User talk:Ymblanter/2017

Hi, I'm new to the community. I was just wondering what you meant by the "'SoFixIt culture,' and its replacement by the "template culture." Internet communities and niches are interesting to me, and I was wondering if you could explain it to me and also tell me what the "community" was like before I got here. Thanks! And Happy New Year, by the way! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dabblequeen (talk • contribs) 00:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thank you, and also happy New Year to you.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thank you, and also happy New Year to you--Ymblanter (talk) 13:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi dear! I can not change "Turkic Empire". In the article are many wrongs. For example Safavid Empire add to Turko-Iranian part but before it was in Turk countries and dynasties part and this is right — Preceding unsigned comment added by AzizaTuran (talk • contribs) 20:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss your proposed changes with other editors at the talk page of the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Am I correct in reading it that you only salted the title against re-creation by non-autoconfirmed users, so that a real article can be written when the film is really released? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this was the idea.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly violence in Parinay Fuke page!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashishmer (talk • contribs)

@Ashishmer:, you copied there text from an external website, and we can not accept that. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Copyright violations.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you semi-protect the page to persistent genre warring.

]

It looks like multiple users including autoconfirmed ones are involved. I can fully protect the article for three days and send you guys to the talk page to discuss, but I would really prefer that a talk page discussion occurred without page protection.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this comments but I have founded a older articles:

fact number 1: a old article about Cochlear implant has edited in 2012 at wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cochlear_implant&diff=prev&oldid=526254369  Edwtie (talk) e 20:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user stole this article from this article into infogalatic I have found this:

https://infogalactic.com/w/index.php?title=Cochlear_implant&action=history . This user have created this article in janaury 2016. Edwtie (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edwtie (talk) 20:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copying text without attribution, even from one Wikipedia article to another one, is copyright violation. For the rest, please keep the discussion at

WP:3RRN where it belongs.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't understand what do you means? This article of cochlear implant was already on Wikipedia. I have found some articles from another user have deleted because it miss sources. but The article is OK but it need sources. it has founded from literatery, books and websites. I have rewritten a part of article. but it need more time. Edwtie (talk) 22:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, if you add a text which you did not write (even if the text appeared earlier on Wikipedia), it should be attributed. We usually do not do it when a text was removed and then immediately returned, since then it is obvious from the edit history, but this is not the case we are discussing.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Добрый день! Не совсем понимаю. Часть текста сократили, что посчитали не имеет для источников. Удалили, - я не восстанавливаю. Постараюсь больши ничего не писать, если считают исформацию не достоверной. Спасибо, что сказали ещё раз, но похоже, что кто-то ждёт, что я буду бороться или опровергать. Я уже понимаю, что доказывать или бороться здесь бессмысленно. Вот если бы где-то напечатали и я взял оттутда, - это доказательство. А так как присутствуют свои воспоминания, то в чём крутился и находишь подтверждения сопутствующие событиям - это не доказательство. Понятно, что лучше не писать об этом. Спасибо за разъяснение. Грищук ЮН (talk) 11:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Нет, никто не ждёт, что Вы будете бороться или опровергать. Ждут только, чтобы текст был написан по источниками - чтобы написанное можно было проверить. Источники могут быть на каком угодно языке, но должны удовлетворять нашим требованиям

авторитетности.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Но Вы же не опровергаете тот факт, что в фильме

Pirates of 20th Century было использовано имя сухогруза "Нежин", оба судна (реальный Нежин и пароход использующий имя Нежин в фильме были построены на одной и той же верфи в ГДР). Я доказал, что парход "Нежин" преводился на английский как NEGIN до 1974 (фотографию документа, Советско-Американского Акта, я выставил, но её удалили, а текст доказательства оставили), в 1974 году ввели согласованные правила перевода имён судов и членов экипажа (см. статью SS Nezhin). В фильме "Полосатый рейс" (Striped Trip) пароход носит имя O. НЕГИН, а тогда по английски Negin читалось двояко: Нежин или Негин (О-негин). Кстати, реальный пароход Нежин никогда не был в описанном в фильме рейсе, но я знаю с чем это связано. Этот пароход не был на Дальнем Востоке даже, согласно фильма он работал там. Грищук ЮН (talk) 22:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Кстати, по той же причине другой пароход ДЖУРМА, здесь тоже Ж, числится в Википедии как

SS Djurma и на фото на борту написано DJURMA. Этот пароход сдан на слом в 1974 году и не носил никогда имя DZHURMA, так как новые английские написания судов и имён начались с 1974 года. А пароход Нежин после 1974 года стали называть NEZHIN, а до 1974 года он был NEGIN. А фильм Пираты XX века снимали в 1979 году, когда новые написания судов установились. Грищук ЮН (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Я вообще ничего не опровергаю, у меня нет никаких специальных знаний по этому вопросу. Я бы предложил следующую схему действий, на примере SS Djurma. Вы находите внешние источники, удовлетворяющие правилу

WP:RS, которые говорят, что корабль назывался Djurma. Если есть прямой источник, что он всегда так нзаывался и не был переименован, вставляете в статью со ссылкой на источник. Если нет, точно так же вставляете в статью, плюс рядом даёте сноску, что до 1974 года названия были по другой схеме, не той, которая используется сейчас. Используете максимально эффективно поле описания правки. Если Вас откатывают, объясняете на странице обсуждения примерно так, как Вы мне сейчас написали. --Ymblanter (talk) 06:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Brandmeenn

This user is constantly vandalizing articles and not providing sources and I keep on removing it and he keeps adding it back if you could take a look at this user that would be great MatthewTardiff 23:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC) MatthewTardiff 23:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MatthewTardiff (talk • contribs)

I know nothing about the subject, and the only way for me to determine whose editing is disruptive is to look at the sources. I see that for instance here you guys revert each other without providing sources. We can not take any action (except for blocking both of you for edit-warring) before sources have been added to the disputed articles.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. On behalf of other regular registered editors who maintain the above page and were deeply troubled by the annual onslaught of IP misinformation being added, thank you for issuing the protection. Best wishes. Ref ^(chew)(do) 08:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, feel free to re-request protection if disruption continues after protection expires.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think these pages are usually protected for the entire year, so I'd suggest you extend the protection until January 2018 to avoid having to redo it every month. --Marbe166 (talk) 09:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The longer protection is usually the case - I'm afraid our deaths pages will always attract vandalizm, given how easy it is for the malcontents to perpetuate trolling of notable persons by claiming they are dead through the article above. Ref ^(chew)(do) 09:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The previous years were split by months (for example, there is no page at

Deaths in 2017, and Deaths in January 2017 has never been protected). I am not sure whether there was any decision to move to the entire year pages, but if it gets split back we would need to re-protect anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Not sure if I fully understood what you mean, but the

Deaths in 2017 page. --Marbe166 (talk) 09:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I see, it makes sense. I will reprotect it now for a year.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My personal thanks for that too. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, I just notice you protected the article

]

As far as I my es-1 helps me, these [1][2] two references (#2 and #3 in the article) say that the guy is romantically involved with another man and thus revealed his sexual orientation, but it is safer to ask a native Spanish speaker.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help Ymblanter, Pinging

talk|c|em) 10:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Grave personal attack, edit warring, and IP socking

Hello Ymblanter,

Apart from user "Lashalakerbaia" violating

]

I've written down all IP socking evidence right here. I can't bring it to SPI, because they don't link accounts with IP's. The evidence nevertheless is so ridiculously huge, that any admin should be able to draw a conclusion from it in the blink of an eye, I believe. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 15:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- His character's name on el bien amado is Jordi the bff of Alexis (see it yourself here: https://www.facebook.com/ElBienamadoTv/photos/a.1161339623931075.1073741828.1140718732659831/1290336831031353/?type=3&comment_id=1290477811017255&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R0%22%7D)

-Before doing the casting for that telenovela he filmed "Escuela Para Seductores"which is set to premiere in NOVEMBER 2017 (INFO HERE: http://www.radioformula.com.mx/notas.asp?Idn=624624&idFC=2016)

and last thing.. Sobre Tus Huellas is set to premiere this year they are in post production (editing it) (info: https://www.facebook.com/SobreTusHuellas/) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KarMarBar12 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

oh and he was born on NOVEMBRE 3 1990 NOT 1993

you better check his bio because it says "Later in 2014, I debuted in the cinema in the film Fragmented directed by Douglas Elford which took place in Mexico in November of 2013" so it should be HE DEBUTED not I DEBUTED.

We have

WP:BLP, and all content you add to the article, especially if this content is contested, must be sourced. So far you failed to source it. Note that I am not an editor of this article.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

The Transfer of the Crimean Oblast 1954 to to the Ukrainian SSR. Legal Aspects

From a constitutional point of view, however, Nikita S. Khrushchev broke the Constitution of the Russian Federation (RSFSR), which committed the territorial integrity of the fatherland. The process has never been properly investigated. Documents from the archives opened in 1992 also showed that the decision was also illegal in other respects. Neither had the Supreme Soviet in Moscow voted on the subject, nor the one in Kiev, but, what was inadmissible, only their presidencies. Almost half of the members of these committees were missing, which must be understood as a demonstrative vote against this arbitrary decision and meant, that they were not formally legitimized. Protest also came from the First Secretary of the Communist Party in Crimea, Pavel Titov, who had been cited to Moscow to receive the notification of the change of ownership. He was then removed and replaced by Ukrainian Dmytro Polianski.

  The external occasion for this generous "gift" of Moscow to Kiev was the 300th anniversary of the Treaty of Peresyaslav. [1] 

Please explain what is wrong. Have you better sources?Truth,2 (talk) 10:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is just not a reliable soursce. This is what is wrong. And I an sure you know this.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

N. Asarow worked (before as politician) as a teacher at a university. So I suppose he knows the usual academic style. Especially this facts are very clear. Perhaps somebody tries to find another source. That would be very fine.

The mentioned facts show far more detailed knowledge than for example the quoted digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/119638. It has no information what happened before this Meeting of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet. And reflects the official communistic - and propagandistic - view of the time.

In my opinion it would be necessary to get a link of the Meeting of the Supreme Soviet in Moscow and in Kiew. But there is nothing.Truth,2 (talk) 12:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you find a source which is not reliable written by a person who is clearly biased and lacks necessary knowledge. You were told this by at least three users. It is at this point not our responsibitilty to find sources which refute Azarov, but your responsibility to demonstrate that this point is widely recognized by international community.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

with reverts on Putin... (3rr and all that) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those are clear BLP violations, but the next one I will report rather than revert. The account does not seem to be

WP:NOTTHERE, so we have to deal with it.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Btw this is not 3RR, they add different blogs as sources, not the same one.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You left a message about Elongata, a redirect I marked as reviewed. I thought that once a redirect is listed at WP:RFD there is no need for page curation, since the RFD process "takes over". What is the consensus on Wikipedia about this? Sjö (talk) 08:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is likely a technical error, my apologies. Answered in more details at your talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Joanna Zastróżna requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Alexf^(talk) 11:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexf:, I am seriously disappointed that you have no better things to do at Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Because I see an article about BLP with only one line and one reference that does not seem to assert notability? You know the rules as well as anybody. You could be working in it in a subpage instead of mainspace, but you know that too, so why the comment? -- 12:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Because what you have done does not help building encyclopedia in any way. You could have looked at who created the article, check that I have 90K contributions (well, less than you, but still a reasonably good number), created 500+ articles and not a single one was ever deleted. I created that in a coffee break, now you force me to take time off my job to add material, and even now I run a risk that an idiot would delete it, and I would have to go to DRV etc. Ant it takes 10 seconds to run search and check she is notable. There are enough clear-cut cases to nominate for speedy deletion.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that you have been reported on administrator's noticeboard.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Жовтневе багаття (talk • contribs)

Please note that

]

Thanks, this is what I was looking for but did not find.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On another note regarding NPR, we've been adding newly promoted NPRs to

WP:PERM :) Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks, I will have a look tomorrow.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Persistent SPA warring and disruption

Hi Ymblanter, as you're a patrolling admin on these type of pages, I'd like to give a heads up about this pretty nuisansical level of disruption. This "new" user has been blocked three times so far (two per AE sanctions, directly by Doug), ever since his first edit about 1,5 months ago. The only thing he's especially seeminly interested in, is to change words in front of sourced content on the Armenia page, and to add irrelevant political sources to push a POV (the POV constitutes a mere one thing; namely that Armenia would "supposedly" be European in geography, which is utter baloney, and which none of the sources state). Numerous talk page comments were placed, and he has ignored all of them ever since, and yet, evern after having been blocked three times so far for the same thing, he's still continuing to

In my opinion, so far, he's pretty much clearly not

]

 Done, looks like a clear-cut case.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

• On the A Dance of the Forests page, your edit caused an ISSN error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

. Thanks, ]

Thanks for the contribution!

I saw you did some revisions and patrolled Modesto (surname), thanks for the contribution! Lmcasablanca (talk) 02:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 04:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you recently 'semi'd' the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia article in response to two IP's repeatedly making the same edit without concensus. Perhaps I misunderstood the 'semi' status, but one of the IP's has continued to repeat the edit, and also removed your protection note twice in the last hour. Please name me if replying here, thanks. Pincrete (talk) 13:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the protection just expired, I now reprotected it--Ymblanter (talk) 17:47, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for dealing with Соєва_корівка. Special:Contributions/EricLewan seems very similar.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I am on a pretty bad internet but will have a look later. It would be great if someone warns them if it has not yet been done.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

regarding the subject an editor wanted to add the Rusyn name in the infobox (Комітат ... (Rusyn)), but unfortunately he don't know it properly....since I did not find any Wikiproject for Rusyns, it seems you are Russian and Russians are the most close to Rusyns, maybe you could know or access the proper Rusyn name...If you manage, please correct the current incomplete addition.

Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 23:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC))[reply]

No, unfortunately I do not know the language and can not help. Sorry.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. 75.175.96.6 (talk) 09:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the proceeding content:

Abū al-Qāsim Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib ibn Hāshim; source: Muhammad

Retrieved 2017-02-15

It is quite obvious by even a cursory glance at the beginning of the source of the applicableness of the Britannica content. Having read at the head of your talk page, you will be busy until the 27th, I will re-add the material in 1 or 2 days (or whenever I'm available) should you not respond. In any case, I can't see there is any objection possible to inclusion. If you would like to explain the reason you thought revertion was necessary, please tell, as I'm intrigued to know your reasoning and thinking on the decision you made. 1a16 (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss at Talk:Muhammad first, if you can not see whether there are any objections.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, that would be unnecessary and superfluous, to the much more easy solution of you opening the Britannica link to find the reason for inclusion patently. There isn't anything to discuss. 1a16 (talk) 21:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Muhammad > Muhammad, in full, Abū al-Qāsim Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib ibn Hāshim (born 570, Mecca, Arabia... 1a16 (talk) 21:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If there are objections to your edits there is always material to discuss. If you are not willing to discuss you are on a straight road to a block. You may ask yourself first why in this article, which is very high profile and exists almost since the very beginning, nobody before you added this material to the lede.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

added under the title > Childhood and early life. 1a16 (talk) 21:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for bringing this up again, but this editor is back to their disruptive editing after their month-long block. After I left a message about their repeated links, they actually changed their behavior and are no longer adding them. Unfortunately, they are still removing the logo from WTIC-FM without edit summaries or talk page discussion. I started another discussion at User talk:32.211.63.156#Image deletion that if they continued to remove the image, they could be blocked, but they just did it again for the third time back from their block (technically fifth, but they self-reverted two times.) Thank you for your help, Aspects (talk) 20:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I refer to your revert of my edit 766916748 on Vsevolozhsk and suggestion that I have engaged in edit-warring. Two notable characteristics to your activity are (1) you commenced the conflict by reverting and reverted a second time without providing any reason at all except that you thought it "edit-warring"; (2) you have been discourteous in failing to respond at all to the substantive points raised. Your initial revert simply came with the one-word explanation "standard" without addressing the edit summary provided. The epithet "edit-warring" should be reserved for disputes in which a constructive argument has either never begun or has been supplanted by purely argumentative edits for editing's sake, i.e. akin to what you have done here. Your failure to engage on substance is unhelpful and unconstructive. I have acquiesced in your request to engage here, so over to you, on substance this time. sirlanz 23:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look, you might have noticed that all (several thousands) articles on Russian (and also Ukrainian etc) localities use this format. The format is a result of certain consensus of editors who contributed to these article over the past 15 years, including myself. You tried to change one article out of ten thousands, citing some reasons. This is fine, but this is not the point. You need not just to give your opinion, but to demonstrate that the consensus changed. This can only be done by discussing things, and per

WP:BRD you should not have reverted me even if you think you have excellent reasons to think that the current setup of the lede contradicts some policies.--Ymblanter (talk) 23:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Request semi protection for America's Next Top Model (cycle 23)

I propose to semi protect

this article

in order to prevent further vandalism. WP:RFP Vivid17 (talk) 09:52, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, 3 months--Ymblanter (talk) 14:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems you have stuck to an opinion that the Souled Out (1997) article is the copyright infringement of a website article. I needed some time to expand and improve the article for the betterment of Wikipedia readers but all of my time and hardwork which I spent on that article has been wasted. I needed a little time to improve that article but you deleted it immediately. Kindly give me some time to create and improve that article and remove all the data which is "copyright infringement" according to you.--Mark Linton (talk) 08:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark Linton:, where does the text come from?--Ymblanter (talk) 08:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter:, I used the website 411mania as a reference for that article and mentioned the website in that article. There will be several more websites used for reference with the passage of time as the article will be expanded and increased.--Mark Linton (talk) 08:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark Linton:, but the materials at 411mania are protected by copyright and can not be copied verbatim to Wikipedia. This is copyright violation.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter:, You can check 411mania and my created Wikipedia article. I have not copied the article word by word. I have just used the reference for material. I have written the article in my own words and provided the website for reference. Material is not copied from 411mania. It is not copied word by word. You may check it. This is not the first time I have created a separate pay-per-view article on Wikipedia. I have been doing so with wrestling pay-per-view events since 2007 and 2008 and there was no issue at that time. My procedure of article creation and editing was the same at that time as is now. I do not copy copyrighted material from other websites. I just use them for references.--Mark Linton (talk) 08:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark Linton: I checked the first version (which I deleted), and it was verbatim copied from elsewhere. I will chack later the current one, but we can not afford even copyvio which was rewritten, these versions (if they exist) must be revision-deleted.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter: This is not copied from anywhere. This is my own article. Just check my talk page where you will see appreciation from admins on creating separate articles like The Great American Bash (2007) and No Way Out (2006). I have been doing this thing for a decade. I will never violate the policies of a website, which I have been using for the past decade.--Mark Linton (talk) 09

01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@Mark Linton: This is not possible. I believe tha you have not copied it from elsewhere, but then you copied it from another Wikipedia article. If this is the case, it should have been attributed in the edit summary of the first edit, like I advised on your talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Linton, here's the problem: When you copy from one Wikipedia article to another, you need to provide attribution to the original contributors. Attribution is required under the terms of our Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license. Here's how to provide attribution: when moving or copying from one Wikipedia article to another, you need to say in your edit summary at the destination article where you got the content. Here's a sample edit summary: "Attribution: content in this article was moved here from Souled Out on February 27, 2017. Please see the history of that page for attribution." The only time you don't need to do this when moving or copying content is if you are the sole author of the material. Even then, I would recommend doing it, because these edits are appearing on a bot report as being copyright violation. Technically such moves are a copyright violation and a violation of the terms of our CC-by-SA license if attribution is not provided. There's more information on this topic at Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content. Please read this information carefully before moving or copying any further material from one location to another on this wiki. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User named "ReneAjax". Definetely not a new user, introducing numerous unsourced edits,[4] self-formulated deducations,[5][6] removing sourced content,[7] as well as making blunt

]

Thanks, but as far as I am concerned they are not yet at the level of a block per

WP:NOTTHERE.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I concur. An eye should definetely be kept on it though, as he's clearly deliberately playing with fire. - LouisAragon (talk) 00:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Don't disregard NPOV pls. Read the preface of v.1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poggio Bracciolini (talk • contribs) 10:43, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. This is why I reverted your edits.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He's calling himself a newbie now despite editing as a SPA for what, a decade? I've asked if he has a COI. He certainly has a pov. Doug Weller talk 11:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May be we should take them to ANI after all.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should. Both his accounts (see [9] go back to 2005, and there's long discussions on both the main articles where he participates, worth looking at them but I don't have time today. Doug Weller talk 13:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you semi-protect the page to persistent edit warring. 183.171.182.145 (talk) 13:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it seems like there is only one editor causing disruption.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I noticed that you put a semi protection on Matt Khalil, he has officially been signed by carolina, here is an official statment from the carolina panthers http://www.panthers.com/news/article-2/Panthers-sign-Matt-Kalil/7477547d-b90f-4420-8368-3614645fc72f Thanks (--NHL49--) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NHL49 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NHL49:, please report this at the talk page of the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:32, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Начал обсуждение уместности двух категорий не-естественого формата про университеты и колледжы Молдавии и Румынии. Так как в России приблизительно такая же ситуациая, может стоит обсудить сразу и категорию Universities and colleges in Russia, что скажете? --XXN, 16:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Можно добавить Россию, не вижу проблем.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse, for asking, but I don't know, what to do. I made udate https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016%E2%80%9317_Premier_League&diff=769798053&oldid=769797403. It wasn't "live udate" and source is here: https://www.premierleague.com/stats/top/players/goals, but it was reverted https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016%E2%80%9317_Premier_League&diff=769819300&oldid=769798053 with accusation of vandalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Noel_baran#March_2017. I don't know, what's it means--Noel baran (talk) 21:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

уупс, теперь обратил внимание, что можно на русском--Noel baran (talk) 21:01, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest to open a topic about the edit you want to make at the talk page of the article, pinging the user who reverted your edit.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but another user made the same editions as me, and User:Qed237 not reverted.--Noel baran (talk) 04:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know, you possibly need to ask User:Qed237. It could very well even be accidental.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have told Noel baran earlier at his talkpage in User talk:Noel baran#Timestamp and infobox section that the bottom of the infobox must be updated and I have even done it twice. After his most recent edit it said All statistics correct as of 27 February 2017 and neither Harry Kane or Romelu Lukaku had 19 goals at that time. The fact that he had been told about it and still makes these bad partial infobox updates is not good and after giving him several chances I felt I had to give him a warning. Normally I would have updated the rest of the infobox myself, including the timestamp, but unfortunately I did not have the time at that point. Also note that you can not just update top goalscorer and the timestamp, because then the rest of the infobox will be outdated and incorrct, so the entire infobox should be updated at once (after sources has been updated). Qed237 (talk) 11:00, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You recently applied full protection for a week to

]

There were several users edit-warring; if they reach consensus at the talk page that the protection is no longer needed I can of course remove it.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you take a look at the activities of Special:Contributions/Hotcacao, an SPA created on 9 March 2017, which exists mainly for the purpose of changing: Kiev to Kyiv, Odessa to Odesa, and Dnipropetrovsk to Dnipro. I would not be in the least surprised if the account were operated by the same person who edited Special:Contributions/Жовтневе_багаття.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Left them the last warning.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:38, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indefblocked, this is clearly them.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He/she is also using this IP Special:Contributions/202.155.216.30.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked the IP, but the whole contribution still needs to be reverted.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ярослав, прошу Вас помочь в защите статьи о битве на Куликовом поле, где украинский вандал JalaJala (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) пытается переписать историю со ссылкой на "Страну Моксель" украинского мостостроителя Белинского, "доказывающего", что никакой России не существовало, а была "страна Моксель", часть Орды, называет Россию "Московией" и т.п. Вандал приводит "факты", которые не разделяются никем в исторической науке, и вставляет ссылки на более чем сомнительные источники. 46.148.19.26 (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Answering a page protection request). Пока нет необходимости, единственная правка участника была откачена с комментарием "вандализм".--Ymblanter (talk) 15:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Mr. Blanter. I guess your help is needed to protect the following problematic article:

]

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 22:55, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, sir, for your attention to the issue (I believe, however, that the article will have to be protected for a longer period, given the importance of the subject to users with a nationalist bias).

talk) 23:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Chimamanda Adichie

Hi, user ymblanter, take the time to review cited references. Firstly, I am personally close to Chimamanda. Secondly, as you are native to russian and kazakhstan (sp.) I am native to Nigeria-America. Thirdly, follow the already existing biography in her content - she went to school in the US (requiring j1 visa), continued on to her Masters, and a fellowship (requires LEGAL residency, in turn a Green Card). I live in MD. Her husband is a Nigerian-American doctor who runs an active practice in MD. She has a child and by (https://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship/citizenship-through-naturalization/naturalization-spouses-us-citizens) she becomes a US citizen. How is this confusing for you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmo910 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

reliable sources - something you so far failed to present. --Ymblanter (talk) 15:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

@Ymblanter http://billmoyers.com/2014/12/16/nigerian-author-chimananda-ngozi-adichie-identity/ (Second Paragraph) (also see the video included by the Aspen Institute )

"As it turns out, Adichie’s story is as interesting as her character’s. Like Ifemelu, Adichie emigrated from Nigeria to the United States, where she discovered the color of her skin “came with baggage and with all of these assumptions.” At a recent event hosted by the Aspen Institute in Washington, DC, Adichie talked about her own experience of coming to identify as “black” in America — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmo910 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It does not say she is a US citizen.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:29, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:COI issue and shouldn't be editing the article. He has releaved to us that he is personally close to the subject.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:36, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

In any case, they should not add deliberately wrong information to the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shri Markandey Rai was a sarpanch and block member from 1998 to presented Sarai Mohan. He was also Member of (i) Uttar Pradesh Azamgarh panchayat, 2005–2014,

Biography[edit source]

Born on bhumihar brahmin family 1 January 1939, in bakesh Village of Azamgarh district UP.After completing his early education in a village he went to Varanasi where he completed his hsc from the Banaras Hindu University in Varanasi.He was a famous former and Wrestler in Azamgarh.First, he joined in RSS party and worked as Social Worker in Azamgarh.In 1984 he was elected as the member of Gram panchayat from thekma.After some years he resigned from the membership of panchayat. He was married to Smt. Chandravati Devi Rai with whom he had 6 children(5 sons 1 daughters). He was a great leader, Political, Social Worker, and Wrestler;.he was quite popular among local people because of his helping nature.He was a soft-spoken leader.He was a leader of poor.He was very serious about the education of girls and the education of his villagers.He established many Temples in his village and in his district.Really he was the hero of Azamgarh politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ritesh anil markandey rai (talk • contribs) 08:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First, you may want to read

conflict of interest editor and should not be editing that page even if the person were notable.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

On this day, 4 years ago...

Wishing Lepricavark (talk) 13:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply ]

Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not edit war on

]

Why the fuck is the Interfax not reliable? Because you do not like it? This is a major Russian news agency. Anyway, within a minute a BBC article was added, which literally repeats the same statement.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please be

Talk 14:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I am sorry, I was a bit too harsh after you reverted me for the second time. I apologize. I however insist that the Interfax is a perfectly reliable source.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. I've never heard of Interfax before. Anyway, there are now several English sources publishing this rather bizarre turn of events. Personally, I think it would be unfair of the EBU to fine Russia, should they end up having to withdraw. It isn't exactly their fault. Will be interesting to see how this unfolds over the next coming weeks.

Talk 17:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I actually have absolutely no stand on the issue, I just saw an unsourced statement and decided to reference it. Interfax is onte of the two major news agencies in Russia, along with ITAR-TASS, but ITAR-TASS is 100% state funded and is therefore considered more prone to propaganda. I would say Interfax is one of the most reliable sources one can find in Russia.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
Firstly, thank you very much for protecting Scooby-Doo! WrestleMania Mystery earlier today. However, I am a bit confused as to why you pending-changes protected it rather than semi-protect it as I had suggested in my report. The problematic IP-hopping user has already made three attempts since the page was protected to re-add the nonsense. Diffs: 1 2 3. While the problematic changes still technically wouldn't be visible to readers, in my opinion, it makes a lot more work for the pending changes reviewers to constantly have to revert the edits, especially when virtually all the IP edits to the page are nonconstructive. I'm not saying I disagree (as you likely know a lot more than I do regarding protection being an admin), I'm just a bit confused why semi-protection wouldn't be easiest and/or why you chose pending changes. Thank you! Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 21:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the edit history and concluded that, with some exceptions, the edits of the disruptive user are infrequent. I could have protected it short term (like three days) to cut off the current attack, but IMO the only viable long-term strategy (as you requested) are pending changes. Long-term semi-protection is not warranted.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's totally fine, but they're getting a lot more frequent after this last protection elapsed, in fact, another edit was made by the disruptive user already simply in the time it took me to reply. 1 I understand and respect the fact that you don't feel it's a viable strategy, but do you have any suggestions regarding how to handle this latest attack even with the pending changes? Waiting for six months and immediately starting vandalizing again upon the block expiration shows the user is clearly obsessed now with the article, and has no plan to stop any time soon. Any suggestions you have would be much appreciated. Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 21:52, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And another one, less than five minutes from my previous revert. Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 21:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I now additionally semi-protected it for a month.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:54, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. If you feel that semi-protection isn't the route to go, how would you suggest this be handled in the future, if the user were to resume the disruption after the month elapsed? Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 22:48, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the user returns after a month and continues the disruption with the same pace of a dozen edits per day, the article obviously needs to be semi-protected.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good. Thank you for all your help, it's much appreciated! Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 14:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just so you know, the disruption has resumed once again after semi-protection elapsed last week. I would potentially suggest semi-protection again since the person seems to be extremely persistent. Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 21:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a year.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just declined a speedy deletion at

when I noticed you had already deleted and restored the page earlier today, so I'm wondering if you noticed something else to hold up the move? The target page has been deleted several times due to copyvios and sockpuppetry, I see, but this version at least seems to be free of the copyright-violating material.

