User talk:Ymblanter/2014

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

Question about Leo Komarov[edit]

I'm sure it was an accidental mis-click, but I feel I need to ask why this article is template protected instead of semi or full. I had thought the consensus for that type of protect was that it was strictly limited to Template and Module spaces. I can understand that there may be some other justification if it wasn't an mis-click, but I would like to read the discussion if you could point me to the archive. Thanks, Technical 13 (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I though I fully protected it, will look into it now. Thanks for pointing it to me.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Korean bible spammer[edit]

Would you like to add your input to WP:ANI#Requesting strings of text to be added to spam filter? --benlisquareTCE 15:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your Input[edit]

Hello Ymblanter, as you may know there is a small crisis on List of metro systems page, someone changes the Seoul metro stat from consensus and I made a talk page about it without reverting it. I give my reasons for the consensus and Massyparcer refused to listen to me and keeps having edit wars with other users. I gave Massyparcer a warning on my second and last revert (I refuse to escalate it further). He used his third and last revert on mine. I am not sure how to handle the situation right now. I am considering reaching out to his talk page but I don't know if that is an efficient way of reaching a consensus.Terramorphous (talk) 21:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I already warned them earlier today. Since I reverted them as well, I can not protect the page as an involved administrator, but I hope they will listen to my warning.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You, can you advise me on possible next steps should this become a big issue? Thank you for taking your time.Terramorphous (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please continue discussing the issue at the talk page. If at some point there is consensus, the rest is pretty much straightforward.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have listened and accepted your advice on the last revert and respect Wikipedia guidelines. However, given there hasn't been any consensus, the discussion on this issue will continue to reach a consensus. Terramorphous' controversial revertings, which are not consensus as he claims but his own POV since there are only really two people involved in this discussion. He continues to introduce his own POV to apply Japanese rules to the Korean system, a highly controversial way of creating an unfair consensus, and the aim of the consensus is to create a neutral, fair and reasonable result. Unless this is achieved, the original tally will be valid. Massyparcer (talk) 13:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

His reversions do represent "consensus" (both previous (from the record), and current), as witness the fact that multiple editors are reverting back to what he is advocating, and you're the only one reverting against that. And I can personally say that as an editor who knows nothing about the Asian systems: Terramorphous has made a much stronger case, and has convinced me. --IJBall (talk) 05:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maya Angelou[edit]

Ymblanter, I wanted to respond to your response on Talk:Maya Angelou, which you removed. Did you not think that I'd see it? Well, I did and I feel I must defend myself to you. I certainly do not think that I OWN it or any other article. I recognize that I didn't handle my confrontation with User:Heracletus well all the time, and I regret much of it. I'm on my own with most Angelou articles; if it weren't for me, they wouldn't be at the point they're at now. Her bio article wouldn't be FA, and six out of seven of her autobiographies wouldn't have articles, two of which are FAs, and there wouldn't be other articles about Angelou's life and work. I fully realize, in spite of all that, which took place over a period of about seven years, that if it weren't for other editors here--reviewers, collaborators who gave me insight and assistance--the body of work about Angelou wouldn't exist. However, I don't hesitate to point out that I've done the majority of the work on these articles, and as a result, I tend to be protective of them, especially since they tend to be vandalized in some really horrible ways. If I had ownership of these articles, I think, I wouldn't have come to consensus with Heracletus, and I wouldn't have made the changes to this article, which he suggested. If you have any questions about any Angelou article, or better yet, if you have any feedback and suggestions, please let me know. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 06:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it to avoid further drama. I will also not respond here to avoid drama.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Russian-born Soviet migrant[edit]

As you seem to be an active member of WikiProject Russia, I just have a little question regarding Nasreddin Murat-Khan, a Pakistani architect of Russian origin, and would appreciate your opinion on this. The question is regarding the article lead - what is the correct terminology for someone like Khan who was born in 1904 in Daghestan (now in Russia), at that time part of the Russian Empire? Is the term 'Russian-born' correct or do we use another term? Also, as he migrated to Pakistan during the 1950s during which his homeland was part of the Soviet Union, would it be correct to categorise him into a Category:Soviet emigrants to Pakistan? Mar4d (talk) 08:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would say (without looking at the sources) yes on both counts. Since he was not just born in Russia, but also studied in Saint Petersburg, he clearly had ties with Russia (actually, did he ever return to Soviet Union or stayed in Pakistan until his death?). He also must have used the Russified form of his name and is probably known in Russia predominantly under this form, Nasreddin Muratkhanov or smth similar. --Ymblanter (talk) 08:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see, he fled during the war and never returned obviously. Still, I think the lede and the category are correct.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your prompt response. Yes, he did not return to the Soviet Union, but he certainly grew up there, was educated there, and spent the first few formidable years of his career there. So we'll stick with 'Russian-born' for the lead and the Soviet categorisation :) Thanks again for your opinion. Mar4d (talk) 09:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you familiar with Russian script? Just wondering if you could provide a transliteration of Nasreddin Muratkhanov in Russian, i'm a bit skeptical if Google Translate is getting it right. Mar4d (talk) 15:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That would be Насреддин Муратханов, but I already tried to serach this configuration and some similar spellings, and could not come to anything reasonable.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's okay, I just wanted to add the Russian transliteration of the name into the article, so thank you :) As all of his work was done during the 1960s or earlier, references available on the internet are quite scarce so I doubt there would be much in Russian either. Mar4d (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you get me the IPA pronunciation of Nasreddin Muratkhanov in Russian...? Would like to add that to the article, too. Thanks in advance. —ШαмıQ @ 08:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry, not really familiar with this.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, no problem. —ШαмıQ @ 09:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of a physical article needed[edit]

Hello! Could you review my edits to probability amplitude? You can find the context here, although my query does not imply your interaction with WikiProject-physicists. You may post a review on the article’s talk or just here. Regards, Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can try later today, though sometimes my interaction with people interested in physics does not go very pleasantly, like in the recent disaster with Heat.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The recent disaster, you said? It is Wikipedia’s OneText approach that is going to fail. While the people like you argue about whether the heat is an energy or a transfer, shake their credentials, and invent ways how to restrict undesired editors without simply breaking rules (as it was customary in ru.wikipedia), a lot of crap lies everywhere without anybody willing to fix. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My credentials did not help, neither a link to the undergraduate text I am using, which was discarded.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I find your edits perfectly fine, though my own preference would be indeed to merge this article with the wave function.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About your block[edit]

You have blocked me because I was apparently edit-warring. As far as I know, edit warring is when you revert three times in a 24 hour session. So say I do 2-reverts, and I leave it alone for 24 hours and revert again, does this constitute to edit-warring? Or is it not because I have only done 2 reverts within 24 hours? Massyparcer (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you revert four times within 24h you get blocked according to WP:3RR does not matter what. You did not do this, but you should also understand that it does not mean you are allowed to revert say three times per day. What you are reqyured to is to reach consensus with other participants of the discussion. In this case, there were clearly at least three users who disagreed with you. Then it is useless to revert them. You should try to convince them with the arguments, not with the reverts. It is also useless every time you come up with a new argument go and revert saying "hey, now I have the new argument, consensus has been established". No, it has not yet been established. consensus has been established by discussion, not by reverts. Please contribute constructively. Nobody is going to die if the article stays in the wrong version for an extra week.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're completely correct that we need to reach a consensus on the discussion before reverting. I apologize if I haven't followed Wiki rules in that case. But what if there are three people agreeing with me and there is only one user who is consistently against it? Clearly, we have a consensus here and there is no problem with me reverting the article, right? Massyparcer (talk) 05:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did not have time to follow the discussion closely, but as a rule of thumb if your edits to the article get reverted with the edit summary "pls reach consensus first", and the discussion at the talk page is not stale, it means the consensus is not yet there.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So even if the majority agrees with me, I can't revert it because of one person who will consistently say "pls reach consensus first"? When is a discussion page considered stale? One day, one week, one month? Is this an official rule at Wikipedia?Massyparcer (talk) 09:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If there is one person who does not agree with consensus and uses circular reasoning, at some point this user gets sanctioned. The problem was that last time you were this user.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And exactly when is this some point? Three times as per edit-warring rules? Also, you haven't answered my other question on when a discussion is considered stale - Or does such a rule not exist at Wikipedia? What I'm concerned is that Wikipedia doesn't mention a specific time when someone gets sanctioned, blocked or when a discussion of consensus is over. The rules seem vague and cloudy. Massyparcer (talk) 14:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no response within several days (say 3-4 days) you can assume it is stale. This is certainly not the case with the talk page we are discussing.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By no response, are we talking about absolutely zero responses, or the general discussion being stale (i.e. no major disagreements on the issue and unrelated messages being posted)? And I guess we're counting zero responses from the opponent sides, correct? Also, what if one user continues to post irrelevant, false or misleading claims with no source? (i.e. WP:Original research) Another problem is that if it does ultimately end with no more discussion - I suppose the consensus built by the majority are then valid, correct? Even if this is based on WP:original research? Massyparcer (talk) 17:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No response means no response. You can always try once in a while asking whether the consensus has been reached for such and such modification of the article. If there is only one user who disagrees with it and all others agree, the changes can be implemented. If the situation is more difficult, and the consensus has not been reached, try WP:DRV. Just edit warring is not a way to go.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course edit warring is a no go. I completely agree with that. Which is why I never do more than three edits in a 24 hour session. Neither am I reverting now since I'm trying to build a valid consensus. But this is precisely the problem - People are using random rules made out of nowhere (WP:Original research with no sources), which is the issue with that article. What I have done is list the original research claims and try to make people prove them through sources. If they can't put sources to their claims (because they're false claims), and the discussion ends there for three days, is a consensus reached? Massyparcer (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3RR is not a permission to make three reverts every day in the case you disagree with the material, it is a line beyound which there is no doubt that the user is edit warring, and a block usually is neeeded to stop edit warring. Concerning the specific discussion, if you can not convince your opponents, you would probably need to try WP:DRV. I do not see any bad fait from their side, and content disputes are solved by WP:DRV if consensus can not be reached.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not trying to convince anybody but just applying WP:original research here because people are making up way too many rules out of the air to back up their views. The vast majority of their claims are unsourced original research. We can't use WP:DRV here because it is not about reverting some deleted content but about applying proper rules from official and reliable sources and applying it to the existing subway systems, which will result in both deletions and additions. Massyparcer (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then you can try WP:ANI but I am pretty sure you will be told this is a content dispute.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried WP:ANI but admins are ignoring the post. User:IJBall continues to disagree for no reason with unsourced claims and original research, despite at least 5 other editors sharing the same consensus with me on this issue. I think it's fair to say we have a significant consensus here, and only user who will strongly disagree for no reason. Massyparcer (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I said in the very beginning, no? Try DRV.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see any consensus over there.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the arbitrary break section and you will see other editors have raised the same concern I mentioned - You will see that only one user (IJBall) who is disagreeing, pretending to know his stuff when in reality it is unsourced original research. I don't think you're getting what the issue is about - We need to delete a criteria (i.e. the unsourced user-invented arbitrary 10 min rule), not recover some deleted content. Massyparcer (talk) 15:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you think I have no clue I strongly suggest you leave my talk page. --Ymblanter (talk) 15:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which is not a constructive way to deal with a user who is seeking advice. I already explained what the issue is above. Massyparcer (talk) 15:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You should not seek an advice from somebody and at the same time tell them you believe they do not understand the situation. --Ymblanter (talk) 15:46, 18 January 2014 (UTC):::[reply]
I apologize if you felt offended but telling me to go to WP:DRV doesn't make much sense when this issue has nothing to do with recovering deleted content. You already admitted to this previously, so I don't get why you're telling me to go to WP:DRV again. Massyparcer (talk) 15:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Needs pp template[edit]

Please add an appropriate pp- template to Leo Komarov, which you protected awhile back. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)

 Done, strange, usually bots do this pretty efficiently.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You[edit]

[1]

No problem. I am not sure the population of admins remotely interested in ARE has not yet been exhausted.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ymblanter. In answer to your question at AE about logging, how about putting a comment in Alfonzo Green's ban entry at WP:ARBPS#Log of blocks and bans that his appeal was declined, with a link to the closure. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, will do it now.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Has already been done by MastCell, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Main Page[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Main Page. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Yaroslav. User: Malke 2010 created a fork of the old article Legionellosis for reasons as yet unknown. This looks like a copy&paste move to me. Is it OK? --Ghirla-трёп- 09:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • See also Talk:Legionnaires' disease#Move. --Ghirla-трёп- 09:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Will have a look now, thanks for alerting me.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I rediected it and added to my watchlist. Unless special issues surface out, I should be able to take care of it.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. The merger caused some interwiki issues as well. --Ghirla-трёп- 16:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I now moved the article, I think the interwiki links are in order. I have no opinion on what is the primary name, but I kept the older article which did not contain copyright violation.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ghirlandajo: why would you revert a merger without any explanation, especially given you've never edited that article? Malke 2010 (talk) 20:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since Malke 2010 still failed to understand what they have done wrong and consider any criticism as harassment, I suggest that you do not respond to them.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked a perfectly reasonable question. This editor reverted a perfectly proper merger without explanation. The commotion you created on my talk page deserves to be investigated. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Legionnaires' Disease[edit]

Hello, Ymblanter. I was editing the Legionnaires' Disease article yesterday (9:15pm Eastern Time US, January 17, 2014 which is 2:15 UTC, January 18, 2014) and my edits have completely disappeared. They were 3 minor edits: I italicized Encyclopedia Britannica in footnote #6; got rid of the unknown parameter in footnote #20; and added missing punctuation at the end of the "Potential reservoirs" section. I am certain I made and saved these edits. Now they're not in the article. They're not in my "contributions" history either. I wonder if you (or Malke) have any ideas about where they went. Thanks. --71.178.50.222 (talk) 18:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I moved the article over the redirect. Let me see if I can easily merge the edit history.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, man. Whatever you can do will be appreciated. It's also OK if I have to re-do them; they're minor and easily redone. --71.178.50.222 (talk) 18:46, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have done what I planned to; I hope it is ok now.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It looks good; thanks! --71.178.50.222 (talk) 18:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ymblanter - You have done a good job on the Legionnaires' Disease page. I am trying to improve the treatment portion of the Legionella page - since that is all I know about. If you get a chance, can you make sure the microbial part of that page is ok? Or make any other recommendations, especially regarding organization. Thanks, Alicia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliciacdiehl (talkcontribs) 14:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to say, I understand nothing in epidemiology.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Holdek/68.50.128.91[edit]

It seems he had quite a beef with you dating back to his edits as 68.50.128.91, which probably explains why Holdek kept targeting the articles you had an interest in. Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How stupid of him. Editing destructively in articles which they knew are on my watchlist and knowing I am going to take this to ANI. I am not sure what they actually expected. But I see indeed that the manners of Holek and of the IP are very similar.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of layout--Ymblanter (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC) Таблицу внизу раздела (Changing the proportion of Russian speakers in the total population Earth's (assessment and forecast Aref'eva 2012)[50]) вы можете растянуть на всю длину страницы, чтобы был более красивый вид и надписи в одну строку? Я не разбираюсь в вики-разметке... Vyacheslav84 (talk) 05:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Попробовал, красивее не становится.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Вопрос[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maya_cave_sites&oldid=prev&diff=591841831 - в источнике написано, что подземная археология майя активно развивается начиная с 1980-1990-х годов (даже правильней по смыслу текста - с 1980-1990-х годов стала отдельным разделом археологии майя со своими методиками, а до этого были единичные разрозненные изучения отдельных пещер), а по смыслу текста в нынешней статье получается что она активно развивалась в 1980-1990-х годах, а потом получается ушла в упадок (хотя про упадок это орисс будет чистый). Можно как-то это понятно изложить в статье? Заранее благодарю. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Попробуйте starting from the 1980s.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Russian language person in need of help on Jimbo's talk page[edit]

Hi, can you read and write in Russian? There is an individual who has recently posted at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 155#Law of Florida is mixed with dirt in Wikipedia RU, who seems to be very upset about some content or edits in Russian Wikipedia. Unfortunately, it looks like their post may be done with Google Translate or similar, so its meaning is not very easy to establish. If you can read Russian, perhaps you could reach out to them to work out what their concerns are, and summarise them for people on Jimbo's page? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will have a look now.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gilli Sørensen[edit]

Hi. You have deleted the page about Gilli Sørensen, a Faroese football player, because he had not played for a fully pro league nor a national team for adults. That has changed now. He has played one match for the Faroese national football team and he is now a member of the squad of the Danish Super League team AaB, he played a friendly game there today and scored a goal. Could you please restore the page about him if you agree? Thanks. EileenSanda (talk) 22:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, please update the article as soon as possible--Ymblanter (talk) 22:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! I have updated the page. Regards EileenSanda (talk) 23:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP Russia in the Signpost[edit]

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Russia for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Про группу Кино и не только - ответ на вопрос[edit]

A continuation of the discussion from Jimmy's talk page, where I was asked to translate and facilitate understanding. The discussion concerns some pages of the Russian Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:33, 26 January 2014 (UTC) Здравствуйте! Вы задали вопрос там, и дан ответ на этот вопрос: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Law_of_Florida_is_mixed_with_dirt_in_Wikipedia_RU - 128.73.83.181 (talk) 07:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

  • Вот эти материалы в статьях являются очевидным баластом:

1) http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/46_%28%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%BC%29 (альбом "46"):

"Столь радостное времяпровождение было прервано Вооружёнными Силами СССР, которые захотели во что бы то ни стало призвать в свои ряды гражданина Цоя Виктора Робертовича.

"Раньше Цой очень успешно косил армию, учась в разных ПТУ. ПТУ привлекали его как раз с этой точки зрения, потому что оттуда в армию не забирали… Он просто не мог на два года уйти от рок-н-ролла в какие-то войска. Все кругом косили, все как-то нас поддерживали: «Ну подумаешь, сумасшедший дом! Ну посидишь там две недели!». Вышло полтора месяца." (против покойника без любого на то права, и ниже - подобные тексты).

Марианна Цой


Полученные Цоем впечатления от пребывания в психушке легли в основу монотонного опуса «Транквилизатор», написанного после получения белого билета.


Вишня так описывал свои впечатления от только что вышедшего из дурдома Цоя:

«После этой больницы он стал совершенно не таким человеком, каким я его знал. Более того, он стал полной противоположностью того Витьки, с которым вы писали „Сорок пять“. И таким он сохранился до самой своей смерти. Именно тогда он стал тем ВИКТОРОМ ЦОЕМ, которого мы вот сейчас имеем. Со всех заглавных букв… У него была куча комплексов, это ни для кого не секрет. Каждый, кто его знал лично, это подтвердит. И, видимо, он решил разом от всех от них избавиться. И немножко перестарался в этом деле. Было иногда впечатление, что он просто сошёл с ума».

