User talk:Ymblanter/2022

Hi Ymblanter, Portland, (OR) needs updating. Delta has filed a schedule update and Seoul-Incheon is now beginning September 12, 2022 and Tokyo-Haneda is resuming October 29, 2022 as per ^[1]. Exact dates are not in the article. They have been retrieved from Google Flights. ProjectLauren (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

To be honest, I do not think it is a good idea to try keeping all airport articles aligned with the exact flight schedule. However, you are welcome to add a protected edit request at the talk page of the article, somebody would react.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

And, actually, you should be able to edit the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

• AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
• The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Curbon7. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Mikhail Naidov, and have marked it as unreviewed. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

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

Curbon7 (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Apparently, a misclick, the page is now reviewed.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Здравствуйте, уважаемый Ymblanter!

Можете, по возможности, присмотреть за статьей Mongolic peoples, а также напомнить участнику Muhmmadaht о необходимости соблюдения правил вики. Участник Muhmmadaht удаляет инфу о хазарейцах из статьи несмотря на то, что я привожу источники. Участник настроен агрессивно, а также откровенно пишет недостоверную информацию: в частности утверждает, что мои источники пишут не о хазарейцах, а о другой этнической группе. Буду премного благодарен.--KoizumiBS (talk) 18:13, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Нет, у вас там, очевидно, несогласие по поводу контента, я в это влезать не буду.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ymblanter:, можете, пожалуйста, все-таки посмотреть на стиль его общения: ссылка на обсуждение. Я предлагал оппоненту способы консенсуса и просил приводить источники. На что он ответил, что ему источники не нужны, а мои источники по его мнению "untrue". Разве это не яркий пример деструктивного поведения (WP:DISRUPT)?--KoizumiBS (talk) 10:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Да, там, кажется, серьёзные проблемы. Выдал последнее предупреждение.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Спасибо за оперативную реакцию. Надеюсь, предупреждение от администратора его приструнит.--KoizumiBS (talk) 10:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Спасибо за восстановление информации. Можете, пожалуйста, закрыть мою заявку.--KoizumiBS (talk) 18:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Здравствуйте @Ymblanter:! Прошу прощения за беспокойство. Можете, пожалуйста, по возможности ознакомиться с действиями участника Hamkar 99. Участник удаляет текст из статьи List of Hazara tribes. На попытки начать обсуждение никак не реагирует.--KoizumiBS (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Напишите ему на страницу для начала.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Хорошо. Еще раз попытаюсь начать с ним дискуссию.--KoizumiBS (talk) 16:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Здравствуйте! Истек срок поставленной Вами защиты на статью List of Hazara tribes. Я собираюсь восстановить информацию (иформация со ссылками на источники), удаленную участником Hamkar 99. На сообщение на его странице, участник не отреагировал. Хотел бы спросить, моя правка не будет являться нарушением правил?--KoizumiBS (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Нет, не будет.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:57, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Видимо, на диалог он не настроен. Как и в прошлый раз просто удаляет без объяснений.--KoizumiBS (talk) 18:15, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 18:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Прошу прощения за беспокойство. Но диалог с оппонентом зашел в тупик. Просил его перестать делать собственные умозаключения и приводить источники. На что он ответил очередным удалением.--KoizumiBS (talk) 23:24, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ymblanter:, можете, пожалуйста, обратить внимание на действия пользователя Hamkar 99. Во время обсуждения он описал добавленные мною источники следующим образом: "So the information is poor and needs to be edited and deleted". На просьбу на более обоснованную аргументацию я получил такой ответ: "This is my own conclusion". На мое предложение перестать удалять источники и для соблюдения НТЗ добавлять свои: он добавил источник на персидском (который я пока не могу проверить) и удалил источники и информацию, добавленные мною ранее. Сейчас же он отменил мою правку со следующим описанием: incorrect and pan-Mongolism edits. Полагаю, подобные обвинения - это WP:DE, а также обвинение в панмонголизме - это прямое нарушение Закона Годвина, после которого дискуссия с оппонентом практически невозможна.--KoizumiBS (talk) 10:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I tried to edit here, but a message appears that says "this IP is blocked until April 25, 2022". Well, I'm not responsible for this block. Apparently you blocked a very large range of IPs from Brazil, which is where I'm from. I can't do anything here, is there a way to unlock it? 2804:14D:5C87:8C5D:A555:707D:9978:A3A (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

No, I do not think so. You can register an account.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

then what tag is used to alert other editors to the lot of sources on the bottom? 晚安 (トークページ) 10:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

They just should be there, and they are there for every single article on Russian districts. No tag is needed.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

sorry, every single russian district article?? 晚安 (トークページ) 10:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, just a random example: Grayvoronsky District--Ymblanter (talk) 10:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello Ymblanter,

The Russian language has no official status in Turkmenistan. Why did you undo my change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A0A:A546:FC1C:0:A037:CCA8:E136:E3E5 (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The article does not say that it has.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:50, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

That is true. Why is the Russian language indicated as "the language of inter-ethnic communication" in the infobox? According to the constitution of Turkmenistan, Russian is not the official language of inter-ethnic communication in the country. According to the country's constitution, only Turkmen is the official language of the country.

The sentence "although Russian still is widely spoken in cities as a language of inter-ethnic communication" does not fit into an encyclopaedia article as this sentence is a valuation in favour of the Russian language. As a result, this article is not neutral and not objective and therefore this article violates the rules of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A0A:A546:FC1C:0:A037:CCA8:E136:E3E5 (talk) 00:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with this. The talk page of the article is at your service.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I know you've already seen it but thought I should post anyways to avoid bias. There is currently a requested move at Talk:Odessa where you participated in a previous discussion about renaming the article. OjdvQ9fNJWl (talk) 03:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Greetings! Can I edit or delete poorly researched information on the list of Hazara tribes? I hope I have not violated the rules of Wikipedia.--Hamkar 99 (talk) 17:51, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Please discuss at the talk page of the article and find consensus with your opponent. If you edit before attempting to reach consensus, I will block you again.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:22, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I leave the reason for editing or deleting poorly sourced information on the talk page. I try to reach a consensus. Thanks!--Hamkar 99 (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Please warn this user (KoizumiBS) to stop editing and adding Pan-Mongolian contents. There is no consensus in the discuss, he writes whatever he wants.--Hamkar 99 (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

If you can not agree, you should try either WP:RSN (for sources) or WP:DRN (for general dispute resolution).--Ymblanter (talk) 22:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Dear Administrator! please lock this article (List of Hazara tribes) to prevent sabotage.--Hamkar 99 (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Sanctions against russia and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 7#Russia Sanctions until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 00:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. To be honest, I do not remember anything about this redirect.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Can you also protect Noah Fant? He is involved in the Russell Wilson trade and may have a lot of edits.

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 22:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, can you proof the history from Russian Wiki and access the sources and check/improve the article? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:01, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I will have a look.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:04, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I can't believe articles like this are still missing. We don't even have articles on any of the Karauls!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:24, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

wp:nazi is not a policy, and so no one can be blocked for violating it. They may (in breaching it) breach other policies (such as wp:not or wpnpa) for which they can get a block. Slatersteven (talk) 13:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for assuming I am not familiar with the policies. May I please suggest that instead of blaming me you address directly our conspiracy theorist.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I did, on their talk page as policey requires. Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

these comments, particularly in light of the notice at the top this page, came as a surprise to me as well. I'm not here to play a game of policy pointing though - just to ask kindly that you please be more careful. --N8 14:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I would not have blocked myself.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I was working on Draft:Bayraktar (song) and had the lyrics removed due to copyright violation. Will this always be the case or are there specific rules I can follow to include them? Do I need to find evidence the song is in creative commons or similar? MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 07:47, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

In this case, 70 years after the death of the author of the lyrics, unless, indeed, the author chooses to release the lyrics under a CC license. I did not check whether the author is known; if not, 70 years after publication.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:54, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

The article Marina Ovsyannikova has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable enough until something viral happened, so shouldn't be an article

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Réunion (stylised) - (talk to me) 20:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Sure, it is already deprodded.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

The article Marina Ovsyannikova has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:BIO1E criteria not established for having an article based solely on this.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

It has already been deprodded. Please go to AfD--Ymblanter (talk) 20:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah hadn't seen that, I checked the talk page and didn't see the template telling me it had been PROD'd and hadn't checked through the edit history fully. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, things were happening too fast. No problem, I hope we are settled now, I have already commented at the AfD. Ymblanter (talk) 20:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

The system works! – Muboshgu (talk) 20:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I think we are now within the appropriate process. Ymblanter (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Marina Ovsyannikova 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/Marina Ovsyannikova 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.

– Muboshgu (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I was undoing some POV anonymous IPv6 edits at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Red_Croatia&action=history and noticed that you had added some sanctions on the netblock already. Could you check if this is this the same abuser? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:22, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not think I am fully qualified.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I have started a discussion in which you may care to comment at [] Cheers Elinruby (talk) 02:07, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello!

When you moved this batch of speedy discussions to CFDW, it seems that you overlooked the comments (visible here) between nominator Olchug and User:Brandmeister about the targets. They agreed that, for better grammar, targets should be e.g. Category:Heads of government of states with limited recognition, not Category:Heads of government by states with limited recognition as initially nominated. Can we fix the renamings and move the categories to the agreed name instead? It should be:

• Category:Spouses of national leaders of unrecognized or largely unrecognized states to Category:Spouses of national leaders by states with limited recognition to Category:Spouses of national leaders of states with limited recognition
• Category:Heads of state of unrecognized or largely unrecognized states to Category:Heads of state by states with limited recognition to Category:Heads of state of states with limited recognition
• Category:Heads of government of unrecognized or largely unrecognized states to Category:Heads of government by states with limited recognition to Category:Heads of government of states with limited recognition
• Category:Government of unrecognized or partly unrecognized states to Category:Government by states with limited recognition to Category:Government of states with limited recognition

Place Clichy (talk) 01:10, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

THanks. I see, I have misread the comments. I will process them now.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Place Clichy (talk) 09:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Sure, no problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Quick facts Nine years! ...

Precious

Nine years!

Close

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Tnx.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Wishing Ymblanter a very happy (late) adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! --Isro! chatter 19:01, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Tnx.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:10, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. BSMRD (talk) 17:30, 25 March 2022 (UTC)}}

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Nemov (talk) 00:45, 26 March 2022 (UTC)}}

What do you mean "it is irrelevant how many official langues are now in Ukraine"? Ukrainian was and remains the only state language of Ukraine. This is an indisputable fact. Any other speculation contributes in favour of the Russian invaders. —NachtReisender (talk) 20:27, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

So what? How is this related to your revert? It is absolutely irrelevant for this article. And please stop using hate speech when you are talking to me. "Supporting Russian invaders" is not the way to address me.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ymblanter. I was wondering if you can just evaluate Russian sources (no vote, just a hint if they are RS quality) presented in an AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Find My Kids by a user. I will be thankful. 2001:8003:7D11:6600:A4F2:7BF0:9E1E:F729 (talk) 11:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

All RS, as far as I can judge, some of them (like RBC, Kommersant, or Afisha) unconditionally RS.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm posting this here so it doesn't draw so much attention but doesn't seem to be severe enough to warrant email or IRC. Since you were recently active wondering if you could rev delete this edit summary . While it's unlikely the IP will ever see it, and if they were going to they probably already have, it seems to me to be something we don't want to keep per RD2. I've already warned the editor concerned. Nil Einne (talk) 12:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

KhndzorUtogh (talk) 13:52, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello! Did you mean to place this on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working? --Balkovec (talk) 06:51, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you are absolutely right, thanks for noticing.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at FedEx, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You inserted an image of 35 Hudson Yards into the infobox and claimed you were restoring an image. Not so. Having monitored that article for over fifteen years, I can tell you that image was never there to begin with. --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Very nice of you to accuse me in vandalism now for my edit on 30 December 2021. Now, the reason I edited the article was that someone inserted a long text with a press-release text and this image. As an uninvolved admin, I revision-deleted the text, so it is not really surprising that you, as a non-admin, can not see that it was inserted there. Meaning your aspersion is groundless and plain wrong. May I please add that the manner you interacted with me is substandard and below expectations of an editor in good standing. I have a long experience here, and I do not expect you to apologize, but if I see this again, I will ask for editing restrictions for you.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:27, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

And I see that you have been warned by MichaelMaggs for exacly this a few months ago, so that you might be ready for the restrictions now.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:29, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, we are talking about this edit on 29 December 2021.