Ping Jac16888 as well who create-protected the target page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector and Jac16888: I actually deleted it as the author request, but then I noticed the talk page discussion and decided that there is a chance for the author to react and it is not necessary to delete the page five minutes after it was created. Apparently the author was not interested or not competent enough to understand what was needed, but I do not know anything more than that, I had no internet access for the last three hours. I am not convinced that the article is notable, but this can be decided at AfD.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's pretty much how I feel about it. I was going to move it and then list it at AfD, but I'll wait for the protecting admin to weigh in. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed the discussion at 2017 Russian protests, as it isn't going anywhere and

]

@

UNSC Luke 1021:, with all respect, I do not have a feeling you understood what the whole point was. The IP did not like a column I introduced in the table ("sanctioned"), and, IMO, the closing must at least address this issue (whether the column should be there or not).--Ymblanter (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes but the problem started because IP was arguing that we should not have it due to future events that may or may not occur. Thus, we should close until said future events do or do not occur.

talk) 16:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

This is certainly fine with me, no problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious with regard to your protection of the talk page on the Stolen Generations. By 'disruptive editing' did you mean the editors who repeatedly edit text placed on the talk page by me by hiding it from view or did you mean that I am being disruptive for insisting that my text on the talk page not be edited or hidden from view by opposing editors? I suspect that this is being done so that other editors browsing this talk page do not notice the significance of the changes being made to the article by those editors. If it is your intention to assist those editors to conceal my text from view (as has just happened, again), please let me know here and we can escalate this to the Administrators Noticeboard. 2001:8003:6526:D400:1D23:912C:8C23:998A (talk) 03:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your responsibility was, after your first edits were reverted, to take it to the talk page of the article and discuss. Instead, you continued reverting changing IPs.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:02, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My IP address changes because I have a dynamic IP address which changes automatically. I took the issue to the talk page. I put information on that talk page to inform other editors about the fact that editors have been editing out all conflicting historical explanations of the Stolen Generations in order to promote a particular POV. In particular, I pasted the text from the section titled “Historical debate over the Stolen Generations” and sorted it to make it obvious to any reader that the section has been edited to remove ALL the arguments criticising the premise of the Stolen Generations from a historical point of view. Those editors continue to remove any text from the article that contradicts their POV and have now resorted to hiding my text on the talk page so that the imbalance isn't so obvious to any one checking the talk page. You have assisted those editors to continue to hide that text. When did it become acceptable for an editor to alter or hide the text that another editor places on the talk page? Your intervention appears to be partisan assistance to those editors. 2001:8003:6526:D400:1D23:912C:8C23:998A (talk) 07:21, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have

various means of dispute resolution. Edit-warring is not listed there as eligible. If you had a static IP, I would have blocked you for edit-warring. Since the IP was dynamic, I just protected the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:24, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

The article and now the talk page is being sanitised by a group promoting a particular POV. Unfortunately when I took the sanitising of the article to the NPOV Noticeboard [10] no other editors got involved and the editors sanitising the article have taken that as an opportunity to continue to remove information that contradicts their POV. Since you seem intent on assisting them, I will raise these issues on the Administrators Noticeboard when I have time. 2001:8003:6526:D400:1D23:912C:8C23:998A (talk) 07:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. Do not forget to refer here, so that I do not need to repeat all these arguments.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please, consider providing RELIABLE sources, not rumors from media [11]. — Alex Khimich (talk) 19:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian is a reliable source. Ukrinian Wikipedia is not. Please read the policies.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian cites and digests letter in indirect manner. Find official announcement/letter for EBU. UK wiki was to depict blacklists which were also confirmed by governmental sources. Alex Khimich (talk) 20:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you completely misunderstand our policies. If the Ukrainian Wikipedia became a government propaganda tool, it does not mean the English Wikipedia is.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well I CAN allocate some time to bore with you each detail. You DID delete 3 cites to Ukrainian GOV sites. Are you genuine to do that or you Russian truth keeper? Also The Guardian reverbs letter differently, original letter did not had this clue, I'm against sensationalist and their titles. — Alex Khimich (talk) 20:37, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again (for the third time), please read

WP:RS, learn what the primary sources are and why they should not be cited if secondary sources (such as the newspaper articles) are available.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Again (for the хх-th time and many more) neglect sensations and cite original documents in sensitive cases and claims but not somebody's The Guardian digest providing it "as 1-st April joke". Also kp.ru is not reliable source. — Alex Khimich (talk) 20:45, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The policy says exactly the opposite. It says not to cite official documents. Concerning kp.ru, did I add it? If yes, it definitely can be replaced with a more reliable source, I am sure I never added info which was crucially dependent on kp.ru--Ymblanter (talk) 20:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Add whatever you want, the more absurd will be added, the lesser trust to article will be. During evening I looked through the comments in mass media, I got the view by news comments that common educated reader understands this as RU-provocations. Our dialogue has no sense to be continued. — Alex Khimich (talk) 20:56, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I warn you not to remove {{

]

Ymblanter is right of course. Also, if you add templates in such obviously wrong edits, you should expect the template addition to get reverted as it is part of the edit. --Krenair ^{(talk • contribs)}

Who said they are wrong? Do you have competence to say so? I provided the link to letter which operates in another clue from RS, so I put this information as disputed. You, nice one, just came and said this is wrong? — Alex Khimich (talk) 12:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, Oikotimes actually published a copy of the ACTUAL letter issued by the EBU. Wes Wolf ^Talk 23:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Google translate can help quite a bit when you don't speak a certain language;

• [12] --> "LouisAragon Aleykum Salam! I write my own history with the culture of other nations? You're donkeys, you Persians, no time to write history! I am writing to you to in order to stop stealing the history of the Turks, you bastards. !!"
• [13] --> "Persian donkey :D"
• [14] "Hey wretched Persian you will always live in the shadow of us Turks. You're just a whore of history"
• More typical NOTHERE;[15][16][17]

I believe these diffs illustrate the point here quite well. - LouisAragon (talk) 00:43, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 07:23, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is article on prophet Muhammed is mutliple times under attack by zionist users (using different user ids). NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will have a look.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see, already indeffed. Very logical outcome of the incident.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Onel5969. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed,

. Thank you.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:25, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Onel5969. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed,

. Thank you.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I thought I had curated them, so thought I was reverting myself. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it happens.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:46, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ningxiang was reformed as a county-level city on April 10, 2017. As a county-level division, The name of Ningxiang is unambiguous, the names of titles should be simple. Help me move the title

) 13:37 12 april, 2017 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 13:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	Silver Master award
	Silver master awards you the silver for you diplomacy talk) 14:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply ]

Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ymblanter! I would like to ask you to patrol this page, Teotlalpan, it lacked clarity and contained information without verification. This page was deleted in Spanish, now he wants to write the same personal ideas here in English. Maybe this original author is going to commit to putting his version, I do not want to debate with him, that's why I ask you for help, you have experience as a wiki-user and you will know what to do. Regards. --Akapochtli (talk) 05:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Akapochtli:. No, sorry, completely outside of my competence. If you are sure this is bullshit you can AfD it.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ymblater! Now the page is the best, I improved it. I need patrol for later. --Akapochtli (talk) 02:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

You approved my request for New Page Patroller a few weeks ago, however, I find I don't have time to do this in addition to countervandalism and AfC. I would appreciate it if you removed these rights. Thanks. ProgrammingGeek ^talktome 16:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, thanks for volunteering anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:14, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the semi of my talk page. FYI, from its geolocation, the IP who was trolling me is the banned editor HarveyCarter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:41, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Доброго времени суток, уважаемый коллега!

Хочу персонально выразить вам свою благодарность за ту помощь, которую вы оказали в редакции страниц по фильмам Светланы Дружининой. Мы с коллегой Er nesto занимаемся созданием страниц в англоязычной википедии о русских и советских актерах и фильмах, и всегда будем рады любой помощи в этом вопросе!

с уважением, Ulugbeck1 (talk) 10:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Да, конечно. Пожалуйста, обратите внимание, что, по сравнению с русской Википедией, здесь гораздо строже выполняется правило проверяемости; кроме того, отличаются требования по стилю - например, я был вынужден удалить Ваши заготовки сюжета, так как они совершенно не годятся по стилю.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Здравствуй. You recently put full protection on Yes (band) following edit warring. Following Talk page discussion, we have reached, I believe, sufficient consensus, including from key editors in that edit war, for a way forward: see Talk:Yes_(band)#Proposal. Would you be OK with reducing the protection level early? Благодаря. Bondegezou (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, unprotected--Ymblanter (talk) 15:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

]

I got a notification a couple of days ago, but nothing arrived to my mailbox.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sent you again a sec ago. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I'm wondering if we should put permanent semi on the jackalope article instead of pending changes protection... I know I though pending changes was a good idea (I think I requested it) but there is so much IP vandalism there, I wonder if permanent semi would be a better way to preserve editor time and energy. Thoughts? Montanabw^(talk) 05:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, upgraded to semi, thanks for the suggestion--Ymblanter (talk) 08:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

can you protect that article as well please? 73.93.155.38 (talk) 11:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thank you. 73.93.155.38 (talk) 11:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 11:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...for your time dealing with the block, it's always greatly appreciated. Best, Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 19:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ymblanter, I saw you semi-protected the page for the TV series 13 Reasons Why. Would you also be able to semi-protect the book page, Thirteen Reasons Why? There's been a lot of changing and reverting recently, specifically because the book has a character (Jenny) whose name was changed for the series (Sheri). Thanks, paul2520 21:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 05:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! = paul2520 12:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem--Ymblanter (talk) 12:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Really? You are happy for other people to call other editors a fuckwit? Not even a direct warning on their talkpage? That's pretty poor allround. Please review

]

None of you were at your best behavior. If you are seeking an interaction ban, which was not my impression, I can reopen the ANI thread; if not, I do not believe anything good can come out of it.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear you DO endorse personal attacks and don't understand what should be done in these situations. That's even more worrying from your part. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, take me to ANI, then. In fact, I spared you if not from a block, then at least from an extensive public trouting.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you answer my initial question - "Please review

WP:NPA and tell me what part of that users' edit was acceptable." Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Sure. Their behavior was not acceptable, and yours (and remember you provoked them) was not acceptable either.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, I didn't. I pointed out that they had created the very same articles they were complaining about. Hardly provoking and certainly not to warrant that sort of response. Take you to ANI? Yeah, nice try. We both know how that would pan out. Pathetic. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you think you did mnot we obviously disagree.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's the first thing you've got right here. It's clear you still hold a grudge for some reason. Hardly the most transparent of admins. I look forward to you applying the same level of service to others who complain. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good, it was difficult to convince me, but you managed. I reopen the thread and you face the consequences.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	Good closure award
	Just to say, I can appreciate Lugnut's original complaint- but also, as I said elsewhere, that your original close was a sensible outcome. Cheers! — semper crescis, aut decrescis 11:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply ]

Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hi, the article is not a machine translation. it's done by my family. in some kind it's an translation of short Polish version. Wkosin (talk) 20:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wkosin (talk • contribs) 22:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, the prose must be improved.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,can you please unprotect the "Silence" page? It wasn't subject to vandalism, i just added other well-sourced and well-formatted excerpts from reviews in the "Critical Reception" of the page. I didn't do anything that can be considered vandalic, so if you can quickly remove the protection from the page as soon as you read this, i would really appreciate it. Thanks.

Silence is not protected and has never been protected.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, i mean the 2016 film made by Scorsese, you put a protection on that page and i would appreciate if you could remove that protection for the reasons cited above. Thanks.

I protect about 10 pages per day and you do not expect me to remember all of them, do you? In any case, if you are the IP who attempted to add a large piece of text to Silence (2016 film) which was repeatedly rejected by multiple editors, you should first seek consensus at the talk page with other editors of the article that the text is appropriate.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You mean i should seek consensus at my talk page or the talk page of the film? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.53.130.48 (talk) 21:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At the talk page of the film.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:24, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep removing Cordwainer Smith from the list? That section is a list of the works that have entered the public doman in countries 50 years after the creator's death. The countries next to the names is a reference to nationalities, not the country where his work enters public domain. 84.214.80.75 (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what your statement is. Do you say that literary works published in the US become public domain 50 years after the death of the author? I am afraid this is wrong.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the article. One section says "Entering the public domain in countries with life + 50 years. In most countries of Africa and Asia, as well as Canada, Uruguay and Bolivia in America, a work enters the public domain, 50 years after the creator's death." That's where Cordwainer Smith is listed.

Another section says: "Entering the public domain in countries with life + 70 years. With the exception of Belarus and Russia, a work enters the public domain in Europe 70 years after the creator's death, if it was published during the creator's lifetime."

The section about United States says: "Entering the public domain in the United States. The Copyright Term Extension Act means no published works will enter the public domain in this jurisdiction until 2019." 84.214.80.75 (talk) 19:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are not reading it correct, see the previous years. This part is for the countries 50+, where the pieces created in these countries become public domain.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thenationality of the creators and where it was created is irrelevant. If any laws says otherwise, please quote. This is a list of writers and others that entered the public domain in Canada in 2016, some of them American: [18] 84.214.80.75 (talk) 19:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I find this interpretation of the list weird, but you are welcome to stop edit-warring and to start a topic at the talk page. If you get consensus that the list should be interpreted like this you can add in the list everybody who died in 1966.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the discussion on this got archived off the Admin noticeboard, or I would have added this there...

The clean-up is officially closed, so the audit starts. See User:Aymatth2/SvG clean-up/Audit notes. There was a last-minute surge of restorals to mainspace. Several of the bulk restores look a bit dodgy, not just Beatley's. I am waiting for a friendly admin to wipe out all the remaining drafts, e.g. run the Twinkle batch delete using User:Aymatth2/SvG clean-up/BLP 0 as input. I have asked MusikAnimal but I know he is often busy with real life stuff. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am in principle fine (need to figure out how to batch-delete with Twinkle though), but what is the principle? Why have these been marked for deletion? And should redirects be deleted as well (I guess most of the links are redirects)? --Ymblanter (talk) 15:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It started with a huge debate at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive941#User:Fram. In summary, User:Sander.v.Ginkel (SvG) had created about 16,000 stub biographies of living athletes, usually based on one line in a list of competitors in some event. He was very sloppy so many of the articles had errors, and a few had really serious errors like unsourced assertions that the athlete had lied about their age or nationality and/or had used drugs. The decision was to give one week for editors interested in salvage to request userfication, then to delete the rest. That got softened after the discussion closed into a decision to move them all to draft space, then allow 90 days for review, correction and move back to mainspace, then delete remaining drafts. The remaining drafts probably have little value anyway. Typical example: Draft:Erika Anear.

The clean-up process defined at

Fram may care to comment. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I know the story, and I even moved 40+ pages to the mainspace, but for deletion I need a reason. The reason might be that the community decided to delete all the drafts which were not processed on 24 April or later. I will have a look.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted about 5K pages, and now Twinkle does not grab any pages anymore. I am afraid I would need technical help with the rest pf the list.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Maybe Twinkle has some limit of how many it will delete per hour or something? I don't think we have to worry about the a reason to delete. The decision after the original debate was to delete all the SvG stubs after a 7-day grace period. Instead of that, deleting the remaining drafts after a 90-day grace period, and for that matter deleting the articles restored by rogue editors, is just a slow and selective implementation of that decision. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 10:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. Now it is just a question of checking the high volume movers and deciding which sets of mainspace articles also need deleting. But that is less urgent. I assume that even the rogue editors would not have moved articles that were blatantly libelous. Thank you again, Aymatth2 (talk) 10:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

STOP! I request restoration of all incomplete draft articles that have not been moved to mainspace from your mass deletion efforts. There should be no time limit of restoration of this content. Trackinfo (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically as of this moment: Draft:Ahmed Al-Dyani