Из бесед А.Вишни с А.Рыбиным. «Кино» с самого начала и до самого конца"


Сессия «Сорока шести» продолжалась два дня. Цой и Каспарян играли на гитарах, Виктор пел, а Вишня, помимо звукорежиссёрских функций отбивал ритм, ударяя клизмой по картонной коробке. (это грубый наезд против ныне живущего человека, как и факт чуть выше: нормальный человек никогда не скажет, что Цой стал кумиром поколений после общения с настоящими шизофрениками, принятия Галоперидола, Трифтазина, Циклодола, Фенозепама, Реланиума - это сказка чистой воды, выдаваемая за реальность для очень огромной аудитории)!!!!!";


2) http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/45_%28%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%BC%29 (альбом "45"):

"Строчка «мне наверно с утра нужно было пойти к врачу» отсылается к психиатрам, которых Цой и Рыбин вынуждены были посещать, чтобы «откосить» от службы в армии.";


3) http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A6%D0%BE%D0%B9,_%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80_%D0%A0%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87 (Цой, Виктор Робертович)

"Осенью 1983 года Виктор Цой лёг на обследование в психиатрическую больницу на Пряжке, где провёл полтора месяца, избегая призыва в армию. После выписки из психиатрической клиники он пишет песню «Транквилизатор»";


4) http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CC%E0%F8%E8%ED%E0_%E2%F0%E5%EC%E5%ED%E8_%28%E3%F0%F3%EF%EF%E0%29 (Машина времени):

"А. Рыбин («Кино») в книге «Кино с самого начала»:

«В гостях у Александра в тот раз была группа "Машина времени" в полном составе, и я сразу понял, что выпить они не дураки--количество пустых, полупустых и полных бутылок на полу и на круглом столике у стены внушало уважение». (всем участникам Машины времени такое не по душе, и Липницкому, который впутан в грязь через эти фразы)". У меня динамический IP: 93.81.67.212 (talk) 11:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Замечательно. Теперь расставьте, пожалуйста, эти фрагменты на страницах обсуждения соответствующих статей Русской Википедии, добавив комментарии, что Вы предлагаете их удалить, так как они неэнциклопедичны. Только не пишите, что Марианна Цой в предмете ничего не понимает, и что Вы будете подавать в суд. Подождите три дня, если не будет возражений, удаляйте со ссылкой на страницу обсуждения.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Мне не хотелось бы стать троллем, или носком (откуда я знаю, что Вы согласовали этот вопрос с другими в русской Википедии). Не будет проблем? И про Марьяну (про психушку можно писать, не затрагивая остальное в воспоминаниях)? - 93.81.67.212 (talk) 12:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
    Я не имею никакого отношения к русской Википедии последние три года. Как можно видеть из темы выше, меня просто попросили перевести. Если Вы будете себя вести адекватно (не начинать, например, разговор со слов, что русская Википедия хамски нарушает законы штата Флорида), проблем не должно быть.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Я верю Вам. Всё путём будет (вежливость). Начну сейчас, или чуть позже. Спасибо! - 93.81.67.212 (talk) 12:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
    Пожалуйста, учтите, что, что бы в русской Википедии ни произошло, я не буду там вмешиваться, но если Вам потребуется дать ссылки сюда или на обсуждение Джимми, не стесняйтесь.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Я Вас хорошо понял! - 93.81.67.212 (talk) 12:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
    • Ярослав, просто для информации - правки этого анонима в рувики будут откачиваться и пресекаться всеми прочими доступными администраторам способами. OneLittleMouse (talk) 13:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Ну, мне честно говоря, всё равно, как я уже отметил, меня попросили перевести. Но то, что написано на моей странице, с моей точки зрения, имеет смысл. Если статьи там можно таким образом поправить, не вижу, почему бы этого не сделать. Зачем в статьях о ныне живущих людях информация о том, сколько они могли выпить 25 лет назад, даже и подтверждённая источниками? Они же не этим знамениты.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Не бесспорно, но это можно было бы осбуждать, если бы инициатива исходила от кого-то вменяемого, к этому случаю мне это слово применить сложно. Особенно хорошо смотрится фрагмент про Машину Времени, а) внесённый в статью, как ни странно, анонимом с тех же диапазонов и б) в свете "Мужских напитков" Макаревича... OneLittleMouse (talk) 13:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Ну хорошо, поскольку в мои планы исправление статей русской Википедии как не входило, так и не входит, а за страницей обсуждения Джимми я не слежу и не собираюсь, я просто устранюсь из этой дискуссии.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify[edit]

the AN report is that i'm "gaming the IBAN" and i'm still heavily confused by this accusation, and there seems to be mixed support/oppose. Thats all i wanted to clarify.Lucia Black (talk) 10:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Towns[edit]

Excuse me,

You seem to have deleted an article that I had uploaded as was editing and bringing up to date, the address of the article is http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Towns I'd like to know your full reasons why you would remove this article, your given one that I can gather is that Matthew Towns has not played in a professional league. This is a totally untrue assumption and the article was being referenced to show that all information was factual and the person is indeed a professional football player.

Please kindly reply to this message as undo what you have done

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mt6901 (talkcontribs) 11:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article was proposed for deletion on the grounds that Towns never played a match in a fully professional league, which is a notability requirement for our project. After the nomination expired, and no evidence was added to the article that Towns ever played in a fully pro league, I checked it and deleted the article. Please note that being a fully pro player is not the same as playing in a fully pro league.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Towns was a fully pro player with Macclesfield Towns (league 2 England) he was pro with Prestatyn Town (welsh premier) and is currently pro with St Andrews (Malta) the other clubs were either signed as amateur or semi pro ..... I know this because I am matthew Towns the article was being referenced at regular intervals and I have all contracts to prove! All you have to do is google Matthew Towns and you will see for yourself! Please undo your deleting of the article and leave your reply here!

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mt6901 (talkcontribs) 13:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe none of the leagues is fully pro, but I will now bring an attention of Wikipedia:WikiProject Football to this topic, since I am not an expert.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see, League 2 (England) is fully professional. Did you play at least one matach there?--Ymblanter (talk) 13:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course I did and regardless of if I played a game or not I was still a full time professional football player there and whilst at other clubs! Hense signing "Full time" professional contracts, football has been my occupation since I graduated from university. The Maltese football league ha professional status and I would e gratefull if you arranged for my article to be posted so I can continue to reference it, which should satisfy you! Many thanks and I await your reply — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mt6901 (talkcontribs) 22:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the Wikiproject Football disagree, you can try to discuss it there: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Matthew Towns--Ymblanter (talk) 22:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So this article will be replayed by yourself ?? Or I have to re write it and further reference it?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mt6901 (talkcontribs) 15:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, the article can not exist in Wikipedia. You can participate in the discussion which I referenced above: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Matthew Towns, may be they do not know smth, but until they agree, any recreation would be immediately deleted.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...Stans[edit]

I have been working on adding talk page WikiProjects to articles on the ...Stans, including:

  • {WikiProject Central Asia|class=start|importance=low|Afghanistan=yes|Afghanistan-importance=low}}
  • {WikiProject Central Asia|class=start|importance=low|Kazakhstan=yes|Kazakhstan-importance=low}}
  • {WikiProject Central Asia|class=start|importance=low|Kyrgyzstan=yes|Kyrgyzstan-importance=low}}
  • {WikiProject Central Asia|class=start|importance=low=low}}
  • {WikiProject Tajikistan|class=start|importance=low}}
  • {WikiProject Central Asia|class=start|importance=low|Turkmenistan=yes|Turkmenistan-importance=low}}
  • {WikiProject Central Asia|class=start|importance=low|Uzbekistan=yes|Uzbekistan-importance=low}}

Sometimes I find something that needs doing, but without knowing any Russian, I cannot do it. After seeing your excellent fix on Alakol, Kazakhstan, I hope I can pass on to you some small tasks. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do indeed speak Russian. I would gladly fix minor things, though I am not sure I would have time for major rewriting (I am doing missing Kazakhstan towns though, very slowly).--Ymblanter (talk) 14:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are only 189 articles on Kazakistan without proper WikiProjects right now, so you can see what I am doing. The Almaty Metro article is good, but it does need better references, as do the individual stations. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Khostinsky City District may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • districts lives at or close to the seashore, in former settlements later turned [[microdistrict]]s). The biggest of them are (northwest to southeast) [[Svetlana, Sochi|Svetlana]], [[Bytha]], [[Iskra,

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Thanks. I posted some questions on my talk page (Is this the right way to "reply"?). EdwardGoldobin (talk) 12:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can do both, but I prefer to keep the conversation at one place, so that I will go to your talk page now.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

City district box[edit]

I've created {{Infobox Russian city district}} and used it as an example in the Khostinsky City District article. It is basically a wrapper around {{Infobox Russian district}}, which filters out unapplicable parameters but retains the full functionality of the main district template. The only parameters new to the city district template are "city" and "city_ref", which contain the name of the city of which the city district is a part and the reference. Please let me know if you see any problems or have ideas on what to add/remove.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 28, 2014; 16:35 (UTC)

Looks absolutely great, thank you very much.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now smth happened to the coordinates, will try to look into it.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. I added a "longEW" parameter as an afterthought, but forgot to include "E" as a default. It's fixed now. Sorry!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 28, 2014; 16:47 (UTC)
Ok, I see. Thanks again.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it is not too difficult, may I also ask you to add an option for urban-tyoe settlements? We need it for Adlersky City District, and doubling the selsoviet block did not give any result. There is no hurry.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually already supported; same way as in the main district template. I've made changes to Adlersky City District—seems easier to show than to explain. Let me know if you have further questions. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 28, 2014; 19:55 (UTC)
Great, thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ural[edit]

The source refers to them as regions. We don't just go with official names. Have you alternative English-language references setting out the 6 sub-areas of Ural FD (hopefully with a reference to their capitals as well)? Eldumpo (talk) 07:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have just crossed, let us continue at your talk page. I hope @Ezhiki: can give an explanation easier than I can, but he will only be available in the American morning. In the meanwhil, I can check whether I can dig out an archived discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not always wise to go with how a particular source refers to a particular concept (consider, for example, a situation when two sources, each using different terminology for the same concept, are used). With federal subjects in particular, English-language sources tend to use slightly different terminology from one source to another; heck, for autonomous okrugs alone there are at least five variants (and that's only those I can recite off the top of my head). If we stick to the terminology choice of every source we use, we'll end up with an incomprehensible hodgepodge. Normally we strive to use consistent terminology across all our articles; at least in those falling into one area of knowledge (in this case, human and political geography). Terms for which different variants exist in the English language are routinely linked to using their Wikipedia article title. WP:NCCS is one of the Wikipedia guidelines dealing with this.
That said, if you feel that adding a footnote clarifying that this particular source refers to oblasts as "regions", it's a perfectly acceptable solution, too. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 30, 2014; 13:10 (UTC)

I had no intention of going round trying to change the article names of those subjects, I was merely reflecting what the reference said, and using a pipe. I thought the reference to be reliable as it seemed to be official. That said, I can see their references to 'regions' as being perhaps generic English terms, but I think their reference to ’(Yugra)' for Khanty Mansi should be returned with a pipe, plus some kind of sub-note to the reference that the source refers to regions but... Any agreement on that? Eldumpo (talk) 22:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am certainly fine with this solution.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with this solution either. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 31, 2014; 13:02 (UTC)

Kalininskaya/Solntsevskaya[edit]

Just FYI: ru:Википедия:К объединению/31 января 2014. I think at en.wp we should follow the outcome of that discussion. YLSS (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out. Houwever, I am not sure we should be dependent on the Russian Wikipedia? We should follow our policies. Right now, all media say that Delovoy Tsentr is open on Kalininsko-Solntsevskaya Line, so my move was uncontroversial. Concerning the current Kalininskaya Line, I expect that the sources would indeed start calling it Kalininsko-Solntsevskaya at some point, but I need to check sources first, this is why I did not open any move discussion yet.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, of course we do not need to depend on ru.wp, it's just possible that at that discussion some valid points will be made. And I do not argue on your move, I'm more or less neutral on that. YLSS (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it is just if nothing changed recently, they can easily discuss over a year.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cross Country[edit]

Hello would it be possible that you update the quotas for each country skiing thank you very much — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaminolympique (talkcontribs) 09:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think I have the data, but in any case in several days we are going to have official starting lists.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think adding everybody who qualified to the starting ist of every competition is appropriate. Please wait until starting lists have been available.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

your recent redirect of the article for Tim Coons:[edit]

Hello Ymblanter, I see that you recently redirected a completed article for Tim Coons. However, this particular article is "new", with up-to-date 2014 references, and is NOT affiliated with Elton John's now defunct record label named The Rocket Record Company. The old article for Coons from last Spring was redirected after consensus to a page about a company which no longer has its own Wikipedia page. The redirect is no longer applicable for that reason, and also this current article for Coons is now fresh with completely up-to-date references from 2014 which did not exist last Spring. Please do not redirect the article again to Rocket Records, because the Rocket Records that Coons is officially affiliated with does NOT have its own Wikipedia page, and is NOT affiliated with The Rocket Record Company. Thank you. MusicMan2014 (talk) 09:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let us try it like this, though I am still not sure he is notable.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A new editor engaging in the same behavior as User:Zachtron. Quack quack. --Kinu t/c 07:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ah finally you react! I just want to know how much each country quotas in the discipline as completely sportsfan the 15km men! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaminolympique (talkcontribs) 12:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI[edit]

A proposal has been made to create a Live Feed to enhance the processing of Articles for Creation and Drafts. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC to create a 'Special:NewDraftsFeed' system. Your comments are welcome. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will have a look.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammed Faraj Al-Rawahi. However sources indicate that the league he plays in is now fully professional - [2]. Nfitz (talk) 02:07, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please open a topic here, if they agree that the league is fully professional, I will restore the article (and possibly also other articles affected).--Ymblanter (talk) 06:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OLYMPICS GAMES 2014[edit]

Hello two days of the Olympic Games, can you enlighten me on some sports, I find no traces of qualifiers: Biathlon: Korea and Kazakhstan Nordic combined: Japan Short Track 500m, 1000m and 1500m China Alpine Skiing: USA, Norway and Korea Cross Country: Germany, Belarus, Canada, China, Korea, Estonia, Finland, Italy, Great Britain, Kazakhstann, Norway, Usa, Poland, Czech rep, Slovakia, Russia, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine

Thank you very much ANSWER!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaminolympique (talkcontribs) 16:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest, but I have no knowledge additional to what is available at the official website of the Olympics.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'M STILL CONCERNED, has two days! I have not managed to fill my paintings! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaminolympique (talkcontribs) 16:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Namkhola[edit]

May I know why you have reverted the edit, when it is in accordance with the naming convention? Shovon (talk) 08:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh! OK, got it. Thanks. :) Shovon (talk) 08:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please look here: http://dict.leo.org/rude/index_de.html#/search=%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%B8%CC%81%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%B9&searchLoc=0&resultOrder=basic&multiwordShowSingle=on Rennkuckuck (talk) 22:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I happen to be a native Russian speaker.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Russian help, please?[edit]

Could you drop by WP:RDL and give input in the "Russian Text" section, please? It's gotten no comments except by people (including me) who are attempting to answer it with Google Translate or word-by-word with a dictionary. Nyttend (talk) 04:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, translated there.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A cookie for you![edit]

Thanks for the excellent translation at the help desk of some Russian text that mystified both me (a non-Russophone) and Google Translate! Cogito-Ergo-Sum (14) (talk) 00:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I don't know if you can find anything on this in Russian?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will have a look.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Parade of Nations Sochi[edit]

Hi Timor-Leste entered as Democratic Republic of Timor Leste. If possible can you make the changes to the Russian column(s)? Thanks! Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 23:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! But I don't see the changes. Not sure if it went through on your end. Also on the Olympics project talk page we are discussing Azerbaijan's flagbearer. Can you please leave your thoughts on the issue there as well. Thanks. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I made this edit, is this what you asked for? For the Azerbaijani flag bearer I unfortunately can not offer much help, sorry.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Просьба нейтральным посредником (ложный источник)[edit]

Здравствуйте, уважаемый Ярослав! Просьба быть переводчиком и неким мостом. В русской Википедии есть статья о человеке, который хочет получить почётные звания: Алексей Вишня (но админ РУ Википедии не даёт это ему, а писать с официального ящика про такой позор - артист не хочет). Нарушение правила о живущих ныне людях в самой очевидной форме. Используется литература, где осквернение, и Комиссия при президенте РФ никогда не даст звание человеку, который использовал к.изьму для игры на "барабане" (и он никогда не писал эту автобиографию). Ему также надо получить промежуточные звания до Заслуженного артиста. Стаж огромен. Ничего не выходит из-за вандала со статусом админа. Помогите, пожалуйста. Смотрите, что случилось и о чём речь:

Статья про альбом, который записан осквернённым человеком: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/46_(альбом) и фраза, приписанная ему незаконно, которую надо убрать:

"Сессия «Сорока шести» продолжалась два дня. Цой и Каспарян играли на гитарах, Виктор пел, а Вишня, помимо звукорежиссёрских функций отбивал ритм, ударяя клизмой по картонной коробке[3]." (как кто-то может получить звания после такого позорища). Смотрим ложную референцию: http://art.specialradio.ru/index.php?id=258

Вандализм администратора, которому объяснили, что человек не хочет эту ложь: http://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=46_%28%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%BC%29&action=history

Если вандал русский админ придёт сюда и станет петь песню про носки (ложь: он оказывается - чекюзер, который можно придумать что-угодно). Надеемся на Вашу помощь. Спасибо, Ярослав! 2.93.228.2 (talk) 08:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Простите, мне кажется, Вы ошиблись адресом. Я не имею никакого отношения к русской Википедии.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Jorhat City, India to Jorhat[edit]

Hi, can you please move the article Jorhat City, India back to Jorhat? The same user has again moved the article. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 07:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 07:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! :) Shovon (talk) 09:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Short track[edit]

The ISU and the official website of Sochi 2014 list overall placement of the athletes on their result pages. Should we include this as well to the individual event pages? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would say yes, we should follow the sources.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another mis-click[edit]

You seem to have template protected Kareena Kapoor Khan accidentally as well.  :) Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 20:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, thanks for noticing. It is unlikely that template editors would start edit warring, but I replaced it with the full protection anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem, and I'm sure you're right us  Template editor wouldn't have an issue. I just don't want some troll accusing of mis-use or bad faith. I've actually been notifying all admins that do it. — {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 23:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, this was intended as a kind of a joke. Thanks again.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

deletion query[edit]

Hi there, I have recieved an OTRS ticket for a file deleted under F1 (File:The Mob (British punk band).jpg, ticket:2013120410019391). Can you tell me which file it was redundant to?

Thanks, --Mdann52talk to me! 21:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean this file? I somehow do not see whether File:The Mob (British punk band).jpg ever existed.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ymblanter. Thank you for responding to my close request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 7#Talk:Kaliningrad#Proposed merger - Königsberg to Kaliningrad. I looked at your detailed September 2013 closing rationale Talk:Kaliningrad#Proposed merger - Königsberg to Kaliningrad, where you wrote "Numerically, we have 8 supports against 3 opposes". I think you mean that there are "8 opposes and 3 supports". Would you consider revising this statement? Thank you for your work at WP:ANRFC! Best, Cunard (talk) 10:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected, thanks for noticing.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Duck Dynasty[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Duck Dynasty. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Metros[edit]

Hi, there. At the list of Metros, I replaced the dead reference to UITP with a current one. Did same at a few other articles that used that dead ref. Looks like it is going to live. Definition is now quite wide. It is from a formal standard proposal, and those nearly always reflect the lowest common denominator. Should be perfect for WP :) Anyway, it should be safe now to make whatever edits that previously were shot down with multi trip tickets, headway and other made-up criteria.

I also developed a chart (in Talk) for the other editors to show who really defined what how. All seem to get it. Almost.

Pls put your admin hat on and tell me what to do with one particularly troublesome editor. He sucks up all the productive air at the article, he changes his (sometimes very curious) positions by the minute. His career at WP is meteoric. Barely on for 6 weeks, he already initiated one ANI (two weeks after he signed on), took part in a an RFC (after three weeks of wikichildhood), he edited a template after four weeks, attacked various editors, canvassed a few, saying "the Chinese" are trying to get him and his Korean train edits. It took me two years to find out that RFC is not fried chicken. Out of 955 total edits, 757 are in talk. He clearly is a firebrand one topic editor, and for the six weeks he is on, he has amassed quite a volume of halfknowledge in wikigatehouslawyering. With any other person, I would not be surprised if he/she edited, or perhaps still does, under another name.

The advice I am asking from you is this: He seems to p.o. most editors he runs into. He tries a bit brownnosing, which usually fails, then he flies off the handle, while copypasting sanctimonious nonsense in what appears to be preparation for another ANI. Anyway, everybody seems to have found out that the only way is to ignore him. Which doesn't impair his typing. He is very quick to call a "consensus" (his latest favorite: "weighted consensus" - no idea.) I am worried that ignoring him is seen as acquiescing. OTOH, I don't want to give him the attention he craves, only to be drowned in another eruption of incoherent verbiage. I already regret that I came back to the article after a few years of absence. I am also afraid all good editors will run away. Suggestions? I can also be reached by mail.

