Open main menu
Puzzle x template.gif
If you leave a message here, I will answer it here. So check back later.
If I left a message on your talk page, please reply there. I will watch your page and reply as soon as I can.

Archives: 2011; 2012; 2013; 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018


Donguz FormationEdit

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)

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)


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)

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

Cleaning up the Belarus geographical messEdit

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)

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

Kirghiz Soviet Socialist RepublicEdit

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)

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

Draft:Nikolay AntipovEdit

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)

Thank you for reminding me, I will be slowly working on the draft.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Great, thank you. Sam Sailor 18:46, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Protection of AirbnbEdit

I know that obviously the section Airbnb#Delisting of West Bank settlements is under WP:ARBPIA restrictions; but is the whole page really "reasonably" construed (which is stricter than broadly construed) to be related to the conflict? Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:05, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

OTOH looking at that edit history the protection does seem warranted at-least until the issue dies down. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:11, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, we do not have a section protection so that I had no choice (except of course passing it to another admin - I just saw it on RFPP). I am not happy with the situation myself, but I do not see how we can solve it without going to ArbCom or splitting the article (and then I doubt that the West Bank incident is worth of a separate article).--Ymblanter (talk) 17:21, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Since not all ECP protection has to be through the automatic ArbCom restrictions, maybe you can protect it ECP for 3-6 months? By then hopefully the dispute will die down, and that is better than protecting it indefinitely. Or you can see if semi-protection staves off most of the disruption and edit warring. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
This is arbitration enforcement and has been logged as such (and the request was to protect the article because of ARBPIA). I am not sure I can now so easily remove or lower the protection. I do not think we have a mechanism of lowering ARBPIA protections.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, what I'm saying is that: the ARBPIA protections only automatically apply to pages that are "reasonably construed" to be related to the conflict. If you agree with me that the Airbnb page is not reasonably construed, (though it may be broadly construed to be related to the conflict) then we are free to apply whatever protection for whatever length as is appropriate. Am I making any sense? :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:36, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, you are right, I checked the decision again, and it says "reasonably construed", not "broadly construed". Indeed, we can try to lower protection in 6 months to semi and see what happens. I will most certainly forget about it in 6 month and will appreciate a ping if possible.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:45, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Okay, thanks; I put a reminder in my calendar :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Great, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:48, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Time zone change in Volgograd OblastEdit

Hi Ymblanter, would you mind taking a look at Template talk:RussiaTimeZone#Template-protected edit request on 13 December 2018? Thanks, Cobblet (talk) 10:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

  Done, please check.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:20, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


Can I request a Semi-protect at Guatemala City Airport please because IPs keep disruptively keep editing it and not using the edit summary or sources Breakroute (talk) 16:16, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

  Done--Ymblanter (talk) 22:45, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Breakroute (talk) 08:23, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Sure, no problem--Ymblanter (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Just a note, it looks like you added the protection template but didn't actually protect the page (see the logs here). Airplaneman 20:45, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, indeed it looks like I screwed up. I was traveling and only had five minutes in the morning, using a mobile device. Anyway, now protected for three weeks (exactly what I planned to do in the morning).--Ymblanter (talk) 20:49, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Sounds good. Editing, especially admin tasks, are tricky on mobile. Airplaneman 21:03, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, this was not the first time things happened, and then for the whole day, until I returned home, I had no time and no internet access, meaning no chance to check anything.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:10, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Now I know the problem why the BOT kept reverting my edits you and I didn't do it properly. Anyway thanks for being so helpful, users like you make Wikipedia a better place. Breakroute (talk) 21:38, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

page protectionEdit

Hi Ymblanter, Greetings to you. From my observation, the PP tag would be removed by bot upon the expiration date. I noticed a user removing 3 pp tag, just wondering is this the right/ok practice. - see [1], [2], and [3]. Kindly advise. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 11:56, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

As soon as protection has indeed expired I do not see any problems with these edits (though the best practice is indeed to leave to a bot whatever can be done by a bot).--Ymblanter (talk) 19:24, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi Ymblanter, Ok. Good to know. Thank you for your quick response. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 20:10, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Sure, no problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:12, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Original Barnstar
Thanks for reading all my messages and doing what they say. Breakroute (talk) 21:34, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:48, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Aida Hanemayer (Lisenkova)Edit

Hello, dear Yaroslav. I write articles in wikipedia very rarely. It's a shame if this article is deleted. I believe this artist deserves to be featured on Wikipedia. My English is not very good. I hope that more experienced participants will finalize the article. I added links to authoritative sources, which indicate her paintings in the Pushkin Museum, museums of Volgograd and Odessa. There are so many videos, but I understand that this is not an authoritative source. With respect, Олег Черкасский (talk) 19:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

At his point, this is not me who decides. If sources are good and prove notability, normally there should not be a problem to keep the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)


You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 31, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Bradv🍁 21:42, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Tnx.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Katherine MaherEdit

Hey Ymblanter, I wasn't sure if you meant your own user talk page or the article talk page so forgive me, but you raised a interesting concern with my expansion of the alt text. Have you seen MOS:ALT? My concern is that without detailed alt text, we leave out the blind / visually impaired community from learning. I don't believe that alt text should ever be knowledge that is not just explained with the image... if that was what you wanted. I belive that alt text should simply be a explanation of the text already there, again as per MOS:ALT so that no knowledge is lost. Certainly the information isn't critical but that's kind of the point in my opinion. TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I should also note that its not just the blind / visually impaired community that benefits from this, people in low-bandwidth situations can opt to turn of images and replace them with alt text. TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Please start discussion at the talk page of the article. To me your arguments look absolutely ridiculous, but may be this is just me.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Discussion started here. TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Canot DeleteEdit

Why delete Valaiyars page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkalaiarasan86 (talkcontribs) 05:59, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

All explanations are on the AfD page.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry MerryEdit

  Happy Christmas!
Hello Ymblanter,
Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that

Nobody could have had a noisier Christmas Eve. And when the firemen turned off the hose and were standing in the wet, smoky room, Jim's Aunt, Miss. Prothero, came downstairs and peered in at them. Jim and I waited, very quietly, to hear what she would say to them. She said the right thing, always. She looked at the three tall firemen in their shining helmets, standing among the smoke and cinders and dissolving snowballs, and she said, "Would you like anything to read?"

My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD|Talk 23:04, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, and also best wishes to you.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:26, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of UrmaryEdit


If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Urmary requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

This is bullshit.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Please give protection to the Mangalore article from frequent vandalismsEdit

I would like to bring to your notice that you had protected the Mangalore article from vandalism during Sept-Oct 2018.
Even now, there are frequent insertions of Tulu administrative language and Tulunadu regions into the Mangalore article. This was the same reason, as to why it was earlier protected (Sept-Oct).
I request you to give protection to the Mangalore article again ASAP.
2401:4900:3693:4BC0:50D0:2C58:F69E:AC94 (talk) 09:27, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

  Done for 6 months.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:36, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!Edit

  Wishing you and yours a Merry Christmas and a happy, healthy and prosperous New Year 2019!
Hi Ymblanter! Thank you for all the hard work and effort you put into Wikipedia. God bless! Onel5969 TT me 14:36, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, also best wishes to you.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:01, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Please keep a watch on Yudirai account. He is the person vandalizing Mangalore related articles with poor Tulu contentEdit

I request you to please keep a watch on this user account Yudisthir Shivaprasad Rai Yudirai(talk).
He is the same person who is repeatedly vandalizing Mangalore related articles with Tulu/Tulunadu content, using multiple accounts.
Yesterday, the Mangalore article got protected from IP edits due to his Tulu related vandalisms.
On 18th July 2018, the Tulu Nadu received page protection from his IP related vandalism. But, since Yudirai(talk) user is autoconfirmed, he again vandalized that article the very next day.
He has also vandalized the Bunt (community) article as well. The user account Bunt56(talk) is a sock-puppet of Yudirai(talk).
He could certainly vandalize the Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada articles once again. (talk) 09:56, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

The account did not edit since October. If you suspect sockpuppetry please open a WP:SPI.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:19, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curatedEdit

Thanks for reviewing List of observatory codes (000–499), Ymblanter.

Onel5969 has gone over this page again and marked it as unpatrolled. Their note is:

Hey there. This editor is splitting a bunch of articles, without providing the proper attribution back to the article they are splitting from. Just wanted to give you a head's up.

Please contact Onel5969 for any further query.