Draft:Alain Fabiani Draft:Aleh Rabtsau Draft:Alejandro Barrenechea Draft:Alejandro Romano Draft:Alexis Batle Draft:Ali Dif Draft:Aliaksandr Venskel Draft:Alireza Nasr Esfahani Draft:Amiran Babayan Draft:Amy Cozad Draft:Ana María Pelaz Draft:Anastasiia Nedobiga Draft:Anatoliy Mushyk Draft:Andre Rohde Draft:Andrea Fondelli Draft:Andreas Schweizer Draft:Andreas Troupis Draft:Andrei Mykaylichenko Draft:Andres Martinez Moreno Draft:Andrew Callard Draft:Andriy Demchuk Draft:Andrzej Kozłowski Draft:Andrzej Piotrowski Draft:András Stark Draft:André Aldenhov Draft:Andrés Pérez Ginés Draft:Anna Grineva Draft:Anna Ustyukhina Draft:Anouer Taouerghi Draft:Anthony Coullet Draft:Anton Baraniak Draft:Antoni Pawlak Draft:Antonio Petrović Draft:Anđelo Šetka Draft:Apostolos Koutavas Draft:Armando Loria Cetina Draft:Artem Dolgopyat Draft:Artsiom Zhuk Draft:Attila Czanka Draft:Ayhan Çiçek Draft:Bas de Jong Draft:Bengt Gustafsson (volleyball) Draft:Bernd Strasser Draft:Bernhard Radtke Draft:Bertalan Mandzák Draft:Bilel Ben Hassine Draft:Bobbie Brebde Draft:Bohuslav Braum Draft:Boris Burov Draft:Boris Pavlov Draft:Bozhidar Andreev Draft:Bruno Boyadjian Draft:Béla Oláh Draft:Cai Yanshu Draft:Carlos Luna (volleyball) Draft:Carlos Saurí Draft:Carlos Schwanke Draft:Chang Byung-chul Draft:Chiang Nien-hsin Draft:Cho Seong-min Draft:Choi Tae-woong Draft:Choji Taira Draft:Chom Singnoi Draft:Chris Rae Draft:Christian Grimaldi Draft:Christian Ivanov Draft:Christian Volpi Draft:Chung Euy-tak Draft:Cornel Mărculescu Draft:Cristian Bățagă Draft:Cássio Leandro das Neves Pereira Draft:Dainis Zīlītis Draft:Damian Dacewicz Draft:Damyan Dachev Draft:Daniel Baldacin Draft:Daniel Vargas (volleyball) Draft:Daniel Weinert Draft:Daniel Zayas Draft:Daniela Kerkelova Draft:David Matam Draft:Davoud Maleki Draft:Dean Willey Draft:Demián González Draft:Denis Savenkov Draft:Dewi Safitri Draft:Diana Abla Draft:Diana Akhmetova Draft:Diananda Choirunisa Draft:Diedja M. Roque Barreto Draft:Dilnoza Abdusalimova Draft:Dimitra Kafalidou Draft:Dimitri Prochorow Draft:Dimitrios Kafatos Draft:Dimitrios Tzimourtos Draft:Dimo Tonev Draft:Dina Gorina Draft:Diogo Abreu (gymnast) Draft:Dmitriy Lomakin Draft:Dobromir Dimitrov Draft:Dragan Drasković Draft:Dylan Schmidt Draft:Ediel Márquez Draft:Eduard Shaulov Draft:Eduardo Henrique Reis Draft:Eduardo Rodríguez (volleyball) Draft:El-Tayeb El-Hadj Ben Khelfellah Draft:Elkhan Suleymanov Draft:Emre Büyükünlü Draft:Erik Schuil Draft:Ernesto Quiroga Draft:Erwina Safitri Draft:Evgeni Bogonosyuk Draft:Fabio Violetti Draft:Fabián González Draft:Farkhodbek Sobirov Draft:Faycal Gharzouli Draft:Faycal Tellouche Draft:Federico Pereyra Draft:Ferenc Antalovics Draft:Ferenc Hornyák Draft:Fernando Bernal Draft:Fernando Borrero Draft:Fernando Báez (weightlifter) Draft:Filip Boroša Draft:Filip Yanev Draft:Filipe Bezugo Draft:Florian Faber Draft:Florin Vlad Draft:Francesca Pomeri Draft:Francesco Di Fulvio Draft:Francisco Casamayor Draft:Frank Pérez Draft:Frank Tóth Draft:François Besson Draft:Fred van der Zwan Draft:Freddy Brooks Draft:Fredy Cedeño Draft:Furkat Saidov Draft:Fábio Paranhos Marcelino Draft:Félix Millán (volleyball) Draft:Gabriel Arroyo Draft:Gabriel Lemme Draft:Georgi Grebenkov Draft:Georgi Shikov Draft:Georgios Markoulas Draft:Georgios Tzelilis Draft:Georgios Zaravinas Draft:Gerben Silvis Draft:Gert de Groot Draft:Ginga Munetomo Draft:Gino Brousseau Draft:Giovanna Pedroso Draft:Giovanni Tocci Draft:Giuseppe Ficco Draft:Giuseppe Lagrotteria Draft:Gong Xingbin Trackinfo (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(by talk page stalker) @Trackinfo: The community disagrees. If any of these subjects were worth writing about, it won't be hard for you to start over from scratch. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Trackinfo: The original decision was to delete all the articles after 7 days. That was (informally) extended to a 90-day grace period. But we cannot leave potentially libelous biographies of living people lingering in draft space forever. They should be skipped by search engines, but are still visible to the public. These drafts are typically extremely short. It may be easier to restart articles on the subjects from scratch than to carefully check and correct the SvG stubs. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I objected to your artificial time limits then and I continue to object. There is a lot of work that someone went through to create these articles. You have blindly accused this of being defamatory, I have seen NOTHING to indicate that. This is just sloppy work that needs clean up. If you don't want to keep it under your draft space, then store it under my sandbox and provide a redirect. Work to clean this up has been continual, mostly by other people because I frankly do not feel qualified to write on these sports. An artificial deadline is absolutely unnecessary. Trackinfo (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am putting the deletions on hold until the issue is sorted out. You are all welcome here, however, I do not think that my talk page is the best place for this discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would the admin noticeboard be the place to raise it? In a sense it could be seen as re-opening the original debate at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive941#User:Fram. But it is not exactly an incident, more just a very late objection to implementing that decision. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would say AN, with a proper background explanation, would be good.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:49, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. The matter has already been decided. That some editors object is now no longer worthy of discussion. The community has already softened its approach once on this issue and should not be expected to do so again for the handful of editors that want to retain every misbegotten sentence committed to a page in haste. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#SvG articles – mass deletion anyway. May as well settle it. I am personally fed up with the subject. More time has been spent and words written about these trivial little stubs than went into the stubs in the first place. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason you deleted the draft version of

]

Have you read the two topics above this one?--Ymblanter (talk) 13:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article was not incomplete. The above discussions and RfC only apply to incomplete articles which were not audited. Clear consensus has been established that if you keep the main article, you have to keep the redirect from draftspace. You can't just override that in one specific case. Smartyllama (talk) 13:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not delete the article, I only deleted the redirect from the Draft space. Whereas indeed we usually keep the redirects when moving the articles from the Draft, this case is an exception, since the articles were previously moved to the Draft from the main space as a provisional measure and actually should not have been there at all.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I actually deleted all redirects, not only this one.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You recently requested for the deletion of an article i created last week. i would like to make a request for the restoration of the article Mr Diligent for a perfect edit and update. i would greatly appreciate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbjey (talk • contribs) 18:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please use

WP:AfC. I suspect that the person is not notable, and will not restore the article in the main namespace.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Pending changes review right

Recently I requested my user rights to be removed, but my own edits are pending in Vinod Khanna so maybe this user right is required right now. --Marvellous Spider-Man 09:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 09:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it why my edits are showing pending review in that page. I got notification that my usrrights were changed few minutes ago.--Marvellous Spider-Man 09:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because they are preceded by edits of IP user which need to be reviewed. You now have the userright to review them. Your edits made to a reviewed version of the article get reviewed automatically.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I think I was wrong about Vinod Khanna, as now I have developed the article with many sources, most IPs are not constructive. Now you can make it back to semi-protect from pending changes. --Marvellous Spider-Man 07:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 07:19, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Salzburger Kunstverein is a classic example of senseless tag-bombing and typical of the reasons I campaigned for, and got, a user right created for page patrolling. The patroller hasn’t done any research whatsoever and therefore not only ignores what the ‘’Kunsteverein’’ are in the German language region cities, but also even its German WP article, and has not bothered to provide this good faith new-article creator with a note about the tags or any tips. As you know, I’ve recently given up on my 6-year struggle to get NPP improved, so as you accorded the right to Exemplo347, perhaps you could have a word with them and maybe also run a check across their other patrols. Cheers, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: As the only edit I made to the article in question was this diff, can I ask you what exactly your problem is with my edit? If, in fact, your comment about "senseless tag-bombing" is directed at the actual editor who "tag-bombed" the article, then I look forward to your apology. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exemplo347, I'm very sorry, looked at the wrong line on the hist. Please accept my sincere apologies - Ymlanter too. Based on this I'll take it up with the admins who conferred the right on the actual patroller. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: That's ok. I try to hold my editing to a high standard and I hope that's evident in my actions across Wikipedia. If I do make a mistake, I hope people will come to me directly to point it out to me. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 23:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exemplo347, we all make mistakes, as you can see. I rarely address patrollers directly any more because I'm sick and tired of my 1,000s of wasted hours over NPP issues, nothing being done and a 20,000+ backlog and growing exponentially. One of the solutions we asked for in 2012 , and which would have avoided most of this, is still subject to delaying tactics at Phab. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you made, why are you delete my article... Please help me..User:Giteshs78 —Preceding undated comment added 13:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read

WP:N first.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Hey dear, I don't know what to do. Please help me for writing articles Gitesh Sharma. User:Giteshs78 Please help me for writing articles Gitesh Sharma talk

You are just not encyclopedically notable. Sorry for that.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ymblanter. I am a bit concerned about your speedy close of this discussion. You called it a SNOW Keep but I see no consensus for keep. Merge is a legitimate option at AfD discussions and it is not a Keep !vote. In effect you have ignored (nullified) a large number of merge !votes and directed the discussion to start over. I think this should be re-opened. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the best outcome is to open a merge discussion (and, if needed, to copy everything there). I see no way the discussion can be closed as delete, and therefore I see no point of having it at AfD.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The user change his ip frequently. Also, another user reproaches him for suppressing passages sourced unilaterally and according to his personal analysis. So, I have warned him. --Panam2014 (talk) 11:14, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know I upped that from pending to semi as there seemed to be too many edits. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 05:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem, thanks for letting me know.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You´re in the media! [19] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but, no, the article does not mention me, and I have never heard of the author, so I was not involved in any sense.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you closed the deletion discussion on the article in question [20], so one could infer you´re mentioned in a way. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:55, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see, thanks. So she states that she knows Wikipedia policies, and I do not. And the best would be to hire me to write an article about her. Best luck.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:10, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Google books search turned up a gem of advice from Amy Osmond Cook of Sourced Media Books, LLC: "We are especially interested in writers who are willing to use social media to market their books." Is it the same Amy?-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can not see the text but it is likely the same one.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for quick review of my page Dr. Shivpujan Rai. Regards Yavarai (talk) 19:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The title was used from years. Also, the rules are clear. The first title was used since 2 years so you should revert the move then we will launch a request move. Regards. --Panam2014 (talk) 11:47, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 11:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Could you protect also the article against the moves ? Regards. --Panam2014 (talk) 12:02, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. If move-warring develops, blocks will be given out.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article, will expire next year.

I unprotected it.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:19, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for all your help in improving the

]

Thanks @

Edin Balgarin:. Also Bulgarian language sources are perfectly fine as soon as they are reliable.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:11, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Protection of Ben 10 (2016)

Hi,
You recently protected Ben 10 (2016 TV series), but it seems to have been undone. It is not visible in the page history either. Would you please take a look into it? Thanks a lot. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernamekiran:, I do not see any evidence that I have ever protected that page.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the puzzling part. I'm pretty much sure I saw it in my watchlist that you protected the page. But now in the history, there is nothing about it. But as per this diff, you agreed to protect it, right? I'm still confused about the entire incident. —usernamekiran(talk) 21:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

found it. Now i feel relaxed. —usernamekiran(talk) 01:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• the diff provided shows you protected the page. —usernamekiran(talk) 11:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a different page.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry my bad lol. I apologise. I mixed them up. Thanks for taking a look into it. —usernamekiran(talk) 15:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure, no problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Shuangpai Yangming National Forestry Park and Yangmingshan National Forest Park are titles of describing the same thing of the Yangmingshan National Forest Park. i preliminarily rewrited the title Shuangpai Yangming National Forestry Park. move the Shuangpai Yangming National Forestry Park to "Yangming Mountains", thanks. Cncs (talk) 01:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yangming Mountains is an article and has a history, I can not just delete it. You have to file a proposed merging request.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You claimed there was a discussion and the addition of the Armenian spelling of Jalama's name - who is half Armenian and identifies as such - was rejected. Not only is there nothing written on the talk page, but you also delete my entry on the talk page. I have, of course, reverted the change and will get a Wikipedia administrator involved if needed. TimeForTruth (talk) 16:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure you will be able to show what I deleted at the talk page. And after you fail, I am sure you fill find guts to apologize.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Пишу по русски. Надеюсь не криминал. Почему надпись по лезгински идет сверху азербайджанской? Район в основном тюркский, азербайджанский, к чему вообще там название по лезгински? Либо уберите ее вообще, либо поставьте после азербайджанской. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azeri 73 (talk • contribs) 06:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Хорошо, я поставлю ниже. --Ymblanter (talk) 07:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you User Ymblanter for providing protection to the article 'astra'. It was being harmed by continuous disruptive editing by an IP address who was citing youtube as a source.And a seasoned editor who was pushing his POV in complete disregard of the existing references from reliable sources. Much appreciated.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.248.178.78 (talk • contribs)

Sure.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Provinces of Zambia Image Map has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.Gonejackal (talk) 05:03, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Здравствуйте! Почему вы при блокировке статьи https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_of_Kiev оставили вариант "Anne of Kiev (born Kievan Rus', Ukrainian: Анна Ярославна; c. 1030 – 1075), Anna Yaroslavna, Anna of Rus also called Agnes" в преамбуле? Чем вам не понравилась версия "Anne (referred to "Anne of Kiev" by official Ukraine, and "Anne of Russia" by official Russia) (born Kievan Rus', Ukrainian: Анна Ярославна; Russian: Анна Ярославна;c. 1030 – 1075), Anna Yaroslavna, Anna of Rus also called Agnes"? 176.194.54.184 (talk) 16:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Wrong version is applicable in this case. Please argue your point at the talk page,--Ymblanter (talk) 16:44, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm sorry but can you let me clear which version is wrong? Current or removed and why? 176.194.54.184 (talk) 19:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just protected the last version (after checking it does not contain vandalism and BLP violations). It would be entirely inappropriate for me as administrator to take a side in a content dispute and then use the tools to enforce my side.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand. Thank you for explanation. 176.194.54.184 (talk) 19:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Здравствуйте, Ярослав! Совет дали обратиться к Вам, так как говорите по-русски отлично и являетесь администратором, который может принять меры против нарушителей правил английской Википедии. На этой странице https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dmitry_Medvedev&action=history пытаются выставить премьера-министра России Медведева в качестве коррупционера, и это в то время, когда официальная проверка МВД РФ опровергла ложь. Прошу принять меры против любого нарушителя, включая предупредить этого персонажа, который увлёкся рецидивом просто по полной программе. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:El_C (очевидно предположить, он ненавидит Россию, или власти, но Википедия - не политика, это энциклопедия). Благодарю, Ярослав! С надеждой на помощь против откровенного произвола. А это нарушителям, если хотят ознакомиться с моей просьбой: https://translate.google.ru/ 37.144.105.162 (talk) 04:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Доброе утро. В общем, он прав, хотя в каком-то виде фраза о том, что власти отрицают причастность премьер-министра к коррупции, в статье может присутствовать. Попробуйте найти компромиссную формулировку на странице обсуждения статьи.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a stub because other than a not very useful Geograph photo, I could find very little information on this station. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am now looking for sources, because unfortunately I can not even find a proof that the station ever existed. If I can not find any, I will send the article to

WP:AfD.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks, Sadly archive.org doesn't have a c.1900 Bradshaw, which would be reasonably definitive. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are more or less fine with Garngad now, and you can use the source I found also for other defunct stations.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I just wanted to let you know that this article immediately saw continued disruption after your previous semi-protection expired. Would you mind assessing it once again and place another semi-protection if deemed necessary...? Thanks! 2601:1C0:4401:F360:3DB2:F0A8:EEA7:B25F (talk) 19:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 19:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you semi-protect

]

No, some of those should not be protected, and for others attention is needed. Pls nominate separately at

WP:RFPP.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:40, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I found two wins for Gary Player from two different sources

Hi I have found two wins for Gary Player with sources on his own personal website and on the PGA Tour website but some guy has decided to ask to block the page. I can provide sources for these events they should be added. Can you help me out please ?. Thank you 31.200.154.110 (talk) 07:52, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this at the talk page of the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I received a message about deletion and curious to why and what we can do to make sure this doesn't occur please let me know. Thank you Jrgolf (talk) 11:57, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have the notability criteria,

WP:NGOLF, and he seems to fail both.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:02, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

correct, but he currently does and is labeled as a professional golfer. with stats that are public which some of the links have been added.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrgolf (talk • contribs)

The article is at the AfD anyway; the best you can do is to bring the arguments there. So far, I have not been convinced.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jrgolf: Per this edit[21] at AFD this article looks to be an autobiography. If I nominated this for speedy deletion, do you think there is any chance that will get the article deleted?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably easier to add this to the AfD page, so that it does not get relisted.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your edit was vandalism. Deliberately introducing factual errors into Wikipedia is vandalism. The Town of Somers and the village of Somers are TWO SEPARATE PLACES. I've been discussing this with a couple of other editors; it's all explained there: User talk:RFD#Somers, Wisconsin, User talk:TheCatalyst31#Somers, Wisconsin. Now go fix your ignorant reverts. 32.218.41.31 (talk) 14:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still, as soon as you continue introducing copyright violations, I will revert your edits. At some point, I am going to block your IP. That you call me a moron and a vandal does not really help.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:55, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Добрый день! Один файл, который я перенес из англовики на Склад, выставили на удаление за отсутствием сведений о копирайте. Не могли бы Вы глянуть удаленную страницу локального описания, и прислать мне на почту скрин, если там есть хотя бы какие-то зацепки?