PS:OMG - 26 talk entries today alone! BsBsBs (talk) 11:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am in an obvious conflict with this editor, and can not really use my admin bit in this situation.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Understand. You personal advice would be appreciated. I usually never go to court to settle arguments anyway, not worth it. BsBsBs (talk) 13:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The best thing here is to wait and not to rush. There are many highly reasonable users who have the page on their watchlist, but not really interested in reading these walls of text which can contain opposite opinions on the scale of five minutes. I am afraid though that your position will not get much support.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
спасибо BsBsBs (talk) 14:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AfD[edit]

Can you please review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Italian geniuses (2nd nomination) for a WP:SNOWBALL closure? BlueSalix (talk) 13:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, since I have closed the first one, I am obviously involved.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RE: February 20134[edit]

Where is the "udnersourced tag". Please read and clarify what you "warn". Tags are there and need consensus dsicussion as i opneed on the talk page. Keep your false thereats to yourself if youre not going to be productive.(Lihaas (talk) 17:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

Сейчас в статье написано "The 2010 Russian Census Bureau data was however, disputed in a recent article of the Jerusalem Post claiming that in 2007 approximately 4,000 Jews remain in the JAO.19". Лично мне кажется не очень удачной формулировка. 1. Статья 2007 года не может опровергать данные 2010 года, т.к. она опубликована раньше. 2. - More than 70 years and four generations later, the Jewish Autonomous Region, with a population nearing 200,000, has barely 4,000 Jews, many intermarried and most lacking even vague memories of the rich Yiddish culture that once permeated the region.. Есть подозрение, что в статье взяты данные конца 1990-х годов какие-нибудь. Если например брать https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9D%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%95%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8 то 200 тысяч было между 1998 и 1999 годом. Исходя из этого предлагаю поменять формулировку. Что скажите? Обращаюсь к вам, потому что вы редактировали в свое время эту статью. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 00:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Исправил, спасибо.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi can you add to this, I cleaned it up and categorized it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will have a look tomorrow morning, should be doable.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it is gone unfortunately.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pikalyovo[edit]

Regarding this, I added "citation needed" because while the source mentions Pikalyovo becoming an urban-type settlement in 1947, there is nothing explicit about the transfer. I'll keep looking for a source, but if you already have anything in mind, could you add it, please?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 28, 2014; 12:48 (UTC)

No, not really, but the handbook is very explicit about which areas were added to Tikhvinsky District between 1932 and 1947, and Pikalyovo is not there. Indeed, I do not have a source saying explicitly that Pikalyovo was transferred to Tikhvinsky District in 1932. It would be great if you can find sources on that.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll keep looking, but in the meanwhile do you mind if the citation needed tag is restored? Or perhaps add a note describing how the fact was deduced based on other facts in the handbook (although, to be frank, that would smell not unlike SYNTH)? Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 28, 2014; 13:34 (UTC)
Yes, we can restore the tag. I am just afraid that it could lead to the removal of this material at some point. I know at least one user whose favorite sport and the only contribution to Wikipedia is to remove everything which is tagged unsourced, and then edit-war with everyone who tries to restore the material. This particular user was permablocked and recently unblocked, but I am sure there are others around.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I know who you are talking about, but even that user, I believe, does not remove uncited material unless it has remained uncited for some while. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 28, 2014; 14:09 (UTC)

Holdek again[edit]

He was unblocked by ArbCom and immediately left some "warning" on my talk page. See User talk:Worm That Turned. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image[edit]

Hello! Could you delete this file, because it locally overwrites this example file from Commons? Thank you, best regards. --Angelus(talk) 04:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The files are not identical, and the local file is heavily used.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:LucaElliot2[edit]

Здравствуйте! Есть ли в Англ. Википедии правило о нецелевом использовании ЛСУ? В критериях быстрого удаления я его на нашёл. Я к чему всё это: если ЛС будет удалена, то файл можно будет вынести на удалении на Коммонс как противоречащий целям и задачам проекта. С уважением, /St1995 15:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Нет, удалить её нельзя, но можно вынести на удаление на коммонз как out of scope--Ymblanter (talk) 16:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Во втором абзаце статьи без указания Аи написано "Ion thrusters' exhaust velocity are often in the range of 15–50 kilometres per second (1,500–5,100 s), and will have a specific thrust usually below a newton per tonne. Thruster efficiency may reach 60–80%.". Есть http://alfven.princeton.edu/papers/sciam2009.pdf. Там написано "Status: Flight operational Input power: 1 to 7 kilowatts Exhaust velocity: 20 to 50 kilometers per second Thrust: 20 to 250 millinewtons Ef!ciency: 60 to 80 percent Uses: Attitude control and orbital station-keeping for existing satellites; main propulsion for current small robotic spacecraft", что я внес 3 абзацем с указанием источника. Что и как верно? Vyacheslav84 (talk) 01:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Совершенно не моя тема.--Ymblanter (talk) 02:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
А вы можете мой вопрос на английский перевести, чтобы на специализированном проекте поняли? Vyacheslav84 (talk) 07:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Нет, я могу перевести только то, что понимаю.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Paul Simshauser[edit]

Hi, I was really surprised to hear about the deletion of Paul Simshauser. He is one of Australia's leading energy economists, and his influence on the energy sector here is significant. I would like to resurrect the article and do some more work on it to comply with WP guidelines. (Although I have been on WP for a few years, this was my first crack at a biographical article and I know I made some significant mistakes in my approach.) Any chance you could put it back into my user sandbox? Thanks!--Graham Proud (talk) 14:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, here it is: User:Gproud/Paul Simshauser--Ymblanter (talk) 15:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline of community?[edit]

"decline of the community since 2007", that got my attention. So, do you believe there had been a decline of the community since 2007, and why do you think that? I think the community around here is awesome, especially the people in mathematics-related pages, but I'd love to hear your views as well. Sofia Koutsouveli (talk) 16:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you are talking about. Could you give some context please?--Ymblanter (talk) 16:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I mean what you write on your user page, User:Ymblanter. I saw a notification on my Special:Notifications screen saying "User:Sofia Koutsouveli was reviewed by Ymblanter" and while checking your userpage trying to understand what that notification means I saw you wrote "The theory that I find most credible as an explanation of the decline of the community since 2007 is the end of the "SoFixIt" culture and its replacement by the templating culture which some consider newbie biting and which has lead to hundreds of thousands of articles disfigured by garish templates calling attention to problems that somebody hopes someone else will understand and fix. By WereSpielChequers, [1]." so I figured out that would be a good way to start a discussion and finally ask you what you meant by this notification you sent to me through Special:Notifications. Sofia Koutsouveli (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. I got a similar question during my RFA nomination, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ymblanter, Q6. It would be a bit lengthy to copy it here, but if after reading it you still want to discuss, I would be happy to do it. Actually, I did not send you anything through the notification page, I just patrolled your user page and your talk page to avoid some markup which I see on my watchlist, but never mind.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closed Clarification request: Toddst1/Holdek[edit]

Clarification request: Toddst1/Holdek has been closed and archived. An archived copy of the of the request can be seen here. For the Arbitration Committee, Rockfang (talk) 07:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

По последней отмене[edit]

Я тут увидел, что вы полностью удалили мой основанный на источнике текст в статье про ЕАО. С чем это связано? Vyacheslav84 (talk) 00:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Во-первых, он не был написан по-английски, во-вторых, часть его (по крйней мере то, что можно было интерпретировать), не соответствовала источнику, а остальное уже было в статье.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Though Yiddish is still an official language of the province, it long ago became the private reserve of a few elderly individuals and academic specialists. - начало 5 абзаца. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 11:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Найдите, пожалуйста, тут или тут упоминания о том, что идиш имее официальный статус в ЕАО. Тогда будет иметь смысл дополнение статьи.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Пока не нашел - видимо Иерусалим Пост нахалтурил (разгильдяи). А по "it long ago became the private reserve of a few elderly individuals and academic specialists" что скажите? Данная инфа с прежней про официальный язык не связана. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 14:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Так там подробно разобрано уже, что евреев мало, и в основном старшего возраста.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ну про именно идиш там не написано и не все евреи им владеют. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 12:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Novaya Ladoga may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Novaya Ladoga was included to [[Saint Petersburg Governorate|St. Petersburg Governorate]]).<ref name="ency">{{cite web|url=http://enclo.lenobl.ru/object/1803553896?lc=ru|title=Новая Ладога,

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

Just wanted to say a quick thanks for picking up my slack in the articles about towns in Leningrad Oblast. I'm inserting all those "citation needed" requests mostly as signposts reminding myself to return to those items (which are too numerous for me to take care of in one fell swoop, since I'm concentrating mainly on honing the adm/mun status section during this pass), but that makes your prompt follow-up cleanups all the more appreciated. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 18, 2014; 20:03 (UTC)

It would be great if you indeed could return later, because some of the facts I can not find back - either websites are down, or my extrapolation was too bold. For the things I can source, I am trying to source them.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I will. Might take a while (you know how it is), but I'll definitely return to those at some point. Thanks again.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 18, 2014; 20:09 (UTC)
As soon as the material is not deleted (which is unlikely given that we both have these pages on our watchlists), I am perfectly fine waiting.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Lewin/Beau Coup[edit]

Hi, I see that you redirected Dennis Lewin's page to Beau Coup. The editor that original nominated Lewin's page to be turned into Beau Coup has not done that yet in order for me to upload link proving his individual notability. I am in the process of gathering things at this time to do so. I would like to respectfully request that you restore Mr. Lewin's page until the talk is over and all efforts to save it in his name are exhausted. Beau Coup would have never even hit the chart without Dennis Lewin as he wrote and produced 98% of their music. Lewin's has had a lifetime of successes in the music industry and has a radio program that has been on the airwaves since 1998. I do appreciate you giving me the chance to finish my efforts. Thanks you in advance for your help Mmcard59 (talk) 20:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Today, I closed the request for deletion, which had consensus. You are welcome to contest it at the the deletion review.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Superzohar[edit]

Ярослав, у меня такое впечатление, что User:Superzohar просто вываливает сюда содержимое гугл-переводчика. Для примера приведу статью Tver Uprising of 1327. Есть ли способы его приструнить? --Ghirla-трёп- 17:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Я уже однажды выносил на ANI. Обычно он реагирует на конкретные замечания (то есть, например, если убрать гуглоперевод, не возражает, но как это сделать в общем (чтобы он больше вообще не вставлял гуглоперевод), я не знаю.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Оставил ему сообщение, но по опыту предыдущего общения чувствую, что это бесполезно :( Так и будет вредить по-тихой. --Ghirla-трёп- 18:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ярослав, а что сейчас делают с такими страницами, как Moscow Theological Academy? Предусмотрен какой-то шаблон с пометкой, что это непостижимая абракадабра? Перспектива удаления невнятицы? --Ghirla-трёп- 07:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Я добавил сюда и поставил шаблоны в статье. Удалить, боюсь, малореально. Можно вынести на AfD и посмотеть, не найдётся ли кто заинтересованный, но вероятность маленькая, а карму испортить легко. Быстрее самому переписать. --Ymblanter (talk) 11:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ну хоть что-то. Быстрее переписать всё это? Ну уж нет. Там все статьи такие. --Ghirla-трёп- 16:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Ukraine[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ukraine. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no!!!--Ymblanter (talk) 19:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes; you can't refuse now. You've been randomly selected! :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 21, 2014; 19:13 (UTC)
Sure, but they are better off without me. I hope a sufficient number of users have been selected randomly.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Precious again[edit]

Babel
Thank you for quality articles on "topics pertaining to Russia, mostly human and physical geography and biographies", for using your skill in languages to promote understanding between speakers and Wikipedias of different languages, for helping spontaneously without hoping someone else will do it, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were the 433rd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, much appreciated.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review needed[edit]

Hello. May I ask you to review my edits during the last 26h? Do you see something obviously wrong? Of course, you may answer directly to my talk page. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any particular problem (except for usual harsh edit summaries). I did not quite understand the story with moving and redirected the page, and I would myself in this case probably start with contacting the closing administrator, but I do not see any red tape here.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be interested in taking part in a project on bandy?[edit]

Hi. I thought you might be interested in this suggested project: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Bandy. Bandy boy (talk) 23:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chernetsov[edit]

Awaiting the arrival of Lukh! By the way, it appears that the image on the Russian version of this article is actually Nikanor, not Grigory. Can you mention that to them, in Russian? WQUlrich (talk) 22:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, no, I do not edit the Russian Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 23:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. I would do it, but I don't trust Google Translate that much. WQUlrich (talk) 00:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can translate for you if you write what needs to be translated.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:38, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I should probably leave it be. I'm already getting into trouble on German Wikipedia. Are you planning to do an article on Nikanor? If so, I'll take him off my to-do list. WQUlrich (talk) 17:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Eventually, yes but this is not my first priority. Certainly not tomorrow.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ymblanter and @Spartaz:
I moved Delhi Legislative Assembly election, 2014 to President's rule of Delhi, 2014 mid-way through this AfD discussion.
The outcome of the AfD was delete, and I've got no problem with that. Speculation about a "Delhi Legislative Assembly election, 2014" is speculation, pure and simple.
As mentioned in the AfD discussion, I do think that President's rule of Delhi, 2014 is worth keeping. It's very significant in the context of current Indian politics. You can see the references I added - please have a look and see what you think about the deleted article as it would be under the new title.

Moreover, reliable sources have quoted some of the politicians involved suggesting that it may result in a Constitutional crisis:

I'm not going to re-create the deleted page under my preferred article name, because that would not be the right thing to do.
So: "If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the deleting administrator using the information provided below." - which is what I am doing now.
I'm happy to go through the WP:REFUND process, if that is what you think that is needed.
Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My deletion was technical, I just found an article with an AfD template which was pointing out to the closed discussion. If somehow the template was there in error, or there are some other reasons why the articles should not have been deleted, I will gladly restore it. Do you mean it was a new article?--Ymblanter (talk) 12:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of tram and light rail transit systems Request[edit]

Hi, Ymblanter! I'd appreciate it if you could take a look at the Edit History of the List of tram and light rail transit systems when you get a chance - I'd appreciate a third opinion. Basically, one of the IP users that was causing disruptions at the List of metro systems has moved on to the List of tram and light rail transit systems, and has magically declared all of his own views the "consensus" views for the page, despite no evidence for this (aside from his own posts) at the Talk page. Thanks in advance. --IJBall (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will have a look later today.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. It's appreciated. --IJBall (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request: Hi, again, Ymblanter! You've originally projected this page for 3 weeks, until April 19 - would you consider shortening that to two weeks, and ending this page's projection on April 12 instead? The IP user seems to have quieted down over the last few days, so I think we're OK to open it up (or maybe to switch to semi-protection)... TIA! --IJBall (talk) 23:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I can do it. I can even open it now if you think it is appropriate.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think this Saturday's fine to let the protection go - 2 weeks is a good 'cooling off' period...  :) --IJBall (talk) 13:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OTOH, I suspect we're going to continue to have problems with this particular (disruptive) IP user (diff), but I guess dealing with him is above my pay-grade... --IJBall (talk) 18:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I now replaced the protection with the three-day term. I am not sure I will have time to look at the List_of_countries_without_armed_forces as I am now travelling.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I ask you to interfere only with an attempt to delete the page Political status of Crimea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) entirely. Given a competing political status of Crimea and Sevastopol article, it is rather probable that some rascal will eventually put some shit like {{db-move}} to “my” article, and when an incompetent sysopped boy/girl pushed their [delete], an evidence that Ahnoneemoos (talk · contribs) used my content as allegedly their own (when hijacked my proposal) will vanish. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Right now, it is a redirect, and I am afraid I just can not delete it without any discussion. (I guess it was not a redirect when you wrote the message). Political status of Crimea and Sevastopol may be not the last name of the article, since it was moved earlier today without consensus, and I already complained at the talk page. But if you know what you want to achieve may be it could be done without deletions?--Ymblanter (talk) 18:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Some fault with my English? Прошу Вас вмешаться в случае попытки удаления страницы, it is clearer? You can see yourself what happened with the page. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:04, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I can not go and arbitrarily delete a page, especially if the page is protected. But if your only worry is about your contributions, I can merge the histories of the page and of the redirect. Would it be an acceptable solution?--Ymblanter (talk) 09:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I worry about preserving the actual history of the incident. You know that, although I sometimes experience communication problems, I almost never sustain a conflict that arose from a negligible pretext, and hence I want this non-negligible pretext to be visible permanently. After a stabilisation of the nomenclature of article (i.e. when it became apparent that nobody will pull the article back to the former title) yes, it would be an acceptable solution. By the way, such merger is already requested, although I deem it’s premature. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Let us see than what happens, and if it gets overwritten, I can always easily merge the histories.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You really need to be more careful when accusing someone of being a hijacker. There is something called {{copied}} which will and can be used at the talk page. But you somehow preferred to come here to accuse me of being a hijacker. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 19:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is also something called WP:HISTMERGE which will retain your contributions. Once again, be really really careful when you accuse people of stuff. We are all here to build a Wikipedia and you must always WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 19:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kopa lake[edit]

Please tell me what [[3]] is about, and perhaps where it would be a good reference for Kopa lake.--DThomsen8 (talk) 00:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is unfortunately linked to an unreliable source. Once I have time, I will look for sources for the lake.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If this is an unreliable source, maybe I should delete it entirely. --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hahc21 relisted this AfD roughly two hours ago, and you just closed it. Was this intentional? ansh666 07:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, certainly not. I was working on the AfD list for 24 March, and relisted items should not be there. Let us see what @Hahc21: says. I am certainly fine reverting my closure and let it stay at the AfD one more week, if someone disagrees with no consensus closure.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nah it's okay. I think it was a script failure that it was not removed from the 24 March log. → Call me Hahc21 14:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, let us keep it like that then.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ymblanter. Would you be interested to adjudicate or arbitrate on whether dependencies should be listed as countries along with sovereign states, based on the materials, sources and arguments presented? Thanks. 116.48.155.127 (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I already protected the article. If no solution could be found at the talk page, consider filing a WP:DRN request.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion. But from what I read, it's more a policy or convention matter than a dispute. 116.48.155.127 (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest churches[edit]

See my comments at Talk:Saint Mark's Coptic Orthodox Cathedral (Alexandria). We need to fix this article first. The only source I can find so far is [4]. Dougweller (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, 60AD seems to be out of the question.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The user is doing the exact same thing you have them a 1 month block for. Werieth (talk) 12:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, blocked for three months--Ymblanter (talk) 13:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Karelian National Okrug may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • ] (selo of [[Kozlovo, Kozlovskoye Rural Settlement, Spirovsky District, Tver Oblast|Kozlovo]]). )n February 7, 1939 the okrug was abolished, and the districts were subordinated to Kalinin Oblast.<

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Total expansion[edit]

Yaroslav, do you think such edits are helpful? Is there a way to stop the guy (or is it a bot?) from tagging hundreds of articles? --Ghirla-трёп- 12:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I personally think they are not helpful. Everybody can check interwiki links and see what can be reasonably added. I guess wherever this template comes on top of an article which is reasonably long (say start or C-class) it can be just reverted with a helpful comment. For short articles removal is more problematic, since many people believe the templates to be helpful.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Как заметили на ANI, я не досмотрел, что этот парень не ставит новых плашек. Ярослав, у меня есть не связанный вопрос. Нет ли в англ. разделе способа подцветить ссылки на дизамбиги так, как это реализовано в рувики? Облазил preferences и ничего не нашёл. --Ghirla-трёп- 14:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in the preferences, but you can add the following code to your common.js:
importScript('User:Anomie/linkclassifier.js');
It will highlight not only disambigs, but also set indices, redirects, self-redirects, broken redirects, stubs, and links to articles which have been AfD'd or proded. And if you don't like the colors, you can override them in your common.css file (here's mine if you want to use it as an example). Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 7, 2014; 15:16 (UTC)
Да, я использую этот скрипт или похожий, сейчас уже не помню. Yes, I am using this or a similar script, I do not remember now.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It does not work for me. (I've got the monobook skin switched on). --Ghirla-трёп- 20:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm using Monobook as well. Try logging out and then back in; I think something needs to be purged for this to work, and logging out is the easiest way to do it.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 7, 2014; 20:16 (UTC)

Andrea Beaman[edit]

I understand what you meant to do by reverting that to a redirect, but currently it's a userspace draft; I've given the user specific instructions on how to improve it, and a warning that if it's not fixed substantially it will be deleted again. Give her a chance to improve, okay? DS (talk) 18:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is fine, and I was about to revert my own edits, while you have already done it. Just three remarks 1) The redirect should be there according to the AfD outcome (now I created it); 2) You should have asked me before reverting, which you failed to do - I would most certainly agree and possibly userfy the article myself; 3) Your usage of rollback was inappropriate. My edits most certainly are not vandalism, and in any case you should have left me a notice after the first revert.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The rollback was a misclick; if I hadn't intended to restore the page in the first place, I would have undone it, but I figured there would be no point in re-blanking the page just so that I could re-un-blank it with a correct rationale. There's respect for process, and then there's processolatry; I figured that I at least owed you an explanation. If I caused any hurt feelings, I apologize; I've been on IRC helping too many people simultaneously. DS (talk) 18:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good, I think we figured out what actually happened. No problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Subsection blanking at Russia page from annexation.[edit]

Hi Ymblanter: During the last two or three days I had noticed a subsection blanking at the Russia page for the annexation. After the section blanking, there was a full rewrite added by another user and a substantial change of NPOV compared to the text before the section blanking. No new information was added, yet the NPOV was substantially altered. The diff for the before and after of the section blanking is below. I tried to return the wording into neutral form. User:Irin seems to disagree about preserving neutrality. Could you look at this?

(cur | prev) 20:09, 10 April 2014‎ Philp... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (199,367 bytes) (-4,356)‎ . . (Boldly editing to give more appropriate weight to recent events)

FelixRosch (talk) 14:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that as a Russian I better do not mix into this dispute. I am not sure whatever I do my decisions would be accepted.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:57, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My question was only if Neutrality was an issue. If you see no neutrality issue here, then i understand. FelixRosch (talk) 15:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you or User:Ezhiki find anything on this?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, this one I know very well, still own an apartment there.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cool! Can you think what the Palace of Pioneers might be? I'd imagine there's plenty of other notable places on the avenue worth mentioning.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I obviously know the Palace of Pioneers, it is in the area but not exactly at the avenue. There are other interesting things around however.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted article[edit]

Hello, I haven't been able to log into wikipedia for a while and I see that my article has been marked with the result to delete by you. I also haven't been able to participate in the discussions taking place under "Articles for deletion/Open-E DSS V7". But I was able to find more notable sources and references for the deleted article. Since I've never had this problem, how can I add more sources to the deleted article and have it undeleted? Or will I have to create the article over again. Thank you for your time and help! --Write2day (talk) 15:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can restore the article in your user namespace.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds great. But what should I do now? I haven't used my user namespace and not sure where exactly is this located and how to make the article visible again on Wikipedia, so I can add more sources. I appreciate your help and thank you for taking the time to help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Write2day (talkcontribs) 14:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article is now available here: User:Write2day/Open-E DSS V7. You may add sources and improve it in any other way. After you have considerably improved it, you can move it to the main namespace, but be prepared that it will be nominated for deletetion, and may be again deleted after the deletion discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I improved the article and added new sources. Yet I can't find how to move the article from my user namespace to the main namespace. Sorry to bother you but I would really appreciate your help with moving the article to the main namespace. Thank You! --Write2day (talk) 13:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved it at your request but I did not evaluate the notability, so do not be surprised if it gets deleted or renominated for deletion.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I appreciate it and thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Write2day (talkcontribs) 14:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I've opened a section=[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ribbon_of_Saint_George

Greetings — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrant (talkcontribs) 18:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Переименование[edit]

Здавствуйте. Тут какой-то умник скопипастил Gavriil Ter-Mikelov на Gabriel Ter-Mikelov. Прошу перенести историю. --A.Savin (talk) 20:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Пока всё откатил. Если все согласны, перенесу.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Stoning[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Stoning. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request[edit]

Would you be willing to WP:SALT Odessa People's Republic? Per [5] it seems one user was looking for a way around the AfD results. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strange, I was sure I already did. Anyway, salted it now.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page was created at a different title, it seems. Should qualify for speedy deletion. Thanks, RGloucester 14:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 15:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion[edit]

You deleted this in 6 hours when discussion are supposed to be for 7 days. The source cited for speedy was clearly a HYPER-particsan source.

