Archives: 2011; 2012; 2013; 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022

Hi Ymblanter. Hope you're well. I wanted to make some changes to the Bosco Soid page but noticed that you have put it on semi-protected. Could you please lower the protection on the article? Thanks in advance.

Hi Ymblanter! Donguz Formation was recently created and could use a couple of edits so it doesn't get speedy deleted. Do you have time to look at some Russian sources? --Tobias1984 (talk) 07:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will have a look, but this is clearly not speedy deletion material. Added to the watchlist just in case.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Ymblanter, in case you want to help: The Historic Sites of Japan need to be converted to use ((NHS Japan header)) and ((NHS Japan row)). For now only the national part. I did a couple as examples. Multichill (talk) 15:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, I will have a look.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello; Is it possible to do any conversion by ?bot? as seems to have been done for these Chinese ones? The format of the Japanese lists is intended to be internally similar, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 11:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I guess this is more a question to @Multichill: than to me, but I guess if it were he would do the conversion himself without asking me. Let us wait what he answers. If the conversion is not possible, I volunteer to do at least some of the manual conversion (one-two lists per day).--Ymblanter (talk) 11:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I tried converting with a bot, but didn't manage to do it without too much mess so I abandoned that. Multichill (talk) 16:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm getting unstuck in trying to compile a table of terminology for the Belarus geographical naming conventions. There appears to be a flood of new articles and stubs recently and it appears that English Wikipedia is now leading the way with transliteration/transcription norms (which, as we know, simply isn't Wikipedia's role). As the contributors don't seem to know what to do other than follow the current directives, we're ending up with orphaned pages and broken links absolutely everywhere.

My thoughts are to follow the Belarusian government standards for the English speaking world (which DON'T involve the irritating version of what is essentially Latinka), i.e. as laid out per this map and other official sites. What's good enough for the Belarus government should be good enough for us.

You can check the sad beginnings in my sandbox. Any constructive input from sensible Wikipedians would be appreciated.

I've left this message on Ezhiki and TaalVerbeteraar's pages as well. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The beginning seems reasonable, thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