P. S. Уже вбивал портрет в Google Images — запустивший изображение в интернет последний раз появлялся в Сети где-то в 2001 году, найти его рабочие контакты крайне проблематично, не говоря уже о том, чтобы выйти на связь. --Синкретик (talk) 10:57, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Говорят только Image in public domain because it was published before 1923.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:08, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you with this, but I have noticed for the past 1-2 weeks an IPs adding unsourced, unexplained, sometimes spurious information to nobility/royalty articles. Most times said edits consist of "X was named after their aunt/uncle/cousin/grandfather/grandmother/etc", additions of how these people felt, were perceived(beautiful), favored, or addition of unsourced information to referenced sentences.

I believe there are more IPs, but have not had the time to search. As for the disruptive editing, I am unsure what to do.

IPs:

• 222.164.160.45
• 27.100.128.245 --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked *45 for 24h, but I am afraid this is very little we can do at this stage. IPs need to bealt with separately, at least not before we suspect there is block evasion, and *245 has not even been warned.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the page I created (Truebil) deleted? Frankly, I really liked the idea and would definitely want it to be known to the world. CarTrade is a similar company which has its wikipedia page, then why can't we have the truebil page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saksha Gupta (talk • contribs) 07:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May I please suggest that you read

our notability policy.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

File:Stepwell, Ahmedabad.jpg

You placed a monument template on commons:File:Stepwell, Ahmedabad.jpg but I can't make a 100% ID from the description on List of State Protected Monuments in Gujarat. Can you please double check and either correct the template or add the picture to the list. Thanks. Agathoclea (talk) 20:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have never been there, but the en.voy article says it is the Adalaj Step-Well in Adalaj. I will have a look now.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:54, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not qualified enough to say whether this is the same object as the monumend ID. I must have had a good reason to add the template in 2013, but now I of course do not remember what the reason was. If you do not know anything about the monument, it must be safer to remove the template from the file.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that is an option. But it must belong somewhere. Once I have a bit of time on my hands maybe I can track down some Gujarati editors or at least speakers that could investigate. Agathoclea (talk) 12:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The addition of the Armenian spelling is currently under 3rd party review. TimeForTruth (talk) 01:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the consensus on the talk page was very clear, and I do not see why a third party review would be necessary.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And especially when it is coming from a user with 62 edits, which naturally raises a question whether

the user is here to build an encyclopedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Fortunately, your opinion as to weather or not it is needed does not matter. 3rd party review is available for these very reasons. I suggest you change the revert back until 3rd party review is finished. Also, the number of edits doesn't matter. This is not a video game where people are called "noobs" TimeForTruth (talk) 18:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Before suggesting nonsense, you could have at least make an attempt to read policies. I am pretty confident now that you are

WP:NOTTHERE.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

And of course it is not under the third party review. Now I will block you.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC) [reply]

I did not make this change [22] in bad faith, it was a mistake. Check the other articles I edited - if the name is related to that period, I do not change it. Ales sandro (talk) 21:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given that your contribution here is generally unconstructive, and that you are clearly

not here to build an encyclopedia, it was plausible to assume that you made it deliberately. Indeed, after inspecting your contributions more closely I discovered a couple of instances when you reverted yourself in similar situations, and this is why I unblocked you.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	A barnstar for you! Tallahassle (talk) 20:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have just declined an unblock request at

]

Thanks. I am using a standard template {{

blocked}}, I will see whether there are options for an indefinite block.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

{{

talk) 13:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Great, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, first thank you for reviewing and correcting the translated article on Louise Merzeau. I saw that you took off this reference: ^[1] from the article on Louise merzeau. I had added it because I think the common reader might want more information on the concept. Furthermore, even if Louise Merzeau is mentionned on the left hand side of the website with a link to her personnal website. I think this ref is useful, although it requests understanding French… --Nattes à chat (talk) 09:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on mediology, and I would be certainly fine with adding this link there (if it is not there); the article is bluelinked in Louise Merzeau, so it should be no problem for anybody to just click there. On the other hand, I think in the article on Louise Merzeau we only should have references related to her (I would consider may be adding a ref to a redlink, but even that we do not usually do). French is not an issue here.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why did you revert my edit on this article? This is info from RS (i. e. the

]

If you have been two times reverted by different users (and you are a sock of another user being reverted just before you, trying to add the same text), usually it means it is time to go to the talk page and try to find consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:21, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean Osterluzei who was the first to add the text on Swiss Economy Minister, I'm not his sock puppet; I just saw that his edit was reverted because he added it to the wrong section of the article, and re-added it to the proper section, alongside with an addition of my own. Ok, I will start a thread on Talk page, though neither Iryna nor you explained what exactly was wrong with these passages (Iryna for some reason called it POV-pushing, but this is just info from the sources). --S. Roix (talk) 09:34, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I notice you have changed protection level of the Donald Trump article to extended confirmed on 28 January. I would like to request reducing the protection level to "autoconfirmed or confirmed access". I'm sure there are many editors who would like to improve the article of the current President of the United States but cannot because of this protection. Since it has been protected so long ago I don't think reducing the protection level will create many problems.

Thank you.--IntelligentName (talk) 19:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@IntelligentName:, there is a blocked user who is a highly prolific sock creator and is interested in Trump. I therefeore believe that reducing protection would not be productive. However, you can try discussing at the talk page of the article and see if there is concensus among established users.--Ymblanter (talk) 00:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am currently doing a GA review for the article Silence (2016 film). This page was protected several times, by you as well. How would you describe the disruptive edits that preceded the block? The reason I ask is I would like to know a bit more about the article's editing history before I proceed. Thanks.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 19:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Farang Rak Tham:, from what I see, there was an edit-warring around this edit, which was reverted by multiple editors in good standing. I saw a protection request at RFPP and protected the article. I never had it on my watchlist.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you feel enough rationale was given by the other editors who reverted those edits?--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 14:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Farang Rak Tham:, I do not know. If a editor gets reverted by multiple editors and does not start a talk page discussion, this is disruptive editing by definition. This is not my role as administrator to decide whether edit is right or wrong (with the exception of vandalism and BLP violations, which do not apply here).--Ymblanter (talk) 15:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thank you. I had not noticed yet he had refused to talk.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 16:52, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

]

If you introduce edits and get reverted, and in particular if you get reverted by multiple users, and especially if they lare long-time users in good standing, you should go to the talk page and try to resolve the situation, and not just continue adding the material.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:19, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ymblanter, the edit-warring continues at these two pages. The original IP hopper seems to have recruited another IP (a short IP, IPV4), who is making edits on behalf of the original one. His edits to

Indian annexation of Hyderabad were mysteriously revdeled, presumably because they contained bits of email messages that he carelessly pasted in. I am afraid a longer term semi-protection is needed. Thanks, Kautilya3 (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 00:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May I please suggest that you read

) 02:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC) For the Assumption Cathedral the Gallery was unneccessary but a gallery of the 12th century frescoes at the Saint George Cathedral Staraya Ladoga would benefit the article[reply]

One picture of frescoes was enough, we do not need the whole gallery unless someone would write a long section describing all the frescoes in detail.--Ymblanter (talk) 02:01, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I have tried to correct and edit the biography of a living person (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitasha_Kaul) and it seems everytime I did it, you have cancelled the edit. This is odd for I followed every rule of Wikipedia and sourced the information from reliable forums (newspapers/official websites/magazines/journal articles). There is no COI. The current entry is factually incorrect (wrong place of birth, patchy old details, incomplete information) and hence I was rectifying this entry. What I wrote was all sourced (42 sources) and neutral. Kindly advise what you found to be "poorly sourced". In fact, it is current entry that is factually incorrect and poorly sourced. I await your reply and advice. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.191.62.48 (talk) 11:38, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The entry is currently reliably sourced, and you just removed sourced info. Your edits were also not compatible with the Manual of style. Please start a talk page discussion, and outline point by point what you want to change, this will be a good starting point.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:06, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Добрый день. Как переименовать статью "European strategic intelligence and security centRE" в "European strategic intelligence and security centER"? Вроде как у них такое точное название - [23], а я такую опцию не нахожу. Спасибо. Divot (talk) 06:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 23:49, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I somehow missed that a link was in the intro. Lin4671 (talk) 07:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:19, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Could you please unblock the editing for the page - SafeSquid
Thanks in advance

Simplyme777843 (talk) 14:10, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, please use

WP:AfC--Ymblanter (talk) 14:19, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Need your help in protection

Dear Mr. Blanter, as I don't have enough time to do it myself, I'm asking you to take protective measures against the following two vandals from Ukraine ([24], [25]), who are pushing unacceptable anti-Russian revisionist bias in different topics, removing the word 'Russia' as 'invented in the early 18th century', adding marginal views of nationalist radicals instead of those accepted by scholars, removing entire sentences and changing words which they label as "Russophilic dogwhistle", etc. Please take an eye on these users, as there are not enough editors interested in protecting the articles which these guys are trying to rewrite. Albergo Paradiso (talk) 20:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The IP has two bad edits, which were promptly reverted, and I do not see much problems with their other edits. The user is indeed problematic but does not qualify for a block. The best course of action would be to engage at the talk page with them and explain

WP:RS and that reliably sourced texts can not be removed at will.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Block request

Floyd2017 (talk · contribs), high level vandal. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 19:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Protection request Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Floyd_Mayweather_Jr._vs._Conor_McGregor as well. Thanks. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 19:41, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 19:41, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend unprotecting the page now. I believe the main wave of vandalism should be over, unprotection may help this article be expanded. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 13:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 14:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I created the international broadcasting part of Mayweather McGregor. Please give access to my newest amendement.

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abcdefgh100 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss at the talk page first; you may want {{Edit request}}--Ymblanter (talk) 20:49, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you are autoconfirmed and can edit the page.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reverting the move that Renkin-Swalem did on

]

@

WP:AN

could help but do not expect much.

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Visa policy of the Faroe Islands. Since you had some involvement with the Visa policy of the Faroe Islands redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Gerrit ^CUTEDH 23:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the protection of Northeast India, the issue is related to the presence of Dravidian people as early settlers in Assam/Northeast India. This is under discussion in Talk:Indo-Aryan_migration_to_Assam#Content_removal. I request that the presence of Dravidians be established first before it is inserted in articles in Wikipedia. Thanks! Chaipau (talk) 01:43, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely no interest in the content of the article, so, if I understand your request correctly, I am a wrong person to talk to.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for checking the article above. As you know about the history of Russia, and Russia is one of the major partner country of North Korea, Would you please let me know your opinion about the current North Korea issues and solution? Goodtiming8871 (talk) 10:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My personal opinion is that Russia will not support any intervention since current instability is advantageous for Putin.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your diligent work for reviewing the new Wikipedia articles. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 10:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ymblanter. Would you be willing to look at this issue related to "user:Psychonot" here? A

]

This is not a profile I can block per

WP:NOTTHERE, and even though sandbox edit are clearly to inflate the number of edits, they should probably be taken to ANI first.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:06, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Yeah the sandbox edits are pretty much a dead giveaway. Content-wise, hes being disruptive on many fronts. Adding self-formulated/unsourced information and removing text without any reason are just some of these.[26][27][28] The fact that he blankets his talk page after every single warning he gets, is another major point that attests to his zero-interest in constructive editing. That's why I described his editorial pattern as NOTHERE; sure, perhaps not textbook, but containing enough aspects of it in order for it to be categorized as one that's really harmful to the project. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:11, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is likely correct, but I believe the case is too complex for just one administrator to tke a decision and block the user. It should go to ANI.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter, Eperoton: The user in question (Psychonot) has also made disruptive edits such as, including statement about Rohingya refugees having babies under section titled "Irresponsibility". In addition to a lot of POV edits in Iran related topics, which have so far been reverted but have not entirely stopped. DA1 (talk) 02:57, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I suggested earlier, please take them to ANI.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please deal with newly-requested

]

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 07:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Спасибо за статью о визовой политике Фарерских островов.

Если есть ресурс, может сможете оформить статьи для Ватикана, Монако, Сан-Марино. Статьи об этих государствах отсутствуют, потому что источники на итальянском и французском, а в этом мало кто разбирается. Norvikk (talk) 18:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Я посмотрю, но не сразу. Сначала у меня Гренландия.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Nice job clearing the backlogs that pop up at RfPP, AIV, and UAA. Hopefully somebody else will help you one day. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RileyBugz: "Hopefully somebody else will help you one day." Try CambridgeBayWeather, MelanieN, ... ;) Samsara 10:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

why protection this page Monument to the Lion of Judah?--Meskel1 (talk) 18:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the edit-warring and disruptive editing. Please seek consensus at the talk page of the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As the closer of the ANI thread, you may find this of interest: [29].

]

 Done, blocked for 3 months given the previous achievements.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:02, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, appreciated. He clearly wasn't going to stop.

Khirurg (talk) 20:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Still ranting about "Wikipedia censorship" even after his/her latest unblock request was declined. Dr. K. 17:54, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody needs to revoke the talk page access but this obviously will not be me.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No pressure Ymblanter. Thank you for your help in ending this disruption. Dr. K. 23:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of points – I'm struggling to see how it's "clearly controversial" – the naming convention for election/referendum articles requires to demonym to be used, and Tajik is the common demonym. Also, all of the articles were moved and you've only moved one back so now there's inconsistency between the articles. Do you mind moving this one back to the Tajik title, or are you going to insist on an RM? Cheers, Number 57 14:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not mind moving it back, but could you please first explain why Tajik is a common demonym? To me, it denotes ethnic Tajiks, whereas Tajikistani denotes all citizens of Tajikistan?--Ymblanter (talk) 14:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tajik is what would normally be used when describing anyone from Tajikistan regardless of their ethnic group (as we use

Spanish general election, 2016 despite Spain being home to Basques, Catalans, Galicians etc). See, for example, these stories on the BBC. The first one in particular uses Tajik to refer to multiple things related to the country. Number 57 15:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Ok, good, I am not totally convinced but I will rename it back.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You removed the LU motto and called it vandalism. It was changed a few weeks ago. This was announced during their convocation and is clearly marked on their website. "We The Champions" is LU's new motto.