If the article was badly mangled with press-release material and you were trying to clean it up, the correct approach was to entirely revert all the edits and delete those revisions. Not restore one which had zero support whatsoever.

You could have verified in 30 seconds on Google that FedEx Corporation has zero connection to 35 Hudson Yards. That structure is a condo tower and a hotel. Not an office building!

If I mistook your clumsy cleanup for vandalism, then well then, I do have to apologize for my very poor choice of words.

But you should have been more careful in recognizing which parts of the edits you were reverting were clearly inaccurate. The fact that FedEx is based in Memphis is common knowledge. --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

This is doubling down. I am going to ANI.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'm confused. How can a warning issued on 29 sep 2021 be for an edit that was made on 29 dec 2021? Time Travel is a one way phenomenon that only goes forwards ! -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 17:12, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Probably copy-pasted including the date. Ymblanter (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

(also stalking) "Your totally reasonable edit with which I disagree is vandalism" continues to be one heck of a take. Oh well, happy almost Friday to everyone. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:35, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Ymblanter! Could you do me a favor? I know you speak Russian. I’d like to ask you to check out the last few contributions made by User:Dzhakhan, now blocked. He is angry because I deleted, per A7, an article Dzhakhan that he had written, apparently about himself. In his last few WP edits - to my talk page, my user page, and his own talk page - he made comments and edit comments in Russian. I don’t particularly want to know what he said, but could you take a look in case it is something that should be revdel’ed? Thanks! -- MelanieN (talk) 15:19, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Sure. I looked at all their comments, they are upset with the deletion on a page they apparently created, but there is nothing offensive in the comments and certainly nothing which would require revision deletion.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! -- MelanieN (talk) 15:53, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Sure, no problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:03, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello Ymblanter!

I saw that you blocked the IP 2804:14D:5C87:8A5E:99C3:E5F:678B:5A40. Last year this IP insanely harassed me (I had to hide it - the text is in Portuguese) behind a pretense of "Good Faith" (I was editing the article Rayssa Leal, with several sources, and the user basically said that I was wrong, lied and even threatened that I could be expelled from Wikipedia for "committing crimes" (sourcing every sentence from a reliable source)) and I even attempted to send it to the Notice Board, but it affected my mental well being so much that I couldn't proceed against him. Well, I'm writing it now because at the time he also used the IP 177.142.131.180: its last edition is from August and might even have changed ownership, but I thought that I should let it here as a note and I hope that I will never suffer the same thing while editing the Wikipedia again. In the past the only bizarre that I went on good faith was this. Thanks, Erick Soares3 (talk) 19:23, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I do not think it would be a good idea to block an IP which has not edited since last year; if they (or another IP) restarts, let me know, I will take care of them.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:37, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Erick Soares3 (talk) 12:41, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello. Just bringing your attention to wp:burden. Uncited material that is challenged/deleted should not be restored without RS refs directly supporting the text. Thanks. --2603:7000:2143:8500:8841:CC81:D22E:5772 (talk) 17:28, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Challenge it first and make sure you made sufficient effort to find sources. Indiscriminate removal of unsourced material is disruptive editing at best; if repeated after warning, it is blockable.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I challenged it by deletion. There is no requirement that uncited material sit at the Project for a period of time. Also, please use edit summaries. Especially in reverts. The addition of uncited material is a problem. Discriminate removal - which is what this is - is totally appropriate. Your suggestion that there is a burden on the remover to assess whether the indiscrimate inclusion of uncited material is accurate is not supported by wp:burden. I'm all for inclusionists - but not of uncited material. And think it is completely innappropriate for you to directly edit by adding uncited material, that has been challenged/removed, without any ref whatsoever, and without RS refs, specifically supporting the text, because in your personal view it meets some personal smell test of maybe it is accurate. That's certainly not what the rule says, and your suggestion that there is a wp:before requirement, and a burden, on the person removing the uncited material is completely incorrect and opposite day. Again, I would point you to the guideline of wp:burden. I'm surprised that having done so already, you assert the burden is on the remover of the uncited material. That's not true. And to suggest that a block is in order if your mistaken view is not followed is chilling.--2603:7000:2143:8500:8841:CC81:D22E:5772 (talk) 17:37, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

This is exactly what I say. "I challenged it by deletion and continued edit-warring because I am right" is disruptive editing, and next time you are likely to be blocked for this.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

There is no edit warring. There is an appeal to you to follow wp:burden. And to leave edit summaries. And not to make up a wp:before requirement where none exists, and then threaten blocking for failure to follow your personal wp:before approach, rather than WP's wp:burden approach. Please explain - I frankly don't understand. 2603:7000:2143:8500:8841:CC81:D22E:5772 (talk) 18:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

If you do not understand may be you should read the policies and make an effort to understand them.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Understood. As you suggested, I reread the policy entitled wp:burden. It says: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." I am making an effort to understand how you read that: A) to indicate it is acceptable to - in direct contravention to that - assert as you do that the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who deletes the material who must conduct a wp:before search. It state the opposite. And I am trying to understand how you read that B) to indicate that it is proper for you to - as you did - restore such uncited material, without providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. As you ask, I've reread the policies, and made an effort to understand them, and I am unclear as to how under our policy you take the position that your edits here were in accord with our policy. You seem rather harsh, to suggest that my questioning leads you to consider blocking me, but I am honestly perplexed by your reading of the policy I pointed to up top. Thanks, and I hope your Friday is going well. Perhaps User:Ponyo can help explain to me what I am missing here, as the user and I have discussed precisely this issue in the past and I understand the user to be experienced with it. 2603:7000:2143:8500:8841:CC81:D22E:5772 (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Why do not you read the third paragraph of the section you cite? It clearly says that your behavior is not acceptable.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

• That paragraph begins "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." That says that I was totally within my rights to remove the material that lacked an inline citation. And that you should not have restored it without an inline citation to a reliable source - and yet, that is precisely what you did. Please explain why your restoration wasn't a direct violation of that sentence. As well as the sentence I pointed to above. This is the core of confusion. 2603:7000:2143:8500:8841:CC81:D22E:5772 (talk) 18:44, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

  Wrong. Try again.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not trying to be dense. But I can't divine what you believe is wrong in what I just wrote. As you did not so indicate. You asked me to try again. So I will. What is wrong with my statement, that you said is wrong? I begin by saying That paragraph begins "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." I double-checked, and that does not appear to be wrong. 2603:7000:2143:8500:8841:CC81:D22E:5772 (talk) 20:44, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

  I am pretty sure you are trolling at this point, but because we will need to have good arguments to have your IP blocked, since you are clearly unable to find this yourself, consider reading from the words "Whether and how quickly..." until the end of the paragraph.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

• Why would you make that accusation? I am not trolling. I am having a good faith discussion. I pointed you to wp:burden. It has language that is in the imperative. What one should not do (not what one should consider not doing) - which I think you will agree is what you did, restoring information that was uncited, without providing any citations at all - when that was clearly why the text was deleted. The language relating to your behavior is clearly stated, and not "consider not" language. The language on the other hand that you point me to is in contrast: "Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step." And "If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." But I have indeed considered both the material the overall state of the article, an article replete with unsupported statements. And I have considered adding tags as an interim step. I have not known the material to be verifiable, so that "encouragement" language did not change my view. All of this is, as I said, very different from what you have done. And why you repeatedly threaten me for discussing this with you escapes me. I am seeking to have a reasoned wp-policy discussion with you. You are deleting against wp:burden, no edit summary, giving me often ambiguous aggressive responses for some reason, threatening me for no reason. This is sad. And upsetting. I wish you a cup of tea and a nice day. 2603:7000:2143:8500:8841:CC81:D22E:5772 (talk) 22:34, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

  Pretty clear trolling. I guess we should stop here. Ymblanter (talk) 06:49, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi. I see you moved Dovhenke (Izium Raion) to Dovhenke, Izium Raion, Kharkiv Oblast, saying that the name was imprecise. However, the name seems precise enough for the article on Ukrainian Wikipedia. Do you know of another Izium Raion, or another Dovhenke within Izium Raion, which would make the shorter name ambiguous? —AlphaMikeOmega (talk) 21:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Ukrainian places). Whereas this is not a policy, it has been followed pretty closely, and most of the existing names for Ukrainian localities conform to this page. Ukrainian Wikipedia follows a different naming convention.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:58, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Stepan Bandera. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.--BLKFTR (tlk2meh) 14:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh, really? Ymblanter (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: GCB (& all of us) need to adhere to WP:TALKOFFTOPIC. That talk page is for discussing how to make that article better, or to delete it. It's not for discuss content or issues of OTHER articles, which is what GCB's comment is. The WP:TALKOFFTOPIC comment is WP:DISRUPTIVE to that page & gives the appearance of WP:CANVASSING.
That said, do you mind explaining to me what you mean when you say to me, "I do not think you are in a position to edit-war at this page." GCB & I both revert 1 time, so if GCB isn't edit-waring, then neither am I, right? Wiki rules do apply to all of us equally right? We're all in the same and equal "position" to edit, to collapse off-topic comments, etc, aren't we? BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

First, we have WP:BRD. GCB reverted your bold edit, you revert of a revert is edit-warring. Second, the discussion will be closed by an administrator. Administrators here on the site are typically not stupid, and they will figure out which arguments are appropriate and which are not. You are clearly a party to the dispute, and persistent hatting of an argument you do not like, in the situation it is met with opposition, is not such a good idea. Ymblanter (talk) 21:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: You're talking over my head. What is a "hatting of an argument?" Also, I didn't know collapsing an off-topic comment is a "bold edit" so do you mind explaining that to me? If collapsing an off-topic comment is called a "dispute," then isn't GCP also party to the same "dispute?" I adhere to WP:3RR rule: GCB reverted 1 time & I reverted 1 time so if GCB and I are both party to the dispute, then if GCB isn't edit waring then neither am I, right? As far as the off-topic goes, aren't we all suppose to follow WP:talkofftopic rules and collapse the one's we see? I'm not on here often, so I truly appreciate all the advice and answers, etc, you can give me. Thank you. BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:44, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Would you please read WP:BRD as I advised you in the previous reply. Ymblanter (talk) 05:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: I read it, and it confirms that you're mistaken. Now I urge you to read, WP:PLAYPOLICY and WP:ESDONTS. Sincerely, BetsyRMadison (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