Hi Ymblanter. Draft:Nikolay Antipov was on the verge of G13 deletion, but the man is obviously notable. It looks like a machine translation of ru:Антипов, Николай Кириллович. I have added a few English language book citations, would copy-editing be an easy task for you? Thanks, Sam Sailor 18:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for reminding me, I will be slowly working on the draft.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great, thank you. Sam Sailor 18:46, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would you consider applying? We could use another active Russian speaker. Something we’ve been working on is getting people not to handle as many requests from languages they aren’t familiar with and this has lead to a small backlog from some wikis. I know you aren’t active on ru.wikipedia now, but being able to read the requests on meta and figure out if it’s within policy would be incredibly helpful. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@TonyBallioni:, do you have any idea how much time investmet this could be? I am operating close to the upper level limit of my abilities, and if it is enough to check some page once per day and react to pings, I could still do it, but continuously monitoring a page would probably be too much.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:06, 23 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that’d be the most, and checking once every few days would even be helpful. It’s a volunteer project and getting more volunteers from different language groups is always a plus. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, I will have a look.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I was actually thinking of organising a contest to get my old stubs expanded. Basically what I did in the early days on here was to identify notable missing articles, simply identifying them and getting them up, thinking in the long term at what is best. The problem is that a lot are really off the anglospere radar and don't get expanded but really should have decent content even if short. The idea that I mass created copyvio articles amuses me, I doubt there's more than a few dozen out of 100,000. I might see if I can get a hotlist of stubs created and run a contest to see who can expand the most. Alternatively I can request deleting them all which would mostly be negative as most can be fleshed out..♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The list is at the CCI investigation page(s). No, I do not think you should delete them, and indeed most of them (I do not know whether most is 90%, 99% or 99.9999%) do not contain any copyvio. But having them expanded would be nice. For Russian districts, I am going through them anyway, and it still could take years, but if I am still alive I will do them. I sometimes write on more exotic topics, but for example Chinese stubs typically require some understanding of Chinese sources for their expansion, and attention could be brought to them it would be great.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The task of building this encyclopedia is just so gigantic isn't it? I feel guilty in seeing so many short stubs but really should have been created with much more content but it was all done with the mindset of trying to make this encyclopedia have coverage of everywhere on the planet and really try to tackle systematic bias. I did a lot of good, a lot of them have been expanded but there's a worrying number untouched in ten years. Nobody is developing them. You know Czech and Turkish villages, German rivers etc, articles we should have but nobody is editing. We need something to get them improved. There's probablt a lot of African villages which should probably be redirected into a list, some of those villages in Burkina Faso and Benin etc are still unlikely to have anything online within the next ten years, though on a county or municipal level it seems to be gradually improving in some areas as they come online.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, this is an evergreen question what should be redirected and what should have separate articles. This is of course diffisult but I would say administrative divisions of levels 1-2-3 are probably fine, and reasonably big settlements (say above 10K) should be fine as well. For the rest, I would say we either have easily available sources or not. Once I tried to expand an article on a Czech village and could not find any information above the standard one which was already in the article. On the other hand, a Czech speaker would know what to search for and might be more successfull. African villages are probably hopeless for the time being unless there are very clear sources covering them. I created some time ago an article on a new province of Zambia (first level administrative division), English is an official language of Zambia, and it was still difficult to find any reasonable information.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I mean look at Madjoari Department (not mine). Even the bigger province is a short stub Kompienga Province. If we can't even get that right it's useless worrying about hundreds of localities within them. If all we have is a population figure I think we should redirect them all into lists by district/province like a gazetteer until there is sufficient info. I'm more embarrassed at seeing how many stubs I created which are still empty than worrying at people finding vios!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When I was writing about districts of Mozambique, it was easier for me that articles already existed, templates were there, and I just needed to add info from my sources. I suspect Burkina Faso is similar, and I speak French. Villages could be a completely different story whatsoever.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, can you find anything on this in Russian or find a way to translate Mongolian, I tried to destub it but struggled with the web sources I found. Russian wiki has some decent info on it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I will have a look. --Ymblanter (talk) 13:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, I found a source for the population at here 8010, looks like there's some other facts in there in the tables. I remember about 12 years back the sums were all half liners and there was no info on the web at all about them!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:02, 30 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cheers. It would make a massive difference to the encyclopedia wouldn't it if we could get every article on localities up to that sort of minimum quality. Most of the districts are still one liners.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, and this is what I am systematically doing with Russia (see e.g. Firovsky District as a random example). Concerning Ulaankhus, it also borders with China (and actually its borders with Russia and China are separated), but yesterday I could not figure out how to write this properly. The article I found also contains some information on the geography (mainly relief), I will see whether there is something useful to add to the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I was just looking at that, that narrow strip to the southwest, Xinjiang I think. You and Ezhiki have done a terrific job with Russia, it's massive!! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is definitely Xinjiang, but to add it in the list, we need to know which Mongolian sums this border separates, and I could not figure this out yesterday. Thanks for compliments for Russia, Ezhiki is unfortunately inactive but I am still around. There is still plenty of work to do there.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Firovsky District is several times more than adequate, a lot of these stubs if they even had a paragraph of text like the lead it would make a big difference, something which actually looks like something you'd see in an encyclopedia, not a crappy online database. "Life is what you make it" they say, well "The encyclopedia is what you make it" rings true too! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I added a translation from Russian wiki for Altai, Bayan-Ölgii but I couldn't access the sources. Can you see if you can source it. If not I've just remove it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:58, 31 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think I tried to get the sources from the Russian wikipedia yesterday and one was off-line and another one was archived but not particularly reliable. I will have one more look in the evening.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is only one Russian source there, [1], which has quite a lot of info about the aimak (though the reliability is questionable, but it should be ok at the end), but very little specifically about the sum.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't worry about it. I started Kikhchik, Russian wiki has two settlements of the same name, one a village which existed nearby long before that was set up. I think it would be best to have one article covering them both but you might disagree. Looking in Google Books the river seems the most notable. It's transwikied and if possible the source need checking and verifying. Won't keep bothering you as I know you're busy but you might want to look into it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:08, 1 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, can you find a list of subdistricts of Afghanistan? I can't seem to find any. Of course even the districts mostly need expanding and researching but it would still be good if there was a list somewhere.† Encyclopædius 14:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mmm Kot-e Ashro looks like it is actually the town of Jalrez itself now. Falling Rain isn't reliable but is usually right on coordinates and looking on google maps it says it's Jalrez now. This source though says Kot used to be the district capital until taken by the Taliban. Odd. What do you think?† Encyclopædius 15:02, 30 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Usually these things come out if the census, but then one of course needs to be able to read Pashto, and also I am not sure there was a census in the last 50 years. Any other statistical info would be good as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can't find the coordinates for Zaiwalat either. It's an educated guess for now but not sure.† Encyclopædius 15:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Found it I think.† Encyclopædius 16:58, 30 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, I spent some time searching, I can not find the list of subdistricts. Will try again tomorrow.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This one says that the subdistricts were eliminated by Taliban in 1996 and are not in use anymore.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Southeast Asia#Districts, I've prepared lists of over a thousand moves to be done. Does the bot that handles category moves also take requests for article moves? Can you point me at a process? Dicklyon (talk) 22:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, we can not use the same process for page moves. I do not know to be honest, may be the first place to ask would be Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), and they hopefully can point you out a good direction.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, I'll ask around. Dicklyon (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I found this place that worked before, and asked there: Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks#Admin needed to move over 1000 articles on Southeast Asia districts. Dicklyon (talk) 17:18, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In Rudra Thandavam (2021 film) you changed to wrong plot. Somebody vandalised to make it offensive to create political controversy against Dalits. I changed it but you removed it.

