User talk:Ymblanter

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

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 Wik.ipedia.Pro is now leading the way with transliteration/transcription norms (which, as we know, simply isn't Wik.ipedia.Pro'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 Wik.ipedia.Prons 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.Wik.ipedia.Pro 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 Wik.ipedia.Pro 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]

Happy New Year!

Ymblanter,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wik.ipedia.Pro.
Abishe (talk) 15:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Abishe (talk) 15:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, happy New Year to you as well. Ymblanter (talk) 15:40, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed IPs continually changing the nationality of Russian figures who acquired Israeli citizenship in recent years, including those who decided to stay in Russia, with now there being general edit warring over the nationality. See for example Ivan Urgant ([2][3][4]), Alla Pugacheva ([5][6][7]) and Maxim Galkin ([8]). I remember this being similarly done on Arkady Volozh but now this is affecting many other articles. Is page protection the best course of action in this case for these pages? This has been going on for many months so I am not sure. Mellk (talk) 02:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is indeed not appropriate, certainly not without discussion, and needs to be reverted. Has any of the articles been targeted more than once? Ymblanter (talk) 06:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim Galkin for example I count four times he is changed to Israeli. I see this was the first change on 9 October 2023 where the name in Russian was removed and the first sentence was changed to "Soviet-born and Israeli comedian". At least some of these changes are made by IPs in the range 95.152.0.0/16 and I see a lot of changes on other BLPs by IPs in this range. Alla Pugacheva there are more IPs changing this. Mellk (talk) 06:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added pending changes to both for a year, let us see what happens. Ymblanter (talk) 06:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Happy new year. Mellk (talk) 06:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, happy New Year to you as well. Please let me know if disruption continues in other articles. Ymblanter (talk) 06:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for protecting Saleh al-Arouri, can you also protect Osama Hamdan please? He is also reported as assassinated and receiving a heavy influx. Ecrusized (talk) 16:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Ymblanter (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In your edit here you moved a category (Category:PBS member networks) that was falsely tagged as C2D. PBS is not the primary category nor is there a page called PBS member networks, so on what grounds did you accept this move? Gonnym (talk) 12:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I understand. The article is PBS and not Public Broadcasting Service, We do not have the article PBS member networks, but we do not have the article Public Broadcasting Service member networks either. It probably should go to a full discussion anyway, since there are objections from both sides, the question is only what name does it have in the meanwhile and what is going to happen in case of no consensus decision. Also pinging @Mvcg66b3r:. Ymblanter (talk) 12:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The New Page Reviewer's Iron Award
		For over 360 article reviews during 2023. Well done! Keep up the good work and thank you! Dr vulpes (Talk) 02:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NPP Awards For 2023 2401:1900:2082:B110:0:0:0:1 (talk) 15:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

??? Ymblanter (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wik.ipedia.Pro:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Administrator Conduct Case 2024-1: Mzajac. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wik.ipedia.Pro:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Administrator Conduct Case 2024-1: Mzajac/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 30, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wik.ipedia.Pro:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Administrator Conduct Case 2024-1: Mzajac/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wik.ipedia.Pro:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I admittedly do not fully understand WP:PENDINGCHANGES interface. When looking at history of 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel every single edit has "Automatically accepted" tag which I find distracting. Is PC necessary on articles that are restricted to ECP? Since you added it, I figured I'd ping you directly. Kind regards ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 20:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In December, I placed the page under temporary full protection. A bad thing about protection upgrade is that when it expired, the page does not go back to the previous protection (in this case, extended-confirmed one) but instead becomes unprotected (this is being reported as a bug for a long time but apparently there is no interest in fixing it). Therefore the best practice is in this case to also add pending changes, to avoid anonymous vandalism / POV pushing showing in the article. This is what I have done, and nobody removed it. Now I have removed it because it is indeed not needed, thanks for paying attention. Ymblanter (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I saw your recent edit to the Monkey King page. I'm not the person who made the previous addition, but I wanted to let you know that the listed powers do indeed come from the original 1592 edition of Journey to the West. This is just for your information. I don't have the energy to cite each one. Ghostexorcist (talk) 02:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will undo my edit them (if it has not been done yet). Ymblanter (talk) 06:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think something went wrong, this page you deleted needs to be undeleted and the other one, Category:Years of the 20th century in the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic, either redirected or deleted. I don't get why you would delete a page, and then ask for another one to be redirected there. Fram (talk) 13:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The move is usually done by the bot, and for the bot to do the move the redirect has to be deleted first. If I get it right, the bot has already done the job (I asked it also to keep the redirect), and before asking the bot I made sure we do not get any redlinks there. If you still see something which you think is not okay please let me know, these category moves in the cases the category is given by a template are notoriously difficult. Thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 13:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May be I should have directly moved the category suppressing the redirect, but usually at CfD it is not considered a good style. Ymblanter (talk) 13:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted edits for years in 3 Soviet republics, as the standard nav template works fine providing that redirects are in place where a standard template-generated name is not to be used. No offence intended. I will look into simplifying and documenting these points. Did I miss a discussion somewhere about this set? – Fayenatic London 23:58, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, there was no discussion, I just needed to find a solution when the new categories are visible and the old ones are not, and I could not find any. If this is what you have done it should be perfectly fine. Ymblanter (talk) 06:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I only edited two Sovet republics, Turkmenian and Moldavian. Ymblanter (talk) 06:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I found the third one Category:Years of the 20th century in the Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic deleted but still populated, so I redirected it, and that was all that was needed. – Fayenatic London 23:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 06:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm not sure if this is the place to suggest this or not.