All this because you so desperately want to collapse content? I would urge you in the most respectful manner to consider your choices a bit more carefully. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:56, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Antytila, so far as I can see, have never had an article or a draft article here. None of the mentions here appear to be red-linked. But they're getting coverage in English-language news, including the BBC, and see Wikidata: lengthy articles on both Russian and Ukrainian Wikipedias, short article in Czech, stub in Dutch, Commons category. Please can you or a talk page stalker create this? Yngvadottir (talk) 02:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

This is not exactly my expertise, but I will have a look. Ymblanter (talk) 05:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Nor mine I'm afraid, even if I could read Ukrainian. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Seeing as you submitted this request and are familiar with Lvivske, I was wondering whether you happen to known if this new edit of theirs is in violation of their ban? I can't find a successful appeal by them. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 15:46, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I did not follow their editing closely but I believe they are still under a topic ban, so this should be a topic ban violation. Ymblanter (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Before reverting their edit: is there any way to know for certain whether they are still under a topic ban? Unlike blocks, it's not something that appears to be logged. M.Bitton (talk) 19:17, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I would say if the initial topic ban was for an indefinite duration, and there were no talk page messages rescinding it the topic ban must be in force. Also, normally AE topic bans must be logged at WP:ACDSLOG. Ymblanter (talk) 19:22, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Having checked and re-checked everything, I'm fairly confident that they are still under topic ban. I'll go head and revert their edit. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 19:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Sure, thanks. Sorry, I just do not have time right now to invest into this. Ymblanter (talk) 19:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Cheif, there is a mentionable sub-clan in Somalia which iys wikipedia page has been redirected to the main catagory they hail, so could help us the reactivation of their page.

Thanks 192.145.174.139 (talk) 09:14, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

There’s a mentionable clan in Somalia whose page redirected to the main page of the main clan they hail. This clan is fit to have its page on wikipedia, so please help us the reactivation of the page.

Thank you. Dolf133 (talk) 09:20, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

You need to start a draft in the Draft namespace; if it gets accepted they will move the page. Ymblanter (talk) 09:34, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day! Hi Ymblanter! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! interstatefive  (talk) - just another roadgeek 00:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you though I had a previous account.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 11:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you though I had a previous account.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:32, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ymblanter! On behalf of Svetlana Mironyuk article - she may be best known as a media executive, but she is not a media executive anymore (for almost 8 years). Now she is working at HSE, was working at PWC Russia for some time etc. I had a plan to rewrite article. So, I have a question on why did you undo my revision. The part you restored had no sources at all. Russian Bear2010 (talk) 13:07, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Sure, it can be in the body, that she switched to HSE (I did not find the sources great, but this is debatable), but the intro must describe what she is best known for - the media executive. Ymblanter (talk) 13:22, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok, But lets aggree, the she is ex-media executive? Russian Bear2010 (talk) 13:40, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Probably yes. Ymblanter (talk) 15:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I've recently worked on improved the translation for Sedniv, and I've stumbled upon some of the sections you marked as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view-noncompliant. I've reworded and scrubbed the offending sections - any chance you could take a look and let me know if it would be okay to remove the NPOV warnings for the page?

Thank you! -- akmLaVx (t/c) 17:36, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, but I do not think using language like "perished" or "liberated" there is compatible with NPOV. Additionally, I would strongly discourage you from translating any texts from the Ukrainian Wikipedia, since that project has serious POV problems and their sourcing practices are often substandard. Writing the article using reliable sources is much better. Ymblanter (talk) 18:10, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! My original intention was to improve the article's translation - as a native Ukrainian who just happens to know English well enough to try and help, I just wanted to contribute something to WP in a meaningful way. -- akmLaVx (t/c) 18:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Sure, but please be very careful: There is a lot of good stuff in the Ukrainian Wikipedia, but this is the English Wikipedia, and the text added here must conform to our policies. Ymblanter (talk) 19:13, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I requested a speedy move of Category:Bishops of Ross to Category:Bishops of Ross (Scotland)., I have just noticed that the destination has an extra full stop, please could you correct it to Category:Bishops of Ross (Scotland)? TSventon (talk) 06:55, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done, thanks a lot for noticing on time. Ymblanter (talk) 07:02, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

As most oblasts only have between 1 and 2 million inhabitants, and because the new raions seem to have little power, would it be an option to merge all categories by raion to oblast categories? Just a thought. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:38, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this might be an option. Ymblanter (talk) 12:45, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

• For info, I have further populated Category:Categories by raion of Ukraine in order to facilitate the transition. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:40, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

  Great, thanks. I am currently taking care of the categories of the villages, these need to be addressed manually. Ymblanter (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

• For a start I nominated the people by raion categories at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_June_24#People_from_Ukraine_by_former_raions. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 12:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I see that you recently fully protected Israel but also applied pending changes? I'm not all that informed about protection and such, but I think pending changes is quite unhappy as it's claiming that over 6K revisions have yet to be reviewed and has backdated the article quite a bit. 😳😳 —Sirdog (talk) 08:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I just tested looking at the page while logged out - it's at a 2010 version of the page. Seloloving (talk) 08:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I assume it was solved with the edit of Kusma, at any rate, it does not show me any changes which could be accepted. The whole story is really strange, I have never come across anything similar before, but if it asks to accept changes we just have to do it - the current version is up-to-date.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:54, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I think it is just another piece of evidence for "pending changes is too broken to be used". —Kusma (talk) 08:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

This is a new piece of information for me, I still need to digest it. Generally, my experience with pending changes is rather positive, but this one should have never happened. Ymblanter (talk) 08:59, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Hey there

not sure where the recent locked update comes from, but there's no source available confirming any US change to the FTO list: especially not for designating the Russian Armed Forces or the People's Liberation Army as terrorist organizations. This should be corrected and the, what appears to be organized, vandalism from Singapore-IPs stopped. I'd appreciate the necessary correction.

Cheers Aeacus13 (talk) 13:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I see that I intended to revert the IP edit but somehow forgot (I reverted their edit on another article). Done now. Ymblanter (talk) 14:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing my last page.

Is it possible to ask you trough your talk page to review the pages I’m working on ?

Can you review the page Momar moussa Sakanoko ? Jnlmargine 06:51, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

No, I do not think I have enough knowledge to do it quickly, and going through the sources would take time which I currently do not have. Do not worry, someone will patrol it. Ymblanter (talk) 07:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ymblanter

I note this edit

I do have understanding of the issue, User:Andrewa|Andrew, after having created a significant portion of all the pages on Ukrainian localities here. It was very nice of you to throw a baseless accusation and close the discussion so that I can not respond.

and that it was immediately reverted by yourself.

The initial way to respond, of course, is on user talk pages. As an admin yourself, you should know that.

You ask Who cares? I do. And looking at your user page, you are one of the very last people I would wish to disparage.

But do you still think that it must be Niu-York per WP:UAPLACE (my emphasis)? I'm keen to see your response. Perhaps, as you seem to suggest, I have that wrong. Andrewa (talk) 23:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I obviously know that the status of UAPLACE is an information page. A few sections up this very page, I actually explain this in more detail. We still heavily use it though in the situations when there is no common English name of a locality. The consensus currently is that there are only three localities with common English names in Ukraine - Kyiv, Odessa, and Chernobyl (though perhaps now, with the increasing coverage, there are more - Mariupol for example, but these do not create trouble like Odessa does), plus I led Gurzuf through a RM a few years ago arguing there is a COMMONNAME. Now, the question is whether New-York / Nio-York has a common name in English. To be honest, I do not see that many arguments in the RM discussion - it is more like if the city in the US is New York, the settlement in Ukraine must be New York as well - this argument does not have support in our policies. But we can read a RM differently, and, well, fine, if there is consensus to move, there is consensus to move, I am not particularly attached to the name. But even if there was clear policy-based consensus to move, I would like to see a simple closing statement like "There is consensus that the settlement and a common English name, which is New York". The comment that my reply shows no understanding of the issue was unnecessary and, to be honest, offensive, though I fully realize that you did not mean that. Ymblanter (talk) 05:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

It was not deliberately offensive, any more than I think that your comment was deliberately misleading. But your comment was misleading, which is why I thought it necessary to call attention to the reason I discarded it. The wording was blunt but came from the policy to which I linked.

You have not answered my question, but you obviously don't agree with the RM result, and you are now putting other arguments that were not part of the RM. How do you wish to proceed? Andrewa (talk) 10:45, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

No, I do not disagree with the RM result. I wish that more clear arguments were presented in favor of the new name, but I am not going to dispute the closure. My problem is not with the closure per se but with the specific remark concerning my understanding of the issue. Crossing it out would resolve the situation for me. Ymblanter (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

That would not resolve the situation for me. Your comment was ill-considered and highly misleading. It cannot be easily removed from the RM now following the closure, and I see no reason to do so. I can see that it is now embarrassing to you, but that is no reason for any form of oversight, any more than we should remove the sarcastic reply you posted and then reverted from the page history (it would in my view be an abuse of admin powers to do so).

We all make mistakes. Wikipedians learn to live with this, see the last part of wp:creed#civil.

I asked above whether you were still of the view expressed in your comment in the RM, which while not a formal !vote had the status of one for me as closer. You have not replied to that simple question, but I am hoping that you now recognise the mistake.

Unless we somehow redact your comment, I am not happy to redact my criticism of it. Even rephrasing my criticism seems overreaction to me. I can see why you would like me to, and I would like to help. But I do not think that what you are proposing would improve Wikipedia. Other ideas? Andrewa (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I guess we need to stop this conversation then. Have a nice day. Ymblanter (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

At the risk of splitting hairs, I think you are taking this too personally. My closing comments did not say that you had no understanding of the issue. Just that your comment (which I as closer considered as a !vote although it was not formally one) showed no understanding. We all make mistakes.

And I am delighted to have met you, and would look forward to further collaboration. Hopefully with less feeling! We are all under a great deal of pressure wondering whether World War Three has begun, and if not whether or not it would be best to get it over with. Poor Ukraine.

I am happy to post a new subsection to the page, clarifying that my criticism is of your comment not of you. I would create it as a level-three heading under the level-two heading of the RM, but outside the closed discussion, so that it would in due course be archived with the RM discussion.

I think that would be overreaction, and that we should move on. But would it address your concern? If so, let us do it. Andrewa (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Good, thanks for trying to find a solution. Actually, what I think about the issue (meaning the RM) I added to the first reply in this section. What we can do, and I hope this would be acceptable, we could indeed post the first part of it (until "a common name in English") in a threaded section below the RM. I am sure this part of the comment is perfectly aligned with the policy. What I meant when I posted at the RM is just that. You can argue that I poorly expressed myself, and I might even agree, but this is what I meant. I can add that this is the clarification of my vote. Now, if you think that this opinion does not show misunderstanding you can say that there. As I mentioned, I am not seeking a reclosure, this is a minor issue for me. Ymblanter (talk) 18:20, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I have made an attempt. Andrewa (talk) 03:03, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, I added my comment there. Hopefully, this resolves the whole thing. Ymblanter (talk) 05:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi there Ymblanter, hope you're doing well. Would you mind giving us your input as a third opinion on Talk:2020_Ghazanchetsots_Cathedral_shelling#Saadat_Kadyrova discussion? I wanted to request it in WP:THIRD, but I doubt most of the reviewers are Russian speaking. The discussion is about a statement that was said during Sunday Evening with Vladimir Solovyov.

