User talk:Ymblanter

Following this finding of fact in the arbitration case (unrelated to me) I have stopped all administrator activity in the areas I edit — everything related to the countries of the former Soviet Union, to rail transport, and to the Olympics. I may occasionally make fully uncontroversial actions, such as blocks for and protections against obvious vandalism and obvious BLP violations.

Archives: 2011; 2012; 2013; 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024

Donguz Formation

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

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

Japan

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

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

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

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

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

Cleaning up the Belarus geographical mess

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

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

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

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

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

Kirghiz Soviet Socialist Republic

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

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

Draft:Nikolay Antipov

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

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

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

Global renamer

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

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

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

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

Contest

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ulaankhus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subdistricts of Afghanistan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2600:4040:2bc1:8c00:acdb:1219:1bb4:76b

Hi Ymblanter, Good day. Kindly help to block the IP editor above for mass vandalism. Thank you. Cassiopeia talk 08:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilKnight: blocked the ip already, though, strangely, I do not see any contributions of this ip. Ymblanter (talk) 08:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Cassiopeia talk 09:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 6 § States and territories (dis)established in YYYY

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 6 § States and territories (dis)established in YYYY on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. harrz ^talk 21:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit's by Aruunn

Hi Ymblanter, are you going to check their other edits, that weren't picked up by CopyPatrol? Otherwise, I will. Nobody (talk) 08:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can not do it right now, but if anything is left by the (European) evening I will do it. Thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 08:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I fixed all the issues. Ymblanter (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cheating in online games

Hi, i wanted to use this image in Cheating in online games but i cannot think of a suitable description. Any suggestions? Trade (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, totally not my topic. Ymblanter (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arkady Volozh

Hi Ymblanter, just saw your comment on Volozh's page; it's of no consequence but wanted to clarify that deleting 'Russian' in his bio was nothing more than an editing accident which I didn't notice while copying references. I edited his page after reading some articles about his case but wasn't aware of the touch bemusing (if understandable) emphasis on Kazakhstan in his bios elsewhere. Thanks for putting Russia back! — Preceding unsigned comment added by McAnt (talk • contribs) 15:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is fine, no problem. Ymblanter (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FSUE Atomflot

Я хотел переименовать в Atomflot с обоснованием "FSUE is a company type, not part of a company title", но у нового названия уже есть история. Вы не могли бы произвести переименование? MBH (talk) 10:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I merged the histories which are now at FSUE Atomflot; you can perform the move. Ymblanter (talk) 11:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First anglo-afghan war

Can you remove the protection in order for me to make a correction  ? Panekasos (talk) 04:04, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove it because there's a mistake and again if you could just remove the protection or lower the duration Panekasos (talk) 06:04, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. Please request the edit at the talk page of the article. Ymblanter (talk) 08:21, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok but I ask you to lift the protection in order to make an edit if it is agreed on Panekasos (talk) 13:57, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it is agreed on there will be a lot of people in the discussion who can make the edit. Ymblanter (talk) 14:04, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let me ask you this if I prove to you personally then can you remove the protection? Panekasos (talk) 14:16, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not going to be involved with the content of the article. Furthermore, I am not going to remove the protection. Please follow the established procedures. Ymblanter (talk) 14:23, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

if you won't be involved in the article then why don't you remove the protection or lower its duration for other pusers and admins who want to be involved in this article Panekasos (talk) 01:10, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but I do not get an impression you actually listen to what I want to say. We need to stop this exchange of Latin symbols. Ymblanter (talk) 06:19, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

what do you mean then? I'm just politely asking you to remove the protection in order to correct some things on the article because you will not be involved at all anyways Panekasos (talk) 10:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The protection is installed in part so that YOU can not edit the article. A lot of other users can. As soon as the discussion at the talk page is formally closed, if the closure is to implement the changes, someone will do it. It is perfectly doable with the current level of protection. Moreover, if you would edit the article without getting consensus, this will likely result in a long-term block, so that in fact you do not want the protection level to be reduced. Ymblanter (talk) 10:48, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Районы Беларуси

Добрый день. Заметил, что в статьях про районы Беларуси район пишется с маленькой буквы (district), тогда как такие же районы в России, Казахстане, Кыргызстане и Молдове именуются с большой буквы (District). Нет ли тут ошибки? Mitte27 (talk) 13:43, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Нет, по Белоруси недавно было обсуждение переименования, и районы были переименованы. По России такого обсуждения пока не было, хотя я бы ожидал, что тот же участник скоро его откроет. Ymblanter (talk) 15:42, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arkhip Kuindzhi

hello! can you please explain why you changed the article back? Oleh Belobrov (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is a good idea to check the talk page first. This was previously discussed. Mellk (talk) 06:10, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, you may not discuss the topic, as I detailed at your talk page. Ymblanter (talk) 06:19, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ahmed Rushdi 1958.jpg

Hi, in my country Wikipedia commons is blocked and we can't access or edit it. This is the reason I'm writing you here that sock of Gori Nadu is nominating files of Pakistani singers, actors and generals again and again by using ID PhaiTime (now indef blocked by you). The reason on the the above mentioned file he gave that "all Muslims are pedophiles and rapists" (If you read carefully). I'm just requesting to look into it as I can't defend it on commons and remove the deletion tags. Regards- Paytime (talk) 12:47, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see a single chance the file can be kept on Commons, irrespectively of who nominated it. Ymblanter (talk) 18:53, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yizhuang Line station images

Hi, Ymblanter.

RE our differing opinions on which images to use for the Yizhuang Line, I am of the opinion that the ones I have chosen are:

a) much clearer, owing to better lighting and perhaps a better, or at least more modern camera (given they were taken around a decade later), thus giving a better and more accurate view of the stations themselves.

b) more up to date, as mentioned above. Many changes have happened on the Beijing Subway since you took your photographs in 2012. A photograph taken in the 2020s reflects this better.

c) more in keeping with the photographs on every other msubway line in Beijing, and indeed many other metro systems in China, where we tend to favour a clear, straigh on view that captured both sides of the island platform (when possible) or at least a head on view parallel to the tracks, down the platform, horizontally, when it's a split platform. See, for example, my local line Line 16 (though you could check any line on the system and see the same). Having one line follow an entirely different system stands out like a sore thumb I'm afraid. At least in my opinion.

If you disagree, it seems we're at an impasse, so to avoid the risk of edit warring, should we seek a third opinion?

For what it's worth, I appreciate the work you do on rail on here and have come across many of your edits, so this is not personal, just a difference of opinion. I see you have mentioned a previous disagreement about these images before in your edit summary ('it is not better quality, it is just the previous user persisted, edit-warred and had to be taken to ANI' & 'why do not you all stop replacing my pictures') but this is new information to me and has therefore had no impact on my opinions here. I also think it's important to note I have no vested interest - I do not know the creator of the newer images I wish to replace yours with & have only ever had one small piece of contact with him, where I told them of my appreciation of their high quality images (just as I appreciate your edits!)

Looking forward to hearing back from you. Curt ^内蒙 08:07, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, after the second round of reverts, I only kept one of my photos, which actually shows the station (you replacement does not, only the platform which does not face the trains). I do not see how the quality is better, well, it is darker because this is an open station and I took it in the dark - but it is sufficiently lit and shows all the details. To be fair, I am totally sick by the fact that in 2010-2012 I spent a lot of my time taking the pictures of all then open Beijing subway stations (there were virtually none on Commons), literally hundreds, and almost all of them are now purged of all Wikimedia projects. The previous user who was replacing them at least put mine in the galleries. I am not planning of uploading anymore pictures of Beijing Subway to Commons, I have better things to do. But if you feel really none of my pictures are suitable for Wikipedia articles you can of course ask for a third opinion for the only one which survived in this round of edit-warring. Ymblanter (talk) 09:07, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your pictures served a purpose for around a decade. Now they're past their use by date & have been replaced by newer models. That's just how things work.

If it wasn't, Wikipedia would be entirely run on pictures from the early 2000s, and they would never be replaced for fear of upsetting their original uploader.

I'm surprised you *already* view this as an edit war. But since you seem to be personally attached to these images, I won't make a change to the one you kept. I just wanted to make the system feel more uniform, like an encyclopedia would, but despite being civil & contacting you about it to resolve things, you have still taken it personally & seem to be sulking about it. So I won't bother.