Im not blaming you, but id request you to reopen it (with tag on the page) to get mose opinions.

Although based on the above you deleted it on personal request of a partisan editor? (in terms of the personal request that made you, thus, incvolved,) Im imploring you to reconsider that and let the AFD run its natural course of 7 days.Lihaas (talk) 17:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is a clear CSD material, but you are welcome to take it for the deletion review.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Btw I never got any personal request before today, and I do not believe I am involved in any way.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How is it clear CSD when the above tasked you to it and was closed based on the source that is clearly partiasan ? see the source.Lihaas (talk) 18:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what you are talking about.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ccan you let the discussion run for the 7 days as required.? A few hours is certainly unafair to get others to discussitLihaas (talk) 14:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have WP:SNOW closed it because the article was obviously about a non-notable subject (thus amenable to speedy deletion), and in addition this was also an opinion of everybody who participated in the discussion. If you disagree I believe WP:DRV is the best option to proceed.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image descriptions (and sourcing)[edit]

Any chance given you seem to know your stuff, of helping clear this particular backlog?

[6=1&templates_no=Information%0D%0Avector+version+available%0D%0AGoogle+Art+Project%0D%0AImage+information+art&sortby=uploaddate&ext_image_data=1&file_usage_data=1&doit=1]

To clear this backlog: Add an {{information}} block to each image and attempt to add meaningful and appropriate data for each of it's fields. This will help identify images where the sourcing could be expanded upon, or where better descriptions could be added to aid their use once transferred to Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will not be too quick, but I will help as much as I can.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-Protecting List of metro system[edit]

Hello! It may be necessary to semi-protect the List of metro systems (again). One IP user has been effectively engaging in an edit war on the Istanbul Metro entry, despite me leaving detailed messages in the revision history as to why this edit is incorrect, and despite me leaving multiple warnings on this IP user's Talk page. Indeed, once, this user just deleted the entire Istanbul Metro entry from the list in retaliation (e.g. diff), as you yourself may remember! In addition, this IP user has never bothered to make a case on the List of metro system's Talk page. So semi-protection may be in order. Thanks! --IJBall (talk) 13:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will have a look but possibly later today, too much work for now.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update: IP 94.55.39.189 has reverted for a third time in 24 hours, so I've passed this along to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, so depending on how they rule, you may not have to to anything... But if they decline to take action, I think semi-protection for the List of metro systems is in order, as this IP user has ignored multiple messages on the IP's Talk page to take this to the List of metro systems' Talk page to discuss... --IJBall (talk) 20:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it has been resolved for the time being.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Page "Chanelle Peloso"[edit]

Hi Ymblanter,

I would like to create a Wikipedia page for the actress "Chanelle Peloso" but it says the following:

  • 18:03, 15 July 2013 Ymblanter (talk | contribs) deleted page Chanelle Peloso (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion)
  • 06:56, 7 June 2013 Ymblanter (talk | contribs) deleted page Chanelle Peloso (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chanelle Peloso)

I was not the person who created the original Wikipedia page for Chanelle Peloso but I would like to go about creating a new one. How can I go about creating a new page for Chanelle Peloso without it going against anything or getting it deleted again?

Thank you, RecklessRooster 01:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

The article was deleted because it failed our notability criteria. If the new article you want to create satisfies the criteria, and if notability has been demonstrated by reliable sources please go ahead and create the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adrianne Wadewitz AFD close[edit]

Thank you for your detailed and thoughtful AFD rationale close of the deletion discussion for the article Adrianne Wadewitz at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrianne Wadewitz.

It's well-written and comprehensive.

Cirt (talk) 09:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It was challenging, but I feel I did my best.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:30, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I feel you did. - I didn't want to blow up the discussion further, or might have said that if Wikipedia has room for toilet paper orientation and Ethics of Dissensus (also a rather young academic career) it should have room for this. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:38, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well done on a good close. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto! I applaud admins willing to take on closing these difficult cases. Liz Read! Talk! 15:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm here to echo the sentiments above. Not because the discussion was closed as a keep (although I'm grateful for that), but because of your balanced process and thoughtful comments. Thank you. JSFarman (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your rationale makes perfect sense up until the end. Quoting your close: "From what I see, there is no consensus on this issue, and this is why a no consensus closure would be appropriate. However, given a clear numerical proportion for votes, I close the nomination as keep." While I definitely don't see a delete consensus, the AFD instructions pretty clearly say consensus should not be based on the tally of votes. Your "keep" conclusion is mystifying. Townlake (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus means one can re-nominate with the same rationale. Keep means one needs to come up with a different rationale. This is the difference. I made an exception that despite the keep close one can specifically renominate indication there is consensus the a NYT obituary means nothing.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your last sentence is grammatically nonsensical, and you still haven't explained why you didn't close as no consensus -- which I believe would have been in keeping with established community consensus about how the AFD process should work. Of course, I can't make you explain, and it's not life or death. Townlake (talk) 17:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, because outcomes as keep or no consensus would be too simple in this case. My decision is conditional keep. This is also my reading of consensus of that discussion. You are welcome to take it to WP:DRV if you do not like it.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, thought this was a well-written and thoughtful close. Thanks. --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 21:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all of you for kind words.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I !voted in the opposite camp and I thought your rationale was the most thoughtful AfD close I've seen. Chris Troutman (talk) 10:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

Gerald Shields leading the masses to improve Wikimedia one cosmetically fashionable photograph at a time. North Korean Fashion Watch Barnstar
Gerald Shields, founder of the North Korean Fashion Watch, awards you the North Korean Fashion Watch Barnstar for your continuing efforts to add reliable and poignant discussions about North Korean topics, such as Ri Sol-ju. Geraldshields11 (talk) 15:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, though I do not seem to have made any edits in this article.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you![edit]

Thanks for removing the AFD template off of the radio article - You've just reminded me to move the other 2 tags lol :)

Thanks,
Regards, →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 21:10, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:31, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Involving your actions has been filed[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I have reported you to ANI do to abuse of Admin powers in the RT (TV network) article. 79.179.32.234 (talk) 09:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I missed the discussion before it ended. Except for being hasty, your actions weren't wrong. Just hang on. - Sidelight12 Talk 04:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uncivil remarks[edit]

Please, explain this your remark Cathry (talk) 14:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You know perfectly what I am talking about. If you also want my advice: I am around for about seven years, and I have seen many users with the same edit pattern as you (very little contribution to the articles, all of them strong POV, a lot of contributions not to the point etc). All of them very quickly have been banned. You already have warnings on your talk page. Unless you really think about it and change your edit pattern, the ban would be immanent.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
" You know perfectly " no, it seems to me you can not read mind. And i ask your to give links with "strong POV" and "destructive" Cathry (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather wait until someone takes you to ANI.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have btw enough links at your talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no one link to my edit there, only accusation and other remarks. Cathry (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is up to you to listen to me or not to listen to me. I just predict that if you do not change your ways you will be blocked, and pretty soon, likely not by me.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I took you to ANI Cathry (talk) 15:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I can see the page was protected to be edited by administrators only, but the intention was to only allow registered users to edit (since an unregistered user was edit warring with incorrect information). The user also refused to talk on the Talk page.

Also, the state before the edit war was this revision: [6].

Thanks for everything. Kentronhayastan (talk) 15:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how the information is incorrect. Hopefully, after the page is protected, and IP's edits reverted, they will go to the talk page and at least explain what they are doing.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The IPs belong to the same person. The information is incorrect in this way: The Roman Empire began in 27BC. This user did the equivalent of extending it to 509BC (which is the beginning of the predecessor Roman Republic). The Armenian Kingdom began in 321BC. The dates mentioned here were those of the predecessor (Satrapy of Armenia). The IP's edits were not reversed (only the IP's last edit, which was not the revert that caused the edit war). Also, the current state of the article is not the original state, and the one who imposed the incorrect changes refused to discuss it on the Talk page. Aslo, the request to protect the page was "semi-protected" to prevent IPs from making edits. I don't know what a full-protection was applied. Thank you. Kentronhayastan (talk) 20:22, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The full protection was applied because in a content dispute, you and IP are on equal footing. If I applied semi-protection, you could edit, and they could not.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, however, the commit that was kept was the one with the incorrect information (even within the article, it's constantly mentioned that the kingdom began in 321BC and never mentions Van as a capital, yet in the info box, we have 553BC and Van -- it makes the article inaccurate and inconsistent). I don't mind the full-protection, even though my request was to put the same protection as on the Template:History of Armenia, but the content should at least be returned to the original content that has been discussed, accepted and remained unchanged since 2011, which this IP changed, edit warred for, and refused to discuss on the Talk page (the IP's edits were not reverted (as you mentioned in your first reply), except for the IP's last which was a minor edit). Kentronhayastan (talk) 00:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted to the version of 6 April. I can also revert to the version of 6 February, but the difference between them looks legitimate to me. I do not feel comfortable returning to 2013 versions or earlier since there have been good-faith edits in between. For amending the article beyond simple reverting I think the best way is to file the edit protected request.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There have been a few good faith edits in between, I agree, about 8 edits in 4 months by 3 registered users and a few IPs who may not have noticed it, but it doesn't change the fact that the information is false and inconsistent with the rest of the article. Your desire to be neutral is completely understandable and respectable, but I believe I have made sufficient effort to prove my point; see the bottom two sections of the Talk page of the article (I have stated sources, including Encyclopaedia Britannica). I have also begun a discussion with User:Ninetoyadome (see his talk page, and then look at mine where he replied). The IP has ignored all talks, yet his/her edit remains in place. Thank you for your time. Kentronhayastan (talk) 23:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with User:Kentronhayastan regarding the edits. The user has been involved in numerous edit warring, IP address hopping, these past couple of days causing Armenian related articles to be protected. You can look at the articles Armenians and Armenian Language to see the IP user's edit warring. As for the good faith edits, they can be made again after the article has been reverted to an earlier version if need be. Ninetoyadome (talk) 00:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping for the same kind of protection on this article as well. Kentronhayastan (talk) 00:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, I do not feel comfortable reverting good-faith edits. This is not what Wikipedia is for. Please file the formal protected edit request or wait four days until the protection expires.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What happens when we wait the four days, and the IP restarts the edit war? Can we have a semi-protection, at least? (I did submit a formal request, and sources were requested, which I provided - see the talk page - and it was ignored). Kentronhayastan (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, if the IP restarts the edit war without discussing anything, temporary semi-protection can be applied.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The IP is back, and is now referring to my edit as "vandalism" and reverted it back to the "stable version left by admin." No discussion whatsoever. My references were completely ignored. Kentronhayastan (talk) 23:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now I semi-protected for three weeks.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your patience, it's appreciated. Kentronhayastan (talk) 16:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"a potential to make it to the media"[edit]

Yes, yes, but which media? That was my point. Though I bet Jimbo will be moved to comment; it has already reached his talkpage. Bishonen | talk 12:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Smth like The Sun? But if it was fed back to WMF via Jimbo, we should be fine.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
More like the, uh, parapsychology blogosphere. Mind you, I regret he was blocked. If I had been a faster typist, and got in first on his page with my warning, he might not have been blocked at that point. (Though indeed would likely enough have been blocked by now in any case.) Bishonen | talk 13:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
It looks like he needs to cool down. Parapsychology blogosphere is not really, hm, high-impact medium.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Унгерн[edit]

Добрый день. Может быть, Вам будет интересно. OneLittleMouse (talk) 05:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Да, спасибо. К сожалению, сетевых сумасшедших много, а я один.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Извините, может быть, есть смысл соответствующую статью на полузащиту? OneLittleMouse (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 03:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Could you please take another look at this edit, since it seems to have removed the table's "UK" column? (I'm afraid I'm not very good at these syntax-checking things.) Thanks. It Is Me Here t / c 11:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All repaired, sorry for that. The sanctions were extended yestarday by EU and Canada, and these extensions still need to be added to the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the list of individuals sanctioned during the unrest and related themes[edit]

Hi Ymblanter; Recently I looked at the respective subsections on Ukraine and the Russia Pages on Wikipedia dealing with Crimea, etc and found that they were beautifully written and edited as if they had a bow tied around them for their parliamentary presentation of the material which was included. Then I found this collection of NY TIMES headlines from the last two months collected by the NY Times as their quick summary of events in the region over the last two months, and the two look like they have almost nothing in common (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/02/27/world/europe/ukraine-divisions-crimea.html?_r=0). Is it possible that the NPOV of Wikipedia and the NYTimes can be so different from one another. Wikipedia editors have made a pretty version of the events with a bow tied on it, while the NYTimes and London Times for 3 months is describing armed violence and civil unrest. Is this an NPOV conflict between the NYTIMES and Wikipedia, or is Wikipedia creating a simplified, "parliamentary" version of tensions in the eastern Ukraine to avoid edit warring? I am only writing if this is a Wikipedia NPOV issue, if not just let me know. FelixRosch (talk) 16:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I try to be involved in these issues as little as possible, since some users consider me biased because of my Russian origin. The lists of sanctioned individuals is a given fact though and should be the same in all sources.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment, though it occurs to me that it must be difficult sometimes for you to keep from wanting to edit such related pages. Separately, I find in a recent unrelated book on Architecture (2014) dealing with the well-known architect Vincenzo Scamozzi written by an architectural historian Giovanni Gleria; "WIKIPEDIA also provides much information and pictures on Scamozzi and his works, some also under specific titles. But the information and notes shown, although summary, are often imprecise and at time even incorrect so should always be checked. The general evaluations of Scammozzi and his work are rather of no importance whatsoever." [Published in Italy by Dove Osano Le Parole, Vicenza, Italy, ISBN 978-88-95685-07-6]. Upon seeing this, it was surprising to see it in a new 2014 book which is being purchased by college libraries around the country at this time. Is there anyway to get one of the Wikiprojects, maybe in Art and Architecture, to look at this page with a serious eye. I did some repair edits to at least deal with some major issues, but more seems needed. Can you think of anyway to get help to this question. FelixRosch (talk) 16:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think indeed the Wikiproject is one way, and approaching users personally could be another way, though I do not know anybody writing about Italian architecture.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

pending changes on Somalia[edit]

Just for your info: I agree pending changes might be a good solution for Somalia, but the timing was a bit suboptimal: the IP that added a NPOV heading made a defendable case (I think he exaggerated, but he had a point at his points of criticism), apparently in good faith and the action might be seen as being caused by his actions... L.tak (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But this is fine, the case still can be discussed at the talk page, and the IP can edit the page (even though the changes only become visible after acceptation).--Ymblanter (talk) 21:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was just adding an apology to the bot, I couldn't get the template to work..! Bishonen | talk 07:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

You are welcome, thanks for looking at the request.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request to unblock Dinosaur Train[edit]

Hello, my name is CharlieBrown25 (talk) 01:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC). I would like to request that you unblock the article, Dinosaur train. I am the one who started the edit warring, and I have recently defered to the other disputors opinions. Seeing as we all agree, there will be no more edit warring. We need you to drop this block, because none of us are administrators, and we've all agreed to change the article to a real-world perspecitve, but we cannot do this with the block in place. Sincerely - CharlieBrown25 (talk) 01:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a party to the underlying dispute, I endorse CharlieBrown's request to unprotect the article Dinosaur Train. (If you don't remember, you originally protected the article due to a content dispute/edit war.) The dispute has since been resolved. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, good to know that you agreed on how to proceed.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Mz7 (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request to re-activate Vistra Group[edit]

Will you take a look on the below 3rd party sources. Please check and advise if they are notable or not.

BennyOIL (talk) 12:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not in a position to re-evaluate the notbility of the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Would you please comment if the above references are good enough for the page? Or should I republish the page first before you can provide comment? BennyOIL (talk) 2:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The first three are dead, the fourth one is not reliable, the fifth one does not seem to mention the company. I do not see a single chance for the article to survive.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've updated the first three links and please help to comment if they are relevant. BennyOIL (talk) 6:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:2013–14 protests in Turkey. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AfD dispute[edit]

I'm surprised to have returned here less than 20 days after my last visit. I don't understand your "no consensus" close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socialist Party (Italy, 2007–08). I nominated that article with a clear rationale and none of the keep !votes refuted that argument. WP:POLOUTCOMES and WP:CNN seem to indicate that the nominated article should have been deleted. Chris Troutman (talk) 08:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to take it to WP:DRV. As it looks now, you are the only user who argued for deletion in the end.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There was another editor but they didn't mark their !vote clearly. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Socialist Party (Italy, 2007–08). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Zbydniewski[edit]

Hi Ymblanter! Thank you for making Brian Zbydniewski page semi protected per previous requests. The protection however was added to the page after DMC511 added unsourced information and speculation. If you would please undo user DMC511 unsourced information then add the protection it would be greatly appreciated. Many media officials are getting confused with the pronunciation of his name as it Zeb-ah-new-ski. I have sourced the correct information but DM511 keeps undoing or changing the cited correct information. Thank you for your continued attention to this matter.

You need to resolve this at the talk page of the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prime Minister of India - Narendra Modi.[edit]

Hi Ymblanter, Please remove the Edit Protection of Wikipedia Article Prime Minister of India. Now Indian Prime Minister is Honorable Narendra Modi who took oath of Prime minister at 26 May 2014 6PM. Please update the same .. Sources: [1] [2][3][4]

I am traveling now and try to use admin tools as little as possible (iPad and slow internet). I am sure someone else responds, there are many administrators working on a regular basis on WP:RFPP.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prime Minister of India[edit]

Kindly remove the lock on Prime Minister of India page as the data needs to be updated.--Mohit Singh (talk) 13:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of page Mark Fisher (Businessman)[edit]

I disagree that the page of Mark Fisher a man running for Governor of Massachusetts in 2014 deserves to have his page deleted. Those people were wrong to have the page deleted at all. I think it should be brought back since mostly all Massachusetts Governor Candidates have articles on Wikipedia. This man is receiving attention from the media too. I want to bring the page back so let me know first. Kegejoeco (aka Plyjacks) (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to take the issue to WP:DRV--Ymblanter (talk) 01:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment[edit]

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ministubs[edit]

Ярослав, не знаете, как можно остановить вакханалию недостабов? Неужели такие "статьи" имеют право на существование? --Ghirla-трёп- 11:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They all qualify under WP:BLPPROD. IMDB is not an acceptable source.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 30, 2014; 12:03 (UTC)
Left them a message, it looks like I am the first living (not a bot) user editing his page in four years.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vadnalism[edit]

Если Вы не знаете правила транскрипции, это не значит, что мои действия, в частности переименования - вандализм. Английская i это русская и, но никак не й, которой в английском соотвествует либо j, либо y. Последняя ближе к пнглийскому произношению и поэтому в статьях должна употребляться она.--ArshavaDm (talk) 10:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To start with, you could have asked yourself a question: If these articles were called Krai and not Kray for 10 years, were clearly edited by people aware of the Russian transliteration, and were not renamed, there should be a reason for this. The reason is that in the cases when the name is known in English independently, it has a priority over the transliteration. The most common example is Moscow (which, according to the transliteration, would be Moskva).--Ymblanter (talk) 13:25, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, There has been a lot of edit warring going on this page. In the process the logo has been removed. I would request you to re-add the logo File:Aadhaar Logo.svg to the page otherwise it will get deleted since it non-free and is currently an orphan. --Jovian Eye storm 15:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, sorry for the mess.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your time! --Jovian Eye storm 17:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion[edit]

Could you please weigh in here. Thanks,  LeoFrank  Talk 16:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was the administrator who protected the page.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there thanks at least for the two week protection. The intention for indefinte semi-protection is that at least only confirmed usre can change the article. So IP hopping would be useless. --Catflap08 (talk) 08:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but there are IPs contributing constructively, and the intensity is very low now. I do not see how the indefinite protection can be justified. Low continuous disruptive activity from IP is a good case for pending changes.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well the article's history shows what the problem was and is. Indefinite semi-protection does not block IP edits they just have to be checked before they make it into the article proper. In some articles one is quite preoccupied in cleaning after what some leave behind instead of using the time to constructively work on the content. Other Wikipedias run solely on that principle so that not just any nonsense makes it into an article.--Catflap08 (talk) 09:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection does block IP edits. Pending changes do not.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well pending changes would then be a good tool as its always the same stuff that some people try to insert into the article.Is the process the same as for semi-protection?--Catflap08 (talk) 11:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