I believe there are decent sources to merit its inclusion , , and even a passage from the book of political expert Evgeny Yanovich . And that statement was in the article for a very long time to begin with. My opponent removed it couple of days ago , stating it's not a response from Azerbaijan. I suggested moving it to the International section, even tho the original source itself states she's Azerbaijani. I think we've reached a brick wall in the discussion and I don't want it to get even lengthier, so I would greatly appreciate if you could provide your opinion. Best, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

No, I do not think I should be involved into this. Sorry. Ymblanter (talk) 10:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for your time. Do you by any chance know any Russian-speaking users that I can ask for a third opinion for? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:44, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

No, not really. You can also take it to WP:DRN, then Russian speakers are normally not needed. Ymblanter (talk) 10:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I think my opponent is now concerned about sources, I'll try WP:THIRD first then proceed from there. Maybe WP:RSN would be better. Thanks again, cheers. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Just created, according to Russian Wiki.Xx236 (talk) 10:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, apparently all three new regions were created today, but I would like to wait until reliable sources say that it was created (not that it was scheduled to be created today). Ymblanter (talk) 10:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

https://24.kz/ru/news/economyc/item/548493-ulytauskaya-oblast-ofitsialno-poyavilas-na-karte-kazakhstana Xx236 (talk) 12:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I will add it now. Ymblanter (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ymblanter, why do you have to protect this page? What if a new series debuted? What if somebody else dies? What show is ending soon? I can't do that if you protect this page. I fix errors you know! I wasn't disrupting the edits like last time that I got blocked. The only thing you refused to put back is the years, but that will make this page inconsistent with the other years in animation pages since it tells you the year the show started and when the show ended. Can you please request to expire the protection now? I was going to edit another section of this page? I was telling the truth. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.225.138 (talk • contribs)

It’s only protected from IP users because of disruptive editing. Registered auto confirmed users can still edit the page as necessary, as explained in the response to your edit request. The reason the years will not be put back in the television debuts section of the page is because by the section’s very nature we know what year all the shows started. They will not be put back. The protection expires in two weeks.--CreecregofLife (talk) 14:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I know that but can you please expire it now? Tell Ymblanter about it. I was going to add another edit nothing to do with years. Thanks. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 14:47, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

You don’t have to break down security for a single edit CreecregofLife (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry. I just wanna edit more of this page, but two weeks is too long! 69.255.225.138 (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

No, it’s not. With an attitude like that it might be too generous CreecregofLife (talk) 19:22, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi. I'm trying to figure out the name of a small bay on the west coast of Penzhina Bay. The Asiatic Pilot (1918) and Sailing Directions for the East Coast of Russia (2004) don't mention it. The stream Kengeveyem flows into it. It's at 61 09 N, 161 26 E. Any help would be greatly appreciated. ST1849 (talk) 23:47, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

It looks like the bay does not have an official name. There is nothing on the Soviet topo maps though usually they are pretty accurate. In this book they call it "Kengeveyen fiord", but I am pretty sure this is a made-up name, not an official one. Ymblanter (talk) 06:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh, darn. I was hoping to create a wikipedia article on it. Old whalers used to call it "Scouse Bay" or "Southwest Bay". They regularly anchored in it to shelter from southwesterly gales. Thanks for the help. Have a good one. ST1849 (talk) 14:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Sure, thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 14:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

		Sunshine!
		Hello Ymblanter! Interstellarity (talk) has given you a bit of sunshine to brighten your day! Sunshine promotes WikiLove and hopefully it has made your day better. Spread the sunshine by adding {{subst:User:Meaghan/Sunshine}} to someone else's talk page, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. In addition, you can spread the sunshine to anyone who visits your userpage and/or talk page by adding {{User:Meaghan/Sunshine icon}}. Happy editing! Interstellarity (talk) 22:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Happy first day of summer (or winter) wherever you live. Interstellarity (talk) 22:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Ymblanter (talk) 05:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

We've got an editor who insists that we cannot use the term Palestine for the first century CE. See , and contributions, and Talk:Virgin birth of Jesus. I think this is against the spirit of ARBPIA, but I'm not sure. Of course if it is within ARBPIA, I can just alert and point out the restrictions for IPs and new accounts. What do you think? Doug Weller talk 10:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, they finally found out or were pointed to the talk page, and then they should reach consensus before going back to the article.I would also think this is not a PIA issue, but disruptive editing is broader than PIA. Ymblanter (talk) 10:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 10:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Sure, good luck. Ymblanter (talk) 10:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Sir can you edit a page. if yes i will be grateful to you. please help me CaptainSidhu 05:58, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

At this point, it is a disambiguation page about a name. You attempted to add there the material which is (i) not about the name but about the caste and (ii) was taken verbatim from an external site and is likely a copyright violation. My guess is you would need another article about a caste. Start something like Draft:Dahiya (caste), or whatever name is more appropriate, avoid copyright violations, and, when you are ready, submit the draft. Ymblanter (talk) 06:45, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Good day! Please, explain me why the old version of article can not be returned? . I think this is contrary to the rule WP:CONS. If you won't return consensual versions I will be forced to apply another administrator. There is also unconsensual version. And there is uncosensual version too - you can see it there: --Bolgarhistory (talk) 23:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

• Also I don't understand why have you returned post-war version here. Please look at pre-war version: . And please look who has started an editing war: , . My version is earlier closer to the onsensual version. --Bolgarhistory (talk) 23:18, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
• What is certainly contrary to WP:CONSENSUS is massive edit-warring in multiple articles without any comment. Please learn to discuss with others. This is what talk pages are for.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:20, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Please answer my question. Why have you returned unconsensual versions of articles? I have shown you consensual versions. And I hadn't seen your warning on my opponent's discussion page: although he is also waging edit wars. I think this demonstrates that you are not neutral. I will wait for one day and I will create request to another administrator if you won't return consensual versions. --Bolgarhistory (talk) 07:18, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

    You did not show anything, you added your personal opinion into some edit summaries and waged a huge edit warring. You should be lucky that I did not block your account.This is not a content question, and I do not have any content dispute with you, and I am not going to discuss content here (or anywhere). This is a behavioral issue. Ymblanter (talk) 09:39, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

    • I have a strong feeling that you are using the administrator flag for personal purposes. Because you didn't answer my question. Pre-war version is equal to my opinion. It's a serious argument to return my version (read WP:CONSENSUS). And I try to ask you again: where is a warning on my opponent's page? Maybe you think I don't see the obvious facts? So I will send a request to administrators forum. And I'm sure everyone will pay attention to your suspicious behavior. --Bolgarhistory (talk) 11:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

      Sure. Do not forget to provide a link to the page of your recent contributions. Ymblanter (talk) 11:54, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

      • You are still trying to use my contributions as arguments. But we are talking about you unneutral position. You haven't applied sanctions to my opponent. In this way you have allowed him to do editing wars. I will send a request about this case. --Bolgarhistory (talk) 12:00, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

        • The appearance of the word "opponent" above is a red flag for an editor who views other editors as opponents to be defeated or overcome. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Please reconsider your approach to interacting with other editors. I see repeated rapid reverts and no use of article talkpages. Acroterion (talk) 12:06, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Acroterion , Why are administrative influences not applied against a user RedBull1984 who is still waging a war of edits in articles related to Tatarstan? The user is not even warned. He made the same edits, including the war of edits, in the Russian Wikipedia, but was stopped and calmed down. Here he is allowed to break the consensus. Also, do not pay attention to the fact that it removes the transcription in Latin, although the Tatar language uses both Latin and Cyrillic.

There are several levels at which this could be discussed. First, we have WP:BRD. If user A makes an edit and the edit gets reverted by user B, with some exceptions which do not apply in this case it is the responsibility of A to go to the talk page of the article of the user talk page of B and discuss. Failing to do so and continued reverts are considered edit-warring. It is of course not nice that B reverts as well, but A is primarily to blame if the talk pages are not used, and more so if these reverts are their entire Wikipedia contribution in the last year. Second, specifically concerning the issue of president vs head, I am not a Russian Wikipedia participant, and I do not particularly care about the name, but I see that RedBull1984 restores a sourced text (albeit to primary sources, but I am sure secondary sources are available as well), which someone else added, whereas the two of you remove the sources. Third, Tatar Latin is marginal. As I am sure you know, in Russia Tatar is written strictly in Cyrillic, and there are tiny groups of Tatars using Latin (and possibly Arabic script), but this does not justify adding Latin Tatar into articles. I am sure this was discussed, and, unless I am mistaken, a user aggressively promoting Tatar Latin Wikimedia-wide was blocked, and Tatar Wikipedia was put back on Cyrillic.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:53, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

You're wrong. According to the law of 2012 in Tatarstan , people can officially address in any of the three alphabets in Tatar . The Tatar Latin alphabet is also used in Tatarstan, in the tsm Chichaev indexes. And the Tatar Wikipedia is still written in two alphabets. Ilnur efende (talk) 16:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Здравствуйте. Обращаюсь к Вам так как больше не встречал администраторов в английской Википедии со знанием русского языка. Тут сложилась ситуация, что как раз таки нужен человек знающий одинаково хорошо и английский и русский. Два участника требуют моей блокировки, привирая, что слово нафиг означает fucking. И что мой комментарий «вас видимо ослепляет татарский национализм» перевирают что я на английском назвал человека «слепым националистом». Поэтому прошу вас обратить внимание на данный инцидент и оказать помощь в данном вопросе. Так как люди не знающие русского языка могут им поверить. Заранее благодарю Вас за внимание. RedBull1984 (talk) 16:43, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

За переводом отправляйте ко мне. Ymblanter (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Коллеги, а Вам не кажется, что договариваться о взаимной координации - не самый правильный путь к консенсусу? Тем более когда один из участников является администратором и должен как минимум обратить внимание, что второй занимается бесконечной отменой правок в большом числе статей. По этой причине буду требовать, чтобы вопрос рассматривался максимально незаинтересованной стороной.--Bolgarhistory (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

И раз зашёл вопрос о трудностях перевода, то просьба к Ymblanter предоставить свой вариант перевода фразы "В английской Википедии ваша «латиница» нафиг никому не сдалась". --Bolgarhistory (talk) 17:16, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

В целом, думаю, что слово "нафиг" в обсуждениях проекта Википедии такое же грубое, как его более грубый аналог, о котором русскоговорящий участник должен быть в курсе. --Bolgarhistory (talk) 17:47, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Я обратился к данному человеку, не за помощью заблокировать вас или не блокировать меня. Я обратился к данному человеку так как больше никогда не встречал администратора в английской Википедии знающего русский язык. Это сговор?! У меня недостаточно хороший английский, что бы объяснять англоязычным людям, что нафиг это не fucking. Я обратился с просьбой перевести ложь, которую написали про меня. Если данным администратор посчитает, что я виноват, пусть он же меня и блокирует. Я не страшусь правосудия. Ещё раз повторюсь, я обратился к данному человеку не за помощью в плане блокировки, а за помощью в переводе. RedBull1984 (talk) 17:18, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Can you please take a look into this particular case so that it won't escalate further? Basically, there is this user who insists on adding FRINGE info to various articles that I've already debunked. They are backing up their edits with sources, but they are using primary sources only, and the sources are also unreliable, plus they are fringe themselves. And the user's interpretation of the sources is an improper synthesis. I would like your feedback on this matter and whether this issue can be resolved diplomatically or not. Thank you in advance. Talk:International recognition of the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:11, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