Look at this: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/tamil/movie-reviews/rudra-thandavam/movie-review/86670085.cms

Please change it or please remove totally.2409:4072:6C99:6E0:A64A:EA3D:FC16:BB8B (talk) 14:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I removed the plot, it is completely unsourced.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wrote what was in the source. Did I misunderstood something? Can you quote the page which proves me wrong? If so, I will rv myself, no problem. UserXpetVarpet (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mainstream history does not accept this.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I want that we understand eachother. In the Notes section it currently says "Legendarily founded by Gregory the Illuminator in the"

The source [12], if you open page 34 of that PDF, it says "According to Armenian tradition such a location was chosen because saint Thaddeus built the earliest church-parts of which are still believed to be in place as the base of the old section--upon the ruins of the temple. He was martyred in 66 AD by the order of Armenia's King Sanatrouk."

You say that it was "clearly" not founded in 66 AD, which is just your personal opinion.

 UserXpetVarpet (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, it is not my personal opinion, it it an opinion of the mainstream academic research. The opinion that it was founded in 66 is a legend. Legend have no room on that page. I do not think we are going to understand each other.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It would be nice if you give a source of the academic research.

If legend have no room on that page than you should also remove "Legendarily founded by Gregory the Illuminator in the". UserXpetVarpet (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I removed this. For the rest, go to the talk page of the article please.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:43, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Ymblanter,

When you are correcting a bad page move, it helps if you leave a redirect. When a bad page move happens, bots change all of the redirects to point to the new location. If you leave a redirect when you correct these moves, then the bots can correct a second time and point the existing redirects back to the original, correct location. But if there is no redirect left after you move a page, then that leaves broken redirects which are then deleted by the bots unless an editor or admin intervenes and corrects each one. Of course, if you check "What links here" and the page has no redirects pointing to it, then all of this is unnecessary. But you might check and see if there are redirects when deciding whether or not to leave a redirect after a page move. Thank you! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I usually do keep redirects, but today I was undoing really bad moves by a sock, when one entity was moved to a different entity. Redirects would not be useful here, but you are right, I should have checked backlinks as I usually do.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I also see that currently we do not have broken redirects, so that someone (probably you) already fixed them.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that I disrupt a page but you should have given me atleast one warning before blocking me , please don't block me without reason you gave a reason of vandalism but I not do any Vandalism . Thanks Sir I am from India friend of your country Russia 115.96.135.136 (talk) 05:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This IP has never been blocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Ymblanter,

I'd like your opinion as to whether Bloodofox has done anything actionable in this thread. Particularly in these edits with comments like:

• What's notable about this situation on this page is the aggression coming from you in particular about it [2]
• who knows how many hours I've wasted on ridiculous talk page blather from ideology-motivated editors [3]
• it's pretty clear to me (and it would seem a couple of editors who have messaged me) that you're on a mission here, and that you appear to be far less interested in improving the article than you are in making a point by way of doing things like emphasizing challenges to the term over its defenders [4]
• the fact that this particular matter is so aggressively highlighted in the lead over all else—your preference—is a big read flag. [5]
• Bold and italicize all you like, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Germanic_peoples&type=revision&diff=1065490805&oldid=1065489975 edits like this make clear your preference to emphasize what appears to be your preferred side of the "anti-Germanic" aspect of the controversy]. As you know, before my edits, readers immediately heard aspects of the argument of the "anti-Germanic" wing but they needed to actually go digging into the body to hear from the rest of the field. We see obfuscating behavior like this on fringe articles all the time. Leads are summaries of the article's contents (WP:LEAD), not a place to promote a preferred stance over all else (WP:Balance, WP:NPOV). We can discuss the appropriateness of some, sure, that's reasonable, but behavior like that is unacceptable. [6]
• It's something we see again and again at, for example, fringe articles when ideological editors—often adherents with single purpose accounts—aim to present material their preferred way. [7]