I suspect that if this is the second time someone has replaced the images with those they think fit the project better, & the second time you've fought it, then it will happen again in future. So I wish you the best of luck in that & hope you don't take it as personally as you have this time. Curt ^内蒙 09:29, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is the fifth or the sixth time. The previous users did not even speak English, they just showed up to replace the images. And it is great to hear from a user with 3K edits how Wikipedia works, but sometimes users think that there could be for example several images in the article illustrating different aspects including different periods. Again, I do not know why Beijing Subway images are so special that everybody wants to replace them, but as I said I am not planning to upload new images of Beijing Subway. Ymblanter (talk) 11:08, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to get personal. Though yes, I do tend to agree, it is disapointing that someone with as much experience as you needs to be told by someone like me that sometimes decade+ old pictures get replaced on Wikipedia by other, higher quality, more recent ones. And most of their original creators don't sulk about it and start insulting others because they don't have as many edits as them.

Worth thinking about next time someone replaces your image with a new one that fits the article better.

All the best. Curt ^内蒙 01:44, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid you still did not get the point, but this is fine with me. I unwatched the articles. I thought earlier about potentially post-processing these images again (which I can do now better than I could in 2010) and re-uploading them, but after this exchange I have zero motivation and I will certainly not do this, Ymblanter (talk) 06:28, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question about buildings of pre-Mongol Rus'

Hello. I've been looking through the list of buildings of pre-Mongol Rus', and it might be missing one item, although I'm not sure if it counts. For a long time, it was considered that the Dormition Church in Dorohobuzh was built on top of a foundation of the pre-Mongol church, however studies have shown that the lower parts of all walls except one incorporate the 11th-century wall (see video at 1:55 mark to see a small exposed portion). However, the building was radically rebuilt in 16th century, and on the outside looks nothing like a Rus' church. I personally think this is enough to include it on the list (considering that the Golden Gate of Kyiv is on there), but I want to hear your thoughts. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 14:21, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we can include it, adding a comment. There are several buildings in the list where only fragments survived. Thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 14:25, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would be also a good idea to write an article about the church, I can do it later. Ymblanter (talk) 14:26, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great. Actually, I just published an article on St. George's Cathedral in Kaniv and planning to do Dormition Cathedral in Volodymyr and Saint Pantaleon's Church near Halych later. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 14:30, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good, thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 14:31, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thank you for the quick reply. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 14:26, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published vs primary

If not self-published then still primary, no? So why not just adjust the tag? I suppose one can disagree on the matter of whether freedom house writing about itself versus writing about its own index makes for a subtle shift from self-published to primary, but fully primary material is still undue and an issue in need of solving, right? Iskandar323 (talk) 10:15, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article is about the index published by the Freedom House, and references to the website of the Freedom House is perfectly fine. You can argue the index is not notable, in which case you should go to AfD and test this, but if we are under understanding it is notable the references are fine. The source is indeed primary, but this is where the index is published. Notion of self-published sources does not apply here. Ymblanter (talk) 10:24, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Atmozfears

Hi. I've seen that you have locked the article Atmozfears. Apperantly there are some accusations of him cheating in a videogame, which is why some people are editing the page. I guess stuff like this blows over quick, but kind request to keep an eye on the article anyways. Thanks in advance! Stuart (talk) 00:35, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The page is only semi-protected, so the majority of the registered users can still edit it. Ymblanter (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the originator of the terms "urban hromada", "settlement hromada", and "rural hromada"?

I have been trying to determine the origin of these three English translations of the names of the administrative divisions, and I believe I have traced their first appearance in the relevant articles to this edit you made on 20 February 2021. Was this terminology in use by the Ukrainian government/other sources at the time or is this your own personal translation? Regards SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 07:25, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We had an RfC on the terms, and this was the outcome. I am not sure anymore where the discussion was held, probably at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ukraine, but I am not sure. Ymblanter (talk) 08:46, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have located it on that talk page. Compliments for steering me in the right direction SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 08:49, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem. Ymblanter (talk) 08:51, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oyo Empire

Hey Ymblanter, I wanted to inform you that I did not remove your source, I simply moved it down a paragraph. My reason for this is because in the source you provided itself, despite the generalisation of african kingdoms growing from the slave trade, with closer analysis it can be determined that the Atlantic slave trade was not the reason for Oyo's growth. The article you provided states that guns and ammunition was the main fuel for slavery, which are things, as a cavalry state, the Oyo empire did not begin to use until the late 19th century, past it's imperial period. Oyo's main reason for selling slave was to rid the kingdom of criminals and untrusty war captives, who's alternate fate would have bene death. What are your thoughts on this? Your re-addition of your source has created a duplicate. Kind regards, Sohvyan (talk) 22:06, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see this now, I have removed the first ref. Concerning the resaolm Acemoglu and Robinson essentially said that the Oyo have seen a new and easy opportunity to get rich, they do not talk about criminals etc. They cite the book by Law, but I do not have an immediate access to the book. Ymblanter (talk) 06:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of a group of Wikipedians to better understand their experiences! We are also looking to interview some survey respondents in more detail, and you will be eligible to receive a thank-you gift for the completion of an interview. The outcomes of this research will shape future work designed to improve on-wiki experiences.

We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this survey, which shouldn’t take more than 2-3 minutes. You may view its privacy statement here. Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns. Kind regards, Sam Walton (talk) 16:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Template:Pp-protected

Ymblanter, I ask you to include the 2024–25 Serbian SuperLiga in the Template:Pp-protected because this article is being abused by an editor without an account who is reverting edits regarding Andrej Todoroski's citizenship, setting his edit against the fact that his edit is being contradicted by facts for more watch revision history of 2024–25 Serbian SuperLiga and FK TSC. ManiacOfSport (talk) 22:22, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but I really need to go to sleep now. Please request protection at WP:RFPP, I am sure ti will be acted on somehow. Ymblanter (talk) 22:25, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clash Royale

Hi! I noticed that you have indefinitely protected this article since 2018. Still, as of now, their popularity already dropped and I think it would be best to test the water and remove the protection since the article needs to be edited (the article is in bad shape). Thx. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 11:26, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I unprotected it, though I see that in 2018 it also was unprotected, and vandals appeared soon. It may happen again this time. Ymblanter (talk) 11:45, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy adminship!

Sdkb ^talk 05:15, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:00, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:46, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Issue with June 2024 speedy rename you processed

Hi, I just noticed that during the speedy rename of Category:South African artists by city or town to Category:South African by populated place last June, the "artists" was dropped from the category name by accident (see the corresponding mass speedy nomination and subsequent bot move). As you were the admin who processed this batch (see corresponding revision), I was wondering if you could fix that or if a proper discussion would be required here (the fix doesn't really fall under any of the speedy criteria, and I wanted to avoid starting a full discussion for such an obvious error, but if you think that'd be better for procedural reasons, I can do that as well)? Thanks! Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 20:27, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I feeded it to the bot, it should be processed within hours. Ymblanter (talk) 20:46, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you! Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 22:59, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem. Ymblanter (talk) 06:17, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KyivNotKiev

Дивно писати про це людині з нашою мапою в описі але писати англійською і досі не вичистити некоректне написання українських назв (я ж правильно розумію, що тут присутні і назви з твердим знаком, просто я їх ще не бачила) я ще можу зрозуміти - мало часу, інші справи. Але виправляти правки зроблені іншими... Певно ви знаєте, що робите і чому. --HelgaSavo (talk) 07:26, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ik spreek geen Oekraïns. Ymblanter (talk) 17:08, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Hope you are having a good weekend Andre🚐 06:40, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks--Ymblanter (talk) 06:53, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Deletion

Hi Ymblanter! Hope you doing well (｡•̀ᴗ-)✧(✿^‿^). I just wanted to ask if you can Delete or stop my past accounts: Leon Blvd, Playmak*r and Maxplayer23. I'm not using these accounts so they have no use, I still remember there passwords but reusing them could cause a big confusion. Should I give them to a fellow Wikipedian? Or stop/Delete them. Explanation available if needed 😐 ``⟨⟨Beastboy-X⟩⟩`` (talk) 03:10, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We can not "delete or stop" accounts. We can block accounts, but then there should be some good reason related to misconduct from these accounts. Just do not use them. On the other hand, giving accounts to other people i not acceptable. An account operated by several people (even at different times) should be immediately blocked. Do not do this. Ymblanter (talk) 07:10, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Understood ``⟨⟨Beastboy-X⟩⟩`` (talk) 14:22, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Helsingborgs S swimmers