По переименованию[edit]

Добрый день! Не подскажите, где здесь аналог ВП:КПМ? Просто я недавно переименовал одну статью по Аи, но хотя возражений не поступало я не вполне уверен в своей правоте и хотел бы вынести этот вопрос на обсуждение (чтобы итог подвел кто-то другой). Vyacheslav84 (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Для такого нет ничего (ждите, не возмутится ли кто), а вообще для переименования вешаете шаблон на странице обсуждения и объясняете, что и зачем хотите переименовать. Посмотрите, например, как я недавно сделал на странице Gurzuf. (An explanation how to move pages).--Ymblanter (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ну сейчас при отсутствии возмущения мне стоит задним числом открывать обсуждение переименования на СО статьи или в данной ситуации уже нет смысла? Vyacheslav84 (talk) 15:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Нет смысла.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator protection Princess Charlene of Monaco article[edit]

Hello Ymblanter, Would it be possible to extend the period of administrator-only protection for the article of Princess Charlene of Monaco as I am not sure if a compromise will be made soon regarding a conflict about a quote? Thanks.--Blitztall (talk) 11:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If edit-warring continues, I or another administrator will resume the protection. I have the page currently on my watchlist.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Your help is much appreciated.--Blitztall (talk) 12:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What a wonderful strategy. Completely ignore my arguments and ask that protection be retained longer! Perhaps even indefinitely? I have listed 10 examples of recently pregnant princesses whose articles did not contain flowery, Victorian language. All Blitzall had to say was that the examples were somehow not relevant. He never bothered to say what makes them irrelevant. He keeps calling this clearly established precedent my "own personal subjective opinion", as if I wrote all those articles myself! Now he says that he will not discuss it further. He hasn't given a single argument or a response to any of mine. I understand that he is a new user and might not understand that the tone of Wikipedia should be encyclopaedic, but he is clearly unable to argue in favour of retention of that pointless sentence. Ymblanter, please, lift the protection and restore my edits. Surtsicna (talk) 09:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strange moves of Belarusian categories on Wiki Commons[edit]

Hi, Ymblanter. If you could spare a moment, I'd be grateful for any input regarding the move of "Stowbtsy" to "Stoŭbcy" category at Wiki Commons. I've discovered that there have also been others there, but one thing at a time. I'm also pinging @Ezhiki: hope you'll have something to add on the subject on Monday. Thanks! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will have a look.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just realized it is Commons, not en.wp. Well, on Commons there is such an incredible mess in the Belarusian names of categories (transliteration + proper names) that I am just afraid that dealing with it could take all my time.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't blame you. That's why I'm reticent to start tackling all of the tendentious moves over there. It's ridiculously time consuming, and Wiki Commons seems to be a ghost town in terms of active administrators. There are challenges to moves going back months with no one attending to them. I'll just see this one through and drop it as a lost cause. Cheers for taking a look, anyway! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:19, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to be of much help either, I'm afraid, since I'm the same way as Yaroslav. One could easily spend months on Commons doing nothing but cleanup and organization! I decided years ago that's not something I want to get involved with...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 9, 2014; 15:55 (UTC)
Completely with you both on that, Ezhiki. I was caught up in a moment of "it's the principle of the matter" madness, and had no idea of the depth of the weirdness over there until I started raking around the edges. Ah, well. I'll see this one through. Even if I were to win the battle over one category, no doubt, given a few months, it'll be moved back to "Stoŭbcy". I'm not going to lose any sleep over losing the war there. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please full protect my old talk page[edit]

Hi there. You had semi'd my old talk page. Now an autoconfirmed user has posted there. I really don't understand how they end up in my old talk page. Could you please full protect the same for a while (6 months would be good)?  LeoFrank  Talk 12:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 12:24, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First edit[edit]

When you mentioned that a recent edit was my first, I had a look at my "User contributions" section and, sure enough, it's empty. I used to be quite active in Wikipedia a few years ago and made hundreds or even thousands of edits. What happened? Did WP start emptying people's contribs after a certain time of inactivity? CRCulver (talk) 10:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is not possible. Could it be that you contributed from a different (but similarly named) account before? --Ymblanter (talk) 10:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is indeed strange. The current CRCulver account on en-wiki was created just today, but it is SUL-unified with one that made edits on meta back in 2006. No records of a previous userpage on en-wiki under this name. I'm still looking though. Fut.Perf. 11:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, here it is: Crculver (talk · contribs). Fut.Perf. 11:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks. @CRCulver:, you may want to attach this account to your SUL.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Disagreement and civil discussion are one thing, but what you've had to put up with is just ridiculous. That takes a special kind of fortitude. I, for one, am glad you nominated it and that civilised editors have had a chance to discuss it in full. Those who went there to attack you can jump in a lake. Keep up the good work. Stlwart111 02:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know you're not a barnstar fan. Too bad! Ha ha. Stlwart111 02:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC) [reply]
Thank you. That was indeed my goal to put this article for discussion by neutral civilized editors.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Template talk:WPBannerMeta[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:WPBannerMeta. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article deletion discussion[edit]

Hi Ymblanter! In view of recent developments of the "Putin Kh#!@lo" article as well as due to the fact that the outcome of the discussion of your proposed deletion seems clear by now, I was wondering whether you would consider withdrawing your proposal. I took time to develop the article and add references to it and so did many other people, yourself included. The reason of my request is not that I have any doubt in the outcome of the debate initiated by you. The debate was without any doubt useful. It's just that the deletion proposal on top of the article uglifies it unnecessarily and may cast doubt among some readers unfamiliar with the chant and the topic in general, at least until they read it and check the references. I understand that the reference to proposed deletion will eventually be removed from the article anyway. But I just don't think it's worth to have it in such a prominent form, while in fact it seems clear that the article fits the Wikipedia. Anyway, it's completely up to you. I just thought I run this suggestion by you. Thanks! Nrakh (talk) 16:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but I do not think I should do it. Any administrator can close the discussion anytime.--Ymblanter (talk) 00:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Look Zazzle. Featured Products! --Лего (talk) 15:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And?--Ymblanter (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help[edit]

Hi! Tell me, please! I was blocked because sockpuppeter on the talk page Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/Putin khuilo! And my voice was closed .... Now I can leave voice or is no longer have rights? --Jeromjerom (talk) 17:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now the block expired.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the answer. --Jeromjerom (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ymblanter. Thanks for assisting with the pages that I created. I create and update pages for actors, producers and directors. I think you deleted the page Patrick Durham because I added a picture incorrectly. If that was the problem, could you help me do it correctly? Also, I can't find the page anywhere. It would be very difficult to add all the info again. Do you have access to a copy of it the old page that you could give me? Thanks again for your help. Steve the Big Movie Fan.

Hi Steve. No, actually there was a deletion discussion, please have a look: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Durham. I summarized it and deleted the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Steve, I checked out the log. Patrick is actually a partner with Quentin Tarantino and other high profile producer director. Patrick is also a director of highly rated studio action films. His film CROSS had multiple oscar winners in it etc. Patrick wrote, directed and produced it. Patrick is also an actor in some very famous films including Eli Roth and Quentin Tarantino's LIONS GATE film franchise CABIN FEVER 2... His wikipedia page has been on here for many years. I added a picture for him and because of that his hole page got deleted. I'm a friend of Patrick's and I run a few of his websites etc. I also update websites etc for other famous actors. I have articles where Patrick is discussed in THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER. See this link... http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/strong-back-woods-fever-2-131988?mobile_redirect=false Would that Link in combination with his IMDB link and his company website be enough to get him back on here? His company is MORNINGSTAR FILMS. AT www.morningstarfilms.com Thanks for all your help. I feel really bad about getting his page deleted... Thanks again,.. Steve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.193.225 (talk) 20:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am afraid this link alone would not be sufficient. Unfortunately right now I do not have time mentoring you and explaining details of the policies. You may want to check Wikipedia:Teahouse, they might be able to help you.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome thanks Ymblanter. I found a few people that had a little time and I took a crash course in policies etc. I totally get it now. One final question that I would have would be this. At the time I created Durham's acct,back before 2009, it seems' that it wasn't regulation that the hollywood industry types need as many references. It seems that the regulation changed to 3 to 5 references needed back in 2010. Could we keep Durham's old page given that fact? Or, I have collected over 20 references at this time and today, I spoke with Durham's publicity agent and attorney. He has 4 large interviews / articles coming out in The Hollywood Reporter and also Variety in the upcoming weeks. I'd like to put those references etc together and add them to his other references etc and try to create his page "correctly" but I want to make sure I don't step on anyones toes. You were the deleting administrator, so I wanted to ask you first if it would be okay if I did that once I have all the information and references etc in order to do it correctly? Thanks again for your time as I know you're busy. Steve... — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigMovieFan (talkcontribs) 17:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, you can recreate the article adding the references, but be prepared that it may be nominated again for deletion.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Puntland-Somaliland dispute[edit]

Hi Ymblanter. Thanks for protecting the Puntland–Somaliland dispute page. It was just brought to my attention that it was indeed targeted by meatpuppeteers. The lead meatpuppet apparently wrote a letter on a partisan website urging others to disrupt that wiki-page and several other related ones [7]. When I informed him of this on his talk page [8], he simply responded "whatever" [9]. Could you please block the accounts before they can do any further damage? Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 16:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I can not block accounts who only edited once or twice. However, if you think there could be sockpuppetry going on you can open WP:SPI.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Так правильно?[edit]

[10] - я правильно оформил предложение переименования? Vyacheslav84 (talk) 15:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Вроде, да.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I restored this. It was a stub that someone had expanded with poorly translated material - they then imported some or all of the Czech article at the top. The tagger and you missed the English at the bottom of the page. I've removed the Czech and reposted it at Pages needing translation into English, this time in the "fix the translation" section. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thanks for taking care of this.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Russian help[edit]

Hello, could you please help with WP:ANI section "Disruptive editting by User:Nikita-Rodin-2002"? The user in question has created lots of inappropriate pages (recreating them twice, in some cases) and frequently making inappropriate pagemoves, and he appears to have next to no comprehension of English, so assistance in Russian would probably be a lot more useful than anything I could say to him. For some examples, see his deleted contributions or the most recent chunk of my deletion log, or for a not-yet-deleted thing, see User:Box/Пользователь Windows, which he created in the userspace of an example user. Nyttend (talk) 12:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I will have a look.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the help; it looks like this is the first real conversation in which this user has participated. Nyttend (talk) 16:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So far, he seems to agree that he does not need new cats and templates, but let us see what he is actually going to do.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ella Pamfilova may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Aleksandrovna Pamfilova''' Элла Александровна Памфилова (born 12 September 1953, [Olmaliq|Almalyk]]) is a [[Russia]]n politician, former deputy of the [[State Duma]], candidate for [[President of

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Olyka may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • '' ({{lang-uk|Олика}}, {{lang-pl|Ołyka}}) is an [[urban-type settlement]] in [[Kivertsi Raion]], [[Volyn Oblast], [[Ukraine]]. It is located east of [[Lutsk]] on the Putilovka Rriver. Population: {{
  • ].<ref>Tadeusz J. Stecki, “Radziwiłłowska Ołyka,” ''Przegląd Powszechny'', vol. 9 (1887)</ref><ref>[http://dir.icm.edu.pl/pl/Slownik_geograficzny/Tom_VII/527 ''Słownik geograficzny Królewstwa

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. can you expand this?♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added some info, but I am afraid this is as much as I can help.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ymblanter,

I am sure that you have fully protected this article in good faith, but I think that semi-protection is better. The dispute regards whether or not he is a professional model, and I took the time to actually read the five sources that are cited in support of that claim. None of those sources call him a professional model. Yes, his photo has appeared in fashion magazines, but only in the context of promoting an upcoming movie role. He's irritated about it, tweeting about it, and his fans are asking that the error be corrected. But the article is now locked with the error in place. Please reconsider. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that the issue is now resolved.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Protected Article.[edit]

Why did you protect, Demi World Tour? Danielle Andrea 03:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smilerslove (talkcontribs)

Most likely, it has been a RFPP request.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

German Shepherd Dog (translated)[edit]

Hey, Ymblanter how strong is your grammar and spelling in written German? I need to get a grammatically correct German translation of the "German Shepherd Dog," which seems to turn on the correct adjective form of Deustsche or Deutscher. Can you help? (This is for the Wikipedia article on point.) Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 07:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The German Wikipedia is correct: Deutscher Schäferhund (the dog, as well as other animals, are always masculine in German).--Ymblanter (talk) 07:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, sir. I assumed there was an easy answer, but my foreign languages are French, Spanish and a smattering of Latin, which provide zero insight into German adjective and noun forms. Does the adjective form of Deutscher also turn on whether it precedes a plural noun, e.g., Schäferhunde? In my experience with Romance languages, adjective forms must not only agree with masculine and feminine nouns, but also with singular and plural noun forms. Does German also have singular and plural adjective forms? If so, what is the correct form of Deutscher that precedes Schäferhunde? Thanks, again, for sharing your knowledge. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 09:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the plural is the same as the feminin, Deutsche Schäferhunde.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So Fresh: The Hits of Spring 2012[edit]

Why not put an indef semi-prot on So Fresh: The Hits of Spring 2012? It seems clear to me that every time the prot expires, within 24 hours the IP will edit the page to recreate the article. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I still hope they get tired. But the next time will be not less than a year.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Two involved admins on MH17 article. Thank you. v/r - TP 18:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss Previously Deleted Article for Alexander Lloyd[edit]

Hi, I wrote a page for Alexander Lloyd (venture capitalist) in 2012, and the article was voted for deletion in 2013. I have rewiteen the article with refeences and would like to know the correct prcess of having it reviewed for consideration. Thank you--BuzyBody (talk) 22:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can put it to the main space but be prepared that it might be nominated for deletion again.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I started discussion regarding this in Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. --George Ho (talk) 19:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there was already an ongiong discussion in a dedicated section at the talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My bot and UAA[edit]

Yep, i'm watching it directly trying to work with some new coding to the bot to move usernames to the holding pen if tagged as dealt with. If you could hold off reverting for a bit, that would help. Thanks. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 18:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, no problem, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re the comment to me at ANI[edit]

Re this comment to me on ANI. The section has been closed so I'll reply here. There is no centrally maintained list of pages under discretionary sanctions. However Category:Wikipedia pages under discretionary sanctions records pages which have Template:Ds/talk notice on their talk pages (which is what I added), is that what you mean? Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 07:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, not exactly. I see that at the bottom of the relevant Arbcom decision page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe, there is a list of some papers under discretionary sanctions. I was wondering whether Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 belongs there, or these are just some special pages under stricter sanctions (for whatever reason). Sorry for not being clear enough.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NPA warning[edit]

This is unacceptable. Please consider apologising to HiLo48, staying away for a while, getting some sleep, or whatever it is you need to do. Please do not repeat this behaviour. It is possible to disagree without being rude or talking past the person. --John (talk) 11:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see, when he was rude to me for half a year on a regular basis, forcing me to unwatch a number of pages he was commenting on, you did not care. Well, I am on holidays till August 3.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did not see him being rude to you. If I had I assure you I would have cared. Enjoy your holiday and try to destress. I am trying to do the same. --John (talk) 11:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now they responded, and you have a chance. Note that I am a Russian citizen and 99% of my edits here are related to Russia, which pretty much invalidates everything he has to say based on his own fantasies.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the part of the conversation after it started to turn into a slanging match. Please don't replace it. I've asked the same of HiLo48. --John (talk) 11:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected[edit]

21:04, 18 July 2014 Ymblanter (talk | contribs) protected Finest Selection: The Greatest Hits‎ ‎[edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 21:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC))‎[move=autoconfirmed] (expires 21:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)) (Persistent disruptive editing) (hist)
Thank you; although I haven't edited it and have no particular interest in the article I watchlisted it/redirects after Talk:Greatest Hits (The Saturdays album) RM, and it has been beeping almost daily since, including with cut and paste moves, I'm not sure whether per or counter the RM close. A cover jpg has now appeared on Amazon so I have uploaded it. maybe that will stabilize things a bit. I just note this in case you're watching the article too and you're wondering why a pic suddenly appeared. I have no interest in the other activity surrounding the article. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, no problem, and I am on holidays till Sunday anyway without too much internet.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IP hopping editor[edit]

It is clear that the IP hopping editor is User:Bigbaby23. I suspect that Bigbaby23 is also banned sock User:LarryTheShark who was active in the RT discussion in April/May. LTS was banned on May 13. Bigbaby23 was created May 14. Similar editing pattern and approach. How to proceed? Capitalismojo (talk) 22:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The best is to open an SPI.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've never done one. I'll start reading up. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you or @Ezhiki: source/improve this. This seems a decent source.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will add sourced data on population now and will have a look at the rest after Monday when I am back home (writing this from a hotel in Italy).--Ymblanter (talk) 17:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Out of curiosity what hotel? Interested in Italian hotels :-).♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:48, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We were driving from Livorno (from a ferry from Corsica) and I reserver Casa Betania in Pisa. Good place to stay for one night, and we did not care that it is far from the historic center.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you change protection setting to allow only admin, indefinitely? Because User:MariaJaydHicky's IP address or users were permanently continued disruptive editing. 183.171.162.201 (talk) 07:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just do not see enough recent disrupting activity to justify the protection. I would probably decline a RFPP request. But if there is a result of SPI available may be we can block the socks. Try WP:RFPP anyway, there are many eyes there and people are free to disagree with me.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Russian article on Dobrolet Airlines[edit]

I posted a request at [11]

to ask that someone review the pending changes in ru:Добролёт (авиакомпания), but I don't think that anybody has done so.

If you can review the pending changes to the article, please do so. If you don't have that permission, perhaps you can find someone who could do so and who could add tyo the Russian article the changes that you have made to the English article. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 16:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of principle, I do not edit the Russian Wikipedia. Sorry.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

64.228.73.49[edit]

Please block this IP for longer. It is a long term vandal that I've been tracking for years and have a whole writeup here. Also disable talk page access. He's already modifying the templated warnings to praise himself instead.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is apparently an IP hopper, so that it does not make sense. If there is a long-time abuse pattern, a range should be blocked, but I do not have enough technical skills for this.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He hasn't hopped IPs yet. This is the first time he's been on the site since April. Just extend the block on this IP for at least a month and block talk page access. He never requests unblock anyway.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All contribution of this IP are from today. I revoked the talk page access since they were clearly misusing it, but I do not currently see any reason for a longer block.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This guy has been vandalizing this site since 2008. You don't see a need to extend the block?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again: All edits from this IP are from today, and the IP has no deleted contributions. It means if they previously vandalized Wikipedia they did it from a different IP. This, in turn, means that there is no reason for a longer block of this IP.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did you not look at the list I have here: User:Ryulong/sandbox#Saban troll? This guy has been at this for longer than you've even had an account.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have an account much longer than you think. I am afraid you have difficultie understanding my reply. Please go to ANI if you want to achieve smth. I am not going to reblock.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that you have a difficulty in understanding the severity of the situation. But ANI's been dealt with already.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot talk page block again.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, will do now.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think that in our purview as an admin you could send his ISP's abuse contact a line to get him off of our backs? I used to do this every time he resurfaced and it seemed to help but I'm bogged down at the moment.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For a number of reasons, I would prefer not to. Sorry.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All I used to do was say "individual with IP address violating terms of service" with some relevant time stamps and never actually got a response back from Bell Canada or Sympatico, but okay.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He's evading on 69.159.39.75 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, will remove the talk page access if they misbehave.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
you should revoke it anyway. He's doing his usual and I should not have given him a sentence with Saban in it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did already. So far, they were not able to wait for more than five minutes.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PC-protection expiring on or before August 16, 2014[edit]

Extend time for Pope John Paul II and Somalia? --George Ho (talk) 20:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever technical reason, I can not do it before the PC expires. I have Pope John Paul II on my watchlist and will re-enable the PC once it expires in a week. For Somalia, I am not so sure, this is not a BLP, and vandalism gets reverted in a timely manner. May be you can take it to [[WP:RFPP] once PC expires.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

War in Ukraine - request for review[edit]

As I've noticed that you're interested about Turkey, which is an Eurasian country, I'd also request, if possible, a review of War in Donbass (which involves Russia, and therefore is also an Eurasian issue). If you could do, I'd be very glad, because there are now 21 pending revisions awaiting review.