Is there any way to remove the indefinite lock, or at least set a date for it to be unlocked rather than indef? This is for the Playboi Carti article.

The reason I ask is that I believe there should be a note on the birthday stating something along the lines of "While most published sources support a 1996 birthday, self published sources state a 1995 birthday" or similar. Since it is contested material, WP:DOB states it should include both or be removed. I believe this would cut down on the edit wars from both sides of the debate since it presents both arguments. Thank you.

Awshort (talk) 10:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer not to unprotect it for the time being, because what was happening in the article is not really acceptable. However, if there is discussion at the talk page of the article and there is consensus between all parties about the birth date, an extended-confirmed editor will implement the consensus. Ymblanter (talk) 10:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should undo your block of Queen Raducanu (talk · contribs). All edits between their vandalism warning and their edits to the team event medal article seem to be in good faith and, as a new user I don't think they know of WP:NPOV.

I also think you are WP:INVOLVED as (among other reasons) you appear to have a vested interest in the skating medals. Jasper Deng (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They have been previously warned, so I do not think this is a bad block. I will undo it however because of the involved argument. Whereas I have zero vested interest (I believe I actually started the article, this is why I have it on my watchlist), and nobody can really prove that I was POV editing, I agree it does not look good. Ymblanter (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jasper, I appreciate it. As for you Ymblanter - I correctly updated the team figure skating event from 2022’s games to show that ROC got demoted to the bronze medal this week. Some bright spark has undone this to show the ROC still winning gold. Surely you should be blocking whoever did that & if that is yourself then you should do some research into things before changing them back. Queen Raducanu (talk) 11:36, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it seriously worries me that you do not understand which part of your edit was totally inappropriate. Ymblanter (talk) 01:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Queen Raducanu: We keep in line with what IOC has done, and only IOC (or CAS on appeal) has authority to officially alter medal assignments. IOC has not officially approved this change even as ISU has released updated rankings. The consensus (agreement) by the community at Talk:Figure skating at the 2022 Winter Olympics – Team event#Gold for USA is for this. Ymblanter did do their research and the only reason I requested they unblock you was WP:INVOLVED; had it been by an uninvolved administrator the block would've remained, and I otherwise endorsed the block.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked specifically for this edit, not for changing the medals - assuming good faith, a user can be not sufficiently informed about the recent developments and should not be blocked for one- or two-time introduction of unsourced content. Ymblanter (talk) 23:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per If you belatedly notice and want to oppose a speedy move that has already been processed, contact one of the admins who process the Speedy page. If your objection seems valid, they may reverse the move, or start a full CFD discussion. please revert Category:HBO Max original programming. Television and film categories do not use anachronistic names. We always use the name at the time, and if needed, use a category to group them. Gonnym (talk) 07:47, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the processing and sent it back to the speedy page. Ymblanter (talk) 07:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not mistaken, both categories existed, so reverting the bot like this isn't better as it will move pages that should be in the Max category. If you just re-create the page, I'll find the pages the bot moved and just revert it. Gonnym (talk) 08:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I am done restoring page histories, thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 08:08, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators have proposed a motion to suspend the Mzajac case for three months at the proposed decision page. During this period, Mzajac will be temporarily desysopped, see Wik.ipedia.Pro:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mzajac/Proposed decision#Motion to suspend for further information. Comments are welcome at the proposed decision talk page. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will have a look. Ymblanter (talk) 19:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Administrator, could you please engage in the discussion and read the entire thread? There seems to be an issue. Your attention would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance!