This category was renamed from Category:Helsingborgs SS swimmers erroneously on request of Kaffet i halsen. The club is called Helsingborgs Simsällskap and is abbrevated Helsingborgs SS, so Helsingborgs S doesn't make any sense at all. Can you please revert the category name change? Thanks. Marbe166 (talk) 06:17, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feeded it to the bot. @Kaffet i halsen:, if we want to move it somewhere else we need a new filing at the CFD?Speedy (or a full request). Ymblanter (talk) 06:36, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First of all Ymblanter did not erroneously move the category: the article has been steady on Helsingborgs S (the lead had been Helsingborgs S several years before I moved the article in 2023), no opposition at WP:CFDS et cetera. For the naming of the article, you may open a WP:RM, Helsingborgs S is used, foremost in list items, e.g. [2], [3], [4]. Some swim clubs, mostly from southern Sweden, are not shortened the standard Name SS and xSS (possibly by Danish influence, but I'm not sure) but Name S and xS. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 07:19, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably good to open a full discussion in this case. Ymblanter (talk) 07:53, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your help and recent intervention on Crumbl Cookies. I'm not sure if it's OK to ask...but I made a request for rollback rights a couple days ago. Enjoy the weekend :) m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 21:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem. Rollback requests are rarely backlogged, I am sure it will be looked at soon. Ymblanter (talk) 07:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

US Army Chiefs of Staff

Category:United States Army Chiefs of Staff was speedily moved to Category:United States Army chiefs of staff without discussion, but I am concern that that United States Army chiefs of staff should not be placed in the new category. Can this be re-listed for discussion? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:59, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Woko Sapien: could you please comment? Ymblanter (talk) 07:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to discuss this further, but I'm not sure what the objection is. Chief of staff is a leadership position and subject to the rules of MOS:JOBTITLES. Woko Sapien (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:JOBTITLES only applies to the article space, not the category space. The problem here is that there are chiefs of staff at every level of command from division up, but only one Chief of Staff of the United States Army. So, for example, Walter B. Smith was chief of staff to General Eisenhower, but was not Chief of Staff. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7 The manual of style doesn't apply to category names? Not snark, I'm genuinely asking. Woko Sapien (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MOS: This Manual of Style (MoS or MOS) is the style manual for all English Wikipedia articles<!-- Changing "articles" to "pages" (or any change broadening MOS's scope of applicability) would require a widely advertised RfC. --> Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7 If you feel that strongly about this category, you're welcome to nominate it for a full discussion. But please be advised: the precedent for applying the MOS to categories is overwhelmingly strong Woko Sapien (talk) 23:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sole issue is whether or not the change is a good one. The MOS is a side issue and has already been resolved: the MOS itself says that it can never be used as justification for a change to a category name without a widely advertised RfC. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7 Could you please cite that passage in the MOS? I'd like to familiarize myself with it. Woko Sapien (talk) 04:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm... I did cite it and link it - two lines up. (You need to edit to see the comment.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May be the best solution then would be indeed to take this category to a full CfD. Ymblanter (talk) 06:53, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7 (A) There's no need to be rude. I've been polite and respectful and expect the same in return.

(B) A hidden editor's note hardly seems like ironclad policy (especially when it pertains to editing the MOS itself and not to its application).

(C) Please nominate this for a full discussion if you feel so strongly about it. Otherwise, this discussion has probably run its course Woko Sapien (talk) 09:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(a) It was never my intention to be rude. I thought I was polite and respectful. I apologise for any offence caused.

(b) The MOS is a guideline, not a policy, so it can be disregarded if you have a good reason to do so; but you cannot do a speedy change based on disregarding a guideline.

(c) I have nominated the category for a full discussion. That is what it is there for. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:21, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@User:SchreiberBike Is it true that the manual of style (specifically MOS:JOBTITLES) doesn't apply to categories? Seven years of moving articles and categories, and this is the first time I've ever heard this. I just want to make sure I'm not missing something. Woko Sapien (talk) 23:04, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Woko Sapien: I'm not sure why I was pinged here. If I've participated in a discussion related to this, it's been a while. Categories, templates, portals, wikiprojects, etc. are often capitalized more than text in articles. I think Wikipedia would look better if they matched article style, but I've not worked on that. SchreiberBike | ⌨  00:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SchreiberBike You and I've discussed MOS applications before, so I was just curious if you had any insight on the topic. I was always under the impression it applied to categories as well (or at least that was the logical extension). Woko Sapien (talk) 00:08, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7 Clearly, we aren't going to change each other's minds on this. But as SchreiberBike pointed out to me, the MOS is, at best, a grey area when it comes to categories.

So here's my truce: all future category proposals I make concerning the MOS (and I will be making them) will be done through the full discussion process, not speedy. If it gets consensus, then great! If not, then at least I made my case. Fair enough? Woko Sapien (talk) 02:24, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:24, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection request

Hi, I'm leaving this on your talk page because its kind of urgent, could you apply ECP to 2025 Indian missile strike on Pakistan please? This a very recent incident receiving significant vandalism. ECP applies to WP:CT/IPA, thanks. Ecrusized (talk) 21:09, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Ymblanter (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2025 in sport in London

Hi Ymblanter

Just curious why the category above was moved from "2025 sports events in London" without any discussion? This doesn't seem uncontroversial to me, not sure which of the speedy categories it would be considered to satisfy. Note that we have Category:May 2025 sports events in the United Kingdom and many others similar to that, and this naming scheme seems to fit the description of what the category is about better. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see that it was listed by @Aidan721: who might want to comment on this. I certainly do not remember which criterion was used, and since it happened two and a half months ago, it would take me some time to look it up. The easiest would be just to list it at the full CfD. Ymblanter (talk) 21:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Avocado

Hi Ymblanter, it's been nine years since you placed the Avocado article under semi-protection. As I pointed out in this discussion, the protection was intended to expire in one year, but the protection log shows that you instead set the move protection to expire, not the edit protection. I don't know if we could try unprotecting this article to see if disruption returns, as fruit articles, for whatever reason, are perennial vandal targets. Like for example, we had a case of the Lemon article protection downgraded from semi to pending changes on 1 April, but was semi-protected again just 20 days later when vandalism came back. BriDash9000 (talk) 10:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not intend to protect it for a year, I believe I intended to protect it indefinitely, and this was what I did. Tbh, I do not see any point unprotecting it, as you rightly point out, the vandals will likely be back soon, but if there is consensus for unprotection in any form I will be happy to unprotect or to let any other admin to unprotect. The article is currently not on my watchlist. Ymblanter (talk) 11:29, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History of Vietnam

Hi, fhis article has a very long history of persistent vandalism by multiple accounts and IP addresses (sock puppets of Phạm Văn Rạng). It is currently temporarily semi-protected, I fear that this important article will be vandalized as soon as the protection expires. This is a very important article, and there have been many vandalisms by many different people, Phạm Văn Rạng is just a recent prominent vandal. A proper protection for this important article is deserved. I think this article deserves a permanent semi-protection as it is a too important article. 2401:D800:267:CD60:7031:32B8:6B70:501F (talk) 02:12, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whereas there was indeed some disruption in the article recently, I do not see any need for protection. Ymblanter (talk) 09:08, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Hey, Ymblanter. Just stopping by to wish you a Happy Wiki-Birthday from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 03:02, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:48, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Channel 4 television programmes

Hi again Ymblanter. A year ago, you placed the List of Channel 4 television programmes article under pending changes protection per this request. However, by the looks of it, you seemed to have also set it to indefinite semi-protection. Was the semi-protection a mistake, or did you actually decide to choose this over pending changes (making the pending changes on this article basically redundant)? BriDash9000 (talk) 08:40, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing, I probably meant semi-protection of a finite duration. I now lifted the semi-peotection, leaving only pending changes. Ymblanter (talk) 13:07, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Continued edit warring at Sabu (wrestler)