To be honest, I do not see much of a problem with the edit, though I have never seen the source before. If you have doubts about the source, WP:RSN would be the best place to proceed.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:40, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

The information is fringe because it doesn't differentiate between an embassy and activism. I've stated that an embassy cannot be classified as such unless it's recognised by both parties. If the DPR establishes a representative office in Italy and it isn't recognised by the Italian authorities, then it is not an embassy by definition. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and this can be easily fixed by the choice of words. Ymblanter (talk) 07:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

You can't suddenly make something encyclopaedic by changing the words. The core problem here is that the content that is being cited is not noteworthy enough to be written about anyway, regardless of the wording and the sourcing. I would only consider this information to be noteworthy if two parties are in the process of establishing an embassy. E.g. Derim Hunt has cited some other cases wherein Abkhazia, an unrecognised state, is apparently establishing relations with various countries around the Caribbean. This I would deem noteworthy. On the other hand, the fact that Donetsk has established a so-called "representative office" in Finland that has not been recognised by the Finnish government is not noteworthy. This merely amounts to activism, rather than a genuine state-to-state relationship or the beginnings of such a relationship. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 08:23, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

The article says that Zelenskyy personally addressed Italian authorities asking to close down the offices. For pure personal activism, he would presumably not have done this. Ymblanter (talk) 12:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Hey Ymblanter, I just saw your revert on Kalynivske, Kherson Oblast and I wanted to know, what's not good about the edit? I realize now that the date formatting is wrong, which was a mistake on my part, but what was wrong with the rest of the edit, like the see also section? Per MOS:SEEALSO, I think having the List of renamed cities in Ukraine or Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast included are both useful and relevant. I personally think these sort of pages benefit from having a see also section but I'm open to discussing it. Also, you took out the translation template from the Kalynivske, Kherson Oblast page but I think it should've been kept. While the Ukrainian-language page might also be a stub, it mostly contains information (which is sourced) that's not present in the English article (the only section on it is about the town's history, which isn't present on the English page. Per the Expand language template documentation, it should be used when "English Wikipedia articles...can be improved by a translation from a foreign-language Wikipedia," which I think is the case here.

I think having an "Administrative status" section is also beneficial to that and other articles but let me know what you think. I changed transportation into a header since that's the sole substance of the body of the section and since most comprehensive location pages have them as separate sections (Kyiv, just one example) but I'm open to talking about it too. I wasn't sure if the template for the population estimate was one that stayed updated so I changed it to past tense but if it does get updated fairly frequently, I think putting it in present tense makes sense. I think that's all the parts of my edits but if I left something out feel free to tell me. Also let me know what your thoughts are on this. Thanks!!!!! :)

All the best, Dan the Animator 04:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, I have now gone through a number of articles you modified, and I have changed back the following specific modifications:

• Template expand: The Ukrainian language pages which I checked were either unsourced or POV or both; after a few I stopped checking. This particular one (Kalynivske) is indeed borderline, it contains two sourced statements which could be checked and added here, on the other hand, we have interwiki links, and Ukrainian-seaking users know how to use them.
• The Kherson urban hromada. English is not my mothertongue, but I know that we do not write "the Kherson OBlast" and "the Kherson Raion" on Wikipedia, and I do not see any reason to write "the Kherson hromada". We had an TfC to choose the names for hromadas, they have been in the articles for two years, and nobody complained, so I assume if we want consistently change them to the pattern "the xxx hromada", we need a new RfC.
• It had a population - indeed, these are the last estimates we have. I am going every year through all the articles to update them.
• Transportation - tight now, indeed, this is the only subsection of the economy section, because it was easier for me to create articles this way. However, eventually the information on other branches of economy such as industry must be added.

This is the pattern I noticed (and corrected where I have noticed it), in some articles I also saw some other issues but these were one-time. Ymblanter (talk) 06:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks for the comprehensive reply! I'll try my best to address each of the specifics you brought up:

• I don't know Ukrainian at all (which is the main reason why I add the templates instead of expanding the articles myself) so I rely on Chrome's translate feature to give me a rough idea of the contents of an article. It's genuinely difficult to parse out the actual tone of a Ukrainian article through the so-and-so translations Google gives but for certain things like Demographics, Climate, basic historical facts (like the date of the founding of a town/village), and other largely objective content, almost always that content will be neutral and not POV. I agree though that completely unsourced Ukrainian language articles shouldn't be highlighted on the English pages, which was a mistake on my part (sorry!). When removing the templates though, please check each of them because I'm near certain that well over half of the expand templates I added were to pages with at least some decent sourced content not on the English pages. My idea with adding the templates were to help non-editors who know Ukrainian expand the articles, especially after some of them (potentially) gain more attention in the coming months. Interwiki links are meant more for users, which is great but often in my experience, some of the most helpful contributors have been IPs who usually don't know the innerworkings of Wikipedia that well. Feel free to remove the templates but please just check each Ukrainian page just in case. For borderline cases like Kalynivske, I typically lean toward adding the template rather than keeping it off but you can decide whether the template should be left in or not.
• Although English is my main language, I really don't know any Ukrainian. Usually an article (like the words "the" and "a") is needed before a noun if it isn't a proper noun but thinking about what you said and giving it a second look, I think you're right about it. The names of administrative divisions apparently act like a proper nouns. I'll definitely take out the "the" that I added from as many pages as I can but regardless I'm really sorry for the mistake.
• Oh sorry about that! I assumed the template was static. Please feel free to change "had" to "has" and many thanks for taking the effort to update the pages annually! I really appreciate it!!! :)
• I have to strongly disagree with you on this point. Even if the page gets expanded and more content is added underneath the Economy section, Transportation should still remain a separate, distinct section. Most comprehensive location pages on the English wiki (Kyiv, Kharkiv, Kherson, Boston (which is a featured article), etc.) have them as separate sections (not transportation as a subsection of economy) and I can't think of any reason why the formatting/organization of those pages would be any different than the other Ukrainian location pages in question. I understand your conceptual reasoning but I think if there's an unofficial standard for these sorts of pages, which seems to be the case, that standard should be followed.

Thanks again for the reply and let me know your thoughts on the above! :)

All the best, Dan the Animator 04:14, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I guess we agree on the two middle points. Concerning the transportation, I would need to do some research to see how this is handled and whether WP:MOS has something to say about it. Concerning the Ukraininan versions, whereas I agreethat this must be a case to case decisions, I generally remain sceprical. We know that for most of our articles their counterparts in other languages contain some information which potentially could be useful, but we do not put this template on every article, Specifically concerning Ukrainian IP users or registered users without any contribution, I have seen hordes of them who only come here to change Kiev Governorate to Kyiv Governorate against consensus, or to write that Kazimir Malevich was not a Russian painter, though all non-Ukrainian reliable sources call him a Russian painter; I have seen some of them dumping some machine translation from Ukrainian into the articles, but I still would like to see a single instance of such a user going to Ukrainian Wikipedia and bringing sourced facts from there which would actually improve our articles. Whereas this is not impossible, it is clearly an extremely rare occasion, Ymblanter (talk) 05:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Ymblanter,

I came across some articles tagged for speedy deletion as hoaxes, CSD G3, and found a couple (Draft:Scott's (department store) and Draft:Snoe Corporation) that were recently edited by User:TucsonMager79 that had been created by User:SagoShader, an editor you blocked. I thought I'd alert you in case you suspected sockpuppetry was going on. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:48, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and Draft:Sunsedraft, too. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:50, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Liz, thanks. Looks like obvious sockpuppetry indeed, with Draft:Byzantine Sans being the only survivor so far. Ymblanter (talk) 05:50, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

The "main article" that was deleted from the section was called "Administrative divisions of the Luhansk People's Republic", whereas the main article that you restored to the section is called "Administrative divisions of Luhansk Oblast". They are two different articles. The former article was deleted after an AFD (Articles For Deletion) discussion. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:08, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

However, back in May the article still contained correct information, appropriately sourced and referenced.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:52, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

. Or have I missed something? Doug Weller talk 19:58, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

A few days ago, I configured pending changes, but did not protect the article. However, now, looking at what followed, I semi-protected it for three days. When the semi-protection expires, pending changes will still be in force.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:02, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I missed that. Doug Weller talk 07:15, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Ymblanter (talk) 07:39, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi! I thought the pending changes protection you added on the 12th seemed to be working fairly well, and wondered why you changed it to a much shorter protection. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:30, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

(see also the topic just above). The pending changes are still there, when the semi-protection expires the pending changes protection remains in force. Ymblanter (talk) 20:43, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Got it! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:02, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Ymblanter (talk) 07:39, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

		The New Page Reviewer Bronze Award
		For over 1,000 article reviews during 2021. Well done! Keep up the good work! -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:23, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Tnx--Ymblanter (talk) 07:42, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Created an article, that was moved very quickly to Draft space (1st experience of this kind for me, in 11 yrs); quite possible that by now (09:13, 17 August 2022 (UTC)) the settlement is completely destroyed); any advice, and, thanks in advance!!!  ☆☆☆—Pietadè^Talk 09:13, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I think we are fine now, I moved it back to the main space. Please note that we are usually using WP:UAPLACE which says we need to indicate the oblast in the name (and the raion only if it is ambiguous, like in this case).--Ymblanter (talk) 09:35, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank You!  ☆☆☆—Pietadè^Talk 09:37, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Please check the best titles for the articles and links on the disambiguation page Moskovske. It seems to me that parenthetic disambiguation ought to follow the comma disambiguation, but there’s probably a better name for these. —Michael Z. 21:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I think they should be Moskovske, Shakhtarsk Municipality, Donetsk Oblast and Moskovske, Pokrovsk Raion, Donetsk Oblast. I guess as soon as the east of Donetsk Oblast returns to Ukrainian administration, Shakhtarsk Municipality would cease to exist, but then Moskovske will likely be renamed as well. Ymblanter (talk) 21:16, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Здравствуйте, уважаемый Ярослав. По какому критерию Вы считаете Дугину значимой? With regards, Oleg Y. (talk). 19:57, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:GNG Ymblanter (talk) 19:58, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

And what about WP:BLP1E? With regards, Oleg Y. (talk). 19:59, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

There is now a discussion on the talk page about this point; you are welcome to participate. I personally do not think that ONEEVENT applies here, as she got coverage way beyond her death, but at least this is debatable. Attempts to delete the article or to redirect it to her father are just a waste of time at this point. Ymblanter (talk) 20:02, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll comment there. But till now I see no exception to ONEEVENT. Sanctions themselves are not sufficient for that. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk). 20:11, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Sure. Even ONEEVENT would mean she is notable, just the article would need to be moved to a different title. However, I believe she was notable beyond ONEEVENT, based on the coverage she received. Ymblanter (talk) 20:32, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

On 22 August 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Darya Dugina, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 06:15, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Great, thank you. Ymblanter (talk) 06:35, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

