talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

You AfDed this a while back, I note this has been deleted then recreated. Do you think it should get a speedy or another AfD, or has his career progressed to a point he is now notable? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC) PS. Same case at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis Politic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, both of them in the meanwhile played a number of matches in a fully professional league and thus crossed the notability threshold. No need to Afd.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

How can I best help resolve this situation? User has been accused of COI for years predating my involvement and there seems to be a widespread agreement that their history presents COI concerns. One option would be to report to WP:COIN, but I'd only want to do that if it was actually the correct next step and actually helpful. Feoffer (talk) 08:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

COIN is one option; continue ANI is another option. I do not want to be much involved with this case because I have dealt with some users around this sock / meatpuppet farm before, and every time I feel I lose a year of my life.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Now we got User:Le luxembourgeois out of the blue, so that SPI might be the best way forward, but I do not currently have time to file it.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Because of the nature of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case and the importance of the exact wording of remedies, the Arbitration Committee would like to invite public comment and workshopping on the proposed decision, which will be posted soon. Accordingly, the workshop in this case is re-opened and will remain open until Friday, December 13. To opt out of further announcements, please remove yourself from the notification list. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi,

regarding the subject, there is recently ten reverts because of an IP, I expected soon others will do something, but as I see no further steps has been made, please protect the article, since the phenomenon seems daily for a while. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 00:57, 12 December 2019 (UTC))

 Done, since the sockpuppetry started immediately after a year long protection expired, I semi-protected the article indefinitely.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:29, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, but as I see, MusikBot soon removed your protection (practically it reverted you), what that means? Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 21:41, 12 December 2019 (UTC))

Yes, looks like I somehow failed to protect it. Now protected.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello could you please add my profile to editing nitasha kaul profile I do have proper proof that she is a British citizen through data obtained through Freedom of information act UK from her university Westminster.Plublication of the data obtained requires only one more copyright wavier .Hope you will add my profile to edit her infos Bkr3da (talk) 04:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

We have to follow WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:RS, which your request seems to contradict to.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:23, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi there. I saw that you deleted Template:IsraeliTerrorism. You might want to take a look at the above template.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:36, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I sent it to TfD. It looks like there is a sockfarm producing these templates, but I currently do not have time to go through it--Ymblanter (talk) 12:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:11, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Sure, no problem--Ymblanter (talk) 13:23, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Damon Runyon's short story "Dancing Dan's Christmas" is a fun read if you have the time. Right from the start it extols the virtues of the hot Tom and Jerry This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true. No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well MarnetteD|Talk 17:09, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, also best wishes to you.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks. MarnetteD|Talk 17:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Please explain your deletion on the Eritrea page. What was it you opposed? If it was the text it can be modifiedLeechjoel9 (talk) 21:05, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

The text was copied from an external source which was copyright protected. Please read WP:COPYRIGHT.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Which line of the text are you referring to? If it was some specifically I can modify it or replace it? you decided to remove everything and made it impossible for me to correct it. Leechjoel9 (talk) 21:14, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

There was at least a paragraph, I have not checked every sentence. No, you can not modify it. You can only write in your own words.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:19, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I understand what you mean. By modify i meant rewriting with own words. You did remove other stuff than text. The weblink and tables were not copyright voilations. So could you make my edit visalble so I can re-use them instead of creating again. Leechjoel9 (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

No, I can not. I can restore the template without the text though.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:26, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Yea restore both the image template and the UNESCO template, and the sources if possible. Leechjoel9 (talk) 21:28, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

The references are here: ^[1][2][3] The template is actually already in Asmara and will be out of place in Eritrea.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:41, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

It was another template, but not the exact info. I do think its relevant to have the infobox, since it puts the UNESCO heritage site text in context. It gives a good overview.Leechjoel9 (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Please discuss this at the talk page of the article. I am sure you are going to get objections.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I will bring it up. Why would anyone object to adding good and vital information that is missing.Leechjoel9 (talk) 21:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, Ymblanter! Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia. And for all the help you've thrown my way over the years. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity. Onel5969 TT me 19:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, and also best wishes to you.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:56, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Just a heads up about Alexandra Elbakyan, as you seem to be watching that page. It is news, of course, but I thought it was worth mentioning given the quality of the source. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, there is no problem mentioning this, but I thiught she was wanted in the US for internet piracy anyway, so it might be a part of a bigger story.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:17, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

	Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!
	Hope you enjoy the Christmas eve with the ones you love and step into the new year with lots of happiness and good health. Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year!CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, also best wishes to you.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:47, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello Ymblanter, hope all is well.I was wondering if it would be possible to fully protect User:LuK3/Committed Identity according to WP:UPROT? Myself, in addition to anyone else, needs to edit it. I didn't want to put this request over at RFPP. -- LuK3 (Talk) 17:29, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