Thanks for addressing my protection request at Sabu (wrestler). You stated that if established users continue edit warring during the temporary semi-protection, to contact you via your talk page. Within three hours of you protection being placed, it continues with one of the users I've alread warned being the primary person involved. This is their third revert today of just the birth date, not to mention the other items being reverted by them, after being warned about 3RR. There IS discussion/arguing going on at the talk page but everybody continues to make their changes while the discussion is going on as opposed to coming to a consensus first. Thanks again. NJZombie (talk) 02:24, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked the user for 48h, I believe no further protection is still needed but the situation can be changed of course. Ymblanter (talk) 05:20, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The user I was referring to is actually Lemonademan22. Sorry, I should have been clearer. NJZombie (talk) 10:14, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they have not personally attacked anyone yet. Ymblanter (talk) 11:03, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, but they’ve been the one most consistently edit warring with people. NJZombie (talk) 11:08, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see this. I see Onceinamoon edit-warring against Lemonademan22 and Czello, as well as a bunch of IPs editing disruptively. Anyway, the discussion at the talk page needs to be concluded. Ymblanter (talk) 11:19, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You’re not seeing that this has been going on since at least May 12 with that editor making upwards of 3-5 of the same reverts just about every day, even after being warned on May 17? NJZombie (talk) 11:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May be I did not make myself clear enough, but at this point I am not going to block this user or put the article on the full protection. You may try asking another administrators. Ymblanter (talk) 14:57, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question please the revert of CNMall41

First, CNMall41 all removing no Wikipedia article of ZOE TV/Light TV original and acquired programming and ABC/TV5 original programming, many reason that CNMall41's disruptive edits may lead to the behavioral actions — including the declining all my response without any additional evidence and that all no Wikipedia article original and acquired programs of ZOE TV/Light TV are MOS:TVINTL shall be removed unless there is a notable and verified sources 2001:4453:6D4:3700:4EE:7F6A:5B8F:45BB (talk) 06:18, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop evading block. Ymblanter (talk) 06:47, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

not really block, Please help me revert to CNMall41 the edits of List of TV5 (Philippine TV network) original programming and List of programs broadcast by Light TV 2001:4453:6D4:3700:4EE:7F6A:5B8F:45BB (talk) 06:59, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. Please use the existing dispute resolution avenues (and, again, evading a block is not a valid dispute resolution avenue). Ymblanter (talk) 07:19, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up...

It looks like Category:Shire Presidents and Mayors of Gosford didn't get renamed after it was moved for processing. Not sure if the bot had glitch or something (don't think it's backlog, because everything else processed just fine). Anyway, I thought I should let you know. Woko Sapien (talk) 17:29, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it was apparently my mistake. I have now sent it to processing. Ymblanter (talk) 17:35, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! Woko Sapien (talk) 17:58, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of Sarah Jane Baker

In accordance with a request made to ArbCom last year that permitted this as within administrative discretion, we've generally been protecting articles about transpeople that have been subject to this degree of persistent misgendering vandalism extended-confirmed indefinitely, as well as RevDel'ing the offending edits (as I did).

I defer to your decision here. But if, after this protection expires, this sort of disruption resumes, we should take advantage of this and log that protection at CTOPS under GENSEX. Daniel Case (talk) 01:41, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, absolutely. I will add it to the watchlist. Thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 06:41, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

Can you block this user @Masaya1111 he/she's trying to abuse/reverting my edits. 203.189.118.42 (talk) 07:15, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop avoiding block. Reverting block evasion is perfectly legitimate activity. Ymblanter (talk) 07:17, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know but the person is always reverting my edits for some how how can I revert it if someone reverts it again. 203.189.118.42 (talk) 07:24, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, as soon as your main account is blocked you are not welcome to edit Wikipedia. Ymblanter (talk) 07:33, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection

Hello! I saw your response to my request to raise Denver Outlaws's page protection. While I'm disappointed that no action was taken, I'm wondering if you could give the discussion in Talk:Denver Outlaws, along with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GoRebs/Archive, a second look and consider an alternate solution to the concerns I, Ravenswing, and SammySpartan have about the actions and behaviour of GoRebs and Emoore2914, and the risk of further disruptive edits from IPs or a potential future third sockpuppet. Thank you. — AFC Vixen 🦊 12:00, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid the only option is to carefully build an ANI case and try to get one or both users blocked. The SPI has been closed, the user denies they have an alt account. Both accounts are confirmed, and nobody would apply ec protection to this page as the first protection, this is against the policies. Your only chance is to demonstrate behavioral issues. Ymblanter (talk) 12:52, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Two different admins have given them both warnings already and there hasn't been any continued edit warring for now, so I suppose this leaves me with no choice but to take a reactive approach and just hope there isn't any further trouble. If I may make one last request, could you close both discussions on the page? I've been requesting a closure on the first discussion for a while now. Thank you. — AFC Vixen 🦊 16:57, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have time right now, but will have a look later this week if it still has not been closed. Ymblanter (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! Would you be able to find the time to review and close the discussions sometime soon? — AFC Vixen 🦊 03:11, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know. It is not five minutes work. Ymblanter (talk) 05:43, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Genshin Impact article

Hi @Ymblanter, I'm just asking how did a semi-protection of the Genshin Impact article? How story about that protection? Because, I coincidentally play that game in early 2024s by my friends. Can you explain me of this? Thanks. Note: I've previously did it on Help desk. Rizky Juliandief (talk) 03:19, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but I do not understand your question. Ymblanter (talk) 05:27, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 June 6 § Burkinabe

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 June 6 § Burkinabe on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Hassan697 (talk) 11:38, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, though I can not recollect ever editing any of those. Ymblanter (talk) 11:45, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection decision

Hi, I just noticed that a few days ago you semi-protected an article for 3 days [5], although there had been only 2 reverts this year. Both IP edits were clearly in good faith, regardless of whether one agrees with them or not. Based on this I don't think semi-protection was necessary at that point, and given how unnecessary protection is unhelpful as it prevents some people from editing the article, please be more careful when responding to such protection requests. Not to mention that you described good-faith edits as disruptive while using the admin tools to protect the other version of the article. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:06, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article belongs to a contentious topic, and, whereas what you say is correct in general, we have to be extra careful with the contentious topic articles, where edit-warring can appear out of nowhere in zero time. There was clearly a disagreement between editors, and I believe in this situation this article is best protected fr a short period of time. Ymblanter (talk) 05:49, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, someone reverted an IP and immediately requested semi-protection for "persistent disruptive editing"; you responded with a semi-protection summary saying "Persistent disruptive editing; requested at WP:RfPP". Now you are saying that you semi-protected for edit-warring, but your semi-protection summary says something different, and the IPs had zero reverts anyways. I don't see any persistent disruption or even any kind of disruption. This semi-protection is not the end of the world and it belongs to the past now; I know you from past interactions and I appreciate your work. My main point is that given this is a contentious topic, it is of essential importance that admins don't look like they are endorsing one version of the article over another in a legitimate content dispute. Ktrimi991 (talk) 08:12, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did not protect it for edit-warring, I protected it for disruptive editing. I do not feel I imposed any version of the article thereby. At the end of the day, both edits might have been good faith, bur were at variance with our policies. Anybody can suggest an edit at the talk page. Ymblanter (talk) 08:24, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain with which policies those two edits were at variance with? Page links to those policies would be much appreciated. Ktrimi991 (talk) 09:43, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[6] this explains why the first edit was bad; this is pretty much pushing the same narrative. It is clear that the editors disagree with POV pushing, in which case the pushing should stop in the article, and the discussion must start at the talk page. The talk page is currently empty. The policy is, well, WP:POV? Ymblanter (talk) 09:56, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have enough experience on enwiki to see that you are in the wrong here. As an admin you are not allowed to decide what version of the article is "POV pushing" and what edit is "bad", and then to protect the other version. Admins who make page protections in a legitimate (non-vandal) content dispute have to be neutral on their stance on the content dispute. Since the protection has expired I am ending this discussion here, but I am sure a repetition of this case would make another editor take it to ANI/I for wider community attention on how you use the admin tools. This discussion is also available for future reference if need be. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 10:26, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that you disagree, You are of course always welcome to take me to ANI or initiate an admin recall. I am sure a typical administrator would take the same action though. Your claim that I, in my role of uninvolved administrator, can not protect or block for blatant POV violations, does not look to me compatible with our policies. Ymblanter (talk) 10:39, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see btw that you have been previously blocked for both edit-warring and disruptive editing, which suggests that you have difficulties understanding our policies. Ymblanter (talk) 10:41, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, using my 2 blocks of 8 years ago to defend your actions of a few days ago. Ktrimi991 (talk) 10:55, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that you still have not understood what I said. Again, you are welcome to take me to ANI or recall. Ymblanter (talk) 11:00, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy mistake from my side

Would you mind undo:

• Category:Australian Reserve team football to Category:Reserve team soccer in Australia (only Australia)

There are football variants blended in the parent category. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 09:39, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, feeded it to the bot. Ymblanter (talk) 09:51, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For helping out with my request for protection here. Thank you. JeffSpaceman (talk) 23:04, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tnx.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:52, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Population figures