Onel5969 TT me 12:57, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

You are right, attribution is indeed needed. I will provide one now.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:03, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
I worked with that editor a bit this morning, I think they get it now. Had to go back over about 40 articles they had split without attribution. Think I got most of them. Onel5969 TT me 14:24, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Seasonal GreetingsEdit

  Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Ymblanter, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019.
Happy editing,

Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 07:10, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Thsnk you, also best wishes to you.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:50, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Heads upEdit

After the block you performed, you may want to consider also revoking TP access at User talk:Nyah Grotusque, as per edits there. North America1000 12:50, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

I want to consider it, but they have posted a formal unblock request, and, even though this is clearly nonsense, I am afraid we need another administrator to reject it and to revoke talk page access.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:53, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Favonian just revoked it and email. North America1000 12:54, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, and even before I finished writing the previous reply. Good.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:55, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
It's the usual LTA, whose antics resulted in ANI being protected earlier today. Gagging is called for. Favonian (talk) 12:58, 25 December 2018 (UTC)


Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message
Thank you, and also happy holidays to you.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:50, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Admin's Barnstar
Thank you so much for all your work keeping RFPP under control during this past week when so many “regulars” are away from their computers. I hope whatever holidays you celebrate were enjoyable, and the new year will be a good one for you! MelanieN (talk) 23:56, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much Melanie. Happy holidays to you as well, and thanks for working at RFPP.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:27, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Rm talk page accessEdit

Hey, Would you like to remove the talk page access to the IP talk page and extend the block because of this disprtive unblock request containing the chicken nugget image, which you don't mind doing (talk page stalker). Sheldybett (talk) 04:42, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I added this to my watchlist, will react if they continue disruption.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:26, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Rafale deal controversyEdit

Do you believe that full protection was justified when only one editor was edit warring against 5 editors?

Already warned for edit warring on 24 December. He made 3 reverts after getting a warning and has reverted 5 different editors then ran to ask protection of his preferred version.[5] I don't think a page protection was warranted at this stage when only one editor is edit warring everybody. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 12:44, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

If you believe this is just one editor who edits disruptively please make an ANI case against them. But please not in the same manner as the last one, since otherwise nobody is going to react on it. Concerning full protection, edit-warring was happening in parallel with the discussion at the talk page. This is not really acceptable. Please conclude the discussion first and come to consensus. I checked that the version on which I protected, the WP:WRONGVERSION, does not contain vandalism or BLP violation. If I missed them, please let me know.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:49, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
It should be obvious that this group of editor above, are more interested in litigation at ANI and edit warring instead of improving the page or else my pings for joining the talk page discussions would not have been ignored. --DBigXray 12:53, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


I know RPP is the place for this kind of thing but I wasn't sure what to do with multiple pages that need protecting. Help:Introduction has some pages that are semi-protected but some pages that are not and they keep getting vandalised. Thank you for your time. Whispering(t) 16:57, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I have protected some, but there are too many of them, I am not able to protect all of them in one go. I can finish it later, but if there are some which require urgent protection (say vandalized today) I can urgently protect them.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Should I throw it up on WP:ANI then? Whispering(t) 18:01, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Probably AN. It will likely be faster than waiting for me.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Persian miniatureEdit

Hi, 3 days wasn't long enough it seems! Johnbod (talk) 20:57, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

  Done, for 2 weeks--Ymblanter (talk) 21:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks! Johnbod (talk) 00:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Sure, no problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 00:19, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Changing Czech Republic to Czechia.Edit

Per this edit, what should the reaction be? I reverted it first, then undid my edit due to my unsure thinking. The links don't need to be changed, they were fine as is, and this is a controversial edit, I feel, per the current consensus on changing Czech Republic to Czechia, being that it should be automatically reverted. This user is aware of this, and has been involved in discussuons on this, yet did not use an edit summary, and marked the edit as minor. I'm confused on what the thinking is on edits like these and how to proceed. - R9tgokunks 04:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

In this edit, they just corrected the references - both indeed point out to Czechia, for whatever reason. I remember however that we had an LTA which was changing the Czech Republic to Czechia everywhere. I did not check the edits of this user, and I do not have time for this research now, but I see that they only have less than 100 edits - if most of them are disruptive, this would be a clear ANI case.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:30, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Protection templatesEdit

Hi, as soon as the protection template was taken off, the IP-hopping editor is back on Finnic peoples and Balts. This has now happened the second or third time. Would it be possible to add a permanent protection template? Thanks. Blomsterhagens (talk) 01:06, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Both have been protected by Scott Burley for three months while I was sleeping--Ymblanter (talk) 09:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


I have replied to Primefac's email about the DM RFC, copying you via the address Primefac gave me. If you do not receive this, or your mail has changed (I noted some conversation about this at AN, though as I do not know which address was used when, I'm not sure which one was given to me) let me know, and we'll figure things out. Best, Vanamonde (talk) 07:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I have received your reply, no problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


Hi, I was just wondering whether you had heard from Ezhiki at all. I know he was editing less and less, but he hasn't edited for more than 6 months. I hope he hasn't gone away for good. Fenix down (talk) 14:11, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

No, I do not have any means of connecting to him other than posting at his talk page. I noticed indeed that 6 months is his greatest editing gap ever, but unfortunately I do not know what happened. I hope he is well.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Me too, it was a very abrupt end with nothing in his user page. Fingers crossed he is OK. Fenix down (talk) 14:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Notice (added party)Edit

At the request of the arbitrators, you have been added as a named party to the GiantSnowman case. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 10, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Bradv🍁 16:13, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the formal notification, I have already seen that I have been added as a party.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Subodh KerkarEdit

Hi, the page Subodh Kerkar was blanked for possible copyvios. I have since created a fresh version of the article at this temp page. This version is free of copyvios. Also this particular revision is a clean revision of the page, free of copyvios. Could you please look into what action is to be taken for the same? Thanks. SerTanmay (talk) 07:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I will take care of it later today (review the new version, move and do the necessary administration). Courtesy pinging @Justlettersandnumbers:--Ymblanter (talk) 07:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
My apologies, did not come to that today. Will try to complete tomorrow.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  Done--Ymblanter (talk) 20:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Georgian Museum of Fine Arts vs Georgian National GalleryEdit

Hi, I have started creating a page for the Georgian Museum of Fine Arts. You have connected to Georgian National Gallery, which is a completely different page. Georgian Museum of Fine Arts is a new museum in Tbilisi that opened October 2, 2018. Please reverse your changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lobo87 (talkcontribs) 16:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

This is fine, but you will need to provide sources demonstrating it notability first.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Category:PFC Lokomotiv TashkenEdit

Hi, Please deal with Category:PFC Lokomotiv Tashkent. Especailly, This category Category:PFC Lokomotiv Tashkent seasons. Only administrator can edit. Footwiks (talk)

It should stay tagged for two days. I asked you to tag it, but you ignored the request. Then I had to tag it myself, hence the delay.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Actually, I didn't understand the meaning of tag. Anyways, Sorry for that and thanks a lot.Footwiks (talk)
Sure, no problem. May be try to ask next time if you do not understand something which you think might be important.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Mann Gulch fire - hijacking underwayEdit

  Please refrain from hijacking pages as you did with one of the pages you edited. Should you believe the subject you were writing about deserves an article, please use the Article Wizard, which has an option to create a draft version that you can then get feedback on. If you continue to hijack an existing article, you may be blocked from editing. If you have any questions, you are always welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you..

The timeline section has been in place since August 2018 without a single complaint. On what grounds did you lock in the existing article? CerroFerro (talk) 17:26, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@CerroFerro:, what the fuck are you talking about? Have you ever heard about the protection policy?--Ymblanter (talk) 17:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curatedEdit

Hi, I'm Arthistorian1977. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Luiz Gustavo Novaes Palhares, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

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

Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Arthistorian1977:, I assume it was an error (I do not see any issues with the article except for it being a one-line stub), but if it was not please let me know what is wrong, so that I could be more attentive in the future. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:51, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: Hi, it definitely was. I think it was just sitting in the cache of the tool, and I saw it as unreviewed and when I press "review", it made it actually "unreviewed". It happens to me from time to time. My sincere apologies. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Sure, no problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curatedEdit

Hi, I'm Arthistorian1977. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Sergiev-Kazan Church, Krasnoobsk, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

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

Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:50, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Also this one, the article looks fine to me.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:51, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


Idly curious, what happened to this user account that's mentioned on your userpage? It's not currently registered, and there's no User:Ymblanter alt~enwiki either. Nyttend (talk) 13:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