https://en.Wik.ipedia.Pro.org/wiki/Talk:Aramaic#Shmayo_deletes_sourced_information

PersonJanuary2024 (talk) 23:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, was there any past discussion that you remember about the usage of "the" before governorates? Most of the articles now do not have "the" but there are a few articles about governorates in the Caucasus region where "the" is used e.g. Black Sea Governorate and Elizavetpol Governorate. It seems a few other editors work on those articles specifically and prefer "the". Thanks. Mellk (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a native speaker. When I came here the ones which existed did not have the, if I remember correctly. May be something for the central discussion, but we should come with a single pattern, whatever it could be. Ymblanter (talk) 23:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I will probably start a discussion at Talk:Governorate (Russia) later then. Mellk (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 00:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please unprotect since it's not experiencing that much vandalism now. —Matrix(!) (a good person!)_{[Citation not needed at all; thank you very much]} 11:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think it is safe. This is a topic which would attract vandalism throughout our lifetime. Ymblanter (talk) 11:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ymblanter, may I ask where it says that Ikh Hob Dikh Tsu Fil Lib lyrics is copyrighted till 2029? Was the original version copyrighted or English one, or both? Can you please provide a link? Thanks, Jacob0790 (talk) 18:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it was published in the US in 1933, the text is under copyright for 95 years, both Yiddish and English text (assuming nothing strange happened, for example explicitly released in public domain). One can look up copyright rules, for example, at commons:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States. Ymblanter (talk) 18:47, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand there were disagreements on the article False rape accusation, but seriously, was it really necessary a protection from editing for an entire year? Why so long? Especially now that I started a topic in the talk page about it. Usually a protection is so long when edit wars proceed even after the first short block, so why this time is different? 151.36.46.173 (talk) 08:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was previously protected for six months. The next protection will likely be of indefinite duration. Ymblanter (talk) 08:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't know that. 151.36.46.173 (talk) 08:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Moscow transliteration vandal is back yet again Special:Contributions/185.79.103.160. Thanks in advance—blindlynx 16:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Ymblanter (talk) 16:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and again Special:Contributions/109.252.206.120... i don't suppose there is another way to deal with this?—blindlynx 15:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, indeed, blocking every appearance seems to be the only way. Ymblanter (talk) 19:22, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, just making sure. Thank you again for dealing with this regularly—blindlynx 20:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem Ymblanter (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another one. Mellk (talk) 00:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Ymblanter (talk) 07:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another one. Thanks again. Mellk (talk) 15:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Ymblanter (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another one: Special:Contributions/188.255.61.187. Thanks in advance. Mellk (talk) 07:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, and now we know this is Diabedia. Ymblanter (talk) 07:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know. They have quite the history... Mellk (talk) 07:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I am perplexed as to why you are so passive-agressive in reverting my picture change on Clervaux railway station. What do you mean by "inserting your picture in every single possible place in the Wikimedia Universe" ? I understand you might take a form of personal pride in the 2014 image as you took it yourself, but all I want to do is to make the article better by having a picture that is more recent, higher quality and shows the station building from closer. In your picture, the road bridge, which is not the subject of the article, is at the forefront, which I personally find to be unnecessary as again, this is about "Clervaux railway station" and not "Clervaux railway station, above which there is a road bridge". Could you please clarify why you think your picture is preferrable to the more recent one? Procrastineur49 (talk) 16:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any advantage of your picture, and I really do not like that you went through all the projects and replaced there pictures by your picture. As far as I am concerned this behavior is absolutely unnecessary. My picture is only used in one project (here), I indeed took trouble to travel there and take it, and and I not happy for it being mass-replaced. Ymblanter (talk) 17:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And of course if the station is under a bridge it is under a bridge. I do not see why this should be hidden in any way. Ymblanter (talk) 17:17, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I did not "go through all the projects and replace the picture", it was only on English and French WP and on Wikidata. Also, it is not "my picture". It saddens me that you are making such a big deal out of this. Procrastineur49 (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Alexei Navalny#Nationalist. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Brusquedandelion (talk) 13:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Thank you for teaching me Wik.ipedia.Pro policies, I obviously are not familiar with them and never thought they could even exist. I am happy to get a lesson from a user with 600 edits who is editing in a contentious topic they are not familiar with. Ymblanter (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I was teaching you anything, though your acerbic and sarcastic response (and in particular the fact your immediate urge was to complain to other administrators to get me blocked) suggests that you think you are better than me because I have edited Wik.ipedia.Pro fewer times than you, or because you are an administrator and I am not. At the very least, it doesn't.