@LuK3:, if you want to edit it, shouldn't it be semi-protection rather than full protection?--Ymblanter (talk) 15:41, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I think semi would be fine. -- LuK3 (Talk) 15:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 15:47, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Shreyas father is Tamilian from Kerala. Shreyas has one sister. His sister once said that her father is Tamil Instagram . So pls kindly change . Msz01 (talk) 14:25, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Please provide a reference to a reliable source at the talk page of the article. What you say is not a reliable source.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:29, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

So you want to use even the tiniest bit of critical thinking before block restoring typos and a completely incorrect short summary. Also none of that info is unsourced or BLP vio. 86.161.77.253 (talk) 09:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Please make this point at the talk page of the article, adding reliable sources supporting your info.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

It's all already covered on the talk page, with sources. And I'm talking about the typos and the incorrect summary you restored. The summary is an new addition today. It's incorrect. It's inconsistent with the sources info in the article and it falls under WP:BRD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.77.253 (talk) 09:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC) 86.161.77.253 (talk) 09:47, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but I am not going to be involcved into the content. The source says "British Emirati-born", you changed this to "Emirati" without adding a new source; hence this is a BLP violation and had to be reverted. Since you have done this repeatedly, I protected the article. The rest you need to clear up at the talk page (where there have been no discussion since 2017, and even then there was no consensus).--Ymblanter (talk) 11:46, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

This is exactly the problem. You're not reading the edits, or applying an ounce of brain power. I'm not the one changing the short description to Emirati. You're the one restoring an incorrect bold addition because you can't be bothered to look at what you're restoring and protecting.

Admins should be better than this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.210.27.119 (talk) 22:47, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, this is just pointless edit-warring, especially if the reasoning is not backed up by a talk page discussion. It is still not too late for you to go to the talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:01, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		For keeping WP:RFPP neat and tidy. -- Deepfriedokra 13:05, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, also best wishes to you.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:07, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello Ymblanter: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 18:32, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Thank you, also best wishes to you.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I'm DGG. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Towton Hall, Towton (North Yorkshire), and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

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

DGG ( talk ) 19:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s

Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
このミラPはYmblanterたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！
フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラP 04:58, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, also best wishes to you.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:58, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello Ymblanter,

I got the notification "The page Korea Science Award" has been reviewed" but nothing shows up on the Talk page. Thank you for reviewing the page I put together; I really appreciate that. Does the review also include a quality assessment of the page? I thought I would see one on the Talk page but I might be confused as maybe "review" does not include a quality assessment. Thank you again for checking the page I put together. ₪RicknAsia₪ 01:37, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

No, review in this context means Wikipedia:New pages patrol. The quality assessment is something the Wikiproject folks do, they will presumably come at some point. My role was just to ensure that the article can stay in the main namespace and satisfies the basic requirements. Thanks for the work.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I learned something new today. Thank you for the work that you do and I appreciate you answering my question. Have a good one:) ₪RicknAsia₪ 11:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to you as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Hey, I can't seem to find the following categories in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy or at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working. Any chance they were removed from the list by accident without processing?

• Category:WikiProject 24 members
• Category:WikiProject Firefly articles
• Category:WikiProject Grey's Anatomy administrative board members
• Category:WikiProject Red Dwarf articles
• Category:WikiProject CSI franchise
• Category:WikiProject Jackass
• Category:WikiProject Red Dwarf

--Gonnym (talk) 15:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

@Gonnym:, could it be that you have never nominated them for speedy move? I do not see them in this diff for example. If this is the case, the easiest is to nominate and to wait for 48h.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:34, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the history, it seems that my next nomination in the list deleted it form the list (see this). They are all tagged have had their sub-categories already moved. Can't we just bypass the bureaucratic need to nominate them again and then wait a few days more, and just move them to the /working section? No one commented on the entire list so there is no reason anyone would start now. --Gonnym (talk) 15:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I would not do it. Nothing is going to happen in two days, once you nominated the cats the process is almost automatic. On the other hand, if there are objections, we are going to have a lot of trouble for bypassing the policy-established procedure.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Hello Ymblanter:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Donner60 (talk) 05:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks (static)}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Thank you, also best wishes to you.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 

Happy New Year!

• 
  MMXX Lunar Calendar

Ymblanter,
Have a great 2020 and thanks for your continued contributions to Wikipedia.

---

   – 2020 is a leap year – news article.
   – Background color is Classic Blue (#0F4C81), Pantone's 2020 Color of the year

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2020}} to user talk pages.

– Also, I saw the "anti-barnstar" logo on your user page, but since this isn't one, then it should be all right! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:35, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, and also best wishes and happy new year to you.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:40, 31 December 2019 (UTC)