It should be registered on Commons. I was in October in China, my laptop died, and for whatever reason on my ipad I was logged in here but not on Wikidata or Commons (I did not even think it was possible). But I was in a jury of Wiki Loves Monuments Russia, and there I had some photos to grade urgently, and they were linked to my Commons account. (And I do not remember my password, and I also could not recover a temporary one because Google is blocked, and VPN did not work properly). Then I just registered a new account and asked the grading system to be reattached to that account. It is quite possible that I never visited the English Wikipedia from that account, and it has never been created locally.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Australian Better FamiliesEdit

G'day, Ymblanter, re Australian Better Families apologies, we seem to have been looking at this at the same time and I inadvertently changed the protection time. I have restored it to the period you placed on it. Strangely, when I went to protect it, I didn't get the usual warning when the article has already been protected. I only got an "edit conflict" when I went to put the template on it. Anyway, sorry. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

No problem, it happens all the time, and actually 3 days would also have been ok, I usually seem to be on a longer term side compared to other administrators.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Virtue signallingEdit

Hi Ymblanter, I noticed you semi-protected this article following a request for indef SP. Thank-you for disregarding the 'indefinite' element and only protecting for a week. Having looked at the article history it is clear that the co-called disruptive editing claimed by User:CFCF is nothing of the sort. There is evidence of content dispute, but that's all. The request for SP appears, at least to me, to be an example of trying to close down IP editors. Silas Stoat (talk) 21:11, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

There was clearly disruptive editing by IPs, but, unless there are very good reason, I never make the first protection indefinite.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:14, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
I couldn't find any - at least not of the first page of the edit history - content dispute only. I guess the problem is that one man's disruptive editing is another man's valid contribution. When the latter is an IP he is at an immediate disadvantage. Silas Stoat (talk) 21:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
For me, content dispute in which one (or both) of the sides makes the same edits for years without going to the talk page is disruptive editing.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
I'd agree with that. Thanks. Silas Stoat (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Puerto Rico subdivisionsEdit

Hi I created about 800 subdivisions of Puerto Rico articles.
Many times the subdivision has the same name as the municipality.
Oftentimes, as well, there is a barrio with the same name, except in a different municipality. So again, I put the municipality in parenthesis, as I've seen time and again. So In that case all along, I've named it with the municipality in parenthesis.
I noticed you moved an article (changing the name) and separate the subdivision with a comma, so instead of Lajas (Lajas) it is now Lajas, Lajas,_Lajas&oldid=879930922 The thing is there are 800 articles and I would estimate that 70% of the articles are using the Lajas (Lajas) format. Wondering if there's a specific rule in the MOS for this and I apologize if my way of naming the articles was incorrect. Now I'd like to know if all the articles where the municipality is in parenthesis will/should be redirected/moved to match the (comma) Lajas, Lajas naming convention? Thank you for your time and have a good day... --the eloquent peasant (talk) 03:31, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I am pretty sure we do not use parentheses in the names of localities. Let me try to find an exact policy/guideline and come back. Thanks for working on the Puerto Rico barrios.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:37, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
@Level C:, it is here: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Disambiguation. I can help you with moves if you give me some pointer (e.g. list pf pages).--Ymblanter (talk) 11:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
OK. I have a friend visiting from Hawaii -so it may be a few days. Thanks! --the eloquent peasant (talk) 21:17, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I finally worked on "some pointer (list of pages)". So if you would like to help me move these- is that what you really want to do?! Wow!!

Here is the list. BTW, it is an article that had, IMHO, useless information, so I used it to list barrios and communities in P.R.
Based on what I read on the MOS, it seems that the article names may include "..., Puerto Rico" in order to disambiguate. Would you agree?
The List of communities in Puerto Rico shows the barrio name, muncipality name to make it easy to work on this project.
1) you/we/I would move the page to the barrio name, municipality name, Puerto Rico. i.e. Lajas, Lajas would become Lajas, Lajas, Puerto Rico. Would you agree or not?
2) in the case of about 75 barrios named "name barrio-pueblo" we would not need to include a comma followed by the municipality name because it's self-explanatory. i.e. Cayey barrio-pueblo would become Cayey barrio-pueblo, Puerto Rico or even simply be left as Cayey barrio-pueblo. But based on the MOS, it seems adding "Puerto Rico" disambiguates the issue:
MOS states, "In some cases, the article title should include additional text, such as a country name or province name, for example, Paris, Maine or Red River (Victoria). The additional text is called a disambiguation tag. The disambiguation tag provides context to the reader, and helps uniquely identify places when multiple places share the same name. The following general principles apply to such tags:
In some cases, including most towns in the United States, the most appropriate title includes the non-parenthesized State name as a tag, even when it is not needed for disambiguation."
I'm still updating /adding article names (barrios, subbarrios, communities) to the List of communities in Puerto Rico and am up to letter "F". Thank you. --the eloquent peasant (talk) 22:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Many if not all (I didn't check all) of the San Juan barrio articles seem to have been named correctly. That was before my time. They are named barrio, San Juan, Puerto Rico. Thanks again if you're willing to help me with this. Also, I'll have to learn / read up on if there more to a move than meets the eye? --the eloquent peasant (talk) 22:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
I certainly agree for #1 and will help with the moves (though I might be slow). For #2 (barrio-pueblos) I think it would be safer to ask at a dedicated Wikiproject (I am not sure which one would be better, it is probably good to check which Wikiprojects are around. Or asking at the talk page of [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names).--Ymblanter (talk) 21:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
I'll ask around re: # 2. Also, I wonder why wouldn't we just place a redirect tag on each barrio's talk page only 'cause I'm concerned I might not know how to do any clean-up that may be needed after a move. Anyway, it's late and tomorrow's another day. Have a good one!--the eloquent peasant (talk) 04:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
I finished moving the barrios in the municipality of Aguadilla. Do the original articles need to be deleted? I see in your work, the original article is red (deleted). Thanks much for your help. It will be slow going. I'll work up from A as I see you did Vega Baja. We may meet in the middle some day. --the eloquent peasant (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
It might be easier if you move each barrio, one municipality at a time. The municipalities are linked here in my sandbox--the eloquent peasant (talk) 20:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
I have moved two articles from the bottom of the page, but I can switch to the sandbox, no problem. I kept the redirects, I only directed the talk page redirects, but this is not required.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Cheers! Thanks for your help! I have a question regarding creating a disambiguation page when name is used. How do we create a disambiguation page for Palmarejo for 4 other Palmarejo articles? Palmarejo River, Palmarejo, Corozal, Puerto Rico, Palmarejo, Lajas, Puerto Rico, Palmarejo, Coamo, Puerto Rico. --the eloquent peasant (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I moved the article to Palmarejo, Cape Verde. Now, Palmarejo still has a lot of backlinks, most of which (but not all of them) are coming from the giant template. I already fixed the template, but we need to wait for several hours until the caching issues will be fixed (may be already fiexed for you). We can then fix the remaining backlinks and set a disambig page. If you come to this (I will soon go to sleep and will be largely unavailable tomorrow), do not forget hatnotes.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
OKay. I'll wait however, I'm not sure what this means. I've never done this. I'll read up on it after a nap. Thanks!--the eloquent peasant (talk) 18:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Never mind then, I will do it myself and you could add remaining meanings to the page.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Okay. Thank you.the eloquent peasant (talk) 19:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  Done--Ymblanter (talk) 19:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I tried to do Cuyón disambiguation, added hatnotes. But I may have done something wrong.--the eloquent peasant (talk) 20:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I moved it to Cuyón, but I do not see any other problems.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  Done All'v been moved- all those that should've been moved were moved. No more parenthesis. Now can get to bigger and better things. --the eloquent peasant (talk) 17:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I already discovered it in the morning. Thanks a lot. We probably still need to figure out what to do with the barrio-pueblos--Ymblanter (talk) 17:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Okay. I started a discussion on it. --the eloquent peasant (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


Could you please revert this dodgy move? Ghirla-трёп- 07:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Sure,   Done--Ymblanter (talk) 07:44, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
The pre-war title was Peter Wittgenstein. Actually, the lede claims that it is the better-known name. I can't revert the double move, because it was done so as to make renaming impossible. Ghirla-трёп- 07:07, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
You are right, I moves back to that title.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:09, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Ruthenian languageEdit


please check this edit ([6]), I am unable to decide or interpret it is ok or not...Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 00:07, 28 January 2019 (UTC))

Already reverted by someone...(KIENGIR (talk) 00:19, 28 January 2019 (UTC))

John BoyneEdit

Hi again. You said the article "John Boyne" is pending changes for six months, but then you indefinitely semi-protected it. Which one should be more correct and more appropriate? -- George Ho (talk) 09:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I meant pending changes, thanks for noticing. Adjusted now.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:51, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Short Description of London Underground station articlesEdit