Besides these comments verging on personal attacks and aspersions, there's also a general refusal to provide sources for their assertions. For context, he's behaved in similar ways in the past, see this discussion from 2019. Also for further context this personal attack from last year Lol, this guy ranting about linguists and going to lengths to try to insert Goffart into every nook and cranny of this article while excluding philologists, the latter producing the vast majority of scholarship in this field. What a bizarre thing to see. here Similar things can also be found in that archive.

Thank you for your time!--Ermenrich (talk) 20:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(I originally posted about this at User talk:Doug Weller#Anything actionable here?, however Doug is suffering from health problems and was unable to look into it).--Ermenrich (talk) 13:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is not really my field of expertise, but I see that the user failed to convince literally anyone in that thread. They are understandably frustrated, but I think the easiest is to let it go. If they start inserting their position unilaterally to the article, it would be a different story.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is it some kind of hoax?.. Ghirla^-трёп- 20:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Beste Ik heb u naam van uw collega in vrijdag Wikimedia gekregen. Hoe kan ik uw email adres hebben zodat ik mijn vraag naar u kan sturen

Vriendelijk bedankt 

Lawin Lawien (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ik weet niet wat vrijdag Wikimedia betekend, maar ik gebruik wikimail.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bedankt voor uw reactie ik had een vraag over requset voor nieuwe editie hen hebben uw naam door gegeven dat u kunt helpen of uitleggen vriendelijk bedankt. als ik een email naar u stuur misschien kunt u mij helpen. keywan_faramarzi@yahoo.com Lawien (talk) 15:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Ymblanter

Thank you for creating Umedpur Union.

User:Hughesdarren, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Hi Ymblanter, I was going to review several of these articles but they all seemed to contain errors compared to the Banlapedia source. For this one; According to the Banglapedia reference to area is 8002 acre which is equivalent to 32.38 km2 not 87.26 km2 as stated in the article. Is there an error or am I missing something here? What do you think?

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with ((Re|Hughesdarren)). Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

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

Hughesdarren (talk) 09:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did not create this article but I have see the talk page comment. Possibly mass-creation with corresponding errors.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know you didn't create these articles, my original message to you was automated from the page review. I have already left messages on the creators talk page. Do you think it worth putting this series of articles into draft or just keep messaging every time one pops up? I'm after some guidance as to what you think would be the best response at this point. Regards and thanks for all your efforts in reviewing. Hughesdarren (talk) 09:57, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article is clearly notable, so I do not see any benefit of putting it to the draft. If we do not have reliable numbers for the area, it must be deleted. If we do have numbers for the ares, they need to be added to the article. If this is a systemic problem of the creator, which they refuse to address, some measures need to be taken against the creator.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Ymblanter: How are you? You mentioned that you could possibly find sources for the Alina Anisimova article, when I left a message at Wir. I wonder if you are up for that doing that, at some point. On researching the article, I recently found that she has left the Kyrgyz girls school/Kyrgyz space project, sometime in mid 2019, and went to work at Kloop, the sponsoring organisation. I think it is probably more than borderline notable at the moment. She was named by the BBC 100 Women thing, and now she is not part of the school, i'm not absolutely sure. If you can find anything else on her, it would be ideal. Any help is appreciated. scope_creep^Talk 14:12, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am afraid I checked every single mention of her name. There is lot of coverage after she made it to the BBC list (nothing profound though), and there is a mention here that she was arrested by authorities on 8 March 2020 for taking part in a march in support of women's rights in Bishkek. The latest I can find about the satellite is thew Wired article here but it is 2019 and in English. The idea was to launch the satellite in 2020, this obviously has not happened, at least it is not reported anywhere. Most likely, the project was either shelved because of COVID, or abandoned as unsuccessful. There is also an extensive interview with her from 2018 here. Not much, I must admit.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Btw she is pretty clearly not Muslim, I removed this from the article. When I was searching I have indeed seen statements like "Muslim women made it to the BBC list", and in every single instance I looked at it was just a poor job of a journalist. "What is Kyrgyzstan, never heard about it. Let us look it up in Wikipedia. Ah, it is an obscure Muslim country somewhere in central Asia - the girl must be a Muslim then".--Ymblanter (talk) 14:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are also Kloop blogs on the progress; there is a 2021 onew which is actually a vlog, which suggests that the program is still running. The 2019 blog here does not mention Anisimova, though she is present on the photo, but says other people were leading the project. It gives quite some details about the organization.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ymblanter: Yip, Covid has done for a lot of projects, worldwide. Thanks for finding those blogs and taking the Muslim term out. The Patreon page has a blog entry confirming that she left the project on good terms, in 2020 and LinkedIn shows she went to work for Klopp. So, I guess it doesn't leave much for the article. scope_creep^Talk 14:54, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, not much. May be a human rights march.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion you may be interested in has been opened regarding whether athletes meeting a sport-specific guideline must demonstrate GNG at AfD. JoelleJay (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the notification.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Здравствуйте! Можете, пожалуйста, на правах администратора предупредить участника https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Sakaask о недопустимости подобных правок: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proto-Mongols&diff=1067294586&oldid=1067075970 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Xianbei&diff=1067438154&oldid=1067404376 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Murong&diff=1067442765&oldid=1067415424 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Xianbei&diff=1067438741&oldid=1020128223