You blocked me due to edits on Aleksandr Dugin and I wanted to ask why as I thought I was excluded from edit warring when editing out edits that broke biography rules and rules in general Bobisland (talk) 05:28, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I blocked you for WP:Edit warring. If your edits are consistently being reverted by other users, even if you are absolutely sure you are right and they are not, at some point you need to stop and discus at the ralk page. Ymblanter (talk) 07:21, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia states that there’s exclusions which include “reverting vandalism or clear violations of the policy on biographies of living persons”, I thought my edits fell into this category? Bobisland (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:46, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

No, I do not see how they did. Anyway, even if you are reverting BLP violation and get reverted by more experienced users, probably smth is not ok. Ymblanter (talk) 08:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

The biography edits I reverted broke multiple rules in Biographies of living persons editing including Neutral point of view and other biography rules involving neutrality and bias, other edits I reverted were vandalism and changes to my own edits which excludes them from being considered edit warring, “experienced users” reverting my edit doesn’t mean the edits I reverted are excluded from rule breaking or my reversions are considered edit warring

I’ve also reverted editorializations of sources but these don’t exclude users from edit warring and were never contested/ reverted Bobisland (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:25, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

(by talk reader) @Bobisland: Please read WP:IDHT. There is no reason to think WP:EW does not apply to you. Even if the edits you reverted were libelous vandalism, so what? This is just some website. Report the vandal to WP:AIV, leave well enough alone, and the community will deal with it. Once you run afoul of editing norms you face a block. Failing to understand that this is a collaborative project where we operate on consensus, not your narrow view of rules, is going to get you blocked again. Chris Troutman (talk) 11:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. Ymblanter (talk) 11:53, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Ok dropping the topic as I’ve been given the impression the ban won’t be reverted Bobisland (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:33, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean by “reverted”? If you can write here it means your block has expired. However, if you continue edit-warring at that page without attempting to discuss at the talk page I will block you again Ymblanter (talk) 15:36, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I meant removing it from my wiki record because I don’t want it to accumulate into a permanent ban incase I accidentally edit war again Bobisland (talk)

This is not possible.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

		The New Page Reviewer's Silver Award
		For over 2,000 article reviews during 2020. Well done! Keep up the good work! -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Here is a barnstar to show appreciation for the NPP reviews you did back in 2020. We realize this is late, but NPP fell behind in some coordination activities. We are just getting caught up. If you don't want to receive "old" barnstars, please just ignore this and reply to let us know not to send you any more. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:43, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Admin @Ymblanter how are you today , hope you are fine , can you review this Page and put your edits and if it is ok move it to main space and thank you Arabian Editor KSA (talk) 07:13, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I am sorry, I currently do not have time. Ymblanter (talk) 07:52, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

(by talk reader) @Arabian Editor KSA: Your sandbox entry is totally unacceptable. I now have it on my watchlist and will nominate it for deletion should you attempt to move into the main namespace. The problems with your sandbox entry are many. First, it reads promotionally. You are legally required to disclose if you are a paid editor. You almost certainly have a conflict of interest, which you also failed to disclose. Rather than bothering admins into doing you a favor, submit your entry as a draft so an uninvolved reviewer can accept or decline it. Many of the sources you provided are either self-published, or their press releases, or the citation is a mere mention of the subject. Generally, I advise not to write about living people. Most people don't get written about until after they die. Just because some dude is a CEO doesn't matter on Wikipedia. Since you're a single-purpose account, I would suggest you just stop editing Wikipedia. We don't need an article on this subject. If we did, our longterm volunteers would write this for you. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

That was User:علي_أبو_عمر, a rather prolific block evader intent on creating an article about himself. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Ymblanter. Do you know since when quotation marks have become "unnecessary" in Russia-related articles? I ask it because User:Natg 19 has started to rename Russia-related articles, removing quotation marks from the articles' titles:

• Order "For Merit to the Fatherland" to Order for Merit to the Fatherland (1st move; reason: "unnecessary quotes"); Order for Merit to the Fatherland to Order of Merit to the Fatherland (2nd move; reason: "matches other ordres")
• Order "For Personal Courage" to Order of Personal Courage (Reason: "match other orders")
• Order "For Service to the Homeland in the Armed Forces of the USSR" to Order of Service to the Homeland in the Armed Forces of the USSR (Reason: "match other orders")

Russian Rocky (talk) 19:14, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

To be honest, I do not have a slightest idea. It might be a good point for a WT:MOS discussion. Ymblanter (talk) 19:18, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Ok. If you, a Russian-speaking admin, doesn't know, maybe User:Natg 19 knows better than us. @Natg 19: Would you mind explaining your reasons for the mass renaming, please? Why do Russian orders have to "match other orders"?--Russian Rocky (talk) 19:33, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@Russian Rocky Hi, thanks for the ping. I am not sure if it is actually against MOS or Article Titles, but it seems odd to me to have quotation marks in article titles, and this format is generally not used. Feel free to revert if you think my changes are incorrect though. I am also open to a wider discussion on this topic. Natg 19 (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@Natg 19: thanks for the reply. I've changed it back for the time being. I'm not strictly against dropping quotation marks, but such a major decision should be discussed with the relevant community and be based on reliable sources (i.e. English-language encyclopedias of Russia's orders, decorations, and medals, etc) because it affects a huge number of articles.

Also, I don't understand the basis of replacing all "For" with "Of" by default in your case. As far as I'm aware, English-speaking countries use "For" for their orders, decorations, and medals as well (e.g. Australia's "Medal for Gallantry", United States' "Medal for Merit"). So, besides changing the naming of awards (compare Орден Мужества and Орден «За личное мужество»), such moves as yours seem too hasty in my opinion.

Regarding a wider discussion, I think it's better to raise this question in Wikipedia:WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medals and Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia. Feel free to remove quotation marks if there is a tangible consensus.--Russian Rocky (talk) 18:27, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

		The New Page Reviewer's Silver Award
		For over 2,000 article reviews during 2019. Well done! Keep up the good work! -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Here is a barnstar to show appreciation for the NPP reviews you did back in 2019. We realize this is late, but NPP fell behind in some coordination activities. We are almost caught up. If you don't want to receive "old" barnstars, please just ignore this and reply to let us know not to send you any more. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I've noticed this wording on a lot of Ukrainian city pages concerning the rearrangement of administration that from an English perception I think it unclear, and unintentionally misleading; it usually goes:

    "The area of [name of former municipality] was merged into [name of raion]."

On every page I see this on it gives the impression that the urban-type settlement, village or rural settlement is no longer part of the municipality in which it is still located, which is the opposite of the truth. Also, the word "merge" in English implies that the municipality has been abolished and its competencies transfered back to the raion, which also isn't the case.

What I'd suggest on these pages to avoid confusion as it concerns the reform of local administration is that any mention of pre-2020 arrangment come at the end of any section on local administration. Further, I'd really just leave out any mentions of "merge" on the pages of settlements without council, altogether. That should be left for the hromada pages or former municipal pages. Finally, when it is mentioned, at all, it should be worded simply to say that municiaplities were re-subordinated to raion councils as opposed to "merge", which, again, implies abolition of the local government.

Let me know what you think of all of this. Criticalthinker (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I am open to discussing the text, but I think at this point it is precise. For example, Lozova says indeed that Lozova Municipality was merged into Lozova Raion. This means that Lozova Municipality, which was an administrative division of the same level as a raion, was abolished and merged into the raion. It did not include just a city of Lozova, it also included a number of other locality. I understand the possible confusion with the common understanding of the municipality (such as municipal council or municipal library), but the municipalities I refer to were defined by law. They were all abolished during the reform (Kyiv is a special situation, let us not discuss it). They do not exist any more. Does this make sense? Ymblanter (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

It understandable when explained, but as written, it's confusing from an English-language perspective when plainly reading it. The level of precision makes it less clear, in fact. We use "municipality" generally to mean a settlement with local government. The wording you use on these pages when read plainly for an English-speaker makes it sound as if these local governments/councils have been abolished and are now governed directly from the Raion council/government. The precision also doesn't seem important when a municipality and community/hromada don't have different competencies/responsibilities; it's just a renaming of the base units of local government. But, again, it really doesn't make sense to explain this on pages for communities without their own local governments, at all. Unless a settlement has changed hands between municipalities/hromadas, the 2020 reform of local government on these locality pages doesn't even need to be mentioned. All we need to know is which hromada the locality belongs to; change of status of a hromada only needs to be mentioned on the main hromada's page. I do appreciate all of your work, but I'm just sharing with you how confusing this is from an English-language perspective on English Language wikipedia. The 2020 local government reform has its own article, I think; it almost doesn't even need to be mentioned on a hromada's article, honestly, and really only relevant on a raion or oblast article. --Criticalthinker (talk) 08:02, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

But we do mention the change of the raions, right? Specifically for municipalities, I can add smth like "A belonged to the B Municipality, an administrative unit with the status equal to that of the raion", for example. I do not think I have ever written about the change of the hromada, and we have very few hromadas which consist only of one locality anyway. Ymblanter (talk) 08:32, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

It seems I may have confused myself about who exactly has been doing this, but I thought I saw that you'd create this format for these articles. But it also appears that a Fixer88 may have been formatting these articles like this? Anyway, Nova Kakhovka is an example of what I'm speaking of. Instead of "The area of Nova Kakhovka Municipality was merged into Kakhovka Raion." a clearer sentence would simply be that "The territory of Nova Kakhovka city of oblast significance became part of Nova Kakhovka urban hromada." The mention of cities of oblast/district significance being subordinated to raions need only be mentioned on the associated raion pages. Anyway, just something to think about. I'd love to discuss this with a larger group, but not knowing how this started or who started it, I wasn't sure who to contact. --Criticalthinker (talk) 10:13, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

There are various situations (and Nova Kakhovka is more on an exception side), and I still want to come up with a unified description. Let me think more about this. Ymblanter (talk) 10:34, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

		The New Page Reviewer's Silver Award
		For over 2,000 article reviews during 2018. Well done! Keep up the good work! -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:05, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Here is a barnstar to show appreciation for the NPP reviews you did back in 2018. We realize this is late, but NPP fell behind in some coordination activities. We have just caught up with giving out deserved barnstars. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:05, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi, you recently protected this page, but it looks like the problem is not going away and I'm not sure how to proceed. I opened an SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cmhu but that could take days or weeks to resolve and they'll keep making new socks. Should I open an ANI thread or another RFPP? This looks like it goes back years they are very persistent. -- GreenC 16:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done Ymblanter (talk) 17:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	I was happy to receive your reference and was happy to find our users like you. Stay cool Axel Bart (talk) 10:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 10:43, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello Ymblanter since you lock the page for vandalism can you replace the royal standers on the current realms as there was possible vandalism there will be new standers soon and can you put back the royal standard of the united kingdom that royal standard doesn't change thank you for trying to stop vandalism v:) 2603:8001:2902:64F4:184A:B865:6DCE:1133 (talk) 01:56, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you but I do not even understand what you are talking about. Would you mind asking at the talk page of the article? Ymblanter (talk) 06:10, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thank you for your work on Hoptivka. Bearian (talk) 19:10, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Ymblanter (talk) 19:22, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Hey, I thought that you might know this. Can you send me a link to the laws of municipal council compositions and elections in general, and then the law that corresponds to Moscow and its lower municipal councils of deputies, specifically? I'm looking to updated the Administrative divisions of Moscow article, and need some proper sourcing to do so; most of the links of the page look to be dead. Mostly, I'm trying to figure out the electoral system used for these councils and mayors and such, but haven't found a good, English-language source describing the basics of their elections. I'd also like to finally be able to write about the difference in municipal divisions of Moscow, as it appears that there are three different kinds (because of the annexation outside the pre-2012 boundaries) with different powers. Criticalthinker (talk) 22:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I think this is a mess. I will try to find something. Ymblanter (talk) 05:20, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