Hi Ymblanter! I'm really intrigued to know why you added these short desc templates, which seems to me that aren't of any use. Would you mind explaining? Your edits have been flooding my watchlist lol Thanks VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 10:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Vincent60030:, They are needed for mobile users, see WP:Short description. My apologies for flooding the watchlist. I want to add them anyway, but I will try to distribute my work so that I add alternatively short descriptions to articles on metro stations for different cities, then it will be easier qua watchlists.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Cool! Thanks for the info! Though I must say I’m watching station articles of 4 countries at least xD VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 04:20, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
I will try to minimize the collateral damage. I know myself how inconvenient it is when someone makes a lot of small changes during a short period in the articles of the same type all of which I have on my watchlist.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:07, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm still learning from you and've decided to try my hand at some of these short descriptions and taking this good discussion into consideration. Thanks! --Level C (talk) 00:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Two considerations are (i) if you do it manually, do not do too much at a time for the above reasons; (ii) if you started working with a group of articles finish it, since we do not have instruments to check which articles have short description, and checking them one by one is really annoying.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:28, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Exactly. Okay. Sounds good.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Rubicon Group Holding protection requestEdit

Hi Ymblanter,

I would like to know whey you declined to protect our company wikipedia page for semi-protect and full-protect, I would prefer to have full-protection on our page since we are facing some vandalism from IP's and fake users changing our company status to closed and defunct, we need to avoid these actions and if you want I will send you official email from company owner or my official email.

your response is highly appreciated.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diya.albanna (talkcontribs) 10:05, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Unless you count your own edits as vandalism, the last IP edit was yesterday, and the one before in July 2018. This is well below our standard threshold for article protection.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ymblanter,

we need one admin to be responsible these changes, I did clean all the vandalism yesterday coming from named users like (A10.comfan24) and public IP's and changed some figures to make the company active and you can chech that, another time if you want official emails I can provide.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diya.albanna (talkcontribs) 10:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

No, admins are not needed for these tasks.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:20, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, no admin ?? please justify the reason and i'm asking for semi-protection too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diya.albanna (talkcontribs) 10:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Again: If an article has been vandalized three times in a year, we do not semi-protect. You can just revert vandalism. I for example protected an article today which was vandalized five times in 24h by different IPs who inserted there serious violations of our policy on biographies of living people. This is what merits protection, vandalism three time per year does not.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:30, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Copyright issueEdit

@Ymblanter: Can you fix the copyright issue with the article Adventist Health.Catfurball (talk) 20:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I am afraid it requires a bit more time than I have before I go to sleep. I will have a look tomorrow.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:15, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  Done--Ymblanter (talk) 07:44, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curatedEdit

Hi, I'm Arthistorian1977. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Slovenskoye, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

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

Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:52, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Must be an error, I guess we were looking at it at the same time.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:55, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
@Arthistorian1977:, I reviewed it back but if there was a real problem please let me know.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: Agh, it happens to me all the time. When I open an unreviewed article and someone else does the same when I press review, it marks it unreviewed :( The same others do to me. Might be a raise condition bug. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
I forgot to apologies. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
No problem, it is indeed quite common. No need to apologize, I was just double-checking whether there was a real problem with the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:15, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism IssueEdit

Hello! User talk:Kefaloniaa is constantly vandalizing the page of Levante Ferries. You can see it in the history of the page. He was banned for 31 hours but he is back again. Can you do something about this? I'm the creator of the page Kefalonitis94 (talk) 08:55, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I am afraid I am not competent to determine whether the last edits have been disruptive. Please try to discuss at the talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


Regarding your edit, requests in 31 January 2019 should not be removed today because some requests are less than 7 days Hhkohh (talk) 09:08, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, shame on me. I will restore it now.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Please remove the Fiat Freemont page protectionEdit

Please remove the Fiat Freemont page protection as we want to create a separate page from Dodge Journey and to have some different information, even those vehicles have similarities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rejs12345 (talkcontribs) 21:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

This protection is exactly to prevent you from doing this. Please discuss at the talk page first.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Arrow Cross PartyEdit


sorry, this is the time regarding this page, a tendentious IP does not care about anything, with disruptive modifications/deletions...I opened the issue in the talk page long ago, no answer..I warned the IP for edit warring, no result...others also noticed, but it still goes on...please do the needful. Thank You for your time.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC))

  Done--Ymblanter (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman closedEdit

An arbitration case regarding GiantSnowman has now closed, and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedy has been enacted:

GiantSnowman is admonished for overuse of the rollback and blocking functions, and reminded to "lead by example" and "strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy"; to "respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions and to justify them when needed"; to not use admin tools in "cases in which they have been involved" including "conflicts with an editor" and "disputes on topics"; to "treat newcomers with kindness and patience"; and to apply these principles in all interactions with all editors. GiantSnowman is placed under review indefinitely; during the review, with the exception of obvious vandalism, he is subject to the following restrictions:

  1. He may not revert another editor's contribution without providing an explanation in the edit summary. This includes use of MediaWiki's rollback function, any tool or script that provides a similar function, and any manual revert without an edit summary. Default edit summaries, such as those provided by the undo function or Twinkle's rollback feature, are not sufficient for the purpose of this sanction
  2. He may not block an editor without first using at least three escalating messages and template warnings
  3. He may not consecutively block an editor; after one block he is advised to consult with another admin or bring the matter to the attention of the community
  4. He may not place a warning template on an editor's talk page without having first placed an appropriate self-composed message containing links to relevant policies and guidelines
  5. He may not place more than five consecutive warning templates or messages; after which he is advised to consult with another admin
  6. He may not use MassRollback.js

Violations may be reported by any editor to WP:AE. GiantSnowman may appeal any or all of these sanctions, including the review itself, directly to the Arbitration Committee at any time.

For the Arbitration Committee, Bradv🍁 18:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this
Yes, I have seen this, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Pending changes at the Gia Carangi articleEdit

Ymblanter, as seen here, you stated, "I think pending changes protection is working fine for the time being. It can not completely stop disruptive editing, and this is not what it was designed for." And Oshwah agreed. But pending changes did not work fine in the case of the IP showing up again and making the same problematic edit, and WP:Pending changes states, "Pending changes protection is a tool used to suppress vandalism and certain other recurrent nuisances on Wikipedia while allowing a good-faith user to submit an edit for review." So I'm not clear on the "this is not what it was designed for" part of your comment...unless you mean that pending changes is meant to help decrease disruptive editing instead of completely eliminate it. Either way, one goal of the protection is to prevent vandalism and other disruptive editing by IPs and non-autoconfirmed registered editors from showing up in the article. As seen here, I addressed the editor who reviewed the IP's latest edit and accepted it. The editor explained that they didn't pay close attention to the edit.

Now that I've sourced the piece, I understand leaving pending changes in place, considering that an editor is unlikely to accept the IP removing the source if the IP does that when removing the middle name again, but pending changes didn't work fine that first try. If the editor had accepted the IP's edit because the middle name was unsourced, then I can see the argument that pending changes did work fine that first try. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Pending changes protection is usually configured when there is persistent long-term but infrequent disruption in an article by non-autoconfirmed users but at the same time there are also good IP edits to the article. Gia Carangi has exactly this profile. Whereas this year disruption mainly comes from one IP, whom I now blocked for a week (and if they continue disrupting editing after the expiration of the block they will need to be blocked again), I see good (or at least not reverted) IP edits in November. It is unfortunate that a bad edit was accepted, but since you talked to the user I hope it is not going to happen anymore. Of course it we see after some period (say a couple of months) that this kind of protection does not help, and that bad IP edits are still made frequently on a regular basis, we can upgrade it to semi, but my analysis of the situation was that, three days after the pending changes protection was configured and with only one bad edit in the meanwhile, it is too early to reach this conclusion.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply and for blocking the IP. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Sure, no problem. Let me know if they reappear.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Boychuk etc.Edit

Some unsolicited advice from a "wise old man". I know you have administrative responsibilities, but you should relax. There's probably not a single article on Wikipedia that doesn't violate some guideline. Anyway, the whole internet/web is going to go up in a puff of smoke some day. Just enjoy it! Cheers! WQUlrich (talk) 00:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Shin LimEdit

@ymblanter There was absolutely no good reason or good faith from you to change the edit level of the page, because my edits was about adding Shin Lim's Chinese name to the page, unless you have something against his Chinese name. But that would make you and the people who were intentionally ignoring the content of my edits and deleting his Chinese name from it look very shady, pathetic, and cowardly.2604:6000:D786:6C00:3DF7:791D:751C:69D4 (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