Does this look like the same person as the previous IP editor who kept updating the population figures? I am still seeing some unsourced changes or questionable sources being used.[7] I am also not sure if we should remove the previous census figures.[8] Mellk (talk) 13:04, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This one has been on the radar for some time, I believe this is likely a different user and probably would be succeptible to feedback. Ymblanter (talk) 13:26, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Should any of those edits in particular be reverted or improved upon? Mellk (talk) 13:37, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted Tayga, the other two look fine to me. Ymblanter (talk) 14:24, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I assume we do not include the increase/decrease templates e.g. here? Mellk (talk) 11:33, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I try not to pay attention to these. Some people add them, other people remove, at some point I decided I do not care (unless they make a wrong statement). Ymblanter (talk) 12:58, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we are back to 2025 census. Mellk (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted, let us seen what happens next. In any case I do not think I can block here without a warning. Ymblanter (talk) 21:24, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. I will keep an eye since I have noticed some unsourced changes,[9] or incorrect use of templates.[10] Mellk (talk) 21:27, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it does not seem like they are receptive to feedback. They have received three warnings now for making unsourced changes and they are still continuing to do this.[11] No year included or anything, so I am not sure what they might be referring to. Mellk (talk) 04:20, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have given the fourth warning now, but I doubt this will change anything. Mellk (talk) 04:24, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic literature categories

HI, Thanks for the speedy change to Mexican electronic literature writers. We had originally just had one category, electronic literature, which we (WP:ELIT)_are fixing up into many discrete categories per WP:NAVIGATION. As we are experts in electronic literature, but not in Wikipedia (I know, the irony, right?), your help and advice in fixing these categories would be immensely valuable. See Category:Electronic literature - Wikipedia LoveElectronicLiterature (talk) 21:28, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point was that the category only contained writers. I am not really an expert in electronic literature, but I guess the structure of the categories for electronic literature should be the same as the one for the usual literature. Ymblanter (talk) 21:36, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Protecting of 'Zygimantas' article

Oh, does this mean someone random can safely delete service templates without waiting for the administrators' decision, because some sources are 'prety' for this random person? Niiice... 2A00:F44:E0:9E89:F155:47B8:B522:869 (talk) 18:17, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest with you, I am not particularly interested in your opinion. If you want to achieve anything your only option is to start a talk page discussion. Ymblanter (talk) 18:24, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see, you already did. Then please continue. The protection is not needed. Ymblanter (talk) 18:26, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think Wikipedia prohibits the removal of service templates before a third person kinda administrator decides, am i right? I ask without a hint of sarcasm. 2A00:F44:E0:9E89:F155:47B8:B522:869 (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to discuss it with you here. I also do not answer loaded questions. Ymblanter (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

Why did you revert this and say the edits "are no good". I asked Irina (Ірина Бучнєва) to format the dates as part of the Destubathon as they are inconsistent with the template refs. I would prefer it if Russian and Ukrainian articles didn't use templates for population references. I don't think it's a good idea having sources you can't directly edit in articles.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:54, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Was it because she wrote the dates outside of the references when 29 June 2025 should be in the accessdate= section inside the template?♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:56, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly. Most of the references I added myself, and they were fine before her edits. In other articles, I fixed the issues by hand, but in this particular one she only removed access-date from the templates and wrote "Retrieved on" outside of the templates by hand. Ymblanter (talk) 17:53, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah OK. Hope all is well. You know your Mozambican destubs would still be welcome! :-) ♦ Dr. Blofeld 03:30, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I unfortunately have very little time now, but indeed I still need to do about half of the districts, will try my best. Ymblanter (talk) 06:16, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Деструктивное поведение от участника Vofa

Здравствуйте, Ymblanter! Я ранее уже обращался к вам за помощью по защите статьи Hazaras. Недавно снова столкнулся с удалением информации, подтвержденной источниками, от участника Vofa (страницы Hazaragi dialect, Mongolic peoples, Merkit). Буду признателен, если сможете уделить время на странице заявок администраторам. KoizumiBS (talk) 07:55, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Сейчас точно нет, может, попозже посмотрю. Ymblanter (talk) 07:59, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Да, спасибо. Просто замечу, что поведение участника в обсуждениях вызывает недоумение. Например, на дифф с удалением источников он отвечает, что "никогда ничего не удалял", что явно не соответствует фактам. Это затрудняет конструктивный диалог. KoizumiBS (talk) 08:07, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

United States Senate

That was already ECP'd. You made it easier for the sock to sock. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 06:20, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I upgraded to ecp, though by the time I had to deal with the article all protections have already expired. Ymblanter (talk) 06:25, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for review: Kocaeli Health and Technology University

• Subject:* University article review
• Description:* This article covers a newly established university with an infobox, logo, and cited sources. Requesting a quality assessment and suggestions for improvement.

Hi everyone,

I recently created the article Kocaeli Health and Technology University and would appreciate a review or quality rating. Thank you in advance!

-- Newinwiki8 (talk) 11:20, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but I will not do it. Ymblanter (talk) 15:36, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christchurch City Council

It's weird you have this quote on your page :

"The theory that I find most credible as an explanation of the decline of the community since 2007 is the end of the "SoFixIt" culture and its replacement by the templating culture which some consider newbie biting and which has lead to hundreds of thousands of articles disfigured by garish templates calling attention to problems that somebody hopes someone else will understand and fix"

and instead of fixing an article you just simply reverted. 153.111.229.202 (talk) 21:59, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing a copyright violation in this case means reverting and revision-deleting, and this is what I have done. Ymblanter (talk) 05:22, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

About Kasing Lung

Hello. I'm a user from Chinese Wikipedia. I want to establish the English page of Kasing Lung ("龍家昇" was also established by myself), but it was redirected to "Labubu". Could you help to split two pages, thank you! -- 董念凡 (talk) 13:29, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but I do not have the knowledge. Would you please start a discussion at the talk page of the article. Ymblanter (talk) 13:42, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Borders of Indonesia

Hello, @Ymblanter! I'm rectifying attribution lapses made when copying content within Wikipedia, and on 18 March 2020 you made a dummy edit on the above article with an edit summary that said, "significant parts of this article were copied from Australia–Indonesia border and possibly from other articles." That was very helpful. Thank you! If you would give me a hint about what the other articles might be, we can rectify this lack of attribution properly. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 20:18, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am pretty sure I do not remember anything about this. I probably was working on CopyPatrol, and there were some parts I could not directly identify. Ymblanter (talk) 20:21, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NYCS IP edits

Can you protect Astoria–Ditmars Boulevard station as well? Thanks. Cards84664 15:20, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Ymblanter (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IP vandalism

I checked my watchlist and noticed vandalism from various IP addresses around the same time. This looks to be the same person since some changes they made are similar e.g. changing "Moscow" to "Russian capital" here and here. Here are also other examples.[12][13][14][15] These edits were made within minutes of each other and they edited under a different IP each time. Does this look like someone familiar? They may have vandalized other articles but I am not sure how to find this since it looks like they used a proxy. Mellk (talk) 12:37, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly vandalism, but I have never seen this before. Ymblanter (talk) 12:40, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you suggest ANI for this kind of more sophisticated vandalism? Each IP has only made one edit so I am not sure if it is possible for admins at ANI to do anything. Mellk (talk) 12:50, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, may be a range can be blocked. Ymblanter (talk) 12:59, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Mellk (talk) 13:00, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for your contributions. Bayburtlum (talk) 01:41, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:22, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Cahill

Hey there, you have labeled my edit of Josh Cahill as "disruptive" though it was backed up by strong and reliable sources such as the Focus and Australian. These sources should be added to show that many more outlets refer to him as Melbourne-born and Australian. Why is this denied? I thought Wikipedia was based on sources and not personal preference. 79.255.14.198 (talk) 08:33, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this at the talk page of the article, not here. Ymblanter (talk) 08:35, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox flags

I am not sure anymore if we should include the flags for subdivisions in the infoboxes of Ukrainian settlements (I am leaning towards no, but there has been a lot of back-and-forth over time). 2718Jota and previous socks have been adding flags to the infoboxes (I have a feeling we will see them again soon). Do you think it is a good idea to revert all those changes, for example this? Thanks. Mellk (talk) 19:04, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have any opinion on the flags, I have just reverted the sock. No opinion on whether this should be mass-reverted. Ymblanter (talk) 19:34, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Mellk (talk) 20:10, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page move