If you are able to

reliably source this information you may return it to the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Check out their website on the top left, right next to their name. www.liberty.edu

I am not going to take any content decisions except for reverting vandalism and BLP violations. Please go to the talk of the article and discuss it there.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yaroslav, thank you for your comments at my RfA. Your support is much appreciated! ansh666 20:23, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at

]

Thanks, I will have a look.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I only saw later that we protect-conflicted. Reverted everything to your earlier decision and cleaned up. Sorry. Samsara 10:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was ok for me to have it pc- and longer protected, but let us keep it like it is now and increase the level of protection if things go out of hand. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to silently thank you for your reply, but just then you removed it. I wanted to make sure you didn't think the thanks were for removing. Hence: thanks! (ﾟ⊿ﾟ) ---Sluzzelin talk 19:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, no problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just made several edits to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Kazakhstan_Region All of the information is from the translation of the Russian version of the page https://translate.google.com.au/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fru.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F%25D0%2597%25D0%25B0%25D0%25BF%25D0%25B0%25D0%25B4%25D0%25BD%25D0%25BE-%25D0%259A%25D0%25B0%25D0%25B7%25D0%25B0%25D1%2585%25D1%2581%25D1%2582%25D0%25B0%25D0%25BD%25D1%2581%25D0%25BA%25D0%25B0%25D1%258F_%25D0%25BE%25D0%25B1%25D0%25BB%25D0%25B0%25D1%2581%25D1%2582%25D1%258C&edit-text=&act=url

- SW4NSQ4D 30-09-17

Thank you. Have in mind however please that Wikipedia (including the Russian Wikipedia) can not be reliable source and can not be cited. I removed material cited to the Russian Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I figured I'd ask here, when talking about visibility of descriptions, did you drop the word "app"? Currently, the existing descriptions are already not shown on mobile web for English, I'm not sure if someone could be confused by that sentence. Have a nice rest of your day, Elitre (WMF) (talk) 14:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot about this - could you clarify what you mean by "validation"? I can think of so many meanings that the only appropriate thing to do is just to ask right away! Elitre (WMF) (talk) 15:23, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Erica. I am not using mobile interface and apps myself, but people are excited (positively or negatively) about descriptions where they are shown on the English Wikipedia, so I was talking about those (I guess this means app). Concerning validation: My idea was that starti ng say from tomorrow descriptions are not shown on the English Wikipedia. However, they continue to exist on Wikidata (nobody is goring to remove them from Wikidata, and this would be considered vandalism). My idea was that the English Wikipedia users will create their own descriptions, but if a descriptions exists on Wikidata they will be show it at the moment they want to create a new description, and instead of creating a new one from scratch they could validate the existing one for usage on the English Wikipedia. As soon as it is validated it will be shown in the app. I hope this clarifies my idea.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

The IP hopper you blocked is back again evading his block on IP 72.52.87.66. I have already reported the IP to ARV. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 20:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, thanks--Ymblanter (talk) 20:23, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I think the IP hopper is back at this address now 85.154.83.2. He is not editing the same set of articles but a different article now. I have also created a page (User:Adamgerber80/Oman IP Hopper) to track the IPs which are associated with this editor. I think the editor is a long term offender whose account has been blocked in the past. You can see a pattern of articles which the editors edits(Pakistan and Indian defense related with a POV) and that most of the IP's are from Muscat, Oman. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 21:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid you need to ask someone to apply a range block.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC) ARV?[reply]

The editor is back at this IP 5.36.80.147. Should I report him to ARV? Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 22:57, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ARV does not exist. It is probably better to open a sockpuppet investigation, or to add to the existing one.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:12, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for leaving a message after you'd posted the close-in-progress template—I had the edit window open and was finding a diff, so didn't see the intermediate edit. Feel free to remove it if you'd like. I was going to null edit there to say the same, but don't want to risk messing up your close with an edit conflict. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I saw it, and I do not think it is going to affect the closing statement in any way. Thanks for leaving a message though.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

:) Asialalala (talk) 10:06, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hi - iam first time on wiki - i dont know how to send you a message:) so i write here: thank you for my site on wiki, i send you link to photos, i dont know how to use it:)) all the best. asia Asialalala (talk) 13:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thumb|Joanna Zastróżna, Andrzej Chyra, "Las", film set, Fuerteventura, 2015

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AJoanna_Zastr%C3%B3%C5%BCna%2C_Andrzej_Chyra%2C_%22Las%22%2C_film_set%2C_Fuerteventura%2C_2015.jpg

Thanks, I will take care of this.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First, thanks for answering the AN3 post on Cathry. I'm not sure if you've seen their response to your block notice on their talk page yet since you speak Russian.[30] Russian is not one of my languages, but Google translate says something about skypochats, which a quick google shows it's pretty not safe for work content. I'm guessing that's just a weird quirk in Google translate (I know it's not great with Russian), but I'm curious what was actually intended meaning there. The amount of times I've had Russian speaking friends at work talk about lost in translation things never ceases to entertain.

]

In Russian Wikipedia, and IRC cabal are actually using skype. She meant that (that someone from the Russian Wikipedia, where she is currently blocked for two weeks, hence the current activity here) contacted me off-wiki and asked to block her. She is plain wrong, I am not editing the Russian Wikipedia and never discuss such things off-wiki. As an adept of conspiracy theories, she will never believe this anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's was not as mundane as I thought it would be. Hopefully you won't need to utilize it, but the

talk) 15:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I guess she will be indefblocked pretty soon anyway. Casting aspersions is indeed not nice, but I was so many time accused in being pro-Russian, anti-Russian, pro-Ukrainian, anti-Ukrainian, pro-Armenian, pro-Azeri, being on a payroll by Putin, being on a payroll by Trump, etc, that I basically got used to it.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.
Would you please process the requests at Vicky Kadian (actor), and here? Thanks a lot. —usernamekiran(talk) 14:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have enough skills needed for SPA and stay clear of it unless I am very well familiar with the sockpuppet. My apologies.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ymblanter! a few days ago you put PC1 on Anzu Lawson due to persistent socking (at my request). The socks are now gaming autoconfirmed and getting their edits in anyway, see [31]. So PC1 doesn't seem to be working any better than semi-prot would. Any ideas? I'd hate to put full protection on it but this serial promoter/copyviolator is pretty relentless. Thanks, Crow^Caw 15:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked the latest sock for 31h (and was close to blocking them indef per

WP:NOTTHERE - if they continue uploading copyright violations, pls let me know). I guess for the time being we can leave it with pending changes, but if new sock appear I am afraid full protection would be the only option.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Thanks! Crow^Caw 15:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! You semi-protected Cara Delevingne about a year ago. In the day and a half since that expired, nothing good has happened. Would you be willing to extend that protection? Some of those edits should probably be revdeled too. Rebbing 23:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, protected indefinitely and revision-deleted some edits, thanks for making me aware of the problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to revoke talk page access.--Cahk (talk) 07:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They formally filed an unblock request. This is an obvious nonsense, but it would not be appropriate for me to deal with it.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me if I am missing the point, but I don't understand what the banner you seem to have put across this new article indicates? If it refers to some violation of copyright (I notice the words (→‎History: copyvio) ), then what bit are you referring to (I don't see it myself)? Second, if there is a violation, does this require the deletion of the entire page? Can we agree a way forward? Thank you. Carbonix (talk) 18:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the paragraph I removed was copied verbatim from a source (Google gave two sources actually, both were press releases or smth of this sort). As far as I am concerned, the article is fine now and does not need to be deleted.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:05, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fine.... but for future reference, why did you not just delete the offending text? I cannot even go in to the 'Compare selected revisions' facility to check what you deleted! And the date of my edit is crossed out, which implies it didn't happen, which seems odd to me.... Thanks again; I haven't come across this before. Carbonix (talk) 18:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted it and then revision-deleted your edit, so that the text of the edit is not visible any more (except for administrators). This what we are required to do in case of copyright violations, see

WP:COPYVIO.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:29, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you - I'll check it out so I have a firm grasp of the rules! Carbonix (talk) 18:35, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, please do.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:37, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your page protection of Blade Runner 2049 appears to indicate preference against Prisonmonkeys and to choose to add two or three new contested sentences about the character "Joi" without consensus. Since the other editor does not appear to be making any progress toward getting consensus or continuing any useful Talk discussion, could the plot summary delete the 3 added short sentences on "Joi" which still do not have consensus. According the BRD, Prisonermonkeys is normally allowed to revert and request discussion before an edit addition is given protection status. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 20:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I just protected on the last version. Please read WP:WRONGVERSION.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:28, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for helping with categories. Please could I ask you to follow the

).

Also, please check for backlinks before de-listing categories after deletion. For example, you deleted

WP:CFDAI

for recommended practice.

When deleting category redirects, it's also more helpful to use the deletion link within the category redirect template, rather than using C1 as the rationale, as the deletion link includes preloaded text which links to the new name.

I hope this is helpful, and that you will keep up your involvement. CFD could certainly do with additions to the regular "team".

Kind regards – Fayenatic London 20:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, thanks. This is indeed helpful, and I will take into account.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Objective Historian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be placing Arab(the ethnicity) into article(s) without proper sourcing or giving Arab ethnicity undue weight into the lead of articles. Would you be inclined to discussing this with them? Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I merely followed the example of others -- namely, placing Persian(the ethnicity) into article(s) without proper sourcing or giving Persian ethnicity undue weight into the lead of articles. Would you be inclined to discussing this with them? Thanks. Objective Historian (talk) 05:28, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per

WP:MOS, ethnicity should not be in the lede, be it Arab or Persian.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

50 edits in total. One of the first things he did was removing Persian from the lede of Al-Khwarizmi and al-Tabari. Mind you the Al-Khwarzmi page was fully protected until a few days ago, for the same reason. "Mr new editor" completely ignored that, as well as the talk page, where other "keenly interested people" have tried to remove the mention of him (al-Khwarizmi) being Persian from the article/lede. Though all these attempts have been unsuccessful, and the article had been protected until recently, he just hopped in and removed it. Cuz why not!

The words of this "legit new user" are completely disproven by his editorial pattern. He removes sourced mentions of "Persian" from the ledes of articles ("undue weight"),[33] yet he adds "Arab" to the lede of other articles, without sources/edit summaries[34][35] Even Yosemite Sam would laugh at this nonsensical behavior.

No need to be a rocket scientist to realize

what this is all about. - LouisAragon (talk) 08:03, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Actually, 28 edits. If they continue they are likely to be blocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:06, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for informing on the copyright problem. Surely I will make it correct within a few minutes. It is my request to copyedit or review the page for further development. with regards. Pinakpani (talk) 16:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Once the copyvio is out of the article, I will remove the template and revision-delete the edits.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:37, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pls review the page of Khairul Manazil what I have made. recently I have deleted the words violating copyright provisions and provided new references for it. thank you Pinakpani (talk) 06:52, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks a lot.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case you have pings turned off, or the software messed up, I've closed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2017/Electoral Commission, and ... (drumroll) ... tag, you're it. Please take a look at that page for a couple of comments I made in the close. Good luck. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:14, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I have seen it indeed before I went to bed. Looks like I have some work ahead of me.--Ymblanter (talk) 04:57, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing Scomber indicus, Ymblanter.

Unfortunately Nick Moyes has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

Copy vio concerns in a number of articles. I will reflag this and leave a message on the creator's talk page.

To reply, leave a comment on Nick Moyes's talk page.

Nick Moyes (talk) 15:13, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I can not see how it could be copyvio, however, fine with me.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The second paragraph was copied from a blogspot page. The rest is fine, though. Primefac (talk) 16:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was not copyrightable but now I double checked, and I see it is indeed likely (slightly) above the threshold.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I emailed Oversight, asking for help with all of today's edits at

]

 Done. Sometimes it takes several hours for oversighters to respond, I think they are less available on Saturday.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:19, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I should have guessed. Thanks for the quick response.

CityOfSilver 20:21, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

No problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:25, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to keep pestering you but I just looked again and my edit summary there is looking like an ill-advised move on my part. Could that get deleted too?

CityOfSilver 20:33, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

No, I am afraid this would be against the policy. The oversighters will in any case react to your e-mail, if they decide it is needed they will do it.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:35, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

However it's supposed to me is fine. Thanks again.

CityOfSilver 21:28, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Persistent vandalism

Hello Ymblanter, IPs are consistently vandalizing article

]

No, it is not going to happen. First, we only protect articles indefinitely if they were previously protected for finite periods of time, many times. Second, it looks much more like content dispute than like vandalism, and, to be honest, your own contribution is not that constructive.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So what is the solution ?? IP 157.49.1.60 putting information out of nowhere. How to stop such IPs. At-least you can make it one month semi-protection or you can also make require "autoconfirmed" permission.--Shanaya1 (talk) 14:24, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have been on Wikipedia for two weeks. May I please ask that you study our policies, particularly on article protection, but also

WP:VAND, before making additional requests. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:27, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Definitely I will read those policies, but right now please do something to stop this new IP.--Shanaya1 (talk) 14:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not like their edits does not yet mean they need to be "stopped".--Ymblanter (talk) 14:34, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping whilst I was away (for example). I am very grateful that you kept an eye on my talk page, etc.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry for the mistake, will add them!

]

No problem, I will help you a bit.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:26, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done from Ternana down.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. PaulCHebert (talk) 17:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I have a small request: when deleting categories such as Category:Rape myths of Persephone that are empty following a category merge, would you kindly include a link to the target category and/or to the discussion page in the deletion reason, so that editors can trace what happened with the category? Without one of these links, the reason for the deletion becomes more obscure (especially to non-admins).

Thanks in advance! -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:52, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. The category move is shown anyway, and I though this would be sufficient in most cases, but I can indeed give a direct reference in the deletion reason, thanks for noticing.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it, thanks! -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the heat of the moment, you yesterday made some unfounded accusations and added some unfortunate innuendo. Would you please retract your statements at AN about me stalking you and making a "fucking lie", your request to topic ban me from mentioning Wikidata, and the unfortunate choice of innuendo in "reminds me of" something "after which one user was indefblocked.", which if not intended to reflect on my fate was a totally unnecessary, chilling addition. Getting an action criticized is no fun, but it doesn't give us a free pass to retaliate with whatever attacks we like.

]

Look, you started by stating that I promote spam (in my capacity as Wikidata bureacrat). Before this gets retracted (crossing out + apologies), I do not see any basis for our further communication. Ever. Have a good day.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that you promote spam, I said that you promoted a spambot, i.e. you granted a brand new editor the right to be a botop and you granted his spambot the right to add its spam to Wikidata (and through it to enwiki and perhaps other wikis). Quote: "their admins and bureaucrats promote spambots". This is what

Fram (talk) 08:40, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry, but you are also reading in my words what I did not say. To be honest, the last two days I find communication with you extremely unpleasant and even traumatic, and I would appreciate if you would relieve me of it. Otherwise I will have to file an ANI request.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you would explain what in your words I'm reading that you did not say, it would be helpful. if you would indicate what in my reply above is not sufficient or correct, it would also be helpful. You are of course free to file an ANI request, but if you don't retract your statements I will either file at ANI or directly at ArbCom (as admin behaviour ends up there anyway). I will not let me be accused of "stalking" out of the blue, without any evidence, and certainly not by an admin (who adds some more personal attacks and chilling statements). People can have disagreements, even heated ones, without slinging such mud at AN and hoping to get away with it without any problem. Pretending to be the victim may have seemed like a good tactic, but it didn't work when you tried it at AN and it won't work now. If it is stressful and traumatic for you, it is all of your own making.

Fram (talk) 10:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Go to ANI.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see now that you had removed the section between your post here and my reply: [36]. That's not a retraction though, that's just adding more insults without any indication that you see any problem with your statements.

Fram (talk) 10:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Again, you made a number of statements which I read as false and offensive. In response, I made a number of statements which you read as offensive and possibly false, but I do not, and I actually did not mean to read them in a way you read them (for instance, as I previously made very clear, by referring to an infinite block of the user I did not mean you need to be infinitely blocked - quite the opposite, I do not think you should be blocked, however, I find it surprising that you make statements similar to what users have been blocked for and do not see any problem with these statements). You come to me asking that I "retract" statements you find offensive, because you find them offending. Fair enough. They might indeed have been unnecessary. In response, I ask you to "retract" your statement which came first and which I find offensive, and in any case unnecessary. And the whole thing actually started with this statement of yours. You refuse saying it is not offensive. Ok, fine. If you make zero effort trying to understand what I am saying, why should I spend my time trying to understand what you are saying? I have formed an opinion about you, but you probably should not care.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:23, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You really can not see the difference between saying that you promoted a spambot, when you promoted (gave botstatus) to a bot which was spamming; and saying that I am stalking you, without any evidence of any actual stalking? How are you capable of acting as an admin if you are not able to see the difference between these situations and the lack of evidence for your (actually much more serious) accusation? Nevre mind the fact that I just noted your role in one problematic situation in a disucssion about the general issue (Wikidata on enwiki and in general), when you barged into an unrelated thread at AN, made your accusations, and asked for sanctions based upon it? You really can't see the difference?

Fram (talk) 10:41, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

No, I do not see the difference. You made an unnecessary (you can easily go on you Wikidata rant without it), false (I did check the edits before granting the bot flag, I checked them afterwards, and they were ok until the website they used changed urls and some references suddenly started to point out to the spam page) and offensive statement (which I read that I promote spam). You do not see any problems with this statement and believe it just expresses facts. After that you added another one, which I found even more offensive. Now you are adding more. Fine. I am probably not capable of acting as admin, all my admin actions must be reverted, and I am a piece of shit. I am fine with that. How many times should I tell you here that I find no pleasure and no interest discussing this issue with you? Start an ANI thread and do not forget to make a reference to this discussion, or, rather, my attempt at discussion since from your side it is a monologue.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:52, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After reading Stalking, may be indeed you actions are not yet to that level. I am afraid this is the only thing I can give you.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How gracious of you, "not yet at that level" of obsessive and potentially criminal actions! Anyway, no, I could not make my statement about Wikidata without refering to the bot approval. It is one thing that an editor is adding spam without anyone noticing it, it would simply show again the lack of oversight Wikidata has. It is a completely different thing when anyone can request a bot and get it approved without any indication of who they are (not as a person, but their wiki-credentials), no check of whether their source is in any way reliable, no concern whether they may be self-promoting (the username was a clue), ... This shows a more ingrained problem at Wikidata, a difference in culture. Even after the problems were pointed out, you maintained that the bot approval was policy-compliant, as if that was somehow an excuse or something we should just blindly accept (and like I said elsewhere, it wasn't even true since the bot approval policy at Wikidata requires a lot more than three test edits anyway). And then you started (and continue to) overreact quite badly. Anyway, it seems we are done here, I'll think about it and let you know if and when I start an ArbCom request (no sense going to ANI as they can't desysop anyway).