We obviously have different opinions on what disruptive editing means.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
You obviously have no comprehension of what "disruptive" means. An action needs to have an equal and opposite reaction in order to be disruptive. So if my edits were disruptive, then by definition those who changed my edits were equally disruptive. But did you call their edits disruptive, too? Of course not, because by using an underhanded method to censor specific information that you didn't like but cannot refute on facts and logic, and then deleting my previous reply to you, you have proven that you are not only a biased coward but also a moron of such pathetic caliber that wikipedia has been given a bad name by dumb schmos like yourself who play censors here. (talk) 23:54, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for this very civil and insightful remark.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

About the 3 pages that you protectedEdit

I do not know why but I've seen that you unfairly protected those 3 articles that I edited recently to a user who does not understand several tips in his discussion page and here I have tried to add Rica Fukami's birth reference because I realized that in the Japanese Wikipedia article I did not see the actress's birth year nor is it singer, rather is a narrator of anime series but with its reversals the IPs like us consider us as cross-wikis in different languages ​​in Wikipedia, as it does in Wikidata right here and threatens us with wanting to block us globally so easily. (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I have not seen that you engaged at the talk pages of the articles (in fact, you have not), and you changed your IP to start edit-warring. This is a typucal situation when we protect articles.. If you want to change the birth date, go to the article talk page and show which reliable sources confirm your version of the birth date.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Global renamerEdit

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)

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

Talk pages consultation 2019Edit

The Wikimedia Foundation has invited the various Wikimedia communities, including the English Wikipedia, to participate in a consultation on improving communication methods within the Wikimedia projects. As such, a request for comment has been created at Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019. You are invited to express your views in the discussion. ~ Winged BladesGodric 05:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, but is it likely that I am going to use the option "please ignore".--Ymblanter (talk) 09:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Wrong sanctions at the February 2019 Warsaw Conference articleEdit

Hello Ymblanter, i noticed that recently you have tagged the February 2019 Warsaw Conference article with ARBPIA and envoked 6 month protection upon the request of user:Foster tree, who unilaterally decided that the article is somehow related to AI Conflict. It is obvious however that the Conference was in fact dealing with the Arab-Israeli coalition against Iran supported by the US, and not anything related with previous conflict of Israel with Arab League. There has already been a similar misunderstanding with the Iran–Israel proxy conflict article, where ARBPIA was rightfully removed by BU Rob13 upon my clarification request. Please note, that the Warsaw Conference article still falls under the WP:GS/SCW&ISIL sanctions due to relevance with the Syrian Civil War and ISIL, which are separate sanctions from ARBPIA, and were installed specifically for the purpose of separating the issue of Syrian Civil War and Iran-Israel engagements from the generally unrelated Arab-Israeli conflict. I would appreciate if the sanctions would be corrected from ARBPIA to SCW&ISIL as explained.GreyShark (dibra) 08:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

  Done, will configure the talk page template later. In fact, the disruption was specifically related to Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but as soon as the sanctions work I do not particularly care which sanctions have been exactly imposed.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:09, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi, what disruption are you referring to? (the page seems to have been generally stable with no specific edit-warring) Anyway, it is still tagged as ARBPIA while editing.GreyShark (dibra) 12:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
On a second thought, I decided to remove protection altogether. We are not authorized to put articles under extended confirmed protection outside of the ARBPIA area; there was no disruption in the article since 14 February, and normally the article does not need to be protected. If disruption resumes, semi-protection can be added.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, that is probably the best solution. Will remove other ARBPIA tags.GreyShark (dibra) 12:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Venezuelan presidential crisisEdit

Hello, Ymblanter; just yesterday, you semi-protected at my request at RFPP the article, 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis. The article had grown huge. With consensus, I just finished splitting a large portion of it (100 KB!) to Responses to the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis. This is the portion where we list who supports whom, and it is, of the two articles now, probably the one that will get hit most and causes most problems. Would you be able to do us the favor of also semi=protecting it? Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

  Done, also for 6 months--Ymblanter (talk) 08:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Ymblanter. Me again. While I was splitting content to the Responses article, ZiaLater was also splitting content to 2019 shipping of humanitarian aid to Venezuela, which is now nominated for mainpage In The News, and ... ditto. Might you semi it as well ? It's the article where the hottest topics are covered right now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

  Done as well. There are currently some technical issues with that article (see at its bottom) which I have no time to fix, but may be someone else could.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks again (I missed your earlier note and will look at the bottom there). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Me again: I should set up a cot! Protection at Juan Guaidó expired, and issues have started. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Done this one for half a year as well--Ymblanter (talk) 16:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks again! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Sure, no problem--Ymblanter (talk) 21:39, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

User talk:OneLittleMouse/IPEdit

Please protection page of User talk:OneLittleMouse/IP page from the creation of anonymous indefinite. (talk) 11:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I do not see any need at this point.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I have done that today...after an incident. Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Great, thanks a lot.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


This is of course confusing - in real life the Catalans did rule the Greek islands for a while, or more specifically the Catalan Company did. And Fomenko does say "At the beginning of the war, in 1377-1378 a.d.,the troops of the Navarrans invade Attica and con-quer it ([195], page 265). The primary initiator of the war, the Corinthian ruler Nerio, acts as an ally ofthe Navarrans who invade the Duchy of Athens, which is still under Catalan rule at this point". That was a real conflict apparently between the Catalan Company and the Navarrese Company and it was in Greece, not Spain. And of course isn't really between "troops of the Navarrans" etc. In fact the Duchy of Athens was under the Crown of Aragon although I guess it might have been controlled by Catalans, reading the Crown of Aragon article. So I'm reverting you, ok? Doug Weller talk 16:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok, good. I still think it could be formulated in a less confusing way, but unfortunately I do not have time right now to deal with it.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
I see you have edited it so that now it is formulated properly. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

ru:WP:SPI helpEdit

Hi, could you glance at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:RTY9099_reported_by_User:Sigwald_(Result:_No_violation)? I declined the request because it wasn't edit-warring, but the requesting user has said "this is a blocked user's sock" and provided a link to ru:Википедия:Проверка участников/Кориоланыч-8 as evidence. Could you confirm that RTY has been blocked as a sockpuppet there? We have a recent Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Кориоланыч/Archive, but RTY9099 isn't included in that request. Nyttend (talk) 22:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@Nyttend:, they are blocked there for block evasion, but in the SPI page CU has indeed confirmed that this is Кориоланыч.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
OK, blocked with a rationale referencing the Russian CU. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 22:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


Can Wikitionary be used to contest reliable source(s), specifically Encyclopaedia Iranica? Per here. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Wiktionary is not a reliable source.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you sir. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Sure, no problem--Ymblanter (talk) 17:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Bad protectionEdit

There's no need to protect 5 hours after all the dispute have come to a stand-still. Please un-protect.WBGconverse 19:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I restored the ec protection. If disruption resumes, you will another admin to sort this mess out.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
@Winged Blades of Godric: I requested protection at RFPP at the time that editing disputes were ongong, as I consider myself involved here, but then I went to do something else for the day and couldn't follow up. If my request didn't get actioned until several hours after the dispute was resolved then I agree with resetting to ec, and apologies for the minor inconvenience. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:18, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I protected indeed four hours after the edit-warring stopped, but the edit-warring itself was going on for about five hours, and it was not unreasonable to assume that it could resume. However, after being aggressively attacked like this I have no desire to return to the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Sincere apologies to you; if you perceived my note as aggressive. I did not intend it to be so:-( WBGconverse 18:18, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
This is fine, but next time you choose a topic title at the talk page of someone who was trying to close the RFPP requests nobody else at te time cared to close to be "Bad protection", you probably should not be surprised that this someone feels it as aggressive.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:49, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Regrets, that was a bad choice. I intended to leave a short note but it came out to be way terse:( Your actions over RFPP are immensely valued:-) WBGconverse 18:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Ivanvector, I can be fairly blamed for my part in quasi-edit-warring:-( When you deal with a bunch of nationalist SPAs sprouting random nonsense (and effectively stonewalling); it's a bit frustrating but I ought to have conducted myself better.
But, by the time YmBlanter tended to the request, the article was stable for hours and the traces of revert-warring had long died. And since then, the article had been stable despite his un-protection:-) WBGconverse 18:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Help re. SPI on ru.wikipediaEdit

Hi Ymblanter, I was wondering if you could help. I came across this SPI on ru wikipedia which may be relevant on en wikipedia. See also User talk:Sir_Sputnik#Cross language Wikipedia sock - advice. I think this may warrant to be raised as SPI over here, but I wanted to be sure I have all the facts before raising. The google translation of the Russian SPI does not make much sense, so I was wondering if you could help me understand the gist of it. Many thanks!! pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 19:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