Данный участник удаляет ссылки на АИ, которые однозначно имеют вес в науке. Его действия явно нарушают правила WP:CONS и WP:NPV.--KoizumiBS (talk) 15:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 15:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Ymblanter

Thank you for creating Lillian Kwok.

User:Dps04, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for the article. Consider improving with more reliable sources and corresponding information from the Chinese Wikipedia. Note that the article at its current stage seems to have given undue emphasis over Kwok's participation in a recent social gathering and alleged false claims as to her occupation, which might have affected the article's tone and neutrality. Consider, if possible, to add coverage of Kwok's background and her activities in other areas as well. Thanks.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with ((Re|Dps04)). Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

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

Dps04 (talk) 14:00, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do not think I have ever created Lillian Kwok. And there is no way I can improve anything using the Chinese Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ymblanter, in that case please ignore my message. My message was automated from the page review tool and for some reason was sent to you erroneously. Apologies for the confusion and happy editing~~ --Dps04 (talk) 14:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure, no problem. I think my interaction with the article was that I reviewed it but then immediately unreviewed it because I had some notability doubts (I would need to look up what thic council means, and I did not have time for that at the moment). Presumably this is why I got the automatic message,--Ymblanter (talk) 14:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see, thanks for telling me that. As to your notability concerns, the subject is a newly elected Hong Kong lawmaker, and there are numerous sources in Chinese providing some decent to significant coverage of the subject: 1, 2. While the article would benefit from additional copyediting, the subject should be able to meet WP:NPOL #1 and WP:GNG, which is also why I reviewed it. Hope this addresses your concerns. --Dps04 (talk) 15:00, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Users are not required to be logged in, assuming someone who is not logged in is ban evading or a sock puppet account simply because they are not logged in is irrational. Then going so far as to accuse them of vandalism is not what we strive for here. It's even worse when your edits were factually incorrect. Please try to do better.ShroudedSciuridae (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whereas generally they are not required to log in I am sure this one was a sock. Hopefully now I have cleared this mess, which was left from the previous edit-warring.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can assure you I am no sock, even when not logged in.ShroudedSciuridae (talk) 21:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did not say you are a sock, though for a user with 81 edits your behavior is very atypical.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:55, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are too modest my friend, just strike it out, in-fact I have gone ahead & I have done just that Celestina007 (talk) 22:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the closing admin will figure it out anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Ymblanter, thank you for the page protection!

I got one more question: On the Croatian Wikipedia we revision delete WP:LIVE violations (= not in all cases, but in some) and content that could be viewed as defamation or very nasty trolling/vandalism that could be insulting. How is that handled on en.wiki? Are such as cases (like in the examples I mentioned) usually left in the edit history?