For whatever reason, I'm unable to access the city's website from where I am. I've been using a website, but I'm not sure of the name of the law that defines the current administrative and municipal districts of the city, so I'm not sure what to search for. http://government.ru/docs/ I'm also unable to translate the selections in the "Вид документа" box, so I'm not sure what I'd be searching for, anyway. Criticalthinker (talk) 09:22, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

The law is "Федеральный закон от 06.10.2003 N 131-ФЗ (ред. от 30.12.2021) "Об общих принципах организации местного самоуправления в Российской Федерации", and specifically the municipal system is for example here (pretty short), but I am not sure this is what you need. Ymblanter (talk) 09:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

A re-asking of a question: do the municipal settlements have a collective election schedule/date like the uran districts in Moscow, or are they still under their old schedules which existed prior to them being annexed into the city? We saw the elections of the 125 urban municipalities of the city, recently, and it sparks the question of why those elections didn't occur in the New Moscow territory of the city, too. Criticalthinker (talk) 00:55, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

That will be helpful. Though, specifically for Moscow, I'm now seeing the law for reform of its territorial divisions was a Moscow City Duma law in 2011 or 2012, but I'm unable to access the city duma website; as for the local election law for Moscow, I'm not sure of its name, but imagine its in city duma ordinances, as well. --Criticalthinker (talk) 03:03, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Can you pull up the local amended law of the City Duma of Moscow concerning the rearrangement of territorial divisions of the city? Criticalthinker (talk) 07:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I do not think this was the reform. In 2012?, new areas (New Moscow, Moscow) were cut off Moscow Oblast and transferred to Moscow, hence they needed to update the list of constituencies. Ymblanter (talk) 07:23, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

This seems to be the law which actually governs the municipal elections in Moscow (I linked the 2016 version; the law was apparently also amended in 2022 but I can not find that version). Ymblanter (talk) 07:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been unclear. I've been looking for both the law which dealt with the annexation of parts of Moscow Oblast to Moscow City, which occured through the second half of 2011 (signed by the Federation Council in December 2011), and the law on municipal elections in Moscow, which you've provided. I'm looking for the first one so as to be able to have sourcing for any additions/rearrangements I make on the English language article Administrative divisions of Moscow, and it's not completely accurate/clear as currently written. The second law I'm looking for in case I want to update Moscow's main article or the various articles dealing with elections to the City Duma. But, also, it is mentioned on various Russia wiki articles that the municipal formations within Big Moscow have separate functions/powers/status, timing of elections, etc. dependent upon whether they are the older districts (Районы) or the settlements (Поселения). For instance, I believe the municipal districts were the ones which held local elections, recently, but the settlements are on a different local schedule because of their former status in Moscow Oblast. Criticalthinker (talk) 03:24, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

What's the schedule for elections in the New Moscow settlements? I went to the Russian articles for the local elections of 2012, 2017 and 2022 and can find no mention elections for them, nor does it seem to be mentioned on any page dealing with the city's administrative and municipal divisions and formations. Nor could I find any specific mention of a schedule for elections in the settlements (or urban districts) in Moscow's election law you linked me to which talks generally of the parameters for election and not timing/schedule. They are obviously on a different schedule, but what is that schedule? Criticalthinker (talk) 09:47, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Здравствуйте! Можете, пожалуйста, обратить внимание на войну правок от участника Iampharzad: 1, 2, 3. Как обычно удаляют информацию из авторитетных источников. Причем единственное объяснение: "Your contents and resources are not correct". Ему уже писали о нарушении правил: 1, 2, 3, 4. Однако это на него никак не подействовало. В обсуждении все сводится к тому, что якобы "content of the source is non-indigenous and biased". Ну и плюс он меня пару раз обвинил в расизме: 1, 2. Ранее создавал заявку администраторам. Буду очень благодарен, если обратите внимание. KoizumiBS (talk) 21:32, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Нет, я в эту тему не полезу, там надо много времени, которого, к сожалению, у меня сейчас нет. Ymblanter (talk) 21:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Попробую обратиться к другим администраторам. В любом случае спасибо за ответ.--KoizumiBS (talk) 21:44, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

That article on my watchlist has had some 10 reverts in the few last hours. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

No worries, from a quick look at the tp it seems that they have agreed on the inclusion of the map. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:01, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Not sure whether they agreed but there is at least a civilized discussion at the talk page. Ymblanter (talk) 20:07, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:13, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Dear @Ymblanter:, I have come across your name in the recent changes Wikipedia edits with a filter called experienced users, likely good faith. I felt you would be helpful in performing this task. I would like to request you to copyedit the page en:Telugu Desam Party to ensure there is neutrality and good grammar. Concerned/required citations are already provided but the style of languages looks poor. If you can help in any way please do it. Thank you 456legend(talk) 07:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I am sorry but I plainly do not have time to do it now. Ymblanter (talk) 07:34, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Ohh it's fine. Thank you for your response. 456legend(talk) 10:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

From you previous comments to User:Intrepid regarding his Impersonation where you tried to explain to him about Impersonation. He is apparently displeased with your comments and is currently lashing out at other editors such as Slatersteven and myself on the Talk page for 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. This does not appear to be consistent with his understanding your attempt to explain Impersonation to him on his Talk page. He has made a long sequence of what appear to be disruptive edits against Slatersteven and myself here: , , . Could you look at this? ErnestKrause (talk) 10:40, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I am afraid this is exactly not what I can do. It would not be a good idea if I start blocking users for bad behavior in this topic area. Not sure ANI would work like it should work, but you can try to make a case there - with diffs and as much logic and as little words as possible. Ymblanter (talk) 10:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello ymblanter, I hope you're doing well. I am currently dealing with a disruptive user who seems to be new and inexperienced regarding the rules and regulation of Wikipedia. He has a history of breaking rules: He has broken the 3rd policy almost under 24 hours and engaged in an edit warfare with two users including me. I have updated the population census from 2014 to 2022 using UN estimation. The region called Somaliland is also included in the wider census. I have also added other two references unrelated to the census. This user does a bad revert and makes horrible lies by claiming I have conducted vandalism and cited no references. I warned him and told him to properly review the references before you make such bold edits and claims. He deletes it and undo's another user who called him out on his bad reverts I wish to request your support who has experience in dealing with users with poor behaviours if you could kindly revert back. Ayaltimo 11:11, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I am sorry for this but I have seen the ANI thread, and acting on it would require research for which I currently do not have time. I hope someone will react at ANI. Ymblanter (talk) 10:35, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for this, where it was starting to become a pain in the you-know-what. I just wanted to mention the possibility that frustrated comedians will then run along and take it out on Königsberg. There has only been one so far, so obviously no action is immediately required; furthermore it could always be taken to RPP if it does become necessary. I just wanted to mention it to you since you're obviously clued-up and in the loop, as it were. I'll try not to bother you again with this. Cheers DBaK (talk) 10:54, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I will add this to my watchlist, thanks for alerting me. Ymblanter (talk) 11:25, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! I really hate to be a nuisance, but it's just possible that more eyes on it could be very helpful.

Like the vandalism-correcting IP said, it is sort-of understandable, given what else has been going on and the twitterstorm and everything, but I find it a little boring when humorists feel that they have an urgent/essential duty to make Wikipedia part of the joke ... or whatever. And maybe not many of them will make the connection anyway. Thanks again! DBaK (talk) 11:30, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism is vandalism and must be removed and/or prevented by blocks and protections. Ymblanter (talk) 11:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and thanks DBaK (talk) 19:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Such comedians have already tried on Kaliningrad economic region and Kaliningrad question. Mellk (talk) 14:18, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and Seven Bridges of Königsberg. Like seriously? Mellk (talk) 14:21, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Protected the two which were vandalized more than once. Ymblanter (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! DBaK (talk) 19:31, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh ffs that is properly ridiculous, both the above. There's a dissertation somewhere in this behaviour .. what a shame I can't be arsed! Cheers DBaK (talk) 19:30, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

	The Minor barnstar
	For creating the article for Dudchany, and for your minor edits helping me best cover its deoccupation from Russia, wishing you the best! Johnson524 (Talk!) 17:20, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Leftists users have decided to impose a sentence in the intro paragraph of kyriakos mitsotakis page (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyriakos_Mitsotakis) , with personal views, ie. "During Mitsotakis' term as PM, Greece has experienced a democratic backsliding and a heightened corruption,[1] with a drastic[2] deterioration of freedom of the press,[3][4] human rights violations,[5][6] and was marred by the Novartis corruption scandal[7][8] and the 2022 wiretapping scandal.[9]". There is no official - legal decision about this and official source legally condemning this politician or his party on it. It is a mibdset based on personal opinions. But since, some people believe that they are being silenced, it should exist in the controversies section of the same page. I guess you locked the page changes in order to protect its neutrality.

Slava Ukraini 62.169.230.70 (talk) 13:41, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Confirmed users may edit the article; non-confirmed should open a talk page discussion and explain what changes they want to be introduced in the article. Ymblanter (talk) 13:49, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Ymblanter,

A new editor, User:TeddyRoosevelt1912, has been removing lots of villages from Raion categories, causing many of them to become empty categories (see Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion). I know that you have done a lot of work over the past few months recategorizing villages in Ukraine to take account of geographic and administrative changes so I thought you'd be the best person to judge whether or not this emptying "out of process" was justified or whether these edits should be reverted. Thanks, in advance, for looking into this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:53, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Liz, I will have a look. In 2020, there was an administrative reform in Ukraine, and most raions have been abolished, so I hope the user is just updating the raions, but I will see. Ymblanter (talk) 06:46, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I selective checked the edits, they are fine, and all empty Villages in Foo Raion category which are currently up to deletion should indeed be deleted in a week. Ymblanter (talk) 06:48, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Okay, Ymblanter, I appreciate you looking into this. I saw so much work that you did on this subject over the summer, so I knew you'd know whether or not it was proper. Who would think that there would be so many editors who are interested in categorizing Ukrainian raions?! Thanks again. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:07, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Sure, thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 07:25, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

The user User:PikiranHati has consistently vandalizing the Songket page. I hope you will restrict him for doing any further damage. Tellisavas (talk) 11:34, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

This is not vandalism, this is content dispute. Ymblanter (talk) 11:35, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

My editings are based on academic findings but he removed my contents just for the sake of their nationalist ideology. I know because i have to face people like him everyday on social media. It is content dispute but surely they will do more damage in the future. Tellisavas (talk) 11:40, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I am pretty sure they can say the same about you. Please reach consensus at the talk page of the article. Ymblanter (talk) 11:41, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

But do they give any academic findings? What he did is only undo my edits. Tellisavas (talk) 11:46, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Can it be reverted to normal revision (13 or 5 October) before Tellisavas deletes existing references PikiranHati (talk) 11:38, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