The Russian SPI is very clear, I blocked indef.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your help! pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 19:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Sure, no problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:58, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Small discovery from looking at this. Openlydialectic = Niqabu, however Niqabu also appears to be Paral Aydzen based on the cu log. The technical evidence is that they have had the same static IP for at least two and a half years in common. Same article as the other. No sleepers seen while looking.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Qingshang listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Qingshang. Since you had some involvement with the Qingshang redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. (talk) 12:02, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for notification.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:15, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Admin availabilityEdit

Hi. Would you be available to take action right now if I were to email you with a revdelrequest? Many thanks Nick Moyes (talk) 12:36, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes:, yes, I can do it (assuming it is not a 1000 edits or smth, I only have about an hour).--Ymblanter (talk) 12:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Nope, just two. Drafting something for you now. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Protection of the page Kanthapuram A.P. Aboobacker MusliyarEdit

First of all thank you for protecting the page as per my request at Wikipedia:Request for page protection. In spite of the protection, there is continuous edit warring and vandalism in this page as well as in the related page Grand Mufti of India which is also protected. This user is edit warring in the page saying the sources used are paid media and are not reliable. In fact, all the mainstream media has covered the event and the sources used in the page are major national newspapers. I asked the user to provide a source with a conflicting claim which he could not. I request you to kindly look into the pages and advise whether I should go for Wikipedia:Extended confirmed protection or a higher protection level. Malayala Sahityam (talk) 14:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Please warn the user again, and, if they continue, I am going to block them.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Never mind, I warned them myself.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello. Thanks Ymblanter for doing that. But the user seems to ignore the warning and is inclined to continue edit warring and vandalism. Malayala Sahityam (talk) 16:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I of course do not know what they are inclined to, but they did not edit after my warning yet.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Okay, sorry. Because I had to revert an edit of the user from two pages, I thought it was after your warning. Malayala Sahityam (talk) 17:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
No problem, please let me know if disruptive editing resumes.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

The user is continuing removing sourced information from the page. He/she is replying at the talk page but still repeating personal opinion on the matter and is unable to provide any references to substantiate it. Please see the discussion pages as well and decide whether the user's editing pattern qualifies for a ban. Thanks. Malayala Sahityam (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Started with 48h block--Ymblanter (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Invasion of NormandyEdit

Re: your recent protection of this article. Thank you for the prompt response, but I noticed the page is only protected to "autoconfirmed or confirmed" access, which only requires 10 edits & 4 days to achieve. One of the DE accounts made 33 consecutive edits to the page while another one made 11 consecutive edits. Both accounts have reached the requisite number of edits to access the page, with just with their disruptive edits alone and will reach the 4-day minimum tomorrow/the next day, before the 7-day protection expires, essentially rendering this level of protection as ineffectual. Would it possible to increase the protection to "extended confirmed"? Thank you - wolf 17:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

We may not use extended confirmed before it has been demonstrated that semi-protection was not effective. In this sense no, I can not change the protection now. On the other hand, if the accounts are clearly disruptive, they should be blocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:36, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


Hi - just sent you some revdel requests via email - Hope this was OK. Gricehead (talk) 11:32, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Sure, just done all of them. This is an LTA active for about a year.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Moore's lawEdit

On 28 February you temporarily protected Moore's law[7]. We are still getting edits promoting an outfit from Taiwan who made a single diode (not an entire chip) that (according to the source) "has the potential to move beyond Moore’s Law".

Would this be a good candidate for pending changes protection? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

The disruption IMO is still too intensive for pending changes. I applied three weeks semi, let us see what happens when it expires.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! Let's hope that the disruption doesn't follow Moore's law, doubling every two years. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 22:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Sure, no problem. Let me know if disruption resumes.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:54, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you!Edit

  The Categorisation Barnstar
for your great work at WP:CFDS, processing most of the huge stream of listings. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk: Kylie Jenner#Less Redundant Use of She. Same Goes For Kourtney/Khloe.Edit

This is an edit semi protected request that I did to Kim Kardashian a while ago. The main idea of this improvement is that her surname shouldn't be used more than once after opening sentence of her occupations of a model/TV personality respectively.

Now on to the main story. You have to do something to Kourtney Khloe and Kylie of having their surnames being repeated after opening sentences of said professions instead of she. Why? Cause it sounds REALLY repetitive and trite.

The former two should have Kardashian follow their leads while the latter is a Jenner. Seriously you should take this edit semi protected request.

Au revoir, (talk) 13:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

You must be confusing me with somebody. I do not think I have even ever heard of them.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:03, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Derwick and founderEdit

Me again. I have put in a request at RFPP. It is beyond the usual because of the history of paid editing, and now the fury directed at this company and its founder. Perhaps you have time to look in to it? Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

My apologies, I was offline for two hours, and the request was acted on. If it turns out that the protection has been insufficient, we can alwaye increase the level.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks again ... there is just too much to keep up with. I think I cleaned up the citations, and most of the BLP stuff, but no time to do more. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


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.

- LouisAragon (talk) 16:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppets of Craft37byEdit

I see that you left a message on (talk · contribs)'s talk page. This and many other IPs are sockpuppets of Craft37by (talk · contribs). You can find more of the listed IPs at sockmaster's SPI case. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

And by the nature of (talk · contribs)'s edits it looks like this is the same person. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I blocked them now--Ymblanter (talk) 09:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

PP-declined articles vandalized againEdit

The album articles you declined page-protection to have been targeted again by an IP, similar to the one that was blocked for vandalizing the same articles: The Rolling Stones (album), Between the Buttons, 12 X 5, The Rolling Stones Now!. Perhaps reconsider and offer page-proection, as was given to At San Quentin by you for the same reason? Dan56 (talk) 22:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I do not see why this is vandalism. You probably need to ask someone else (and I am going to sleep anyway).--Ymblanter (talk) 22:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
They are deleting specific (verified) content from these articles. Good night. Dan56 (talk) 22:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Admin's Barnstar
Thank you for helping me out with closing CfDs. I know that its not the most appreciated admin job, but without admins to list NACs for processing I wouldn't be able to help out, so thank you for trusting me with the closures and for making the edits necessary to carry them out. DannyS712 (talk) 20:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, no problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Typo in closeEdit

Hi. I think you made a typo in this edit, now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/CXT#Activating Abuse Filter - if the WMF team cones with good suggestion - is this meant to be comes? (or comes up?) (How did I stumble across this, you may ask - I was curious about the history of Special:AbuseFilter/782). Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 03:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, it must have been comes. I am unable to see my own typos, in addition, English is not my mother tongue, and I make a lot of such errors. This one was more than two years ago, a typo did not lead to any misunderstanding, and I am inclined to leave it as it is.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: Okay. Just thought you might want to know. --DannyS712 (talk) 08:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Karl Urban and RFPPEdit

Hi Ymblanter! I hope you're doing well and that life is happy for you. :-) I was making my normal rounds through the admin noticeboards and request pages and saw that you responded to a protection request for Karl Urban. You applied pending changes protection to the article, but responded to the request stating that you applied semi protection to it. Given the article's history, I'm pretty sure that you just responded with the incorrect template and that you applied the protection level that was intended. I just wanted to message you about it and let you know; I went ahead and fixed it for you. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I indeed intended to apply (and applied) a pending changes protection. Shit happens.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2019/03#expres.onlineEdit

Добрый день. Можете перенаправить этот запрос на кого-либо технически грамотного админа? Я просто не понимаю сути проблемы: добавить ссылку в статью я не могу, но при этом и сам сайт и какая-либо часть ссылки отсутствуют в блэк-листах EnWiki и Меты. --Wanderer777 (talk) 12:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Давайте ещё пару дней подождём, я перенёс вниз (тут темы добавляются снизу, а не сверху), и задал вопрос. Если так и не будет никакой реакции, я что-нибудь придумаю.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Спасибо. --Wanderer777 (talk) 04:50, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Miklós Horthy articleEdit


Ip ( disruption is soon permanent in this page, please add some protection. Thank You (KIENGIR (talk) 00:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC))

I warned them--Ymblanter (talk) 06:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi, your warning worked in this article, but the IP turned to the Category:Kingdom of Hungary (1920–1946), and despite already two discussions in two different pages after three reverts made this edit [[8]], though the IP address altered a little bit: ( it worth to post to this an edit warring notice, or because the address is different, I have to assume that is another user? Thank you for your time.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC))
  Done--Ymblanter (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversaryEdit

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks for your help with the large WP:RfPP backlog! Keep up the great work! ~Swarm~ {talk} 09:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks you.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Big Time Rush (band)Edit

That is the best move right now. Thanks. Per WP:STATUSQUO, though, you may want to restore the article to this version before all of this started. I'll leave the decision up to you, of course. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. I would prefer not to - this is not such a big deal, and hopefully the talk page discussion would decide which version is preferable.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Mar 24 NFOOTY AfDsEdit

Hi Ymblanter, regarding your recent dozen or so AfD nominations of footballers todays... are these eligible for CSD A7 (db-person) and if not, why not? The claim to significance does not seem credible (one of the requirements of WP:CSD#A7) if it clearly doesn't pass the subject notability guideline (i.e., doesn't meet NFOOTY) and without any references cited at all, there's no credible claim of significant coverage to meet GNG. (If it wasn't for the Soccerway links, it would be a BLPPROD, right?)