It has already been dealt with, thanks to EvergreenFir and Alex Bakharev--Ymblanter (talk) 08:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not frequent enough for semi-protection; lower to PC instead? Otherwise, add PC? --George Ho (talk) 07:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let us may be wait a couple of days. They cited the reason at RFPP that someone else with the same name was recently shot. One week semi might be an overkill.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine administrative divisions[edit]

Hi Ymblanter! Nice work on updating the Ukrainian administrative divisions articles. However, I have one thing to say.. I noticed that you changed some of the articles from referring to the settlements as cities to towns. That is incorrect as there is no distinction in Ukrainian between the two. In Ukrainian, they are all referred to as misto--which is essentially translated to city in almost all of the respective articles. The next level of subdivision are urban-type settlements, which in some cases could be translated to towns, but either way are referred to as urban-type settlements in general. But confusing the readers by having some articles refer to misto as town while other urban-type settlements are also towns is unnecessary. Let's keep everything on the same page, § DDima 17:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have a long-standing convention for Russian settlements that a город with the population over 100,00 is called a city, and the one below 100,000 is called a town. There is no such convention for Ukraine, and the articles are in complete disorder, so it looks to me that applying the same 100,000 convention would actually be the least confusing.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it is to be done, it should be brought up on the Ukraine noticeboard with all of the other editors involved in administrative divisions, etc. so as to establish consensus and so that everyone involved would know what is what in the future. § DDima 17:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good, I will do it, though my past experience with the Ukraine noticeboard was rather unpleasant: Users had a lot of ideas what I should do, but they were not willing either to compromise even tiny bit or to do it themselves.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're correct with that. But it has been a pressing issue in the past, so we might as well finish it off once and for good now. And I know of 2-3 important users who's opinion would be valuable on the topic. Just send me a link with the thread. Thanks, § DDima 17:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ukraine#City/town, I assume this is a reasonable place to discuss.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd urge you to consider lifting full-protection on Robin Williams at this point. It seems that legitimate editors have reached a consensus that full-protection is not the best approach in this matter. Thank you, and hopefully you see this in time to consider lifting protection before the expiration. --CrunchySkies (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) To editor Ymblanter: Conversely, I encourage you to maintain full protection because although the edit-warriors are eager to rejoin the battle, there's really nothing useful to be added since just a few hours ago when you protected the article. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look at the talk page, and it seems that the infobox issue has been resolved. Are there any other issue requiring full protection at this point? (It will expire in the morning anyway).--Ymblanter (talk) 20:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am on Central European time, and I am going to bed now. The protection will expire tomorrow morning.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion of energy into matter = Original research???[edit]

You obviously have no clue about physics to pretend that converting energy into matter is original research. The production of matter is allowed by matter-energy equivalence. Do your research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.101.208.168 (talk) 03:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to read the Wikipedia article about me to see whether I have a clue about physics. Please discuss it at the talk page as I suggested.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The CCI[edit]

I'm probably popping up all over your watchlist at the moment, sorry :) It seems the CCI subject pretty much (a) copied from English sources (and a definite copyvio except occasionally it's from a public domain source), (b) machine-translated foreign sources (and probably a translation copyvio), or (c) machine translated from foreign wikis. What I'm doing on each article is checking to see if it's (c), in which case the material can obviously stay (with attribution, despite the dodgy writing), and if not, I'm deleting it because it's highly likely to be (a) or (b) (although I'm doing a quick check first in case it's from an obviously public domain source). A pretty crude approach, I know, but it's a big CCI... Anyway, don't hesitate to revert me if you think I've stuffed anything up. --Mkativerata (talk) 12:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, this is just my fault. Novgorod Oblast is an article I worked on extensively, and I somehow miscalculated who has written the section. I reverted myself, and now I will just add a shorter summary (obviously without copyright violations), since it is needed in the article. Sorry for the confusion and thanks for working through this CCI.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014[edit]

Please note that you are at four reverts at List of metro systems. I could have blocked you now, but I give you the last chance to stop edit-warring and continue civilized discussion (and not a crusade) at the talk page. The edit will be now reverted.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:08, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Also here: List of tram and light rail transit systems--Ymblanter (talk) 15:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I cannort stress enough that there's no discussion at the moment, apparently there's someone called Instantball earlier this year and they all think anyone who think HKG flag is appropriate for use is that only user. It's just not possible to talk in the situation like that. GB Lothian (talk) 11:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And this is the reason you decided to edit-war.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They decided they don't want a discussion. More confusingly, they don't even allow a compromised consensus they agreed in the previous talk. They revert the edits just based on the people they think I am. (Which I am not)GB Lothian (talk) 12:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

is KYIV russian city?[edit]

Тобі нічого робити, «брат-словянин»? Це ж українська столиця - а ти маєш свою москву. Того з тебе й досить.--Бучач-Львів (talk) 14:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ik spreek geen Oekrains.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't translate? --Бучач-Львів (talk) 14:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great, at least you speak English. I do not speak Ukrainian and I am not sure what you want to tell me.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Так у тебя ж родной русский - судя по личной странице. Или неправда? Что, не понимаешь братский украиский язык? Пользуйся переводчиком, рlease. I can speek Ehg so-so. Только если ты действительно хочешь ДЕЛАТЬ правдивый взнос в Англвики, или хотя бы немного поразмыслишь - украинским языком КИЇВ. Я ж не заставляю тебя говорить Москва, не пишу Moskva, Maskva. Так будь любезен - не выдавай русское название КИЄВА Киев за УКРАИНСКОЕ. Если только ты не разделяешь «великорусских» взглядов - тогда мне нечего с тобой говорить. Потому, что разговор з тем, кто не желает слышать правды, не имеет смысла. Московская оккупация Украины закончена. Спасибо россии за всё. СЛАВА УКРАЇНІ!--Бучач-Львів (talk) 07:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Бучач-Львів--Ymblanter (talk) 07:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jennifer Rubin (journalist). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JlawLemonT[edit]

He abandoned and went to Sidisn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know. But I still do not want to be desysopped.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a situation where one gets desysopped. Of all people I should know.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is a banned user or people indistinguishable from a banned user fucking up these pages. This is something you get a barnstar for.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Possible socks are redoing the same edits to this article Nabih Berri. I strongly suggest that this page be fully protected, at least until the end of the year, because this seems to be a coordinated effort by a digital marketing agency and party members.

Thank you,

Callsfortruth (talk) 16:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To fully protect it until the end of the year is an overkill. I fully protected it for two weeks; please file an SPI to eliminate existing socks, then in the future, we can survive on a semi-protection.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

dear admin,

I'm someone editing using my phone and not a party member nor a digital marketing agency, I've noticed that the same edits have been happening in a coordinated effort for the past couple of years to the article Nabih Berri with an intent to distort the image of a Lebanese public figure using multiple accounts, edits made present a clear defamation of a living person and violates Wikipedia three core content policies. references used are not reliable and not published and mostly based on blogs and questionable websites while the modification I made are referred to the Lebanese parliament official website as well as Lebanese newspapers. I strongly suggest the removal of the protection applied on this page and making sure that the edits comply with Wikipedia rules and policies

thank you for reading

Please raise the issue at the article talk page and stop reverting. I am not involved with the article, and I do not want to be involved.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LungZeno[edit]

This user may or may not be collateral damage in the mess that befell the train list articles, but when I asked him a simple question he refused to answer. I think he no longer needs access to his user talk.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I do not see why they should have been denied access to their talk page. Just stop talking to them, that's it.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to extend the olive branch. And someone who's been wiki-stalking me has been communicating with him as well.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to give him one last chance to answer my question because I've sugested he could be unblocked because checkuser results were apparently not a 100% match but close enough.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please revoke his talk page access.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Something needs to be done with all the edit warring on this page but I don't know how to send multiple editors to WP:AE for it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is an ANI topic currently open for that article.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, started by a party and only being commented upon by the parties.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just asked someone else but you've been around longer. Why all the upload buttons on the page? Don't they make copyvio more likely? Could you ping me if you reply please? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dougweller: Everybody believes that the upload buttons make the upload easier for novices, but there is a general consensus that they should be only activated during the WLM (and not everybody accepts even that). Copyvio is indeed a serious concern, especially with Pakistan where the copyright culture is not so high, but my experience is that clear copyvio uploads are certainly not in majority, may be 10% or even less. I check every image from the landing page I work with, and I guess they are somehow also checked on the Commons side. I am not involved with WLM Pakistan organization though, just had the landing page on my watchlist from the last year, and I try to help a bit.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fomenko and rude introductions[edit]

"I appreciate that you try to help Wikipedia, but apparently one week after registration you still do not quite understand how the project works. Please go to the talk page and discuss your edits there. If you achieve consensus, which I highly doubt, you will be able to introduce your changes into the article. This is described in WP:CONSENSUS (WP:BRD). If instead you proceed edit-warring without trying to achieve consensus, your account will be promptly blocked. To help you start discussion, I will revert now your changes again.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)"

- Is this what the guidelines mean by not bullying new users? And how do you know anything about Fomenko's work? Have you read it? How much of it? And how do you qualify to delete my very, very neutral POV by replacing the word "pseudoscience" in regards to the works of persons holding combined dozens of doctoral degrees? I have seen the entire history of the Fomenko page; since 2007 a small group have almost fanatically edited it using their own opinions and removing the sound neutral POV of dozens who try to adjust it. If Wikipedia is your own little kingdom then it is all yours. I have more to do in life than be henpecked by Wikibullies. (Eleventyeight (talk) 18:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC))[reply]

If this is your way to admit that you stop your disruptive editing, it is much appreciated. I do know a bit abot Fomenko's work, and believe me, longer that you possibly do.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PC-protection on pages expiring on or before 14 September 2014[edit]

Extend PC time for Regular Show (season 5) and Money in the Bank (2014)? --George Ho (talk) 02:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Extended both, thanks--Ymblanter (talk) 07:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Allow LungZeno to demonstrate he/she is not a sock[edit]

I see you’ve changed LungZeno’s block settings so that he (or she) can’t edit his/her talk page. I thought we were having a productive conversation related to demonstrating that he is not a sock of Instantnood (e.g. different subjects of interest). Any chance of allowing LungZeno to respond to my comments with some guidance as to what is and is not appropriate for a blocked user to say on his/her talk page?--Nowa (talk) 16:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once they started to use their talk page to express their views on political status of Hong Kong it became clear that they are NOTTHERE. They still have e-mail, and you can continue discussing over mail, or they can mail to Arbcom appeal subcommittee.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is helpful. Thanks. I suspect his best bet may be Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee.--Nowa (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, given that the checkuser found a likely intersecction.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Russian women writers[edit]

Hi, I was wondering if you could add missing entries to the Russian section of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women writers/Missing articles. Missing articles from Russian wikipedia and the ru link in brackets?♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can write about Sedakova, but not about others.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It actually already exists, and Yunna Morits as well. I will check the others.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If there's any missing women writers from here and the sub categories it would be great if you could list them! Not asking for you to write articles, just to identify what is missing and redlink!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Olga Aleksandrovna Sedakova listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Olga Aleksandrovna Sedakova. Since you had some involvement with the Olga Aleksandrovna Sedakova redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. gobonobo + c 03:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to template you, Ymblanter. And thank you for correcting the link to the Russian category on the worklist. As far as I know Olga Sedakova doesn't have the patronymic Aleksandrovna, but I could be mistaken. We're still in need of an article on English Wikipedia for ru:Седакова, Ольга Александровна though. gobonobo + c 03:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My fault, thanks for taking it up.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Has this article been infrequently edited? If so, why semi-protection? --George Ho (talk) 17:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was vandalized several times by unregistered users in the last two weeks, and it is a BLP.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Hello, did you delete the references I posted on this page a couple of days ago? (See link below) If so, why? thanks for any feedback.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gc-MAF

I hope I'm leaving a message in the right way. I've never done this before." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zped9090 (talkcontribs) 20:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a repository of links.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

96.243.56.50[edit]

You said to ping you if 96.243.56.50 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) continues that behaviour. YLSS (talk) 20:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, blocked for a week.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly 173.64.53.95 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) = 96.243.56.50 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)... YLSS (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked them for a week and this is about as much I can do. If they reappear, we will need to protect the articles. May be you will need to file a RFPP request.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican War of Independence[edit]

 Thanks PKT(alk) 16:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Oathkeeper[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Oathkeeper. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know, if a entry on this list is either deleted or redirected, the entry is taken off the list. That is part of the list guidelines you can find WP:List of accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft/Guideline for inclusion criteria and format. Cheers!...William 15:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have seen it but was hesitant to delete it right away in case the info could have been used somewhere.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ymblanter! Back in July, you protected this article, through a RFPP request if my memory serves, due to an ip hopping editor repeatedly re-inserting content against consensus. Unfortunately, the same person has returned with the same edits and we're stuck in the same revert cycle as they simply re-insert without the slightest attempt at discussion. Would you be so kind as to restore the protection? As with last time, I would do it myself but I'm far too involved in the reverting. Thanks! Resolute 19:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, for a month--Ymblanter (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, most appreciated! Resolute 14:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Integral Liberal Arts Program[edit]

Just recreate the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you have a lot of articles and conversations going on. Thank you for helping out new article writers and helping out Wikipedia! Pumpkinpedia

Commonscat[edit]

Hopefully this will save you a few clicks. Russian infoboxes pull the commonscat info from Wikidata automatically; there's no need to add it manually. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 1, 2014; 12:07 (UTC)

I see, thanks. I only added those which I have just created on Commons, and apparently there was a caching problems so that I did not notice this.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it sometimes takes a few minutes to pull through.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 1, 2014; 15:32 (UTC)

Putin khuilo! edit warring[edit]

There was no "edit warring". Edit warring is when two same people do that. And please don't call me "IP" anymore, it's very denigrating. Just because the stupid system keeps logging me out for some reason doesn't mean I'm some nobody from nowhere wishing looking for trouble. Thanks, 24.201.216.214 (talk) 07:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You were edit-warring against several people, which is a blockable offense.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No I wasn't. You decided that I was. 24.201.216.214 (talk) 14:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Deciding that" is a privilege admins have. As another, uninvolved, admin, I fully concur. If you continue in the same vein, you will be blocked. Please review WP:EDITWAR to learn more about what is considered edit-warring and what isn't.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 2, 2014; 15:04 (UTC)
И ты, брут... 24.201.216.214 (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of urban-type settlements in Ukraine by subdivision (Lviv Oblast)[edit]

Urban-type settlement Nemyriv is in Lviv Oblast, but urban-type settlement Nemyriv is in Vinnytsia Oblast. --Bogdan Kosar (talk) 12:35, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have now corrected it. For links to the Ukrainian Wikipedia, we have a neighbouring column, which I updated as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ymblanter, thank you for your putting back information into the Dobrolet (low-cost airline) article. It is astounding that another admin would decimate an article like they did. I will be continuing to expand the article in the near future; I hope to get it up to GA standard before too long. When that time comes, would you possibly be able to do the good article review on it? Cheers, 193.40.10.180 (talk) 16:17, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually I never do certain work here, including FA and GA reviews, since English is not my mothertongue, and I am afraid I can miss some important things.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your protection of Stephen Collins[edit]

There was no heavy edit warring at that page when you fully-protected it for 3 days. The last edit was a reversion about 6 hours before you placed the protection. See the article talkpage and the BLPN discussion for my deeper rationale on this issue. LHMask me a question 16:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Lithistman: Page protection is preventative, not punitive. Wikipedia protects Saint Patrick's Day every March in anticipation of vandalism. Likewise, protecting the article about Stephen Collins after the recent news is only wise precaution. Feel free to "hash out" these issues at the talk page or simply wait until the protection is lifted. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there was heavy edit-warring, I obviously checked the page history. The last dozen of edits were reverts, and they even involved five editors. On the other hand, if consensus has been reached at the talk page (which was not the case at the time of protection), pls ping me and I will unprotect the article, no problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we just have different definitions of "heavy edit warring", which is fine. One edit in the previous 6 hours seems (to me) to not represent that, but if you've reexamined and still think protection is necessary, then that's that, I guess. LHMask me a question 17:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Intercontinental pageant as delete, but Miss Intercontinental pageant never seems to have been deleted. Or am I missing something? Stuartyeates (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted now. Apparently, in the morning I summarized the discussion and marked the file for deletion, but then forgot to delete the article. Thanks for pinging me.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry[edit]

Sorry. I was trying to undo an edit in the article but something did not go right. Tlsandy (talk) 13:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem but pls be more careful, you recently made a similar edit in another article.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Covert vandalism[edit]

Hello. I am a limited user; I cannot make certain edits. Indeed I do not have a wish to contribute to this WP in these conditions, either. Therefore I limit myself to attract attention to some edits and leave the rest to others. I guess you are the administrator who protects Recep Tayyip Erdoğan article. I am not sure if the article should only be protected from IPs or also from certain users. Look at this edit please. The user who made it claims having Turkish as his/her mother tongue; but adds there some words supposedly in Turkish which are not used in the Turkish language since at least half a century. So either the mother tongue information in the user page is not true (that means lack of honesty, sorry) or the said user is mocking the President of a country. How do you find it? On the other hand, someone has opened a "special" user name to add Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to the List of Turkish diplomats, where of course he does not belong, with some very pointed POV expressions. The worst thing about that is that another user edits that contribution, and as he/she claims to be a patroller something, other people that look at the history of that list after that intervention will innocently think that everything is in order. Therefore s/he is covering the red link used by a not very honest person. Is it possible to find out if Rbry2423 is in fact another user? Thank you and sorry for disturbing you with my suspicions. All the best. Note: If writing to talk pages in a limited area is also forbidden please tell me and I will not come back. --E4024 (talk) 07:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is impossible to protect the article from certain users. It can be either not protected, or protected from IP users and new accounts, or fully protected from everybody. Right now, it is under pending chahges, meaning edits of new users need to be reviewed by experienced users before they go live. I do not speak a word of Turkish, and specific edits are best to be discussed with the editor who introduced them.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

RFPP stuff is usually pretty thankless work. So thanks for the pending changes protection of Sistine Chapel. I genuinely believe that will reduce the pointless drive-by vandalism there. Keep up the good work. Cheers, Stlwart111 11:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Dangerfield[edit]

Many thanks for applying the protection to this page. Your work here allows editors like me to concentrate on other work of interest rather than the deletion of mindless vandalism. It is much appreciated. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 20:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, appreciated.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Baldwin[edit]

Hello. Thank you for your earlier help in protecting Adam's page from vandals. I'm afraid its happened again in the last couple of days. His page is getting updated by vandals regarding Gamer Gate. Is there a way we could give the page protection again? Any help would be appreciated. Thank you, Amie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purselover2 (talkcontribs) 05:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, for 3 months.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I appreciate it and so does Adam. --- Amie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purselover02 (talkcontribs) 18:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Page appears to have been vandalized tonight by a registered user. This is what I put. Fixed obvious POV mistake and blatant bias in wording. Can you check it out for me? Purselover2 (talk) 00:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to discuss with the user. Autoconfirmed users are not supposed to vandalize articles, they either should have a point or need to be blocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An apology[edit]

Please forgive me if I have offended you with my comments at the Ukrainian regions (Ukrainian: область) page. I greatly appreciate all the work that you do here on the English Wikipedia, and no way meant to imply that I didn't. I merely meant to say that I don't believe that some non-native speakers of English are capable of effectively or objectively evaluating whether a term is the natural way to describe something in English. Naturalness is an article title criteria, and hence quite important at this point. RGloucester 20:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I still feel though that people heavily editing in the area should be aware of the discussion. If the closed is a native speaker of English, they must be able to figure out what arguments are valid.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is fairly obvious how the discussion is going to be closed. As you may imagine, I don't agree with the outcome. There isn't much to do, though. It greatly harms the encyclopaedia. RGloucester 20:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it gets closed in favor of the oblasts, I do not see how it harms the encyclopedia. We have French departments, Japanese prefectures, Turkish vilayeti, and I believe none of them makes any harm. Oblasts are no worse than these.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the word "prefecture" isn't Japanese (it is English), first of all. In fact, in Japanese, there are many different things that are all translated into English as "prefecture". These are the ken, fu, , and to. "Ken" are bog-standard prefectures, "fu" are urban prefectures, "dō" literally means "circuit", and "to" is usually translated as "metropolis". However, in English, these are called lumped together as "prefectures". Try renaming the prefectures of Japan page as "ken, fu, , and to of Japan"! "Department" is an English word. The word in French is département. Furthermore, we do not have "vilayets" of Turkey. We have Provinces of Turkey. To be frank, I have no idea how to even pronounce "vilayet", even though I have great familiarity with the Ottoman Empire. Next time you try to use the word "oblasts" for Ukrainian regions, try and think about how absurd it would be to refer to Kyoto Prefecture as "Kyōto-fu". RGloucester 20:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I do not find it absurd.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You'd like to rename Kyoto Prefecture as Kyōto-fu? Does "fu" mean anything to you? In Japanese, it means nothing either, without the Chinese character 府 to parse the meaning. The sound on its own (ふ) could refer to many different things. As an example, see the picture at the right. That is a type of wheat gluten called fu in Japanese. Merely that the Chinese character is different (麩). Would you still like to rename Kyoto Prefecture as Kyōto-fu? What exactly is "Kyoto wheat gluten"? RGloucester 21:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Buffalo vandal strikes again[edit]