No, please sort it out at the talk page of the article. Ymblanter (talk) 11:40, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

The normal version did not state any "Indonesian" nor "Palembang" in it. What you did is only satisfying your political agenda. The true history as stated by academics i have already gave in the article. Tellisavas (talk) 11:44, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

And please stop vandalizing Songket page just because you want to satisfy your Indonesian pride. Songket is a cultural ethnic heritage not based on any modern political boundaries. I suggest we can have an academic discussion on facebook if you want to and see where can we conclude from it. Tellisavas (talk) 11:48, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I can give you my facebook profile and we can talk there Tellisavas (talk) 12:17, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

@Northheavensky: @Gunkarta: @Sundawn: @Xcelltrasi: @Ckfasdf: I leave this matter to you, I'm tired of dealing with socks like this PikiranHati (talk) 12:01, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

@PikiranHati: I have put comment on talk page, feel free to add or maybe escalate to RfC perhaps? Ckfasdf (talk) 15:02, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

The address has been changed from "url=http://database.ukrcensus.gov.ua/MULT/Database/Census/databasetree_uk.asp..." («Не удается найти требуемую страницу») to "url=http://db.ukrcensus.gov.ua/MULT/Database/Census/databasetree_uk.asp" (functioning one) database→db, and the old archived versions (database...) are also not working. Any thoughts? ☆☆☆—Pietadè^Talk 10:13, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

The data per raion is here, but I can not find the data for individual localities other than cities of oblast significance.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:29, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello Ymblanter. The IP you have reverted on several user pages, 112.200.9.14, is apparently on a high volume vandal spree. Inynopinion, a block and mass rollback is needed. --John Cline (talk) 07:19, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi. I have now got to the office from home, and in the meanwhile they made a number of clearly inappropriate edits to categories, so I block them for 48h. However, most of their edits are the removal of red category links. I will take this to ANI now to discuss mass rollback. Ymblanter (talk) 07:37, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ymblanter. Thanks for making the new column on the List of cities of Russia page, with the 2021 Census results. You make a brief comment that you might remove the 2010 Census results column at a later date. In my humble opinion it would be really interesting and valuable to keep the two columns, as it makes for fascinating reading, comparing the demographic changes in Russia between the two Censuses. Kind regards, Gfcan777. Gfcan777 (talk) 12:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Now I do not remember what I meant but I think we should keep all censuses in the lede if possible (for large articles, when there is a population or a demographics section, this can be sent to this section), but only the last one in the infobox. I do not immediately know how to modify the infobox and did not have time yet to look in detail at the code. I think we are on the same page. Ymblanter (talk) 12:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ymblanter, I stumbled upon a log entry at WP:AELOG/2022 you had placed, wondered about the 6-month-part, saw it in another entry and wondered, wondered, wondered... and then I figured I'll just ask directly at WP:ARCA#Clarification request: Appeal restrictions as part of discretionary sanctions, as I found the question quite interesting. I hope that's okay. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:13, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I do not think this is okay, but thank you for the notification. Ymblanter (talk) 20:37, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I've found more of these entries by other administrators and have now noted this in the case. I think I understand where your view comes from, but with these new examples provided, I hope my view becomes a bit more understandable too. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:27, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

To be honest, even for four cases and with pretty clearly written policies I do not see any need to go to ArbCom, but it is too late anyway. Ymblanter (talk) 21:31, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello Ymblanter. Could you check please this article for grammatical or stylistic errors. 37.150.26.166 (talk) 20:03, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

No, I am sorry but I currently do not have time for that. Ymblanter (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Following a clarification request regarding appeal restrictions as part of discretionary sanctions, I have amended a sanction you previously logged at WP:AELOG/2022. The archived request can be viewed here.
For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:52, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Tnx. Ymblanter (talk) 20:00, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I think I buggered up Talk:2022 missile explosion in Poland by reverting the talk page after it was moved back and forth by other editors. The talk page redirects now. I'm not sure which way the consensus wind is blowing right now. Frogging101 (talk) 22:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done, no opinion on the name, which obviously needs to be discussed. Ymblanter (talk) 22:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Frogging101 (talk) 22:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Sure, no problem Ymblanter (talk) 22:41, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Do you think the move request template was appropriate? I asked on Teahouse but this seems like a good opportunity to ask your opinion ☺ Frogging101 (talk) 22:45, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

It does not matter, the move is clearly uncontrovercial (if you are talking about the talk page, not on the move of the page itself). You could also ask any administrator like you did. Ymblanter (talk) 22:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm talking about the page itself. Shortly after the article was created, there were proposals to change the name, and I added the template on top of them. Frogging101 (talk) 22:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

The page should go via a RM. Any move would likely be seen as controversial. Ymblanter (talk) 22:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Robtin.Goodfellow (talk) 08:44, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, seen it, thank you for the notification Ymblanter (talk) 08:46, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi there. Noticed you reverted my move, shortening the original title. WP:UAPLACE makes no specific mention to a case like this one. Is there any other Vasylivka in Mykolaiv Oblast? If so, is there any other Vasylivka in Mykolaiv Raion? If so, that's the only justification for such a long disambiguation. Found no other article about Vasilyvkas in Mykolaiv Oblast, in the first place. The Ukrainian Wikipedia does mention several other Vasilyvkas in Mykolaiv Raion, correctly disambiguated, but there's no other Vasylivka in here, and doubt some of them would even have an article as nearly no people live there. Bedivere (talk) 19:30, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, there are five Vasylivkas in Mykolaiv Oblast, two of them are in Mykolaiv Raion, see uk:Василівка. We do not have articles for other Vasylivkas, but these are being created quickly nowadays. Ymblanter (talk) 19:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Also, Vasylivka, Mykolaiv does not make much sense, because this Vasylivka in no way is subordinate to the city of Mykolaiv, and never have been. Ymblanter (talk) 19:39, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I put that alternative title as Vasylivka, Mykolaiv Oblast was already taken. Bedivere (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Not at the moment, but people are currently creating articles on occupied / formerly occupied / frontline localities, so that I am sure some of these will be created soon. Ymblanter (talk) 20:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

This IP reminds me of this LTA. Pinging Emperor of Emperors and Chipmunkdavis. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:07, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Strident claims of evidence is very that LTA, as is claims of bias, and that LTA is around and active. Probably easiest to just keep an eye on it though, without putting in SPI effort. CMD (talk) 15:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

And I am already involved with this one. Ymblanter (talk) 15:22, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you LouisAragon. Looks very much like it. Best regards, An emperor /// Ave 18:42, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Greetings colleagues! Ymblanter, can you kindly look into this IP? It is very likely that's Satt 2 as rightfully suggested by LouisAragon. Regards, An emperor /// Ave 05:00, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

This is quite possible, but the IP edits in the topic area which I better do not make administrative actions, and I reverted them at least once, so I do not think it would be appropriate if I block them. Ymblanter (talk) 06:23, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Ymblanter, Emperor of Emperors, Chipmunkdavis

Ok, as we indeed thought, it is indeed LTA Satt 2 (who else could it have been, really?)

• Damianmx (2016):- added "geopolitically considered part of Europe" and the ref + quote 17 July 2014: "...pursuant to Article 49 of the Treaty on European Union, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine – like any other European state – have a European perspective and may apply to become members of the Union provided that they adhere to the principles of democracy..."
• IP 2600:1700:20:1d80:68e0:803d:494b:216d (2022): added "generally considered part of Europe" and the very same ref originally used by Damianmx in 2016: 17 July 2014: "...pursuant to Article 49 of the Treaty on European Union, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine – like any other European state – have a European perspective and may apply to become members of the Union…". Mind you this was their very first edit, and all of their other edits are mimicking the pattern visible at WP:Satt 2.

- LouisAragon (talk) 19:11, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, I blocked the IP for six months Ymblanter (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Another one CMD (talk) 02:53, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done, thanks Ymblanter (talk) 06:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

For butting heads with a baaad editor.

Odoacer Rex (talk) 04:44, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, these socks became really annoying. Ymblanter (talk) 07:30, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for editing the English page Riehl Otto (talk) Riehl Otto (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Ymblanter (talk) 17:48, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Ah yes, I hadn't thought of Pending Changes – good move, thanks very much! Cheers DBaK (talk) 10:25, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Ymblanter (talk) 10:43, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Hey, there are some IP editors edit warring over at Town. They are removing some important content without explanation. Could I get some help over there? Thanks. Michael60634 (talk) 00:30, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I applied pending changes for a year, let us see how this protection is going to work.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:34, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm trying to avoid an edit war, and the IP addresses are being quite persistent about deleting the mention of two regionally significant towns from the NZ section without providing a good reason for the removal. One of the IP addresses actually reported me on WP:ANI for "disruptive editing" and posted a few of those copy paste "disruptive editing" templates on my talk page. Michael60634 (talk) 08:14, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

But it isn't a waste of time to me to make sure the record is at minimum complete. I've never been accused of edit-warring before, and if I'm going to be, I'd at least like to make sure what's in the complaint is an accurate representation of what happened. Best to you. Valereee (talk) 22:34, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Sure, and I am not in any way implying you were on the wrong side - I just closed it at a random moment of time, but this is really not the best place to raise such things. If they are worthwhile to be raised at all (no opinion on this) there are plenty of valid dispute resolution avenues. Ymblanter (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Valereee (talk) 22:38, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Sure. Ymblanter (talk) 22:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Ymblanter! My article about Shkaryata is proposed to be deleted. You can help me? Nikolai Kurbatov (talk) 08:48, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

No, I am sorry, I am not convinced it is notable as a standalone article. Ymblanter (talk) 12:14, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I see, it was a PROD. No, PROD is not a good idea for localities. Ymblanter (talk) 12:37, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Доброе утро, Ymblanter можете помочь статью из черновика переместить в основное пространство. Я по ошибке в черновик добавил, она существует в других проектах на трех языках на русском, турецком и чеченском. Draft:Magomed Shataev. --Товболатов (talk) 07:06, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Ymblanter спасибо большое!--Товболатов (talk) 08:35, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done Ymblanter (talk) 07:22, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I'm My history teacher. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions to Talk:Kryvyi Rih because it didn't appear constructive. If you disagree with this decision, please discuss it on the article's talk page. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the help desk. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Why did you vandalize the talk page? G

-My history teacher (talk) 20:44, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

It was very kind of you to describe my edit as "talk page vandalism by a sock" but this and your other edits make me think that you are actually not competent to edit Wikipedia. Ymblanter (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Stop immediately, otherwise I will block your account. Ymblanter (talk) 21:21, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Добрый день. Разбирался с категориями на Викискладе и заметил странную ситуацию. Есть четыре района Севастополя, которые имеют название вида Balaklava District. При этом соседние с ними районы Крыма называются Bakhchysarai Raion. Нужно ли переименовать эти четыре района (District → Raion) или оставить так? Mitte27 (talk) 04:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Добрый день. Нет, всё верно, это городские районы, у них почему-то другая система наименования, см. WP:UAPLACE. Ymblanter (talk) 06:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Whatever you celebrate at this time of year, whether it's Christmas or some other festival, I hope you and those close to you have a happy, restful time! Have fun, Donner60 (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)}}

Donner60 (talk) 02:05, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, also good holidays to you. Ymblanter (talk) 07:49, 24 December 2022 (UTC)