Another, related question: these are all created on one day by one editor. None apparently have any indicia of notability. In fact, the indicia on these articles is that their subjects are not notable. If I want to !vote to delete, I have to now go and do a BEFORE search for a dozen youth players to confirm that they're not notable? As would any other !voter? That's a ton of work. It seems nonsensical. Tomorrow, the same editor can create 12 more of these–we can create stubs about youth footballers until the cows come home, we'll never keep up AfDing them one by one. Do you think this is a problem? If so, what should be done?

Third question, if you'll indulge me: I see this (creation of non-notable footy stubs) as the same thing as the portals, and the same thing as mass categorization. But they get treated so disparately. In one case, we rollback. In another, we AfD each, one by one. In a third, we have RfCs to figure out what to do. It seems so inconsistent, yet after 18 years, how do we not have a procedure for handling the mass-creation or mass-editing of anything? Especially after such high profile past instances of mass-creation of stuff? I guess my question is: if we have to go through these FOOTY creations one by one to delete them, how come we don't have to go through the white supremacist nationalist categorizations one by one before rolling those back? To be clear: I'm not suggesting anyone did anything wrong in either case or anyone should do anything different, I'm just seeking to understand why things that I see as the same are seen by others as different.

I appreciate any time you take to answer my questions. Thank you. Levivich 21:13, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

1) Indeed, they are eligible for PROD, most of them even for BLPPROD (most Soccerway links are bogus), and I guess I could delete them via A7. However, I noticed that the creator has a couple of these articles moved to draft, and they immediately recreated them in the main space (I deleted both drafts today). After the first four nominations I left a fairly strong message at the talk page of the creator, but they did not edit at least until the end of the nominations. One article was previously deleted. It is generally safer to have them go once through AfD because then every recreation can be speedy deleted as A5. 2)-3) Concerning mass deletions: if I remember correctly, you have participated in the GS case recently. The crux of the case was that someone in good faith was performing for many years mass actions which he thought were according to the policies, and then suddenly it turned out that some users (and, in particular, some vocal users) think this is quite contrary to the policy, and demands of blocks, bans, and desysops were suddenly in the air. I personally think (well, I am actually quite sure) these articles are not notable, but it would be enough to have one vocal user to point out that I A7-deleted 20 articles which might have been notable and then I am suddenly in the spot with all kind of shit being thrown into me. I have been there, and I do not like it. Even if the Arbcom decides after half a year that I was likely correct. If the user continues creating such articles after my warning, we have means to deal with them. If not - 20 articles is smth the community can handle. I spent in the morning 2 hours of my time cleaning up RFPP, and even if I have taken 20 minutes extra time from the community by sending these articles to AfD I am still on a net good side.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:30, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
And at least one of the PRODs I mentioned was indeed removed [9]. It seems like the options are either AfD or CSD A7.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
You may find this familiar: Ouk Sovann Levivich 01:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, deleted and blocked for two weeks.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Protection of Kamrupi dialectEdit

Thank you for protecting Kamrupi dialect, can you protect the original version predating edit war ?भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 23:33, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I would prefer not to, see WP:WRONGVERSION for this.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
I understand, the issue in current version is large original content and citations are removed without consensus.Thanks.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 06:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes. though your opponents are probably thinking differently, but nobody going to die if it stays like this for three days. I checked that there is no obvious vandalism and no BLP violations in the current version.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree, maybe i have to engaged them somewhere for consensus building.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 07:33, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
@Bhaskarbhagawati: Yes, engaging in the discussion would be a good first step. The call went out to you directly to help improve the article, here: Talk:Kamrupi_dialect#Improving_this_article. Please engage there. Chaipau (talk) 11:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
I am already there, issue is not new, analysis, fast checking and removal of reliable sources is going on from long time since 2012 over different articles, despite wp:rsn informed not to do so.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 11:47, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Your Cambodian WP:NFOOTY AfD nominationsEdit

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

Hi Ymblanter, just a note about your recent NFOOTY noms. Some of them (though not all) do quite easily pass NFOOTY (eg. Paulo Victor Costa Soares‎, Alexis Ramos etc.). Please remember WP:BEFORE when nominating a large amount of seemingly similar articles - some might be notable for inclusion and only require clean-up. I do note, however, that those articles were (and still are to a slightly lesser extent) horribly written and you could have easily BLPPRODed them so props to you for letting the community decide as, hopefully, doing so will result in the notable players been kept and a solid article being written on them. Cheers, Tropicanan (talk) 10:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I do not see any evidence that any of them played for the international team, and none of the articles claims that. I only see claims of U-23 team which does not create notability.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
And thank you for teaching me the Wikipedia policies. It is particularly valuable to get taught by a user with 2 weeks tenure and 130 edits.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Just because an article doesn't state something doesn't mean it is not true. Research! All the ones I'm !voting keep for played (started or were substituted on) in an international match vs Bangladesh a few weeks ago (1). Also, ever heard of IP editing? Or pinging? Tropicanan (talk) 11:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

lock pageEdit

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

This content is not legitimate, and the source you were using fails the definition of a reliable source.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Also, two reliable sources for this are already cited in a sentence in the lead. That's probably sufficient mention without belaboring the issue. - BilCat (talk) 21:41, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail!Edit

Hello, Ymblanter. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 02:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

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

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

Re:Page movesEdit

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

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

protection of article Pratishtha SharmaEdit

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

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

Venezuelan protectionEdit

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

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

Pending revision at Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single MarketEdit

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

Ashkenazi JewsEdit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, the procedure is that you stop posting at my talk page and go to the talk page of the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Us ?. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 17:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

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

I goofed!Edit

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

  • I dropped a rangeblock--maybe that helps. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
    Thanks. There was one more edits afterwards, and I protected the page for three days--Ymblanter (talk) 05:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Hopefully that's enough for the jarhead to get bored. If not, I'll be back! ----Dr.Margi 06:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

POV edit?Edit

I have reverted an IP that added some extremely non-neutral language regarding Qarmatians.[10] I would like your input regarding the edit of the IP. Thank you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:58, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

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

I have undone their edit since they need to discuss it at the talk page first, but I do not have any opinion on the validity of the information they add. There are references which at the first glance look legit, though admittedly I did not spend much time looking at them.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
My concern was the addition of the term "heretical" and the addition of Shia views. AND, I have concerns about the reliability of World Bulletin. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
I do not really know. Let them explain at the talk page what they mean.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Was there prior protection for Markazu Saqafathi Sunniyya ?Edit

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

Yes, somebody added it [11], apparently just for fun.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Final SolutionEdit

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

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

Sonia HossainEdit

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

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

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

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

Question re 2nd RfC: Do alternative medicine practitioners have a conflict of interest?Edit

Hi YMblanter (and pinging co-closers Fish+Karate and GoldenRing): If you're comfortable doing so, could you comment on this COI/N post regarding that lengthy RfC you closed? The RfC opener, Guy Macon, apparently has doubts that the RfC's general finding applies in my case (as an acupuncturist) and is seeking admin guidance.[12]

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

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

Request you to give protection to Dakshina Kannada article from vandalismEdit

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

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

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Admin's Barnstar
For helping out at CfD, and being willing to make the fully-protected edits necessary to allow me close discussions. Thank you so much. DannyS712 (talk) 05:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
No, really, thank you for taking a chance on me. --DannyS712 (talk) 05:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Your protection of UnplannedEdit

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

@Doug Weller: I had another look and I do not think ec protection would be needed at this point. I see one confirmed user who made problematic edits, the user has been warned (and if they make the same edit for the third time they must be blocked), and they are anyway only 50 edits away from becoming extended confirmed. I added the article to my watchlist, I hope this would be sufficient. If they return, I block them. If another confirmed user appears, I can always ec protect it.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
That's fine. I'll try to catch up tomorrow with giving new users DS alerts, that's also important. Doug Weller talk 19:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
A good idea, I have just given a ds alert to that user.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