If you're already familiar with Wik.ipedia.Pro civility guidelines (which I never doubted to begin with), then that is all the more reason to be civil. Thus your response doesn't really make sense, except as indicating a feeling of superiority ("how dare this pipsqueak talk back to me, the might so and so...").

Administrators such as yourself should make more, not less, of an attempt to be civil. I recognize I am not perfect, but neither has anyone placed in a position of confidence, as Wik.ipedia.Prons have with you. Brusquedandelion (talk) 07:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you have just got a 31 h block and still have not understood anything. Prepare yourself for a longer block then. Ymblanter (talk) 07:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you threatening me? Are administrators supposed to behave this way? Brusquedandelion (talk) 08:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am stating the obvious thing. I can not block your account myself. Ymblanter (talk) 11:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ymblanter,

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wik.ipedia.Pro:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wik.ipedia.Pro:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 20, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wik.ipedia.Pro:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wik.ipedia.Pro:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tnx. Ymblanter (talk) 20:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They must check the information 2806:250:414:C010:19BC:A5BE:AC56:7112 (talk) 22:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody must stop edit-warring to start with, and this is why I protected the article. Ymblanter (talk) 06:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear admin @Ymblanter, user: Pied Hornbill removed reliable sources contents from Yadava dynasty by saying Over emphasis on "Gavli", please take action against him. and please revert the sourced version. 2409:4085:8D8F:6056:0:0:8109:120E (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, this should be discussed at the talk page until consensus has been found. Ymblanter (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me explain to you, actually the Yadava dynasty originated from Abhira tribe. this dynasty, kings called themselves Gavli kings and they were from Ahir/Abhira caste.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6]} But some anti Ahir/Yadav editors are trying to separate this dynasty from the modern Ahir/Yadav caste and want to merge this dynasty with another group called Maratha. 2409:4085:9D08:2AA7:0:0:8189:220A (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why you are explaining this to me. You should explain this to your opponent at the talk page of the article. I am not going to participate in this content dispute. Ymblanter (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for suggestion sir but no one listens to me on the talk page So I'm leaving. Thank you for giving me your valuable time. goodbye Sir. 2409:4085:9D08:2AA7:0:0:8189:220A (talk) 18:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

1. ^ Historical and Descriptive Sketch of His Highness the Nizam's Dominions. Printed at the Times of India Steam Press. 1883. p. 307. in the Puranic geography the country from the Tapti to Deogarh is called the Abhira, or the region of cowherds. It seems probable that they were connected with the Yadavas who were in power in the eighth , and again appear as the rulers of Deogiri or Daulatabad in the 12th and 13th century.
2. ^ Enthoven, Reginald Edward (1990). The Tribes and Castes of Bombay. Asian Educational Services. p. 25. ISBN 978-81-206-0630-2. Chudásama prince styled Graharipu and ruling at Vanthali near Junagadh is described in the Dyáshraya-Kávya of Hemachandra as an Abhira and a Yádava. In their bardic traditions as well as in popular stories, the Chudásamas are still called Aheraránás. ... Again, many ancient remains in the Khándesh district are popularly believed to belong to the period of the Gauli Ráj. From the Archæological point of view, they are to be ascribed to the time of the Yádavas of Devagiri. It is, therefore, not unlikely that, according to popular belief, these Yádavas were Abhiras. This receives some support from the fact that Yaduvanshis even now are one of the most important sub-divisions of the Ahirs
3. ^ Verma, Onkar Prasad (1973). A Survey of Hemadpanti Temples in Maharashtra. Nagpur University, 1973. p. 9.
4. ^ Kanhere, Gopal Krishna (1989). The Temples of Maharashtra. Maharashtra Information Centre (Directorate-General of Information and Public Relations, Bombay), Government of Maharashtra, 1989. p. 45.
5. ^ Dhere, Ramchandra (2011). Rise of a Folk God: Vitthal of Pandharpur South Asia Research. Oxford University Press, 2011. pp. 246–247. ISBN 9780199777648.
6. ^ Dhavalikar, Madhukar (2014). Socio-economic Archaeology of India. Archaeological Survey of India, 2014. p. 274.

Hi Yaroslav! About the native names on top, do you think should it be put in a efn and a bulleted list template? PoisonHK ✉ _{Sapiens dominabitur astris} 07:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would not know how to do it myself, but usually, yes, this is a good idea.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done [9]. PoisonHK ✉ _{Sapiens dominabitur astris} 07:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 07:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wik.ipedia.Pro’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wik.ipedia.Pro administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wik.ipedia.Pro;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. Note: This notification was triggered due to your recent edits to Sweet Baby Inc.

⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 07:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe my only interaction with the article was that I protected it responding to a RFPP request. Ymblanter (talk) 07:36, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, I'm giving the same notification to everyone with an entry in that article's edit log (which in your case, is the protection action) since March 6th if they do not already have a prior notification for this section of topics (or an awareness template). As indicated above, it does not imply any issues with your action, it's simply an informational notice. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 07:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 07:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Protection made sense in 2021 but I feel like most people forgot the squeeze even happened, so it definitely isn’t a target for vandalism like it used to be. () 18:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Ymblanter (talk) 18:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter Hello. A user who is likely an IP hopper is vandalizing the page with the same edit. I don’t fully know Wik.ipedia.Pro’s policy on something like this so it’s up to you on whether or not you want to reinstate semi protection or just try blocking the user. () 14:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Ymblanter (talk) 16:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy adminship anniversary! Hi Ymblanter! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of your successful request for adminship. Enjoy this special day! The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm reaching out because you changed the protection status for Chewbacca back in 2016. The protection status doesn't bother me, but I am a little confused about why an edit notice declaring the protection status appears on the visual editor every time I edit the page. Only people who can edit the page will see the edit notice, which reminds us who cannot edit the page. To me, that doesn't make sense, and I find it irritating that I have to close that edit notice every time :)

Would you be able to either A) remove the protection, since there hasn't been any recent vandalism, or B) somehow deactivate the edit notice?

Before contacting you, I was hoping to reach @Samsara, since they were responsible for the most recent page protection, but it looks like they haven't edited WP since 2021. Wafflewombat (talk) 03:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I remove the protection, let us see what happens Ymblanter (talk) 09:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit notice has now gone away. Thank you!

I will keep an eye on the page for vandalism. Wafflewombat (talk) 10:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem Ymblanter (talk) 10:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ymblanter, thanks for all your speed cat work, invaluable. Cheers, Ericoides (talk) 12:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem. Ymblanter (talk) 19:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We sure Putin doesn't read Wik.ipedia.Pro? ;) Maybe he has the FSB do it. 331dot (talk) 21:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He does not use internet and does not speak English. Ymblanter (talk) 21:41, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Though of course they can still print out and translate articles. Ymblanter (talk) 21:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day! Hi Ymblanter! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wik.ipedia.Pron! Finch (talk) 22:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Finch (talk) 22:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a mess on Ademola Lookman. I'm not too experienced, however I do have a lot of edits. Could you help? Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 21:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing up Ademola Lookman!

Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 21:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, thanks. There are couple of more things which need to be checked, such as the number of appearances, but I am sure there are users around who could do it better than I can. Ymblanter (talk) 21:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ymblanter, thanks for protecting Maria-Ana Tupan. I noticed a small mistake. At RFPP you responded that the page will be protected for 2 weeks, but the protection you set will expire in 2 days. Could you fix this? Thanks. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, sorry for this. Ymblanter (talk) 13:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... It's still two days '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It should be ok now, I think I know what went wrong. Ymblanter (talk) 13:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, thank you! '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ymblanter. So you know, the editor that requested protection of the Basanth Sadasivan article falsely claimed that there was IP vandalism. I think they were trying to stop the addition of maintenance tags to the article, which they have blanking. I previously draftified the article, was reverted, and suspect a COI, but I'm not sure what the best course is here, maybe AfD? gobonobo ^{+ c} 23:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There were two recent edits from different IPs, one of which was vandalism, and another one was unreferenced BLP addition, possibly also vandalism. The semi-protection should not deter experienced editors to add anything to the article. COI is always difficult to prove, but if you feel there is no notability indeed AfD is a good way to proceed. Ymblanter (talk) 05:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see that now. Thanks. gobonobo ^{+ c} 15:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem. Ymblanter (talk) 16:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hey bro,Bharwad caste is known by the name Gop or Gopal and in the 7th century history, Hemchandra and Jinprabha Suri both have called Bharwad as Gopal caste in their texts. Devendra gop bharvad (talk) 09:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you are talking about. Ymblanter (talk) 11:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bro there is a page of Bharwad, I am talking about it but hindukshtrana user is not replying to me and I am giving information about Bharvaad with correct context, still he removes it bro. Devendra gop bharvad (talk) 11:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May be try to discuss it with them rather than edit war? I am btw not your bro. Ymblanter (talk) 11:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should definitely discuss this with him because his information is causing controversy. Devendra gop bharvad (talk) 11:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and it does not make sense to discuss it with me because I have no opinion on the matter. Ymblanter (talk) 12:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ymblanter :) I'm looking for experienced editors to interview . Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You increased the protection for Toby Turner in 2016 to indefinite, following the page being protected several times since 2013. Incidentally, this was probably sensible as Turner was the target of sexual allegations the same week and the protection no doubt prevented imminent vandalism. However, I wanted to request if the protection could be removed, based on the relatively few number of edits to the page each year. Furthermore, Turner's popularity has plummeted since the early-to-mid 2010s, and unless he is the subject of another lasting controversy which puts him in the limelight (which I doubt) I see no reason why the page would incur a larger number of edits and potential vandalism. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, let us see what happens. Ymblanter (talk) 20:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of the recent edits by IP users have been constructive and let through by pending changes admins. I don’t think anything would change if the page had its protection removed. If vandalism returns then protection can be added back. () 01:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Ymblanter (talk) 05:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am not too familiar with Dolyn but I have noticed a strong similarity in the edits between a new account and an account which was globally locked as a sock of a different indeffed sock of Dolyn, so I started a SPI. I have also noticed edits in topics previously mentioned in the SPI (Ukrainian subdivisions etc.) and I believe you have had experience with Dolyn in such topics. Can you let me know if I am missing something in the SPI? Thank you. Mellk (talk) 22:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an SPI expert, but it looks fine to me. Ymblanter (talk) 05:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Yaroslav. Could you review this request? MBH (talk) 07:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid there is very little that can be done there. I understand your motivation - that a bot which is inactive and is blocked does not reflect well on its owner - but I am afraid it is not going to be accepted here. The easiest of probably to think of a reasonable task, get it approved via the appropriate process, and then get the bot unblocked. Ymblanter (talk) 11:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Хорошо, что вы скажете о таком процессе? Этот бот - переименовывающий файлы на Складе, и блокировка мешает ему после переименования заменить включения файла не только в анвики, но и во всех разделах, алфавитно идущих после en: см. список включений файла со старым именем и с новым - существует переименовательный скрипт, запускающийся из браузера и заменяющий включения файла во всех разделах, так вот он остановился на ОП анвики и дальше не пошёл. MBH (talk) 05:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Я всё ещё не понимаю, почему нельзя провести бота через стандартный процесс одобрения. Это решит все проблемы. Ymblanter (talk) 07:11, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

На каковом процессе я скажу... что? Вот это, про переименования? Я кроме этого не планирую ботоправить анвики, и я, по опыту рувики, искренне не понимаю, почему блок не снят на одном этом основании. Реально - бессрочный блок за одну ошибочно совершённую правку без намерения дальше их совершать это нечто невообразимо немыслимое. MBH (talk) 12:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw a bunch of pages on my watchlist get re-categorized pursuant to this speedy-rename. If I had noticed beforehand, I would have objected. Looking more closely, I still object. Despite the new name matching the main article for the cat, the subjects are actually not the same. The main is about the process (and named accordingly) whereas all of the other articles are are examples of dimer chemicals. Therefore, the previous name is a better description of the cat's contents. Could you please undo the speedy? DMacks (talk) 03:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We need to solve it somehow, let us see. @Gjs238:, would you be willing to take this to a full discussion? Ymblanter (talk) 07:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly be satisfied with having a regular discussion, as usual for when a speedy is not as clear-cut/uncontroversial as it initially seemed. For example, it's possible that there is no eponymous actual article for the cat, merely a redirect that is as close as we do have. DMacks (talk) 11:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The easiest solution to me is to have a regular discussion, under the condition that no consensus means moving the cats back. I can make the statement in the discussion, but I do not think I should be the person opening the discussion. On the other hand, if Gjs238 agrees we should just move the categories back without the discussion, I can easily do this. Ymblanter (talk) 12:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. I came to you based on the last sentence of the WP:CFDS process. DMacks (talk) 12:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I have no objection to "just move the categories back without the discussion." Gjs238 (talk) 13:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will do this now. Ymblanter (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. As a final note on this topic (just so this is all written in one place if anyone looks back), we also have a consistently-named set of cats as Category:Dimers (chemistry)‎ (topic of discussion here), Category:Trimers (chemistry)‎, Category:Tetramers (chemistry) in Category:Oligomers, so C2C also supports the original name. DMacks (talk) 21:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, before sending the category off for this speedy move, did you ensure that all of the constituencies concerned actually were established in 2024? My worry is that some proposals that ultimately failed may have been lost in the crowd. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will have a look now. Ymblanter (talk) 10:22, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked all 191 articles and almost all of them seem fine to me. I see four redirects and one article which need to be checked and possibly taken out of the cat:

• Belfast South and Mid Down (UK Parliament constituency)
• Eltham (UK Parliament constituency)
• Heywood and Middleton North (UK Parliament constituency)
• Keighley and Ilkley (UK Parliament constituency)
• Sherwood (UK Parliament constituency)

Ymblanter (talk) 14:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eltham was my bad. The others all seem to have boundary changes as well as a name change, for which we would normally start a new article, so I've asked at Wik.ipedia.Pro talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies#Separate articles for constituencies named "X and Y". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 18:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bro can you translate the page to English Ji Soôo97 (talk) 21:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not translate pages, I do not think this is a good practice. Ymblanter (talk) 05:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.Wik.ipedia.Pro.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/178.16.45.79 isn't this length of block excessive for an IP? Traumnovelle (talk) 09:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? This is static IP, which is vandalism-only. They have already been blocked for a month and continued vandalism immediately after that one expired. If there are good-faith users on that IP they can create a registered account and start editing. Ymblanter (talk) 09:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't the block prevent account creation or am I wrong? Traumnovelle (talk) 09:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it does not but I would need to check. Ymblanter (talk) 10:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Traumnovelle: When an admin blocks an IP, there's an option "Block account creation" which is enabled by default, you need to consciously deselect it if you want people to create accounts. In the case of 178.16.45.79, the most recent block log entry says "anon. only, account creation blocked", so it appears to have been set. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I can open account creation, though I am not sure we are going to benefit much from it. Ymblanter (talk) 18:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's starting to move over to the Talk page. Is there anything that can/should be done for that? Thanks! Wburrow (talk) 22:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind - it seems to have blown over on its own. But thanks again for your help protecting the main page. Wburrow (talk) 23:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Solid work on cleaning up the bbno$ page. It looked pretty bad before the edits! Izeekeeze (talk) 00:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I only protected the page, I did not perform any cleanup. Ymblanter (talk) 06:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at the page now, an I think that the pending changes protection may be redundant to the ECP that's on the page indefinitely? Do you mind if I lift it and leave the ECP? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ECP is not indefinite, it is only until 19 July. On that day, the page becomes unprotected and will be subject to vandalism. Whereas I am sure users notice it the same day and the semi-protection will be restored, it is good to have the pending changes in force. The protection is redundant now, but it will stop to be redundant the moment the ecp expires. Ymblanter (talk) 18:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spamalot001 have continued to be disruptive after you protected the article. I ask that you either raise the protection or block the user from editing the page Trade (talk) 14:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please warn them first; they have a redlink talk page. Ymblanter (talk) 14:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does "BLP removal" suffice? I can never figure out what to use with so many user warning templates Trade (talk) 15:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I never give template warnings (except for ds-alert for legal reasons), I always write plain text. Ymblanter (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, they are not trolling, they really do believe that a cabal of shadowy figures control information on the internet. How do I know? My side job is researching and combating the spread of disinfo and fringe theories. lizthegrey (talk) 09:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This might be indeed the case, but I do not see why we should keep this a the talk page. If they become even more convinced in their conspiracy theory, ok. Let it be so. Ymblanter (talk) 09:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning! Kamala - I think this is a fake article. Doesn't some administrative action need to be taken here? Агрессивный Злобный Кусачий Волк (talk) 04:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That has been handled. Johnuniq (talk) 04:28, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Ymblanter (talk) 05:23, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This notice about a Good Article Reassessment showed up on a User talk and as an involved admin for that user's courtesy deletion I thought you should know. I think something should be done about the notice but don't know exactly *what*... Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 04:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I deleted it. Ymblanter (talk) 05:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to have made a mistake by saying it is "de facto" Palestinian territory, it is in fact de jure Palestinian territory please undo the edit unless you don't recognize international law here here. Kaduuuuuu (talk) 14:14, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is de jure Palestinian state and de facto Israel, I do not think anybody disputes this. For the rest, you are not extended-confirmed user, and as such, according to WP:PIA, you may not discuss issues on Wik.ipedia.Pro related to Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Thank you for your understanding. Ymblanter (talk) 14:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well I didn't know that I was not allowed to talk about it. How does a church relate to the conflict? Kaduuuuuu (talk) 15:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The church does not, its location does. Ymblanter (talk) 15:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I need help at In the Light of Truth: The Grail Message. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:14, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the pre-war version but now I am going to sleep, it is 23:19 in my time zone. Ymblanter (talk) 21:19, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit by an IP, are we only including census figures here? I have also noticed that this looks to be the same person as Special:Contributions/188.163.116.165 where they are made edits referring to a 2023 census etc. although the last census was in 2021. Mellk (talk) 18:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So far we only included census data in the lede and ore data in the demography section if applicable. I think I warned the IP for referring to inexistent censusses (aka vandalism); if they continued after warning I will block them now. Ymblanter (talk) 18:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ore data? Like a census of coal miners? EEng 18:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Link mining demography. Ymblanter (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Data mining. EEng 18:22, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Likely the same IP, but we probably need to wait for more edits before blocking. Ymblanter (talk) 18:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. Mellk (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked 188* though, clear vandalism. Ymblanter (talk) 18:15, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have also noticed that the link in Template:Ru-census2010 was recently updated but there is no pipe anymore so it displays "2010 Russian census" rather than "2010 Census", which is inconsistent with the other templates. I would change this but it is currently template-protected. Mellk (talk) 18:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I fixed that. Ymblanter (talk) 18:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is fixed now, thank you. Mellk (talk) 18:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tnx Ymblanter (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the same person is adding such figures to the infobox now. For example here they just use a rough estimate of 25,000 by Ukrainska Pravda. Should these edits be reverted? Mellk (talk) 10:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think so. Ymblanter (talk) 15:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They also made another mention of a 2024 census here, so I do not think they have made any improvement in this regard. Mellk (talk) 14:23, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked the IP for a week, but they will likely reappear again. Ymblanter (talk) 17:28, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, another "2024 census". Mellk (talk) 16:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked this one as well. Ymblanter (talk) 16:47, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. They have returned and for some reason here they decided to cite Wik.ipedia.Pro. Also an unsourced change here. Mellk (talk) 14:03, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked now for a year. Some edits are good, but many are really bad. Ymblanter (talk) 15:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which edits do you suggest should be reverted? Thanks again. Mellk (talk) 10:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If they add new sourced info without removing the previous one, it is obviously fine. The problem is that often they replace sourced info by some other unrelated info. Ideally, old info must be added back and the added one kept, but I am not sure we have enough bandwidth to do this. Ymblanter (talk) 10:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sources look questionable, for example here on Brovary they replaced the 2022 estimate with an approximate population citing population-hub.com. Mellk (talk) 10:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not look into that, but unfortunately the central Ukrainian authorities stopped publishing their yearly publication estimates in 2023. I would say as soon as this one looks remotely credible, we can keep it - but along with earlier estimates, reliably sourced. Ymblanter (talk) 11:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ymblanter,