108.34.28.204 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) appears to be the latest sock of 96.243.56.50 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) and a reincarnation of 173.64.53.95 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks). Useddenim (talk) 03:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RFPP. YLSS (talk) 09:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Protected for a year.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of rail transport in the Netherlands, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NS. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ymblanter I see no problem in using imdb references and other websites, when I know the projects and people involved to some degree. I do also edit imdb pages of my own and about people I know where involved. Of course almost anyone (with some acceptance restrictions) on imdb can edit films there as on Wikipedia and not all have same importance, but it is as good as it gets. Films produced before imdb started around 1991 are very often uncomplete as well as projects who took part at some credible festival and then only at small ones. Natascha Beller is an upcoming new Swiss director and not all projects she has made are up on imdb, since she haven't cared about it herself and I haven't added information to it myself. She wrote a script for a Swiss TV-Movie which is not on imdb, because Swiss TV has the rights and don't send the Film on Festivals nor care about imdb registration. Switzerland is a small country and lot of productions don't go worldwide. I do care about to get things right, even delete things at a later time, if I happen to be mistaken for some reason, or information became void. Nevertheless you can say she is not important Reference as well as the actress Eliane Chappuis herself. But that's also the case with a lot of other entries on Wikipedia. I am not common with all programming mechanisms on Wikipedia, I have read some but might occasionally still be wrong in some cases, nevertheless I see if it comes up or not the way it should, if not, I try to find out how to fix it, if others immediately are deleting it, it can be kind of confusing. If I can see a comment than I at least can try to understand(Trollcat56 (talk) 10:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]

I think we are talking about two different things. IMDB is not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards exactly for the reason that everybody can edit it, but links to IMDB can still be located in the article. In fact, right now the first external link in the article is an IMDB link, which is perfectly fine with me. (It would not have been ok if the IMDB link would be the only external link in the article though). What I was objecting against is your style of hyperlinking to external sites. For instance, if a Wikipedia does not have an article about a certain film, do not hyperlink the name of this film to IMDB. Instead, either create an article about this film and link to it, or link to it anyway (the link would be red) and wait until someone creates an article). Even if you need to source the statement that she was acting in a certain film, make a footnote, and IMDB is not good for this purpose anyway. You may want to read Wikipedia:External links where all this is explained in more details. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "RT Network". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 27 October 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 14:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:The Game (Queen album). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RE: CPSU Central Committee members[edit]

That's great! First, I'm already on it; see 27th Secretariat of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, 27th Politburo of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (thinking of reorganizing this one to as to make it similar to the one found in the Secretariat article), every CPSU congress article, and officeholders in general (I'm guessing if we have articles we can begin to add the info to the infoboxes as well). Thinking similar to the outline on the Politburo officeholders, see the Mikhail Gorbachev article, it says "Full member of the 25th, 26th, 27th, 28th Politburo". And of course when we have the articles we can make links to the them (most commonly know is to just write Central Committee, and in the few cases the numbering is used, it redirects to the Central Committee article). I'm currently creating articles for the Secretariat membership. --TIAYN (talk) 10:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will start at some point (need to finish first what I am doing right now).--Ymblanter (talk) 11:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Derianus. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Oblasts of Ukraine that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please stop spreading lies about other users and in the case mentioned, add a note that fixes you lie. Derianus (talk) 16:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great, go to ANI and complain that multiple editors are not happy with your constant reverts. In addition, here you removed info about administrative amd municipal divisions without any explanations, copied it into several unrelated articles, and started edit warring when I tried to return the info. Usually such activity soon or later results in blocks.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And your message here contains personal attacks again.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And you are clearly a sock, so that we do not need to collaborate. Sorry.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Squidward Tentacles[edit]

Thanks for applying the protection. I seemed to be having a bad time with the sections on RFPP yesterday. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 17:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I also sometimes forget to do it. Thanks for taking the case up.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Halloween cheer![edit]

Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome :) –Davey2010(talk) 17:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Halloween cheer![edit]

Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected[edit]

The request for formal mediation concerning RT Network, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, User:TransporterMan (talk) 12:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Weekly Shōnen Jump[edit]

Hello! It appears you fully protected the page for a while due to sockpuppetry. That seems a bit too much: even our articles on controversial topics are only semi-protected at most. Because there are a good number of legitimate edits to the article, I would suggest lowering the level of protection. Or perhaps as a compromise, the article could be kept fully protected for a month, then be downgraded to semi-protection for six months. We'll see if the "master" will stay or not, given that it has come to this. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let us wait until the discussion at WT:ANIME has been concluded. I am not against lowering the protection period, but the arguments at WP:RFPP were that indefinite protection is needed, and I see the same arguments coming back now at WT:ANIME.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Derianus[edit]

Hi. I have a hunch that Derianus might be a sock of banned Tobias Conradi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whose last known incarnation was Androoox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Areas of interest (administrative divisions) match, recklessness matches as well. He's hardly a new editor, having opened a RM on Oblasts of Ukraine on his day 3. Not sure about other behavioral similarities, as I don't have time to investigate.

In fact, Editor Interaction Analyzer gives some interesting evidence -- ex-USSR administrative divisions aside, both Derianus and Androoox are somehow interested in obscure articles like Enlargement of the eurozone, Category:Territorial entities by language and Wilayah. It surely quacks... No such user (talk) 13:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. It would be great if you could open an SPI. New editors do not behave like that, and they create too much disruption anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, SPI for Conradi. Pinging User:Iryna Harpy as well. Even if he's not a sock (and I'm quite convinced it is), he's highly disruptive. No such user (talk) 14:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No such user, there's a definite resemblance to Androoox aside from just the fact of hitting the ground running from the moment the account was created. Even if a new user is extremely organised in terms of the changes they want to make to the organisation of Wikipedia's administrative territories, categories, etc., the plausibility that they could acquaint themselves with more technical aspects (redirects, renaming categories, et al) without pausing to draw breath would have to be highly unlikely. More to the point, although it's not uncommon for new users to be paranoid about harassment and being attacked, even manifestations of Derianus and Androoox's behaviour runs along parallel lines: obliterating any perceived negative comments on their own talk pages with derisive edit summaries and attacking/accusing other users of tendentious editing.
By the same token, of course, the MO could be coincidental. Nevertheless, Derianus is really running amok. S/he has shifted and changed large tracts of Wikipedia based on executive decisions with no attempts at communicating with other editors, or trying to establish consensus until pushed. Even there, no interest is displayed in curtailing his/her forward push according to their personal 'grand plan'. At best, the user is WP:NOTHERE, but I'd suggest that s/he is simply a WP:TE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for following up on Derianus's disruptive behaviour. I'd only just booted up for the day when I saw that, not only had you opened another ANI, but it had already been closed. Unfortunately, I'd missed the earlier one you'd opened before it was closed. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I actually only opened one ANI which was closed yesterday evening.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I could have sworn... Well, I guess it's official: I'm senile! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, I just realised I confused the Kenfree ANI and Derianus. They've all been merging into one big POV blob of aggression. Keep up your admirable cool-headed approach. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kenfree was unsuccessful--Ymblanter (talk) 06:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Averil Power[edit]

Hi, you semi-protected Averil Power recently, now the talk page is being vandalised, could you protect that too? Tx, Snappy (talk) 18:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done for 12 hours, it is usually not a good idea to protect talk ages for a long time, especially since the article has been protected as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, hopefully it will be enough to discourage the vandals. Snappy (talk) 18:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

190.163.4.132[edit]

I've re-enabled talk page access with a stern warning that there must be no further personal attacks. Please be sure to ping me if the user lets me down on this - I can't keep track of all his IPs. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem. I currently have their page on my watchlist (they only edited it from the same IP), but not the other pages.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Armyansk Urban Okrug listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Armyansk Urban Okrug. Since you had some involvement with the Armyansk Urban Okrug redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Derianus (talk) 05:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feodosia Urban Okrug listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Feodosia Urban Okrug. Since you had some involvement with the Feodosia Urban Okrug redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Derianus (talk) 05:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feodosiya Urban Okrug listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Feodosiya Urban Okrug. Since you had some involvement with the Feodosiya Urban Okrug redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Derianus (talk) 05:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yevpatoriya Urban Okrug listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Yevpatoriya Urban Okrug. Since you had some involvement with the Yevpatoriya Urban Okrug redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Derianus (talk) 05:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saki Urban Okrug listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Saki Urban Okrug. Since you had some involvement with the Saki Urban Okrug redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Derianus (talk) 05:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sudak Urban Okrug listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Sudak Urban Okrug. Since you had some involvement with the Sudak Urban Okrug redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Derianus (talk) 05:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

How do you translate "Комаров, Николай Павлович"? According to Google Translate its "Komarov, Nikolai Pavlovich", but when I search Google Books (in English) I can't find anyone by that name. Do you know? ... I'm planning to create the articles for the early Central Committees (considering that most of the early officeholders are well known, and usually I can just search the Russian name and then access another WP which has created an article on it)... Help. --TIAYN (talk) 11:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By translate you mean transliterate? According to WP:RUS, it is Komarov, Nikolay Pavlovich. There is an article in the Russian Wikipedia, ru:Комаров, Николай Павлович, not sure whether this is the guy you need since the name is pretty common.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes thats what I meant ... Question, is this guys name Валентин Месяц really Valentin Month, seems like a strange name. He was a member of the 27th Central Committee as well as serving as First Secretary of the Moscow Regional Committee (de facto governor). Sincerely, --TIAYN (talk) 22:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Valentin Mesyats is a real person. The name is Ukrainian I guess.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:32, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another one; Чаплин, Николай Павлович .. Its transliterated as "Nikolay Chaplin" - Chaplin can't be correct, can it? See 13th Orgburo of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks). --TIAYN (talk) 21:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is correct, and I am actually suprrised we do not have an English article about him, he was pretty well known.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:58, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with Western writing on the Soviet Union is that very much has been written about Stalin, and some about Lenin, Khrushchev and Gorbachev. Its not so much about the system as the leading men, however, the field seems to be improving, with works on Stalin's comrades being published as of late; for example, a book entitled Stalin’s Team: The Years of Living Dangerously in Soviet Politics, will be published next year - but you have to wonder why no one has thought of publishing such a book when Nazi German provincial mayors get their own biographies. One of the reasons why I'm planning to apply for Russian courses at the university is so I can get access to the Russian books (which have more range, and I'm guessing more closeness to the subject). Anyhow, another question is Дании́л Сули́мов best transliterated as "Daniil Sulimov" . I literally can't get any hits on it. --TIAYN (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is Daniil Sulimov. You may want to check WP:RUS, it is pretty much straightforward.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello, Ymblanter. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is RT (TV Network)...neutral feedback desperately needed!.The discussion is about the topic neutrality of lede. Thank you. --Kenfree (talk) 22:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the notification--Ymblanter (talk) 22:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Can we revoke talk page access as well, as per there last two edits. Amortias (T)(C) 15:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 15:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks![edit]

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thanks for your good work, Huldra (talk) 22:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Galactic envoy[edit]

FYI, I have just declined an unblock request at User talk:Galactic envoy. Cheers, De728631 (talk) 18:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 06:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, extended for a year.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 8 November[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:

Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:33, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SNL season disruptions[edit]

Hi, Ymblanter. Regarding my administrators' noticeboard posting from October 20 about SNL season page disruptions, to which you had added pending changes and said to ping you if there was another one, well it happened again [12] with another immediate self-revert [13]. Both revisions were accepted by an editor, so pending changes will not end this problem. How would you suggest we proceed? -- Wikipedical (talk) 01:42, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, the first edit was not accepted and has never been shown to the readers, so that I suggest we proceed as before.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:11, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PC-protection expiring on or before 15 November 2014[edit]

Pope John Paul II, Les Misérables (musical), Maryam Mirzakhani, Kailash Satyarthi, Rila Fukushima, and Malala Yousafzai? Extend PC time or upgrade to semi-protection on each? --George Ho (talk) 06:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That should go via RFPP.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Undid revision 633090702 RT article[edit]

Please refrain from removing the tag. It's an ongoing issue on the Wkipedia NPOV noticeboard [1]).Spotter 1 (talk) 14:33, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look, you opened already a dozen of threads of this, and in every single one there is a convincing consensus that the tag should not be there. May be you should learn to respect consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please respect WP:NPOV: "This policy is nonnegotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editor consensus.". It doesn't depend on the editor consensus if the tag is up or not, the purpose of the motion is to verify the claim if a consensus for not npov tagging even exists, but not that this consensus supersedes general WP:NPOV policy.Spotter 1 (talk) 14:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The policy does not say you can disrupt Wikipedia by opening new and new discussions and keeping the NOPV tag for the durations of these discussions. It says in fact that you can and should be blocked for such activity.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are no new discussions, the points I made are quite consistent and answering to accusations on different pages doesn't qualify as an opening of a new discussions. Replying to a revision is also not a new discussion but a follow up.Spotter 1 (talk) 15:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
... and disrupt Wikipedia, you are not "wikipedia".Spotter 1 (talk) 15:11, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

{{Reflist-talk}} put by  Revi 17:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for intervening[edit]

It's entirely possible that Slowestonian is simply a new user who happened to pick up on me by chance however, if s/he is a sock, I have a couple of potential candidates outside of the most recent and obvious one. I'll keep my eye out for any gravitation towards the areas of interest those bearing a grudge towards me won't be able to resist. In the meantime, thank you for intervening before the behavioural problems escalated! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem. To be honest, I am tired of "new" users who are now showing up in highly contentious areas and start edit-warring or disruptive editing pretending they are not familiar with the policies.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The most frustrating and exhausting part is that, rather than getting on with improving articles, every moment is consumed with patrolling existing articles and cleaning up the messes left behind. Assuming good faith becomes an inhuman feat of endurance. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Buzequity Edit Reverts[edit]

Please explain and provide justification for your having reverted my edits on the Bizequity page. Specifically, what is the point of concealing from the users the details of the acquisition under the bankruptcy proceedings, an actual fact. Also, the claim of having valued over 13 million US businesses in the country where only a fraction of operating businesses ever obtains a valuation seems like an inflated claim. I highly doubt that this number of alleged valuation can be independently confirmed.

Are you a professional appraiser in possession of industry statistics? If so, please provide a reliable source confirming this doubtful claim. --Slowestonian (talk) 05:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also noticed that you reverted my observation that, despite the multiple offices claimed by Bizequity, there are no telephone numbers shown for any of them. Usually one expects a company's offices to list contact telephone numbers, their lack begs the question. What is the point of concealing this information from the Wikipedia reader? --Slowestonian (talk) 06:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most of it was unsourced and original research. Please also read WP:BLP very carefully before you continue editing Wikipedia. Unsourced and poorely sourced accusations are reverted immediately.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. By this definition of original research, the unsubstantiated claim of 13 million business valuations is original research, to wit "facts, allegations, and ideas - for which no reliable, published sources exist". Why is this allowed on BizEquity page?--Slowestonian (talk) 07:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Try to understand it, and if you start editing before you get the point, I will block you for an indefinite duration of time, given that you do not have a single good edit here.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You refuse to listen to reason. Who are you to issue these threats? Who gave you the right to block other editors on a whim? What is your authority here and how do I appeal it? --Slowestonian (talk) 08:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You said you have read the policies? They have answers to your questions.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, being new here it seems to me you have some admin privileges. However, according to Wikipedia policies, you must not use the admin tools against an editor with whom you have a dispute, see WP:Administrators. Your revert is an obvious example of disagreement. You seem to ignore my arguments offered in good faith in defense of my edits. Please desist from making threats, it does not sit well with new editors. --Slowestonian (talk) 09:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have any dispute with you. You do not seem to be an editor in good standing, not having made a single good edit, and I am perfectly entitled to block you for an indefinite duration. The only reason I have no done it yet is that I still have some slight hope that I am mistaken and you genuinely want to learn how to edit.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Infelicitous wording[edit]

As the result of a discussion with user:Kenfree, I read through a section of your interaction with him on the NPOV noticeboard. Although much of what was posted there was on topics that make my eyes glaze over, I must point out one less-than-acceptable comment on your part. Specifically, here, where your third sentence is such that it can be interpreted as a threat against him.

While I understand that disputes on nationalistic issues such as these can be quite aggravating, and tempers can flare, that particular sentence is really not okay -- and, in fact, could potentially serve as the basis for a formal complaint. Since such complaints are tedious and loathsome to everyone involved, I politely ask that you strike that particular comment. DS (talk) 01:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am obviously not going to block Kenfree since I am involved, but it is unfortunate he is not yet blocked since his only activity here is to fight against consensus of all editors in good standing. I am sorry but my time in real life is indeed expensive. I can not just go and search for the links every time he wants to open a new thread on one of the village pumps or talk pages. He was given references once, he was given them twice. Beyond that, it is called disruptive editing. Sorry for that.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance[edit]

You're a good administrator, and I presume you are uninvolved in the whole "Gamergate" matter. Do you mind keeping an eye on WP:GS/GG/E, which is the Gamergate general sanctions request for enforcement page? It was only just established at another administrator's request, and I do think that some new fresh administrator eyes would do it good. There has been a real management problem in this topic area, and sanctions enforcement has been lax. RGloucester 01:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am indeed completely uninvolved, the problem is that I have very little time until the end of December. I will try to have a look today and estimate whether it can be done relatively quickly or not. If not, I will come back here.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I first misunderstood the request. I added now the page to my watchlist and will try to react, but until the end of the year expect long delays from me.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Бучач-Львів[edit]

  • I don't doubt your goodwill. Maybe you and you will stay away from Ukraine.--Бучач-Львів (talk) 09:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    May be you should finally read policies. I am going to edit any topic I like, at least before someone imposes editing resrictions on me.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysia Flight 17[edit]

You closed a thread at WP:ANI with the comment that it should be taken to ArbCom. Did you mean that the OP should file a new ArbCom case, or that the OP should go to arbitration enforcement, or what?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talkcontribs)

Both avenues would work, though my personal preference would be that AE or Arbcom case be filed by a third party. Further threads at ANI about this topic are useless and should not be opened.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
AE is not productive, in this case. A new case should be drafted. RGloucester 21:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also fine.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The question is, who should write the case? RGloucester 21:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that should be whoever is fed up with what is going on at the article and at the talk page. It could be one of the sides who believes that the other side blatantly violates policies. It could be also a neutral user tired of seeing all this shit around on a regular basis. I do not think I should do it: All my attempts (a few) to resolve the situation, including the last ANI filed, led to me being reverted, some users claiming I am a POV pusher, and neutral admins somehow assuming I am representing one side of the conflict and want to get advantages. But my main point was that this shit should not return to ANI, and I believe there is consensus for this. It has been there many times, and no action was ever taken, even when there were several reverts of the same material within hours.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not that familiar with the arbitration process. I've not been involved in the article, though I've been plenty involved in other Eastern Ukraine conflict matters, as you know. I'm not sure I feel comfortable writing such a case, for that reason. However, I do think a case needs to be brought forward. RGloucester 21:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let us see, may be someone takes the initiative.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Iryna Harpy: I'm sure you don't want to be burdened with this nonsense, Iryna, but you are better at dispute resolution than anyone else that edits in this topic area. I'd be happy to help with drafting a case, but you strike me as a good candidate for bringing it forth. If you're interested, it would be appreciated. Otherwise, I'd appreciate any suggestions on editors that might be good for the task. RGloucester 21:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think any of 'us' (and I use 'us' as a descriptor for those who do their utmost to abide by policy despite any personal positions on the issues being addressed) want to be 'burdened by this nonsense'. For the sake of the project, however, we are obliged despite the desire avoid it. I wouldn't be able to even pretend to approach renewing discussions as a genuinely neutral party as I've had heated dealings with all of the editors I consider should have been topic banned long ago.
AE isn't a desirable venue as it would require user by user submissions or a 'bulk' submission. Both methods are bound to end as protracted fiascos ending in stalemates (read as too messy and confusing for admins to have any desire to follow through on trying to work out what's what as the result of lobbying) or, even worse, the wrong editors being penalised. A new Arbcom seems to be the only method of reviewing positions taken and their pro and con arguments. Given my history with parties I'd consider to be tendentious editors of the most disruptive kind, I certainly am not in a position to present a case as a genuinely neutral editor. By no means should this be interpreted as my backing away: it simply means that I need to consider a strategy by which I'm able to open a new case striking at the heart of the matter. That's not an easy task as we know that the same editors feature on dozens of related articles making the same accusations, and disrupting content development using the same strategies.
The third option - being that of enlisting an editor who has the requisite mediation skills, neutrality, as well as the intellectual prowess, to open a fresh Arbcom - leaves me with only one person in mind. I would be reticent to call on him as he's currently bogged down in articles surrounding affairs in the Middle East. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever we do, we ought to it quickly. Letting this fester is not likely to produce positive results. Luckily, ArbCom cases don't require huge amounts of overhead, as the Arbs do most of the fact-finding. We simply need a 500 word statement and some diffs. RGloucester 00:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that speed is of the essence. I know that Yaroslav is sick to death of a recent spate of sheer idiocy from socks and new muppets trolling all issues surrounding Russian and Ukrainian articles, so I'm going to assume that he would like to be informed of the Arbcom but, understandably, doesn't want to be involved putting the submission together. If it's okay with you, Your Grace, I'll email you with my take on the problems plaguing the article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Go right ahead. RGloucester 03:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Shall do. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure what you agreed about, but please keep in mind that a new arbitration request will probably be rejected on very simple grounds: this subject area is already covered by discretionary sanctions. If anyone has complaints, he/she must be able to present their case on AE, especially if this is something of a limited scale (a specific user or specific article). New arbitration can be opened only if AE administrators decide they are not capable of dealing with a new case presented to them. My very best wishes (talk) 03:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DS are not the sole purpose of arbitration. WP:ARBEE isn't working, and we can show it quite easily. RGloucester 03:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How can you "show it" when there's been no AE requests in relation to this article so far? Or are you talking about other Ukrainian conflict related AE requests? Stickee (talk) 04:45, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No man, AE is working. My very best wishes (talk) 04:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By and large, the purpose of WP:ARBEE is for uninvolved administrators to enforce discretionary sanctions at their discretion. Arbitration Enforcement, i.e. WP:AE, is not meant to be applied to whole articles, or to large groups of editors, but only to one particular editor at a time. Instead, per the "WP:ARBEE discretionary sanctions", administrators are supposed to comb the talk pages and articles and make judgement calls about disruption, sanctioning where appropriate. That simply hasn't happened. The one administrator who said he might start enforcing the sanctions fled, fearing threats on his life. The result is that there has been chaos at the article, no enforcement whatsoever. AE is not the solution. The solution is ArbCom. RGloucester 05:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Admins have no obligations to enforce anything. An admin decided not be involved in something - this is their personal matter. This happens all the time. If the problem was with an article, this has to go to AE - there are specific article-level sanctions. But honestly, this is just one of many "hot" articles around, and I do not see any reason even for AE complaint. BTW, this your edit shows poor judgement. My very best wishes (talk) 05:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My very best wishes and Stickee: while AE may work to a limited extent for individual users, it hasn't worked for investigations of POV pushing by numbers of users on any given article for a long, long time. As I noted above, bulk submissions are a waste of energy. The only way to address problems is to bypass individual users in favour of examining the development of an article and serious policy-based infringements by contributors to a given article. Yes, AE is fine for a single contributor who is easily identified as going against policy. It is useless as a method of identifying targeted articles and establishing en masse patterns across numerous articles, particularly as the same tendentious editors are travelling together in order to impact on the content of an entire genre. Policies and methods of dealing with problematic editing practices have not always existed. When they being to fail and are probably due for revision, there is no reasonable argument for returning to these venues where admins do not wish to participate for genuinely valid reasons. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article is already covered by discretionary sanctions by Arbcom. What else can you possibly want? My very best wishes (talk) 14:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Article sanctions are possible, as are sanctions and admonishments for editors found to be disruptive. RGloucester 14:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which brings the question: what is disruptive, exactly? For example, it is disruptive to waste other people's time by filing unsubstantiated accusations and complaints to various noticeboards, such as ANI, AE, or arbitration requests... Do not do it. My very best wishes (talk) 16:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is for the arbitrators to decide whether someone's behaviour is disruptive, not mine. RGloucester 16:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I only provided you a peace of advice (do not do it) and explained why, since you said that you are "not that familiar with the arbitration process". Good luck! My very best wishes (talk) 00:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You semi-protected the article, but you said at RPP that it is PC'ed. --George Ho (talk) 14:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected now, thanks--Ymblanter (talk) 15:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your unexplained reversion of my RT edit[edit]