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

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

No improvementEdit

You're the most recent admin to block Oreratile1207, so I'm contacting you. After you extended their existing block to 3 months for their personal attacks on Cullen328, they apparently socked to evade it (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oreratile1207/Archive), but the blocking admin did not reset the existing block on the master. Shortly after the block expired, the account resumed exactly the behavior that earned their previous blocks by adding false sourcing [13] and unsourced information [14], and a short while ago they left a message for me not to revert their unsourced addition [15]. The editor seems to have learned nothing despite multiple chances to improve. I've seen editors indeffed for a lot less, so if you're in the mood, I heartily support saving everyone a lot of time. Bakazaka (talk) 08:01, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

To be honest, they added unsourced info into articles already full of similarly unsourced or badly sourced info, so I am hesitant to block them indef just for this.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:50, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I understand. Thanks for taking a look. Bakazaka (talk) 17:16, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


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

I am afraid you would need to open an SPI. I am not comfortable blocking based on this evidence.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:36, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
The evidence is clear. Compare edits with User:Leavemydaughteralone, User:Underwritten and User:GoBotsters. They constantly move pages, edit genocide articles particularly List of articles, California genocide and those relating to Soviet war crimes. User:6ullga is a relatively new account that has begun editing similar pages in the exact same manner. القمر يضيء في الصباح (talk) 22:57, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


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

Yes, I know what airbnb is. There was an edit-warring concerning one of their Palestinian locations, and at the time it was reasonable to ec protect it (I was responding to an RFPP request). Afterwards, I discussed the topic with Galobtter at this page, and we decided it would be reasonable to unprotect after half a year.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, just wanted to let you know that I've asked Arbcom for a little clarification here. I don't think everything with tiny Israel-Palestine coverage should count (it seems a bit extreme to consider Sea level related, merely because File:Israel Sea Level BW 1.JPG appears near the top), so at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment I said basically "Ymblanter and I interpret things differently, so would you please tell us which of us is holding the interpretation you intended". As I said there, This is not some sort of complaint/argument/etc. Just trying to get an authoritative statement on this decision's scope. Please let me know if I've said anything that can be interpreted as hostile, because I'm not unhappy and don't intend anything to sound as if I am. Nyttend (talk) 01:26, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
No, this is fine, thanks for opening this. I will respond there.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:34, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Sock editsEdit

Ymblanter, thanks for the quick work on what appears to be yet another HughD sock here [[16]] Recently I suspect the same sock was active here. Would you please consider removing the comments. I tried but editors unfamiliar with HughD objected. [[17]], [[18]]. Thanks, Springee (talk) 15:31, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

  Done--Ymblanter (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Please look into/block this IP editor. This is the IP that added the material to the Signpost article above. [[19]] Springee (talk) 18:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  Done--Ymblanter (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Dubious editsEdit

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

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

Nomination for Deletion Ally PrisockEdit


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


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


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

This is without a doubt the same person, but they have not edited since the block of Boneticore. There is not much we can do about it.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Is it worth requesting a CU to check for other accounts? Isa (talk) 18:35, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
You can indeed open an SPI but given the block is short duration and than they do not check Ips, I think chances are not big.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Hm. Can't CUs find socks created from the same IP? If I provide them with the account and the IP, can't they check if other accounts were created? This seems to suggest so, but I'm unfamiliar with CU in general. Isa (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
I do not think I am more familiar than you, You can try.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough. I guess I'll wait to see if there's at least a second account. Thanks! Isa (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Sure, no problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Hollingsworth, GeorgiaEdit

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

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

Photograph repeatEdit

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

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

Thanks and a belated apologyEdit

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

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

Speedy category movesEdit


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

Could you please add it?


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

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

arbpia edit noticesEdit

Hi Ymblanter, regarding [20], [21], [22], [23] and [24], the template that goes on the talk page is {{ARBPIA}} while the {{ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}} goes on the respective edit notice pages (eg Template:Editnotices/Page/Amka). Those 5 all look like they have the edit notice already, but some are missing {{ARBPIA}}. I just wanted to let you know why I changed the template added (or removed the edit notice template entirely for the pages that already have {{ARBPIA}} on the talk page). nableezy - 21:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

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

2nd-millennium disestablishment in EuropeEdit

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

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

ARBPIA 1RR edit noticeEdit

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

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

Marfa KryukovaEdit

Hello, ymblanter!

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

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

Actually, I have written the article. I am surprised to see things like "invited to perform to Arkhangelsk" (I guess it was "invited to Arkhangelsk to perform"), but generally I find it reasonably well written, and I do not think it requires additional effort. If you are planning to copyedit, you are most welcome to do it, but I am not happy to have a maintenance template on an article I have written which would stay there forever.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
OK. I will work on some updates. It seems that you watch this page, so if you see anything that you disagree with, you can let me know, or just change it. I expect, by the way, that any changes I make would be pretty non-controversial. Jkgree (talk) 19:05, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Absolutely, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
I have made updates. I included some hidden notes on the page; you may want to look for them and add or change something. Jkgree (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I went through the article and dealt with your comments.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:51, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi ?Edit

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

I semi-protected for three days. The most recent IP seens to have found the talk page, but there were other instances earlier today, and it is better if the article stays protected for a while.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you so much; sorry to interfere during your time off! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC) blockEdit

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

I have not looked at all of their edits, but in what I looked at I did not see anything which would require revision deletion.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
No, there’s nothing there but virtual graffiti, so to speak, and I suppose scrubbing it off has its own set of problems. Again, thanks. Qwirkle (talk) 16:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User talk:YmblantorEdit


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

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

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

Could you just check and AfDEdit

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

I think relisting is a possible option, but I would say if they want to discuss the players individually let them discuss the players individually. Do you want me to close it as procedural close and renominate all these guys for individual AfDs?--Ymblanter (talk) 15:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
If you think that would be for the best I am happy for you to do that. It all seems rather bureaucratic to me, given no one has suggested anything for these players around GNG. I wanted people who had voted for procedural keep on the fear that it would be a chaotic AfD time to reflect given that has deomonstrably not happened, but some people seem to just want to try again for a third time. Probably best to close and reopen to get the proper engagement. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 15:15, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
I will do this in a moment.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circularEdit

Administrators must secure their accounts

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

View additional information

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

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)Edit

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

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

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

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

1RR notice on Middle East Media Research InstituteEdit

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

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

Muhammad articleEdit

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

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

Nomination of Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894 for deletionEdit


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

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

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

Draft:Viktor YelisseyevEdit

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

Need your help to protect the article.Edit

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

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

Please discuss with the user. My impression is that if anybody is editing disruptively there it is you.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I guess you have confused me with some other user, as I have only restored a large portion of the text that was removed along with highly important facts from primary sources. Well, anyway, thanks for the attention, I'll try to discuss with the user. (talk) 14:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
"Tons of information" like this: "The degree of radiation exposure on the armored vehicles, clothes and military personnel was measured immediately after every combat mission. According to the data of remote control and measuring equipment installed at 730 meters from the epicenter, the level of radiation reached 65 R/h two minutes after the blast, dropped to 10 R/h after 10 minutes, 2.4 R/h after 25 minutes, and 1.5 R/h after 47 minutes". I think a semiprotection of this page is in order. My very best wishes (talk) 00:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
No, it was just a small portion of the text and even this portion is significant and supported by a RS. (talk) 21:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Chaim RumkowskiEdit

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

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

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


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

Whereas it is technically possible to have a lower level move protection than the edit protection, I do not think we have a single page here with this protection configuration, and this would also be a very odd thing to do. If you think this is a real problem it probably needs to be discussed in a more general setting on a village pump.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:04, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: the actual move protection wouldn't decrease - you still need file mover rights. Also, it is also a very odd thing to extended-confirmed protect a file - its the only page in the entire namespace that has extended-confirmed move (or edit) protection. Anyway, its not a big deal, just wondering. --DannyS712 (talk) 07:11, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Sure, I see your point, I just think that this is a more general issue worth to be discussed at a village pump.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:13, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

ARCA categoriesEdit

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

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

No, I do not have any ideas and generally regard the bot's work as random process (though I am indeed surprised they did not move the category). I will look into it, presumably some manual work needs to be done.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 12:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
A colon was missing in the wikicode.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for sorting it out. DH85868993 (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Sure, no problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:15, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Ymblanter".