Fram (talk) 11:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

ArbCom case

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at

may be of use.

Thanks,

]

Requst

Hi! I am Newblog32, I have a requst for you that is please review the page of Imperial house of Khora Siyal. Newblog 32 (talk) 10:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Newblog 32:, the text is presumably copied from another Wikipedia article, please indicate this on the talk page or in an edit summary. Also, though this is not crucial for reviewing, I would like to see more context in the lede - I understand this is about India, but what time and are there any specific Indian states involved? Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! :@Ymblanter: now I fix up approximately all problems of article Imperial house of Khora Siyal. The older version of article was not totally copied but its some sentences were match to Janjuhana family article because it is very related to it. However, please now check the article Imperial house of Khora Siyal and review it if you think that it is able for that. I also added the more information to this article. Thanks

 Done, but please clean up the language further.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter: Thanks for suggestions. I also had written two more articles of Wikipedia that are Nawab Mehar Polo Bahadur and Nawab Mehar Muhammad Safiullah UmarAli Khan Bahadur. Please also check them and review them if they are able for that and give me suggestions which help me further for better writing. Once again thanks for your suggestions.

I will unfortunately have very limited availability until Nov 11, and there are some issues I can not postpone. If by that time the articles have not been reviewed, pls ping me, I will have a look.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newblog 32 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter:,the pages that I said you for reviewing before few days have reviewed but please now visit the page of Sultante-e-uzma empire of Khora Siyal and review this page if you think that it is able for that. Thanks. Newblog 32 (talk) 16:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 16:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Добрый день. Перенесите, пожалуйста, статью в ОП английской Википедии. Ранее я размещала статью на украинском языке. Ее проверили, одобрили и перенесли в ОП украинской Википедии: https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/OWOX Теперь я перевела статью на английский язык и хотела ее разместить. Помогите, пожалуйста, одобрите размещение и можете, плиз, переименовать название статьи на OWOX, а то у меня не получается. Ссылка на англ. версию статьи: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:%D0%93%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%9C%D0%B0%D0%B3 Буду очень вам благодарна и признательна!OWOX (talk) 08:40, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Добрый день. Я переименовал статью, проблем с английским я там особенных не вижу, дальше вам надо отправить его на одобрение (submit for review) и посмотреть, что Вам скажут. Я не уверен, что компания проходит по нашим критериям значимости, но там как-нибудь разберутся.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Спасибо большое, что переименовали и проверили. А вы могли бы ее перенести в ОП английской Википедии, ведь вы ее проверили. К тому же вы же опытный администратор английской Википедии и у вас есть на это авторитет и права. Я буду очень вам благодарна.OWOX (talk) 12:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Нет, у нас есть для этого процедура, которую я описал выше.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:58, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to 'make use of' [37] feel free. Jackiespeel (talk) 14:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you but probably not, overloaded anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:15, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes more convenient than a sandbox here. Jackiespeel (talk) 22:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We decided to semi at about the same time, but I set a longer duration (there's been quite a slow edit war from history). If you want, please feel free to re-protect with a different duration. Cheers. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 09:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A longer duration is perfectly fine with me, thanks for alerting me.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ymblanter, I'm not sure if something's gone wrong or not, but since you made this edit, the category move hasn't been processed. I'm not sure if it just takes a little bit of time of not, but it's been over 48 hours since your edit so I thought I'd let you know just in case something's gone wrong. Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 10:05, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, likely a redirect was holding it.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am becoming increasingly concerned that User:Jax 0677 account is no longer appropriate for inclusion in the autopatrolled group. Perhaps you could take a look. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, I agree--Ymblanter (talk) 10:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

]

Not even a hundred topics, but, yes, thank you, at some point I will archive it manually.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did I put my suggestions for people I think would make very good arbcom members and who should consider running on the wrong page? I wasn't sure where was the right page to put them, but the talk page for the page called Nominate was my best guess. Can you let me know where it belongs? Thank you. 108.175.233.87 (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid these users' talk pages are the only option.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that my autopatrolled rights were removed without any reason given. Can you please enlighten me, and {{

]

I looked at the recent articles you created. Some of them were speedy deleted, some others were substandard (such as lacking references - probably you planned to add them later or failing

WP:MOS). In this situation I decided it is better if the new articles you create get an extra pair of eyes. For you nothing really changes, but if you are unhappy with this decision you can of course apply for the flag at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Reply - I asked to be pinged when you replied, so that I would be notified of your response. I am not aware of many articles in 2017 that have been speedily deleted. I think that I have been very diligent about adding references to article that I have created. Can you please provide specific examples of speedy deletions or lacks of references that carried on for a long period of time? --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jax 0677: My apologies, indeed Christopher Mirasolo was not speedy deleted but as a result of AfD, and other deleted items were redirects. This is not good, but at least this is not a speedy deletion. However, I am afraid my other impressions were correct. This is not how an autopatrolled user must start the article, even of they plan to expand it within an hour. It was additionally not added to any categories, which is a requirement for a patrolled article. This is a waste of time of new page patrollers. This one: By the Way (disambiguation) was indeed speedy deleted, and at the time you created it it was already amenable for speedy deletion (the target was not a dab).--Ymblanter (talk) 20:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The number of votes Naz Shah received was 29,444, but the source which you have cited clearly states "LAB majority 21,902". Please search the source page for the word "majority" and you will see what I mean. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kam2peace (talk • contribs) 10:13, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is ok, but the article is currently written in such a way that the number of votes is stated, not the difference between the numbers of voted received by her and the next candidate (which is the majority). And if you ask me, it has more useful info, but in any case it should be discussed at the talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ymblanter, you G5'd this page 4 days ago, but there are no further notes given about the blocked user. This article has now been re-created. I wanted to flag this up in case the users are related? Cheers, _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for alerting me, I speedy deleted the article. This time it is a different user (the previous one, User:Richardaldinho, was blocked for undeclared paid editing, and not by me), it was registered quite some time ago but only made a handful of edits, most of them being problematic. I do not see why I should immediately block them, but we probably need to keep observing.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The user might be worth keeping on eye on. The other article created, Bobble Keyboard, is also a re-creation of a company article that was previously speedied as promotional and later AfD'd as failing NCORP. I have now G4'd this._pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is not a literal recreation (though too similar, and I deleted it anyway), which would get the user indeffed. I am more and more inclined to an indef per

WP:NOTTHERE (undeclared paid editing), but probably we do not have enough evidence yet.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi there. Seems they are at it again. This time as VantageFX (without space). The editor indicated he's paid on his talk page. I AfD'd for now as it really lacks notability and corpdepth, but may be a case for a speedy given history. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 17:33, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, let it go through AfD (which it is probably not going to survive).--Ymblanter (talk) 18:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ymblanter:

Thank you for reviewing the article, Laura (1835 steamboat). There is something different about Texas relative to the other 49 United States: it is the only state in the U.S. which is a former republic. When this steamboat was in use, between 1835 and 1840, Texas was an independent republic. I forgot that the WikiProject Texas template loads this information for the United States. Therefore, I will be removing Category:Steamboats of the United States from the article. cheers, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 17:55, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is ok as soon as the article has categories (before my edits, it had none).--Ymblanter (talk) 18:13, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ymblanter, you SP'd the above article, but there was only one case of vandalism immediately prior to the protection, and from what I can see, only two instances in the entire history prior to the SP. Could you look again at this? Thanks. 141.6.11.24 (talk) 11:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have seem two cases, which, in conbination with the fact that the article is about current events, was for me a sufficient reason to protect it. You can post an edit request at the talk page, it is now very well watched, and I am sure if the request is reasonable it will be quickly implemented.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for looking at it again. I've put in a formal request for un-protection. 141.6.11.24 (talk) 13:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

]

Yes, I already figured that out. Deleted and semi-protected.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the subject in my watchlist chatter. Appreciate what you folks do... BusterD (talk) 14:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another search for the subject finds this: User:Angrylala/sandbox. Another likely sock? BusterD (talk) 14:34, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez, this is getting nuts. At this point I"m assuming all recreations are socks. Primefac (talk) 14:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, that thing's been around for ages. Probably not directly related... Primefac (talk) 14:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That IP address looks like a revert-bot. I was just about to block it too, but you beat me to it. Thanks. ~Anachronist (talk) 08:44, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like our friend from Macau, from a sockfarm massively blocked a couple of days ago. But anyway, a good thing they are blocked now. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:48, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen a lot of this type of activity in recent hours. How can I learn more about what a "revert bot" is and the best way to defend the project? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 09:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think there are general recommendations. I guess once you see rapid destructive activity, you want to block the offender ASAP, just because everything would be cleaned up. Other than that, if you have good ideas who it could be, you may add them to SPI, or even bring them to ANI. Otherwise, there is probably nothing to do.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have seen several of them in action and speedier administrators have blocked them before I could get to it. I got one of them. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 09:29, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

]

May be you should finally start reading what you edit? After your edits, the template says Kiev belongs to Kiev Oblast. This is a false statement.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you 30/500 protected the page

]

(talk page stalker)

@

Gary "Roach" Sanderson: at the time, there had been some disruptive editing going on from accounts that wouldn't be affected by semi protection, but it appears that most of those accounts are blocked now, so I agree the article is probably safe enough at semi-protection. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:10, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Now I reduced it to semi, let us see what happens.--Ymblanter (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		The New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		Thank you for patrolling new pages and helping us out with the backlog! Keep up the good work! — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 05:08, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to ask why you have "protected" the cheese whiz article from "vandalism." I'd like to know what "vandalism" you are referring to? Oofington (talk) 17:38, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are most likely an experienced editor evading a block, I am sure you know where the page history is, and also how to determine vandalism.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit [38] you wrote "Youtube is not a reliable source". Could you yourself provide a source for this claim of course, please? Thanks. Bonomont (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SELFSOURCE--Ymblanter (talk) 19:45, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Can't see Youtube there. And for good reason - many youtube pieces are indeed well researched pieces. To recapitulate, I say that the New York Times video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZmrIkRDMsU is a good source. And you claim that because it is hosted on Youtube, it cannot be a good source. Your claim does not make any sense. Please explain yourself. Bonomont (talk) 20:06, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube is a self-published source, and therefore can not used in a source in our articles. The only two exceptions are official youtube channels of media which are reliable sources, as well as information about youtube itself.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:08, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which this is. Like I mentioned, this is by the nytimes. So, will you retract your claim? Bonomont (talk) 20:09, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this is by NYT, cite NYT, not youtube.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not your monkey. If you remove my claim, and now think that it should be changed, do the change yourself instead of putting up a publicly critizining fact-template. You should make things better, not just put of marks of critics. Bonomont (talk) 20:13, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not your monkey either.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:19, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you deface something, you fix it. Bonomont (talk) 12:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look. You never mentioned it was NYT prior to this discussion, you just said youtube. You did not care to insert the link into the article yourself, leaving there contested unreferenced claim. You came here and started talking to me as if you are my boss. You are not my boss and will never be. When you refer to Wikipedia policies every time it is wrong because you did not even care to read the policies. And the article was already fixed in the meanwhile by a user who, unlike you, was interested in bringing the article to Wikipedia standards. Your contribution on my talk page is not really helpful.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:49, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re your "In the past three years at least two administrators stated that they did perform paid editing, at least one of these cases was pretty much high-profile, but nobody really wanted to desysop these administrators" at Arbcom requests. Could you name names and fill me in on the very basics. I suppose I could name 2 but they seem like special cases: 1) was from just before the ToU change, and his story was always vague and changing; 2) was de minimus and seemed like a guy blowing off steam - an admin who I've never seen use his tools. You may email me if you don't feel like discussing this in public. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:01, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both cases I know were before the ToU change, but I do not think it makes a difference - if at the time there were strong consensus that the admin flag is not compatible with paid editing, there certainly must have been initiatives like opening RfC on paid editing, and there was nothing like that. Both disclosures were public, by the high-profile one I meant Sarah Stierch - she was immediately fired by WMF, but there were no serious attempts to discuss her admin flag. (To be clear, I am not advocating at all a desysop in her case - I think it was stupid in her situation to accept payment, but she was sufficiently punished for that already).--Ymblanter (talk) 04:58, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You protected this article. How about reverting the vandalism too? It is not "The campus of AJ Brown University". Also, the Nickname is not "AJ Browns house" and the mayor is not AJ Brown. All 3 of those vandalism edits need to be reverted. It needs to go back to the last version of November 20 as all of the vandalism started today, November 24. WikiWhenBoredAF (talk) 01:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Has been done while I was sleeping, thanks @Acroterion:--Ymblanter (talk) 07:23, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ти мокшанине краще знаєш, як називається наше місто?. Ти путлєрюнґе можеш вказувати як писати масква чи москва, а до нашого міста свої криваки не пхай. — Preceding unsigned comment added by А.Теребун (talk • contribs) 05:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ik spreek geen Oekrains.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Motion: Crosswiki issues

Thanks for informing me, though it was obviously on my watchlist.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! You revered my edit without any explenation. What's your reason?--Skoropadsjkyj (talk) 20:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I actually reverted it back within seconds.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, now I see. Well then. Good night!--Skoropadsjkyj (talk) 20:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking it was a duplicate article, I understand what you are saying about the World heritage site, so we can create an article & have the disambiguation for the 3 Zeyrek articles. Or we can live it as it is if its better? Tiwahi (talk) 15:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you think a dab is needed (which I agree with) just move the article and create a dab on its place (probably we will need to fix the backlinks). It looks like the easiest solution.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Ymblanter, please see their recent contributions and talk page. Drmies (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  It looks like we have some work to do. Everything needs checking.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter Hi let me know if it still can be done, I will do the surface editing (but someone has to do something about the edit summary to satisfy the wikipedia editing etiquette). If you can do the edit summary, I will go ahead & do the rest. If the edit summary is lots of work, then we leave it as it is, thanks again for your time. Tiwahi (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I just wanted to check about this edit. Some Canadians identify as Quebecois (particularly separatists) which is recognized as a nationality in Canada. I don't list every Quebecker as a Quebecois, but in some cases it seemed appropriate. (I might, for example, list nationality as Quebecois but citizenship as Canadian in the infobox.) Thoughts? – Reidgreg (talk) 21:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know. I checked

WP:MOSBIO before making that edit, and it does not leave us too many options, though one can probably always make exceptions for good reasons.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:16, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

OK. I suppose for the general reader it's better to stick with a broader category of nationality, particularly in the lead, or at least to include the broader citizenship/nationality and note the identified nationality with proper sourcing. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think so. In this case, it might be important that she is French-speaking, but since the article is reasonably extensive I guess this point has been made clear.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that it takes 3 undo's within a 24 hour period to constitute war editoring. I have only done 1. On what basis is my update to the "GcMAF" page being denied? It was reviewed by 2 other editors before being posted. The references are valid and the informnation is correct. This update builds on a previous reference by another editor. That previous reference ties Efranat Ltd to GcMAF, EF-022 and papillomatosis. The new reference clarifies what the old reference means and spells out the exact FDA action. I think your action was ill conceived and inappropriate. Why are you protecting an out-of-date posting for GcMAF. Look at the Efranat Ltd website. This information is also posted on the Efranat Ltd company website. I have emailed the FDA for information on their official announcement. Then we will go to arbitration if you persist in your error. The following is correct.