Best regards, Koreanovsky (talk) 20:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have looked at the edits, I do not see there anything which needs to be revision-deleted, though of course another administrator can decide otherwise.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:50, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the fast reply and your comment! Best regards, Koreanovsky (talk) 20:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure, no problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Ymblanter, about your deletion of the image on the station of metro of Bucharest, I don't think it's appling the "ban" because it's a simple public station, not private building, not picture, statue or any kind of "thing" with a clear author. --DnaX (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is an architect (and possibly an artist, but I am not sure), and the station is an individual project of the architect. The photographs infringes on the copyright of the architect.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I may be misunderstanding the edit history, but you appear to have locked the page, probably due to people performing an edit and others undoing those edits. That edit need to be done. The paragraph in question leaves the Wikipedia article taking severe lean to the right, making unfounded accusations backed up by citations that leave much to be desired in an effort to discredit the most popular left-leaning source of news. 2601:248:4401:6330:E5FB:FE90:D06E:D4C4 (talk) 06:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You should find consensus at the talk page of the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:43, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello
You reverted my edit here deleting the Moscow Railway category and asked "what do I mean?" (presumably by the summary "wrong smolensk station"). I deleted the category because the station isn’t in Moscow; I’m assuming whoever put it there was thinking of this Smolensk station (in Moscow), not the one in the article (which actually is in Smolensk). Moonraker12 (talk) 23:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, but Moscow Railway is not just in Moscow, it is one of the Russian Railways divisions which covers most of the oblasts adjacent to Moscow Oblast.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moscow Railway is used to refer a railroad system employed in entire Central Federal District, not just to the railroads or stations located in the vicinity of Moscow city. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 08:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See the recent history of ManaliJain's talk page over on commons (here). There's an account that I've blocked here on enwiki adding stuff that sure as hell looks like it's revealing personal information - might need revdel? Cheers Girth Summit _(blether) 18:02, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 18:41, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks - much appreciated. I've requested a global lock. Girth Summit _(blether) 21:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure, no problem. If they reject the global lock there is always T&S but I would normally not expect them to reject.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They normally act on my requests - I make quite a lot through SPI, I can't remember a time when they've been rejected, although this is a bit of a different case. Thanks for the support. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, sure.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey @Ymblanter: Please have a look at my talk page on commons where the same user i.e. Princepratap1234 is evading his earlier block(s) through IPs [8]. ManaliJain (talk) 10:02, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I reverted, blocked the IP. and added your page to my watchlist.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alright, thanks much! ManaliJain (talk) 11:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure, no problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Ymblanter, I've seen you have stopped being an administrator for Russia etc. but this is for DYK and maybe this is ok. Someone brought Russia to GA, great. And has nominated it for DYK, great, too. But following was blocked for sock puppet, not so good. I have been the reviewer and now we are a bit stuck. I'd like to have a review, so could not you nominate it? I also feel the blocked editors work should be valued and specially Russia and the Russians. And maybe you have an even better hook? Here you can read and comment if interested. Template:Did you know nominations/RussiaParadise Chronicle (talk) 02:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am sorry but I stay clear of all kind of quality content. For DYK, I would need to review another nomination, and I am hesitant to do it because English is not my mother tongue, and I do not want to run into trouble.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:20, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's ok. Problem solved for now.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi - yesterday I blocked MrBlueSky747 and Skynest101 as CU-confirmed socks of Anonymous427, who was already blocked here for repeated copyright violations involving image. I see that all three accounts have been active over on Commons, uploading images that Blue_Square_Thing had already raised concerns about (see the thread at User_talk:MrBlueSky747#Cummins image for context). Is it worth taking a look at the contribs and potentially blocking them over there? Cheers Girth Summit _(blether) 10:56, 6 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, I blocked the main account (which was not active there for quite some time) for a week and two socks indefinitely. This is as much as I can do at the moment.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:46, 6 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unfortunately Commons is quite bureaucratic when dealing with copyright violators (see Commons:Commons talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Creations by blocked or locked users). Blue Square Thing notes our en.wiki processes failed this time, but we do a bit better than Commons. CMD (talk) 12:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright violations are obviously amenable to speedy deletion, the problem is that it is often difficult to prove these are violations.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Which I’m unable to do this time. The Nokia/Nikon multiple “typo” is all a little circumstantial Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indeed, the reverse search is the only option, and if it does not give any results we can not do anything.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well that's the problem in a nutshell: the burden of proof is always on the good faith volunteers, not on the serial copyright violator. CMD (talk) 13:23, 6 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hi first thanks for the other comma in Lindsey Jacobellis article lol. I was bored and looking through pages with edits awaiting review and reviewed the Die Hard article and I wanted to approve its recent revision as the edit corresponded and explained the scene in the movie more better than what was mentioned before. You would probably agree with me too. I don't have rights yet I did however requested it.