Hello, I am fixing some of the pages moved by User:Andriyrussu do to his opinion on how letters are transliterated. I have made a mistake and I cannot move the page to the correct place. Andrii Nedyak needs to be Andrii Nediak. Can you please point me to where I can get this fixed? Thank you. Ceriy (talk) 14:28, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The translieration is indeed correct, and I can move the article, but are you sure this is the common name? For footballers it is often different, because they get reported with some unconventional transliteration, and then it sticks. Ymblanter (talk) 14:58, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Yes, this player never played at higher level to have his name be reported differently and stopped playing in early 90s. He has been a club administrator and runs a city owned football school for many years. Ceriy (talk) 15:21, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see, you have already moved it. This is fine with me. Ymblanter (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Sunni Arab genocide in Iraq

Was I correct in adding the GS notice? Thanks Doug Weller talk 12:54, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am concerned, borderline, but not unreasonable. Thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 13:01, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you. Doug Weller talk 14:03, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Ymblanter (talk) 15:05, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More train IP edits

Can you also protect Madison/Wabash station? Multiple IPs keep adding the same unnecessary templates. Cards84664 17:14, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Ymblanter (talk) 17:51, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was just sent over to your talk page by Aydoh8 who told me to "seek consensus" on your talk oage

I don't know why, but okay. So,

The ZOG doesn't actually mean Israel (but USA and sometimes other countries, and it's the Jewish-Nazi conflict). I'm not engaging in any "repeated attempts", because there was no repeat of an attempt. You managed to somehow misunderstand what I wrote extremely clearly (a request to correct the most obvious falsification in a sentence within the article).

This is the Wikipedia hoax in question (note the use of quotation marks for the false quotation):

The antisemitic website Jew Watch claims that the entire spectrum of Western nations and other countries are being ruled by "Zionist Occupation Governments".^[1]

Should be:

The antisemitic website Jew Watch claims that the entire spectrum of Western nations and other countries are being ruled by "Jewish Occupied Governments".^[2]

(Because that's what Jew Watch actually claimed. You can go and check it in the reference.)

I really just can't be possibly more clear than that. So that.

The use of the primary sources like Jew Watch is another problem in the article that is being claimed to use only "reliable academic sources" and as such refuses any Jewish organisations as sources. But that's my other point, not directly related to the hoax. (I talked about it too.)

94.246.147.217 (talk) 13:05, 13 August 2025 (UTC) 94.246.147.217 (talk) 13:05, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's been fixed at last. 94.246.147.217 (talk) 13:59, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked this IP for 6 month for refusal to drop the stick and continuing the activity they are prohibited from in a PIA topic. Ymblanter (talk) 17:56, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

1. "Jewish Occupied Governments". Jew Watch. Archived from the original on 21 September 2012. Retrieved 9 January 2008.
2. "Jewish Occupied Governments". Jew Watch. Archived from the original on 21 September 2012. Retrieved 9 January 2008.

Serge Rode

Здравствуйте. Я подал запрос на одного участника, который заблокирован глобально за вандализм и мистификации, однако его текущий аккаунт Serge Rode до сих пор действует в АнглВики (но заблокирован в УкрВики и РуВики). Он продолжает вандализировать статьи в АнглВики как с этого аккаунта, так и с IP-адреса. Причём это происходит не только в Английской Википедии, но и в Русской и Украинской Вики. Боюсь, что англоязычные редакторы не совсем могут войти в контекст, поэтому запрос рассматривается медленно. В связи с этим обращаюсь к вам с просьбой рассмотреть данный случай. Mitte27 (talk) 11:35, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Прошу прощения за беспокойство, ситуация разрешилась. Mitte27 (talk) 11:57, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of redirect at Category:1967 in British Overseas Territories

Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_August_25#Category:1973_in_British_Overseas_Territories. – Fayenatic London 21:38, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just noticed this. What you say there is probably correct. Ymblanter (talk) 12:08, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mikhail Prusak

Hi! Could you, as one who edited this article before, please look at [16] and keep non - Russian speaking user:Sahaib from further edit warring? Thanks, Romano1981 (talk) 10:59, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• And please look at User talk:Romano1981#Warning. --Romano1981 (talk) 11:38, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I do not think anything needed to be done at this point, the article seems to be stable. Ymblanter (talk) 11:55, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, the situation in the article was resolved, but the unfounded accusations remained on my talk page. Romano1981 (talk) 12:00, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It is not totally unfounded. You best figure out what is justified and what is not and solve it with the user. Ymblanter (talk) 12:02, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

major edit of Battle of Ain Jalut

Hello, in order to prevent any edit war, I would like to ask you about your opinion of doing a major edit on the Battle of Ain Jalut, containing turn all incline citations into sfn, replacing dead links with citations and rewrite the battle itself adding accurate citations to it... Mr.Lovecraft (talk) 10:57, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as it does not totally change the meaning of the article (e.g. throwing out sources with one POV and adding ones with the opposite POV), and assuming all editing is compatible with our policies, I would be always for it. Ymblanter (talk) 11:12, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks for your quick response. Im going to start in the next few days... Have a nice weekend... Mr.Lovecraft (talk) 11:35, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

Hello, I would like you to help me Protection the page Somsak Thepsuthin, Chaikasem Nitisiri, Suriya Juangroongruangkit, Sutin Klungsang and Anutin Charnvirakul. There is an anonymous user who has deleted the position of Deputy Minister and Member of Parliament from the infobox. I have undo it several times, but it has not worked.

I don't want it to be Edit warring Preime TH (talk) 12:04, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Ymblanter (talk) 12:11, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You Preime TH (talk) 12:37, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure Ymblanter (talk) 12:55, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

142.126.247.147 - pls block this IP editor

Hi Ymblanter, good day. Sorry to bother you, as there is always a lack of active admins during the nighttime in the US to action AIV requests. Please block the IP address User:142.126.247.147, and please see their contribution log [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/142.126.247.147 here], as they are actively vandalizing Wikipedia pages with more 30 edits. Thank you. Cassiopeia talk 05:33, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, just in time - I will disconnect in about ten minutes for at least three hours. Ymblanter (talk) 05:38, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. See here after you blocked the editor - full of attacks and hates - do you think a indef should be issued? Cassiopeia talk 05:44, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, we do not issue indef for Ips. If they reappear we can apply a long block. Ymblanter (talk) 08:48, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_August_19#Category:Omani_steeplechase_runners

Hi, I'm contacting you as I see your active at CfD. This was closed on August 27 but never actioned. Can you assist? LibStar (talk) 05:47, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what happened but I feeded it to the bot now, should be done within hours. Thanks for noticing. Ymblanter (talk) 08:51, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks LibStar (talk) 09:00, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Ymblanter (talk) 09:02, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology LTA

Greetings. All recent edits from 176.65.0.0/16 (at least since April) are disruptive and I think this is a LTA (I do not remember the username). See for example this edit and this edit (with the same ramblings about Babichev in Krasnogorodsk). Do you feel comfortable blocking one of the ranges here? I think we can at least block 176.65.112.0/20 since this seems to be where most of the recent edits are coming from (for the past couple weeks). Thanks. Mellk (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I blocked the narrower range for a month, to start with. Ymblanter (talk) 20:22, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. Are they listed at WP:LTA or do they have an original account? I believe you blocked one their accounts recently, but I do not remember if they have used any previous accounts. Mellk (talk) 20:29, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not think they are listed. Ymblanter (talk) 20:31, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to block 176.65.96.0/20 (or at least 176.65.97.80)? It seems they have managed to slip through.[17][18] Thanks again. Mellk (talk) 17:57, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done for a year Ymblanter (talk) 18:03, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CfD non-admin closures

Hi! At Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Working, are the entries collapsed just for neatness on the page or does the collapsing signify something? I previously thought they were collapsed as they were completed, but now I can see that many have been collapsed by non-admins before they've been done. Mclay1 (talk) 07:51, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, only those which were processed should be collapsed. Ymblanter (talk) 07:55, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter Thanks, that's what I thought. GoldRomean was unaware of the process, but they've been informed now. I think it would help to spell out the process somewhere, because I couldn't find it when I was trying to figure it out. Mclay1 (talk) 22:53, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion, I will have a look what can be done there. Ymblanter (talk) 05:34, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

I just wanted to say thank you for protecting my talk page from vandals. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 09:57, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem. Of course this means you can not edit it either but I guess you knew that when you asked for protection. Ymblanter (talk) 11:07, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind about not editing it, I just wanted my talk page protected from those vandals, so I don't really care because, that was what I wanted, so thanks again! 98.235.155.81 (talk) 21:58, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump

Hi Ymblanter. As you recently fully protected Trump's page, I wanted your thoughts on something I've been pondering for a while. They're going to continue after the protection expires. With an edit filter we are able to adjust the thresholds for any accounts editing - in effect set a custom protection level. For example we can specify 10,000 edits and 3 years of editing (for example), which would certainly take out all Salebot1 vandals, but also allow many others to edit. I believe we could set it much lower. I suppose this should probably pass by WP:AN, but I wanted your thoughts first. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:38, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know anything about the server loads, but, if we take this out of the equation, I think it is an excellent idea. My guess 1 year and 1000 or 2000 edits would do the job, especially if Salebot1 does not what the threshold would be. Ymblanter (talk) 10:54, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's probably not giving anything away to say we already have filters for Salebot1, and there will be no additional costs. OK, I'll work on an explanation and additional things - not sure whether to put this at the talk page or WP:AN, but I should probably mention it somewhere. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:00, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think just AN would be a good place. Thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 11:20, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zzuuzz: Based on the growing issues we've had with high profile pages, it does seem like we need to make some adjustments to how pages are protected. I think there are two separate issues here:

• It's easy to run up edit counts to 500 edits very quickly. Even though most extreme gaming is detected fairly quickly in several different ways, 5 to 15 minutes is long enough to seriously disrupt ECP articles.

My preferred solution would be adding a delay between reaching the requirements for the extended-confirmed group and actually granting the right. I would also consider changing the 30 day requirement from account age to time since first edit although that may be unnecessary if the delay was long enough (e.g., 10 or 15 days). Ideally, this would take the form of an "extended-confirmed pending" group or some other implementation that allows pending grants to be listed somewhere. I'm not sure, but I suspect that will require a new mw:Manual:Hooks/AutopromoteCondition extension or other code changes.

• Even if the edits are made at a reasonable pace, reaching 500 edits may no longer reliably indicate that a user understands and follows Wikipedia's policies and guidelines well enough to edit some high-profile articles.

I'm mostly mentioning this because I don't think we should be trying to implement a protection level above extended confirmed for articles. Page-specific edit filters are sometimes needed for serious issues, but if we want a higher protection level that behaves in a general way, I think it's best done via the protection system. Also, if we "hyper ECP" an article, certain types of vandals will just pick another equally high-profile target so I don't think it's a good solution here. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 05:28, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A passing thought from a Trump editor who knows little of the technical considerations: making certain high-profile articles such as Trump subject to whitelisting. No account would be permitted to edit unless (1) it is extended-confirmed and (2) it passes some minimal vetting that should exclude all bots and most bad-faith humans. The rest of the bad-faith humans would be manageable and would be swiftly de-whitelisted. This should be effective until AI becomes "intelligent" enough to fool an experienced and shrewd admin asking questions it can't necessarily predict. I do know that the Trump article can't remain full-protected until October 16th.

We regularly get "edit requests" from users who think that means "request for permission to edit". Apparently, whitelisting isn't such a strange concept to them. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 06:50, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your comments. Mandruss, from an admin who watches that page, your input is valuable. Daniel, appreciate that. I'm working with what we currently have. I think we're already in 'filters are sometimes needed for serious issues' territory (I mean, eg, the page is fully locked), with a relatively singular problem (Spore, eg, being less of a pressing issue, IMO). In the interests of not pestering Ymblanter any further, I'll head next to WP:AN (maybe not today). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:28, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case, I am totally fine. I myself need to think more about the issue, but whoever wants to post here you are welcome. Ymblanter (talk) 08:57, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK. And I also need to think about this. We have some very fine tuning available with the filters. For example we could allow one new-ish user (ie EC-sock) edit per day, or one edit per new-ish account per day. There are many variations. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:23, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stepping in to say that I don't oppose the idea of restricting newer users, but three years is way too long. I've been involved in the editing of that page for a while, but my account is only two years old, so I would be suddenly cast out. I wouldn't support anything longer than a year. Other than that, though, it might be a good idea to restrict the number of new editors editing that page using some sort of filter. Thanks, QuicoleJR (talk) 13:42, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But you've got to admit it's better than full protection. Anyway, it was just an example; we should aim for whatever is necessary for the situation, and no more. I don't want to put static numbers on it, but I can say we need something more than extended confirmed, and it needs to be a blanket restriction. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:43, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be good with one year and 10K edits, if you can get consensus for it. This feels like the kind of thing that would require an RFC though, as it essentially creates a new protection level, which would require community support. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:26, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That could work, and would definitely be easier than whitelisting on a number of levels. I'm still looking for something at AN and not seeing it. Tick tock. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 11:01, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if ECP required an RfC. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 11:03, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The initial creation of the ECP protection level did require an RFC, as did template editor and pending changes, which I believe covers all recent precedent for changes to the protection system. QuicoleJR (talk) 11:34, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. So we couldn't re-open Trump until (1) an RfC had run the usual 30-day course (plus the prep work) and (2) the software changes had been completed? I fear our "counterterrorism" efforts have been lacking. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 11:40, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we wanted to institute the above-mentioned protection system, yes, that is correct. Creating an entire new protection level like this would require broad community support. QuicoleJR (talk) 11:42, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Dovetails nicely with my strong support for "wait", at least for a short while. Some clouds have silver linings. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 11:48, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've been a bit busy elsewhere, and may get to this today. I've decided I will post about this at WP:EFN (don't complain until you see it). In fact EFMs make decisions similar to this all the time, and it doesn't require a whole RfC, just reasonable notification. The only novel thing here is that we're not going to try and work out what someone is posting. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:56, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This would also dovetail nicely with my feeling that articles like Trump should be restricted to editors with some minimum level of experience. Like, say, one year and 10K edits. Article talk pages are not for educating new editors about Wikipedia editing; we offer a number of other resources for that. I have seen hundreds of new editors come and go at Trump, every one requiring the time of other editors, and I can't recall one who had a positive effect on the article. Some have been downright disruptive on the talk page, a result of the Dunning–Kruger effect and their failure to respect their elders. This concept can be relaxed at "minor league" articles where talk page function is not so critical. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 11:14, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Um... but the above assumes the protection would extend to the ATP, which we're probably not discussing at this point (bots may vandalize the ATP all they want, it's only an ATP). Never mind. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 11:25, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What if we just started granting EC permissions manually? There aren't so many new EC accounts where that work would be unduly burdensome. 15-25 a day? We might manage that. BusterD (talk) 11:55, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A user making 164 edits in one day on a draft article adding in single sentences and categories at a time in order to get to 500 edits would be given more scrutiny with manual review than the current system, for sure. BootsED (talk) 00:33, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to add that as an editor of the Donald Trump page (apparently I am #1 in terms of authorship) with only 4,500 edits, I'd strongly recommend against a 10K minimum. My earliest edits to the page were back when I only had roughly half that amount. Adding in high requirements would unduly prevent good-faith editors from adding to the page and detract from the collaborative nature of this wiki. I do, however, strongly support Daniel Quinlan's proposed solution as a minimum for enhanced ECP protection, that being: My preferred solution would be adding a delay between reaching the requirements for the extended-confirmed group and actually granting the right. I would also consider changing the 30 day requirement from account age to time since first edit although that may be unnecessary if the delay was long enough (e.g., 10 or 15 days). Ideally, this would take the form of an "extended-confirmed pending" group or some other implementation that allows pending grants to be listed somewhere. BootsED (talk) 00:20, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like there may be an easier solution we should try before any of the above: allowing edit filters to prevent extended confirmed from being granted. Because this requires updating the site configuration for how extendedconfirmed is granted, I have posted a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Protection policy § Modifying extended confirmed permission grants. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 00:33, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After a week of full protection, I have returned the article to ECP. I wouldn't be opposed to reprotection if the disruption continues at the same pace as before; I just think we shouldn't wait an entire month between unprotection attempts. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:25, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this is fine with me. Ymblanter (talk) 20:28, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Large