In May 2017 the U.S. Food and Drug Administraion (FDA) granted both an Orphan Drug Designation and a Rare Pediatric Disease (RPD) designation to Efranat Ltd to develop a GcMAF treatment for Recurrent Respiratory Papillomatosis (RRP).[16][17]

PageMaster (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please go to the talk page and discuss it there.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at

]

As the reviewer of the article you could help save it.Thanks ! Bingobro (Chat) 09:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its gone maybe you could comment on its DRV page (December 3rd) . Bingobro (Chat) 08:31, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly is this CfD discussion? The link provided doesn't reveal it. Thanks Kerry (talk) 09:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kerry Raymond:, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 November 25#People by city and occupation--Ymblanter (talk) 09:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for creating Michael Middleton (academic). I can't tell if he is African American, in which case we could add Category:African-American academics.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:41, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I though about it and googled the photos, apparently he is not (though I am not 100% sure).--Ymblanter (talk) 09:42, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you're interested in Fisk University--I have started Kevin D. Rome, and I'd like to create a succession box with the list of all the presidents.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, not exactly my topic, but I will have a look--Ymblanter (talk) 10:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least two sources that directly state that he was black/African-American:

• Arkin, Daniel (November 12, 2015). "University of Missouri Board of Curators Name Michael Middleton Interim President". NBC News. Retrieved November 13, 2015., he was "the third black student to graduate from Mizzou's law school".
• UM Board of Curators appoints Michael Middleton as interim president of the University of Missouri System, University of Missouri System, November 12, 2015, "Middleton was the third African-American graduate student to graduate from the MU Law School".

-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:24, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tnx, will check later whether may be this should be added to the article--Ymblanter (talk) 13:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on User:Toddy1's talkpage.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Newman <--- This page. Your reason for reverting it was that my user was a 'single-purpose account'. This is actually my usual nick on all my usual media. You will also note that I am not sitting behind a proxy or vpn. I plan to use it more than this if energy allows (ugh, depression). So can you please give me context apart from 'you created the user just for this'? Is that even a legitimate reason in the wikipedia moderation rules?

Was there something in the edit you felt was wrong? I edited it to try to make it more neutral and provide more context. The source was not the best, but as the book is not searchable at the moment it becomes difficult to show more than that the author explicitly talks about it being in the book. Please advise so I can improve the edits. The 'has been accused of beeing "anti-autistic"' should at least stay, because the airquotes, tone, and choice of words doesn't really seem NPOV.

Yes, indeed please check our policies,

WP:BLP--Ymblanter (talk) 13:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Wait. So things the *author* has said in *written form* cannot be used as a reference with a link as to why there is a call going out for a boycott? Its both a verifiable source, neutral point of view (descriptive, not adding value).. hmm. Though, you are actually right. Me drawing the conclusion that the two things are related is technically original research without linking to written articles saying it, isn't it? Would it be an alright addition if I could link some of the articles describing the boycott? Some of them are from newspapers. Legitimately trying to improve the article *and* learn the rules for future reference :). You can also tell me to bugger off if you don't have time/energy to spend.

The language there though, that should be an alright edit regardless, i think? removing the airquotes, changing "anti-autism" to the more respected ableism? The whole sentence has a weaselword'y tone too. Popping off to bed. If you have the time to give me a few pointers or comments that would be great. I'll try to not be so defensive :). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnusjjj (talk • contribs) 16:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed, adding a couple of references (which satisfy our requirement for

reliable sources) which show not just that she said this but that she generated some attention would be fine with me. Concerning "anti-autism" vs "ableism" I do not have a strong opinion, this can be reinstated as fas as I am concerned.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:48, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Kalininsko-Solntsevskaya Line

]

Page content undeleted by User:Jenks24. But he re-introduced ambiguous names Shosse Entuziastov (Moscow Metro) (there are two), Aviamotornaya (Moscow Metro) (there are two). Why would one do that? The year-long-standing convention is to use line name in case "X (Moscow Metro)" is ambiguous. All links point to the disambiguated name, and readers get confronted with a redirect. 85.182.117.227 (talk) 07:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They have been the long-standing title for years without problems. If you want them moved, please start a requested move discussion at the talk page rather than making requests at RM/TR and half a dozen individual editors' talk pages – that is how this mess began. One week at a title you claim is ambiguous will not kill anyone and we will end up with a clear consensus on exactly what the new title should be, rather than the move warring that has taken place over the last day and a half. Jenks24 (talk) 07:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is the version you chose the "good" version? Are there reasons for your choice? Several (at least 4) editors supported the version you removed; only 1 user (and a vandal, at that) supported the version you selected. Care to explain your reasoning?2600:1017:B404:BD76:E0B5:71EF:2B77:1EF6 (talk) 09:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ever heard of

WP:BLP?--Ymblanter (talk) 09:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Ever hear of WP: Consensus? Nothing in the article violated BLP to begin with, and you're abusing your tools. Do I need to report you for misuse of your tools, or are you going to revert it yourself? If you have a view on the article content, you are welcome to discuss it on the talk page, rather than act as a dictator. 2600:1017:B404:BD76:E0B5:71EF:2B77:1EF6 (talk) 09:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I though you are joking, but you appear to be serious. Sure, pls report me.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NP. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B404:BD76:E0B5:71EF:2B77:1EF6 (talk) 09:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for dealing with User:Ahma Shameel but, now that the local user page has been deleted, the global user page shows through and it's just as self-promotional. Would some kind of block notice on the user page prevent the advert showing up? User:Ahmed Khokhar seems to be a sock puppet. Regards, Cabayi (talk) 11:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 11:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Cabayi (talk) 11:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for deleting the Abdulrahman Elsamni article per A7 as article has no indication of importance (people, animals, organizations, web content, events). That article does not appear to be a hoax. 156.208.238.201 (talk) 13:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Abdulrahman Elsamni. 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.

Block evasion again?--Ymblanter (talk) 08:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As someone with a close-to-zero working knowledge about range-blocks et al, are they going to be much-helpful in the scenario? :)Winged Blades ^Godric 14:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They should hopefully solve the problem, but I do not feel confident enough to impose range blocks.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:05, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on it. They're editing from various proxies/webhosts, though, so they can probably just pop up on a new one. Ping me when you see them on an unblocked IP. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The latest samples I know of were editing Yaroslav Blanter--Ymblanter (talk) 16:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I whacked one more range over there. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. These two, User:WorstKing and User:XMalikShabazzX, whom I blocked in the morning, seem to be from the same sockfarm.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing your comment here, I wonder if you want to say anything at this SPI, which is about an IP-hopper active in a Metro page-naming dispute. There are some IPs beginning with 78.55 named in the SPI. The IPs all seem to be on DSL lines supported by the same company in Hamburg, but a rangeblock looks difficult. @BU Rob13: has been evaluating the SPI. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, thanks for pointing out.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking action. Been a struggle with this chap for a little while. Had no idea there was a larger story here. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TastyPoutine (talk • contribs) 21:43, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They sometimes have good ideas, the problem is their persistence when the ideas are not accepted. Typically they create too much mess, and the IP range is too wide to be blocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Something is better than nothing. This has been a nightmare. TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 21:47, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It will continue being a nightmare, they typically use an IP address for a few edits and hop to the next one. It is just you can roll the edits back or stop reacting to them.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up just blocked another that posted a report to ANI. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would be very much surprised if this is the last time we have heard of him.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Администратор Узбекского Википедии Nataev предпочитает цензуру и заведомо-ложный провокации. Этот человек находя в территории Киргизии, про своей первый родине Узбекистана пишет всякие гады на Узбекском языке, призывает людей к Евромайдан в Ташкенте. UzbekRU (talk) 06:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

English translated https://translate.yandex.ru/

The administrator of the Uzbek Wikipedia Nataev prefers censorship and knowingly-about the provocations. This man is finding in the territory of Kyrgyzstan, about his first homeland of Uzbekistan writes all sorts of reptiles in the Uzbek language, calls people to the Euromaidan in Tashkent.

If the translation is wrong, sorry. Write me the answer in Russian language in my mail UzbekRU (talk) 06:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see what relation does it have to me.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:30, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect this is related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Никита-Родин-2002. The user is blocked in Ru Wiki with reference to users that were part of this long running sock case. See [39]. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. May be they should be blocked here as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts exactly. I flicked a note to Bbb23 for his views and for possible action. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 16:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for protecting

]

Sure, no problem. I also blocked the latest user as vandalism-only account.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:39, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	Happy Holidays
	Wishing you a happy holiday season! Times flies and 2018 is around the corner. Thank you for your contributions. ~ K.e.coffman (talk) 00:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, also happy holidays to you.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at

]

Thank you, I have seen this, but my involvement is marginal, and I am not sure that I have any time today.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ymblanter,

I'm a big fan of Kober's work. Its rare to see an editor who's been active for so long on Wiki, with such outstanding (overal) editorial conduct. He's the author of many great articles, and is "naturally" gifted with a writing style (i.e. prose) that's pleasant to read. When I first came to Wiki, he showed me (not sure whether intentional or not) the way about numerous things. Having said that, in more recent times, I notice a significant increase in hostility (i.e. "combatitive" tone) from Kober, that severely obstructs the possibility to work with other

editors. If I may, I will list some examples of the recent past, that, hopefully, will illustrate the point;

• On the
  clearly intended
  to improve the content of the article... yeah, no need to fill in the rest.
• On the Bakhtrioni uprising page, on 29 August 2017, he changed "general revolt of nobles in the Eastern Georgian Kingdom" (wich was clearly sourced, by Iranica), into "a general revolt in the Eastern Georgian Kingdom". In his edit summary, he says "nope. Tushetians, Khevsurs and other highlanders with no established feudal system come to mind."[41]
• Idem on the Kingdom of Kakheti page, on 29 August 2017.[42]. Its clearly visible how he changed the version sourced by the Encyclopedia Iranica, into something else. Edit summary: "rewording to reflect what really happened in the Bakhtrioni uprising." -- as if I was deliberately disrupting the article!.
• One day ago (21 December 2017), he continued this behaviour of unpleasant communication on the Safavid Georgia page. First off, he wrote "how come persian goes first in the overwhelmingly Georgian-speaking territory?", about an administrative province of an empire based in Persia, the official language of which was Persian.[43] Then, he says "(...) the article is clearly slanted towards Iranian imperial perspective." An extremely odd accusation (?) as well, given that the article is clearly about an administrative entity of an Iranian empire.[44].

I don't know what the reason is behind all of this, but I think the way he presents himself has become almost too unpleasant to bear. Naturally, this is not some kind of "plea" for admin action. I'm just asking for your opinion as a mod on this matter, as you happen to be active in these topic areas. For example; what should be done about this in the future? I mean, the option wasn't even there to write this material on his own talk page first, given how he refused/forgotten/? to reply to all my other Wiki content-related inquiries on his talk page, dating all the way back to early January 2016.[45]-[46]-[47].
I'm always open for discussion, as long as the intents are in

]

Did you try to raise the point with them?--Ymblanter (talk) 19:22, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

I did here.[48]. If you scroll a bit down; "Kober, responding with (...) and removed the material altogether."
He never responded to that. Thus, I did not attempt to discuss the "incidents" that happened later either. Partly due to the fact as well, that in general, he never replied to other content-related inquiries on his talk page for a long period of time(see main text above). I think any other comment about his 'tone" from me would probably again be misconstrued. - LouisAragon (talk) 19:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let us see first whether they respond here after getting the notification.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:31, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I really wonder which of the above examples is illustrative of my "combatitive" (sic) tone? I find these accusations disappointing, but still slightly amusing. --Kober^Talk 19:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Louis, do I still "sound mad"? --Kober^Talk 19:33, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S. The reason why I did not respond to your comments on my talk page here (1 January 2016), here (28 May 2016), and here (22 June 2016) is that I was not really active on Wikipedia at that time. I made only 63, 49, and 18 edits in Jan 2016, May 2016, and June 2016, respectively. As for my edit summaries, I don't really understand why you find them offending or otherwise targeted at you personally. I'm not going to respond to these ridiculous accusations anymore. However, you are and have always been welcome to discuss content improvement with me. Madly kind regards, --Kober^Talk 19:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "I really wonder which of the above examples is illustrative of my "combatitive" (sic) tone?"

I believe the diffs were more than self explanatory.

• "P.S. Louis, do I still "sound mad"?"

Not sure why you're making a strawman when someone is trying to adress something in a serious way?

• "The reason why I did not respond to your comments on my talk page is that I was not really active on Wikipedia at that time."

You could've responded later as well. Especially considering since I wrote you like, I don't know, 3 times on your talk page? Apples and oranges IMO. If someone wants to do something genuinely, he does it.

I stand by it that Kober has developed an increasingly combatative tone vis-à-vis his communication with other

WP:GF editors. Does this perhaps have to do with btw?[49]-[50]-[51]

. Just curious.

Anyhow, I just wanted to let an admin know what I empirically noticed. That does, of course, not dissemiate the fact that you're a great editor. Thanks; same goes for you ofc! Always are, and always have been welcome to discuss anything with me. Best, - LouisAragon (talk) 14:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Kober has developed an increasingly combatative tone vis-à-vis his communication with other

WP:OWN. I am putting a big period on this conversation. I won't respond to you here. If you want to discuss contents, you know where and how to do that. Good luck, --Kober^Talk 09:09, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Just wondering if you would consider extending you PC1 set for Nathan Kress ? - FlightTime (open channel) 18:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 18:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Happy holidays :) - FlightTime (open channel) 18:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, happy holidays to you s well.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays

From Stave one of Dickens A Christmas Carol Old Marley was as dead as a door-nail. Mind! I don’t mean to say that I know, of my own knowledge, what there is particularly dead about a door-nail. I might have been inclined, myself, to regard a coffin-nail as the deadest piece of ironmongery in the trade. But the wisdom of our ancestors is in the simile; and my unhallowed hands shall not disturb it, or the Country’s done for. You will therefore permit me to repeat, emphatically, that Marley was as dead as a door-nail. So you see even Charles was looking for a reliable source :-) Thank you for your contributions to the 'pedia. ~ MarnetteD|Talk 00:24, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, also happy holidays to you.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:04, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No pictures and all; just wishing you and your loved ones a Merry Christmas and a pleasant 2018:)Winged Blades^Godric 13:01, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, also best wishes to you.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:22, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I have requested the protection of University of Paris. However the same user that has been erasing content from the article changed , once again, the article minutes before the protection. Now the article is considerably smaller and protected. Could you revert the article to its biggest format, as it was some days ago, and then protect it?

Thank you Canyouhearmemajortom? (talk) 12:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, the edits are not vandalism, and it would be inappropriate for me as administrator to take sides in the editing dispute. It is semi-protected, meaning any confirmed user can edit.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about your phrase:--even the notability of the group is questionable in your nomination statement at this AfD. In the academic community, OMICS Publishing Group is the textbook example of predatorial open access! Also, paging JzG who may be able to provide some interesting insights.Regards:)Winged Blades^Godric 15:59, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was no link to the group in the version of the article I nominated for deletion as far as I remember - but even in the article about the group two first two paragraphs explain that it is actually a bogus scheme - which is unlikely to create notability for its founder.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OMICS is notable - very few publishers have been slapped down by the FTC - but it is very, very likely that Genome$100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an employee of OMICS violating their company wide siteban. Guy (Help!) 17:46, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2018!

Hello Ymblanter, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2018. Happy editing, Chris Troutman (talk) 00:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Thank you, and also best wishes to you.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ymblanter. While reading the Simferopol article I noticed that the infobox gave the 'native name' as the Ukrainian version of the name, despite the fact that Russian is by far the main language across the whole of Crimea. Assuming this was an error, I corrected it for all 14 Raions. If you are telling me that the consensus was reached that the native names of all these places should be deliberately given in the second language of each area rather than the native language, I am surprised that such a consensus was reached (though I don't disbelieve you.) I would not have agreed to such a consensus as, in my opinion, the native name should be the name as would be used by 'the natives', which would undoubtedly be in Russian. That said, I have no intention of becoming involved in edit warring. Lin4671 (talk) 19:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I responded @ your talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Just wondering if there should be some kind of admin response specifically to this talkpage comment, beyond the closing of the discussion. Not sure if I should bring it up at

]

I closed the discussion specifically to avoid blocking the user, which seems to be the only alternative.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I have asked the user to redact the comment, though I don't think they will. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]