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 09:27, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey can you put a lock on National team appearances in the FIFA World Cup again? Same user is doing his vandalism thing again. Thanks. Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 09:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done. Please note that this is not vandalism.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Same problem is occurring right after someone removed the lock. Needs a permanent lock. Greetings. Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 09:47, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

3 months now.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! 👍 Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 14:37, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Curbon7 (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Здравствуйте, уважаемый Ymblanter!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 18:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello Ymblanter,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 22:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

Hello, Ymblanter. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.Doug Weller talk 10:38, 12 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Marina Ovsyannikova is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

– Muboshgu (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

I have started a discussion in which you may care to comment at [[9]] Cheers Elinruby (talk) 02:07, 21 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello!

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

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

Place Clichy (talk) 01:10, 22 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

Precious

Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tnx.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Tnx.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:10, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm posting this here so it doesn't draw so much attention but doesn't seem to be severe enough to warrant email or IRC. Since you were recently active wondering if you could rev delete this edit summary [10]. While it's unlikely the IP will ever see it, and if they were going to they probably already have, it seems to me to be something we don't want to keep per RD2. I've already warned the editor concerned. Nil Einne (talk) 12:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

KhndzorUtogh (talk) 13:52, 6 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Hello Ymblanter!

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

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

Thanks! Erick Soares3 (talk) 12:41, 20 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, really? Ymblanter (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks 192.145.174.139 (talk) 09:14, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Thank you. Dolf133 (talk) 09:20, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

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

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

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

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

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

Probably yes. Ymblanter (talk) 15:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 12:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Hey there

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

Cheers Aeacus13 (talk) 13:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Thank you for reviewing my last page.

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

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

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

Hi Ymblanter

I note this edit

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

and that it was immediately reverted by yourself.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I believe there are decent sources to merit its inclusion [11], [12], and even a passage from the book of political expert Evgeny Yanovich [13]. And that statement was in the article for a very long time to begin with. My opponent removed it couple of days ago [14], stating it's not a response from Azerbaijan. I suggested moving it to the International section, even tho the original source itself states she's Azerbaijani. I think we've reached a brick wall in the discussion and I don't want it to get even lengthier, so I would greatly appreciate if you could provide your opinion. Best, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It looks like the bay does not have an official name. There is nothing on the Soviet topo maps [15] though usually they are pretty accurate. In this book they call it "Kengeveyen fiord", but I am pretty sure this is a made-up name, not an official one. Ymblanter (talk) 06:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Sure, thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 14:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

Thank you. Ymblanter (talk) 05:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We've got an editor who insists that we cannot use the term Palestine for the first century CE. See [16], [17] and contributions, and Talk:Virgin birth of Jesus. I think this is against the spirit of ARBPIA, but I'm not sure. Of course if it is within ARBPIA, I can just alert and point out the restrictions for IPs and new accounts. What do you think? Doug Weller talk 10:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 10:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

Good day! Please, explain me why the old version of article can not be returned? [18]. I think this is contrary to the rule WP:CONS. If you won't return consensual versions I will be forced to apply another administrator. There is also unconsensual version. And there is uncosensual version too - you can see it there: [19] --Bolgarhistory (talk) 23:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Also I don't understand why have you returned post-war version here. Please look at pre-war version: [20]. And please look who has started an editing war: [21], [22]. My version is earlier closer to the onsensual version. --Bolgarhistory (talk) 23:18, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• What is certainly contrary to WP:CONSENSUS is massive edit-warring in multiple articles without any comment. Please learn to discuss with others. This is what talk pages are for.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:20, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Please answer my question. Why have you returned unconsensual versions of articles? I have shown you consensual versions. And I hadn't seen your warning on my opponent's discussion page: although he is also waging edit wars. I think this demonstrates that you are not neutral. I will wait for one day and I will create request to another administrator if you won't return consensual versions. --Bolgarhistory (talk) 07:18, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All the best, Dan the Animator 04:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

All the best, Dan the Animator 04:14, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Hello, Ymblanter,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tnx--Ymblanter (talk) 07:42, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:GNG Ymblanter (talk) 19:58, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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