Hi! As you seem to be the only admin currently processing speedy moves, I wondered if you could answer a question about the process of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Large. I've noticed, particularly for REDIRECT moves, the bot will sometimes skip entries and it doesn't go back to them, so they sit on the page not moved. For example, Category:Paramilitary organizations based in Denmark has been listed for a week but hasn't been moved even though some others in the batch have been. I can't see any consistency to it and so it seems like a bug with the bot. I've previously contacted the owner of the bot about it but they haven't replied to me. Is there a process for getting the bot to go back and go through them again? Mclay1 (talk) 01:20, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The bot would only move a category is the target is a redlink. I need to delete all (remaining) targets first. Ymblanter (talk) 06:51, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right, that makes sense. Thank you. That seems like a lot of work for just one person. Mclay1 (talk) 09:51, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. This is what administrators are for. Ymblanter (talk) 10:02, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I knew you were good for something!! ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 11:06, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CFD/W

In WP:CFD/W, the line * [[:Category:Professional shogi players from Tokyo]] to [[:Category:Shogi players from Tokyo]] – C2C: Parent is [[:Category:Shogi players from Tokyo Metropolis]]. [[User:Kaffet i halsen|Kaffet i halsen]] ([[User talk:Kaffet i halsen|talk]]) 10:08, 18 September 2025 (UTC) doesn't execute (because the rationale/signature was not removed). Kaffet i halsen (talk) 14:55, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 14:57, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Help Please

Hi, please assist. I created this page with link below some weeks ago and published it but it's still not reflecting on search engines. I'd be really grateful for your help. Thanks a bunch. Link is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AFRICAN001 AFRICAN001 (talk) 21:02, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You need to move it to Cynthia Pelayo. Ymblanter (talk) 21:05, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Просьба помочь с техническими моментами

Здравствуйте! Большая просьба помочь со статьей Karluks. В статье имело место быть фальсификация и подлог от участника Kanishka khorasani: статью посвященную племени карлуков он переделал в статью о племени в составе хазарейцев (см. Qarlugh (Hazara tribe)) и переименовал в Karluk Hazaras. Предыдущую версию статьи я восстановил, однако сейчас проблема с неверным названием. Подскажите, можете ли вы вернуть предыдущее название статьи? Или необходимо создать заявку для этого? KoizumiBS (talk) 09:15, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Уже разобрался. Оказывается тут можно переименовать поверх перенаправления. Не знал этого)) KoizumiBS (talk) 09:18, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Mbakop

Hi Ymblanter, I am requesting the undeletion of this actors draft so that I can continue editing it. I didn't want to get into a war with user duffbeer as he seems to have a personal vendetta against actors and is quite aggressive in his talk page. Can you please assist. Armaniari23 (talk) 18:37, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we are talking about Draft:Ivan Mbakop. You need to ask Liz who deleted it. Ymblanter (talk) 18:43, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ymblanter. I have done as you have suggested. One other question, a user duffbeer keeps challenging/editing/removing everything I edit and post. It feels personal somehow and he seems really angry. Any suggestion? Should I appeal to him directly to edit article? What would you do? Armaniari23 (talk) 18:52, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Usually these things first should be discussed at the article talk page. Ymblanter (talk) 18:55, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Issue on the talk:Tipu Sultan

Hey, sorry if I’m going to the wrong person with this, but I have encountered something I don’t know how to deal with and I saw you were recently active:

On the Tipu Sultan talk page, I saw at least one editor edit the title of a topic, a topic which already lacked any substance besides an edit request template, and which was unsigned.

I don’t know what is going on, but this makes talk pages unusable and I can’t just revert (I did revert part of it) and add a signature since this issue apparently has existed for a long time.

Thanks in advance and sorry to bother you.

Slomo666 (talk) 21:16, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you reverted, and I do not see any remaining issues. Ymblanter (talk) 21:19, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prior even to the edit I reverted, the topic in question was renamed by an editor, who I don’t see as its original author. (Which is part of the issue: what to do with the lack of a signature on the section) Slomo666 (talk) 21:27, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think anything needs to be done at this point. Ymblanter (talk) 21:30, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ammar

Regarding page protection on the Ammar article https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammar_Siamwalla There is not disruptive editing etc just removing irrelevant sources like PhD thesis etc and non reliable Facebook posts. There has been requests for page protecion in the past that has been denied and it has been said to be discussed in the talk pages. Instead some Members insist on using non allowed sources without discussing. 118.103.63.137 (talk) 10:29, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this at the talk page of the article. Edit-warring is not a solution. Ymblanter (talk) 10:55, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that what was agreed upon before. Instead you let other members restore revisions which were not agreed upon and then locked the article... 211.19.95.104 (talk) 12:56, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Wrong version. Ymblanter (talk) 14:08, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Funny but in this case you should have checked the history. The same page was brought up for protection by the same members many times and was denied protection being told to discuss in the talk pages and then the members refuse to discuss in the talk pages and just make whatever changes they wish... I understand it's time consuming but would be interesting if you would put some effort in researching the matter too. 211.19.95.104 (talk) 14:17, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Look, if you are right and everybody else is wrong may be this is not an appropriate project for you to work in. Ymblanter (talk) 14:20, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that and no need to be rude. Check for yourself. Then continue spreading innacurate info. 211.19.95.104 (talk) 14:30, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 2025

The following WP:CFDS entry was performed although it was opposed (opposition could have been more obvious in formatting):

• Category:French Polynesian cuisine to Category:Cuisine of French Polynesia – C2C: Parent Category:Culture of French Polynesia. Compare c:Category:Cuisine of French Polynesia. NLeeuw (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  I assume this should be Category:Cuisine of French Polynesia? But same objection as below. Mclay1 (talk) 09:32, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, I corrected it, thanks for pointing it out! NLeeuw (talk) 10:24, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Kaffet i halsen (talk) 10:12, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any opposition here, both users seem to have agreed on the final version. Ymblanter (talk) 10:39, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sievierodonetsk Raion

With reference to the page in caption, I see you have reverted my edit on the page template. To which consesus are you referring to on the page history? In any case, the verfiable and undisputed fact is that the many towns and villages in the Donetsk region are Ukrainian (de jure), while presently controlled by a Russian administration (de facto). Benzekre (talk) 12:17, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May I please suggest that you join this discussion: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Should infoboxes of Ukrainian cities occupied by Russia say they are "de facto" part of Russia? Ymblanter (talk) 14:01, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Benzekre: Based off the discussion linked above and other previous discussions, I went ahead and reverted the rest of your recent de facto/de jure edits, while also taking care not to revert any other infobox changes you made in these edits. Johnson524 06:04, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. However, in the discussion, there are several people having my point of view on the matter. From my perspective, the de facto/de jure edits reflect the verifiable and factual truth. Benzekre (talk) 06:30, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Benzekre: TBH I won't be opposed to adding it to all Ukrainian settlements under Russian occupation myself: I think it's helpful information for an infobox to have 🤷 That being said, since there's currently no consensus to make this standard after a number of discussions about it (making it a contentious topic in my view) I believe leaving it out is the best course of action until a consensus can be made otherwise. Sorry, I hope this helps! Johnson524 06:53, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commons

Hi there! I'm trying to upload a cropped version of a free use photo of Whit Fraser as the current photo is messing with the infobox. I'm caught in an IP range block due to a proxy and have the IP block exempt right here, so I was wondering if I could possibly get that right extended to Commons? Thank you, estar8806 (talk) ★ 18:15, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I gave it to you for a year, if after that the exempt is still needed pls contact me again. Ymblanter (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very much appreciated, thank you! estar8806 (talk) ★ 18:52, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clubplayerscat

Hi, just wanted to let you know that the {{Clubplayerscat}} template automatically removes the club category if it doesn't exist, so there is no need to manually do so. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:30, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed, I check that it works, thanks. I will undo my edits and delete the parent cats instead. Ymblanter (talk) 12:32, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Argerich Page Edit Warring

Hello Ymblanter, I hope you are having a good day. I wanted to write to you about your recent protection of the page Martha Argerich.

The user who requested the protection, "Per Exemplum" did it so under selfish reasons as he has been edit warring with many different people ever since July to get is own version of the article stable. As you see in the article history, he reverted all changes made to fully correct the article multiple times in the past. He just reverted the latest version, made by Martinevans123, who has been editing this page since 2018.

The user "Per exemplum" is pushing for its own version and he is constantly edit warring, therefore, I would like you to possible revert to martinevans123's version even if you decide not to unprotect the article at this time. Trust114 (talk) 16:56, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but per WP:Wrong version I will keep it as it is. Please discuss the changes at the talk page of the article. Ymblanter (talk) 16:59, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Hi and thanks for your recent participation in AfD. I would like to hear your thoughts about the process. Please check this survey if you are willing to respond.Czarking0 (talk) 01:56, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]