Ymblanter: Today you reverted my edit of the RT/UK section https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RT_%28TV_network%29&diff=next&oldid=634276580. You gave as editorial summary that mine was a "disruptive edit," but you provided no explanation of why that was so. My edit summary explained that I was "clarifying the source." The funding source behind the paper that produced the allegation is not indigenous, as the term "critics" would imply, unless qualified, as my edit attempted to do. Also, the partisan nature of these critics is not disclosed by the unqualified term "critics," therefore wrongly implying to readers that these critics were neutral or unbiased, when obviously the case is quite opposite. My edit clarified all these points, but you reverted it as "disruptive." I would like a full explanation of exactly how it was "disruptive," as opposed to constructive. Thank you in advance for your reply. Kenfree (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, the reference was from BBC, not from the foundation. Second, whan you cite the Times, do you every time write that it is owned by Rupert Murdoch, naturalized US citizen? You edit was to to prove the point, which is a disruptive behavior. And you perfectly know this.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you or Ezhiki find anything on this and Russian/Tajik title?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It might be difficult, but I will have a look.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if it's this one. If so, it was established way before 1955 (when it was renamed for the last time) and does not contain "Dushanbe" in the title.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 19, 2014; 16:09 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Heh, I love that I forgot to actually click the last button to block Romana... thanks for getting it. Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I actually have not seen your message, went from ANI directly and blocked her as a sock, than noticed your block message.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Busse[edit]

Thanks for the block. You'll need to disable talk and email access also - standard procedure now for these accounts due to their equally standard methodology. - Sitush (talk) 07:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin has already done it while I was lecturing.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:St. Francis Dam[edit]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:St. Francis Dam. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]


@Ymblanter: a message on Mollinair's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mollinair (talkcontribs) 01:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article protected changed[edit]

You had protected an article and yet they have changed it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atl%C3%A9tico%E2%80%93Cruzeiro_football_rivalry&action=history . It is filled with bias, and I exposed them on the discussion page. Could you please revert it? Thanks in advance.189.61.16.215 (talk) 23:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please agree with your opponents first. If I unprotect, it is clear that you will resume edit-warring.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of No1 Model of the World[edit]

Hi there,

so I will recreate my page No1 Model of the World, feel free to delete it again! :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by Europelinks (talkcontribs) 00:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 06:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great job, just explain me why that happened again? What a silly Enciklopedia. ∅

Because it was deleted as a result of AFD discussion. The outcome of the discussion was that the topic is not notable.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that is not true at all, I provided more than 10 references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.88.117.166 (talk) 10:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These references were not reliable sources.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection[edit]

Sorry about that. I got caught in an edit conflict and accidentaly removed your edit. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 20:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I just restored it. Thanks for cleaning that page up on a regular basis.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help[edit]

You have experience with SPAs, so I'm asking for your help. I've been having some problems, as of late. Essentially, there was an article called "Cultural Marxism", which was coatrack central and not supported by reliable sources. It was being used as a vehicle for a conspiracy theory, which we have an article on. It was trying to pass the conspiracy theory as reality. Some other editors and I tried to resolve the situation through a merge, resolving the PoV fork situation. This was stymied by a flood of off-Wikipedia SPAs. The result was that the article was protected, and that sysop MusikAnimal required that a discussion take place. We held this discussion, and there was a clear consensus for a merge amongst those who actually based their arguments in policy and RS. However, MusikAnimal refused to close the discussion, and asked me to put a request in at AN/RFC. For weeks, that request lingered, and meanwhile, more SPAs turned up to make a mess on the talk page, and to make the article even worse than it already was, with unsourced bunk about "sleeper-cell Marxists". Today, a new off-Wikipedia SPA campaign began, specifically targeting me. Another SPA conveniently provided a link at the article's talk page to the message board where people were targeting me and preparing this campaign. Having had enough of this nonsense, and being tired of waiting, I closed the discussion and merged the article. Of course, one might say this was improper. I discussed this at MusikAnimal's talk page, and you can read that thread to learn more about my reasoning. However, MusikAnimal has washed his hands of this matter, and essentially I'm left in the precarious position of defending Wikipedia without any administrative assistance, whilst being subjected to a campaign by off-Wikipedia SPAs. I need help. More SPAs are bound to come, and make a mess further. I feel threatened by these off-Wikipedia rumblings. Please help resolve this situation. Watch the article, and stop these SPAs. Please. RGloucester 20:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Washing my hands" is correct, I only protected the page because I witnessed disruption. I encouraged discussion as that's how you resolve the matters that lead to the page having to be protected. RGloucester, if these SPAs were "assaulting" you as you say, you should report to a more relevant venue like WP:ANI. I would have not blocked them anyway, even if warranted, with your continued inquiries on my talk page it may have appeared I was persuaded to side with you. To be clear, I have not looked into any of this at all. My involvement ended with protecting the page, and I stand by that. — MusikAnimal talk 20:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am perfectly uninvolved, since I know nothing bout the subject, and five minutes ago I did not even know that the subject exist. I see two problems here. First, usually we let merger discussions run for a week, or even longer, if the discussion is ongoing. Second, I see indeed a large number of opposes from new users, who were obviously canvassed from an external site (in this case, the best way of dealing with them would be to write in small print that they have very few or no edits outside this page. Typically, such votes are discounted by the closer, or at least given little weight. However, at least superficially, I see several opposes from users in good standings and with a long tenure. My guess is that if the RM gets to run its way the most probable outcome would be no consensus, and this is unrelated to SPAs. For the time being, since you closed the discussion and merge the article anyway, I would let it stand as it is, but if someone would want to unclose the discussion and to undo the merge, I would not say that this is completely unreasonable.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ymblanter, the merge discussion started 34 days ago. It was obviously stale. There has been no real discussion for weeks, other than a few SPAs making a muck-up. I agree that there were a few opposes from users in good standing as well, but I've refuted their arguments, as have others. I've taken pains to show that reliable sources do not support the existence for such a school of thought. All you need to do is read the last version of the article before my merger, which will show you that this article was nothing more than a coatrack. There is nothing more convincing than actually reading what was written in this article. If you read it, you'll see why I did what I did. Policy does not support the existence of this article. Reversion of the merger would be a disaster for Wikipedia, and would facilitate more disruption by these SPAs. RGloucester 21:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then I probably only found the second part, which started on Nov 29. I will have a look again.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see, it is 29 October, not November. Good, let us then leave it where it is now.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would I be wrong in asking you to semi-protect that page? If an editor reverts my merge, I'm fine with that. I don't think, however, that SPAs or IPs should be allowed to manipulate the page. We know that they are there, and we know that there is severe disruption. Links to the offending websites have been provided. Isn't that enough to justify a semi-protection? RGloucester 22:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That would amount to a preventive protection, and I would rather not do it. However, I added a redirect to my watchlist. If an SPA starts disruption, I think I could handle this.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An IP has begun restoring the article, and is now engaging in personal attacks. RGloucester 21:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was offline. I see that it ha been helped already.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I'm happy that this problem is finally resolved. RGloucester 07:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It has been resolved for a month, b ut I continue watchlisting it.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I shall be doing the same. Thanks for your previous assistance. RGloucester 20:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request to close stale merge proposal[edit]

Sorry to impose, but a merge proposal for the First Battle of Donetsk Airport and Second Battle of Donetsk Airport was made here nearly a month ago and was stale before it had even begun. I'd close it myself, except that I'm very much involved and don't want to trigger more IP and SPA edit warring. I'd rather that an uninvolved admin who is actually familiar with the subject matter, such as yourself, close it, and am content to abide by your decision whichever way it goes. I just want to see some of the POV messes surrounding articles about recent events start getting cleaned up. If you're not prepared to close it for whatever reason, just let me know and I'll approach one of the members of the merger taskforce. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will have a look in the (European) evening if nobody taks it before that. I have now six hours of teaching ahead.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:22, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please unprotect death of Eric Garner[edit]

Most (or atleast a majority of) IP edits have been constructive. People seem to have a lot of respect in this case and there have been surprisingly few instances of vandalism. Biased POV edits like the occasional "murdered" don't really constitute wp:disruptive editing. IPs have provided references to the article, corrected longstanding errors and even cleaned up behind other IPs. Just go through the history. And there have been exactly zero edits trashing living persons so far. Your protection can at best be called preemptive action. But you're also stymying the quick updating and involved fact-checking that can only be done by the larger community. As long as they're doing more good than harm I think banning anonymous edits is unwarranted. 64.233.173.170 (talk) 13:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)aka Googleman[reply]

There have been vandalism from non-autoconfirmed accounts though, and there are too many of them.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you say so. You may have analyzed the revision history more thoroughly than I did but I still don't agree with you. Just out of curiosity though, can you see who's autoconfirmed on the history page itself or do you have to hit "contribs", count the number of edits and then hit "user rights" to find out date of creation like the rest of us?--64.233.173.174 (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2014 (UTC)Aka Googleman[reply]
    No, one needs to check the userrights, but a red talk page and a red userpage are good indications that a user is new.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In case you are not paying attention to some cabal IRC right now, let me ask you myself. Are you ok with another admin overturning the protection?--64.233.173.147 (talk) 15:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)aka Googleman[reply]
    I am not on IRC. Yes, I am fine with an admin overturning the protection assuming sound reasoning has been presented.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RFPP[edit]

Sorry, I saw it now;

To be honest I don't expect any edit from other users, but I just want to make sure other users cannot edit my userpage. I saw some people's userpage (such as User:Σ}), and thought it (full-protection) is possible.  Revi 17:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible, theough usually is applied for retired users. I can fully protect it if this is really what you want. Just wanted to double check.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please go ahead. :) I think I have some kind of paranoid about my userpage being edited by others :p  Revi 17:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 17:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; btw, please make the template small.  Revi 17:22, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Thanks for accepting the re-opening of the discussion about Cultural Marxism. It's not clear to me what the right answer is, nor where the discussion will end up, but it was right of you to unprotect.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:32, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks for handling this.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note, the page was on semi before your full protection. Perhaps it should be returned to semi again? Stickee (talk) 02:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was on semi because the IP reverted the redirect to the previous version. Now it is not needed. The page is watched by a bigger number of administrators than it had ever been watched, and I am sure they will react if there is any disruption ongoing.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ymblanter, I spend a whole day in creating a wiki-article for the missing last Album by WFAHM, adding cover artwork, links to articles and a brief text about. As detailed as others did for the previous albums. Less than a second after I posted it, it got deleted, and I don't understand this. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Voyeur_(War_from_a_Harlots_Mouth_album)&oldid=637496295&diff=prev — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kausalitaet (talkcontribs) 17:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for you, but the article was deleted at AfD as non-notable, and therefore it was amenable for speedy deletion. Please go through the AfC process.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Was this supposed to be fully protected or semi-protected? --George Ho (talk) 23:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The request was for full protection, I will see now what happened.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CC articles[edit]

I've finished wit the CC articles (missing the 1961, but knowbysight one is under construction). Id appreciate your help on something; finding missing death dates. I've noticed a couple of times; that if knowbysight misses one, the Russian Wikipedia or warheroes usually have one, but some people seem to be missing corresponding articles on the Russian WP or warheroes so its difficult for me, who can't read or write Russian, to track those death dates. Some of the dates will probably be difficult to find; such as the dates for the 18th CC, but others probably easy (as the birth and death dates of the 28th CC members currently missing)... I'm not saying you should do this know, since you're currently working on the 27th Central Committee (and probably some other things too), but it needs attention sometime in the future. Thanks for you're help :) --TIAYN (talk) 10:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will have this in mind. For 27 and 28, many people are actually still alive.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That I now, but the main problem with the 28th is I can't find their birthdates (az-lib seemed not to have created entries on them). And as you may know, people don't always die of natural causes; Alexander Dubček died in a car accident of all things. --TIAYN (talk) 11:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for protecting this article; the editor who was causing all of the fracas has now been blocked indefinitely, so would you please lift the protection so the article can be improved by the remaining editors please? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 06:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting page protection on Adele[edit]

Hi there. Adele's page has been subjected to repeated vandalism since the Admin lock expired. The page itself was locked prior to the admin lock. Requesting page protection as its prone to vandalism, especially from ip users. Cheers--Carlos Rojas77 (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid given my previous protection of this page the request should go through WP:RFPP--Ymblanter (talk) 18:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eurasian Economic Union[edit]

Hello Ymblanter, the Eurasian Economic Union will launch on January 1 2015 with Russia, Kyrgyzstan, Armenia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan as its members states. Tajikistan may join in the future. As you are interested in Russia, if I may I would like to ask you to help assess the article so that we can get it ranked as a good article before January 1 (if you have the time and wish to do so). We're currently working to make it fit the featured article criteria. If someone could assess the article it would be greatly appreciated. We would like the article to be ranked as a Good Article and be in perfect state before January 1. (This is purely voluntary although any help will be greatly appreciated).

Many thanks —Mentoroso (talk) 16:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I will have time, but if I have I am going to have a look.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Number sign[edit]

He's back. -- Calidum 19:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 19:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. -- Calidum 19:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Spectre (2015 film)[edit]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Spectre (2015 film). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again[edit]

Hi, this is a fairly uncontroversial change; would you bother to move Central Commission for Discipline Inspection of the Communist Party of China to Central Commission for Discipline Inspection. There are no other institutions by this name, and frankly, Central Commission for Discipline Inspection of the Communist Party of China is a very long title. Would you be willing to move the article? Thanks.--TIAYN (talk) 21:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 21:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, in the spirit of shortening titles, could you move Secretariat of the Communist Party of China Central Committee to Secretariat of the Communist Party of China? It would be similar to the Secretariat of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the Secretariat of the Communist Party of Vietnam and the Secretariat of the Lao People's Revolutionary Party. Thanks. --TIAYN (talk) 17:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done as well--Ymblanter (talk) 17:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please...[edit]

Semi-protect my talkpage for a couple of days? RFPP isn't dealing with it, and I'm getting a little bored of having to revert my "admirer". Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas[edit]

Merry Christmas!!
Hello, I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,

Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia!

   –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 19:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, also merry Christmas to you.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome and thanks :) –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 19:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there are a few disagreements on actual content on that article, but there is also a lot of vandalism going on. For example, "Kev exercises his artistic talents by building a Robot Grief Dog, named MONGO-2000, winding up Hannah in the process, while Derek deals with sad news. Meanwhile, Trigger makes a face." or "As Broadhill prepares for the wedding of the year, the alcoholic sex pest Kev's behaviour proves too much for Hannah, who calls him a cunt. Everyone realises: Kindness Is Magic." as a synopsis for the last episode. Both were added in the last 24 hours. This is pure nonsense being added by anonymous users. Ultranol (talk) 16:43, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but vandalism gets reverted pretty efficiently, and there are clearly good edits from IP. I am hesitant to semi-protect, and the traffic is too high for pending changes, but you can of course leave another RFPP request, citing this thread (to avoid automatic rejection).--Ymblanter (talk) 16:52, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that it gets reverted efficiently in this case. It is the legitimate content that gets vandalized efficiently in this case. I've erased the same vandalism three or four times already in the last 48 hours, manually, even after some bots acted on it but failing to remove it. I see some registered users doing the same. Anyway, will proceed as suggested. Ultranol (talk) 18:08, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

02:41, 26 December 2014 (UTC)02:41, 26 December 2014 (UTC)02:41, 26 December 2014 (UTC)02:41, 26 December 2014 (UTC)== Deletion:Bamidele Ojo ==

Deletion:Bamidele Ojo[edit]

Merry Christmas. What do you think can be done to reverse your decision to deleting Bamidele Ojo. I think the primary requirement for inclusion as an academic was met. Bamidele Ojo is a professor of political science at a university. The Fulbright scholarship award is an important academic award. His involvement in Nigerian politics is note worthy. His appointment by former Nigerian Presidents Obasanjo as chair of the governing council of the Nigerian National Labor Institute(2005-6) and former President Yar Adua, as member of the Governing council of the National Institute for Trypanosomiasis Research(2007) and past professional engagement as the Vice Chair of the American Society of International Law Human Interest Group are all noteworthy. Your suggestion and help will be appreciated.

PS: http://www.ekiti.com/ekitinews/default.php?news_source=&news_id=107731 http://naijatechtalk.wordpress.com/2009/05/14/president-appoints-members-for-science-and-tech-parastatals/03:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)Del2003 (talk)

Sorry, no. My decision was based on the AfD discussion. You are welcome to try Wikipedia:Deletion review.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. He is noteworthy to me and many and maybe to you soon.happy holidays again and keep up the good job. "Try not to become a man of success, but rather try to become a man of value."-Albert Einstein 19:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)19:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Del2003 (talkcontribs)

Darwin Zapovednik[edit]

Dun.Leutha (talk) 12:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It is still not in English, but at least not amenable to immediate removal.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:12, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rivers[edit]

Hi YmB. The conventional English name for a European river is "Foo" not "River Foo" or "Foo River". This also reflects the Finnish name and much of the article text. If we add "... River" it implies "River" is part of the official name, which AFAIK it isn't. Please could I ask you to move it to the conventional name. Thanks. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this is not what Wikipedia:WikiProject Rivers#Naming says. I would appreciate if you stop renaming items counter to consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:16, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but the only places where "Foo River" is the proper name are the USA and Canada - if you look at the examples you will notice that. The problem is that some editors, especially in Eastern Europe, have used "Foo River" as a disambiguator instead of "Foo (river)" and then others seems to think we add the word "River" to all rivers in English - we don't. Please stop reverting changes that are in line with the convention and Wiki practice and have a discussion at the project page if you're still not happy. I promise not to change your Russian river articles... --Bermicourt (talk) 19:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have already renamed a Russian article. Please stop renaming until you present RS - and let us start with Latvia and Finland. If you continue renaming, I will take you to ANI.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Protection on Nicklas Bendtner[edit]

  • Not sure if you're aware, but the previous protection was a year in length; as such, I fail to see how three months is appropriate in length. Given the length of the protection log, the fact it is a BLP, and the amount of trolling attention this person gets, it is my opinion that the only appropriate duration is indefinite; at the very least, it should not be a quarter of the previous duration. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right, I misred the year when I was checking the protection log. Now I changed it to an indefinite protection.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you very much for your prompt action. I can see how it is easy to misread the year - it was quite a jump from previous protection levels (but justifiably so in my opinion!) That's one less article to watch like a hawk for vandals. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year Ymblanter![edit]

Thank you, also happy New Year to you.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]