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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

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

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]