Do you know what is going on with this speedy renaming? We have Category:Greek LGBTQ people by century and Category:Serbian LGBTQ people by century on the empty categories list but it looks like this category move was premature. Should they be moved back? The CFD bot didn't move articles to the new category pages (they are sitting in redirect categories), just moved the category pages. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The move was objected and a move review request was filed when some of the categories already have been speedy moved. Now we need to wait until the review request has been resolved, but I do not think we need to move anything back before that. I will have a look at these specific cats later today. Ymblanter (talk) 02:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, with these two we need to wait for a resolution and then either move them back or move the content. Ymblanter (talk) 05:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well, thanks for looking at these and offering me your opinion. CFD is a world unto itself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:44, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, these seem to be at least under control. Ymblanter (talk) 05:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at the wholesale blanking of article talk pages here. Per WP:ARCHIVENOTDELETE this isn't at all correct is it? I've left a note on this editor's user talk but am concerned about the sheer number of blankings they've done. - Shearonink (talk) 16:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let us see what they respond, they have not edited since the discussion at their talk page was opened. Ymblanter (talk) 16:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed you have edited in this area before, particularly subdivisions, and now there is an IP again replacing the Kyrgyz name in Cyrillic with Latin script and also removing Russian translations, such as this edit. In this edit they also replace this with Latin script and here and here for subdivisions they just remove the Russian translations. I don't think anything has changed in this regard, has it? Mellk (talk) 18:22, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, Kyrgyz is currently written in Cyrillic, everything can be rolled back. Ymblanter (talk) 18:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for confirming. I have reverted them a few times already such as on Osh Region but they just continue to restore their changes. Mellk (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably they need to be warned and then blocked. Ymblanter (talk) 18:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I asked them to stop removing translations yesterday but they did not respond and this seems to have had zero effect. Do they need another warning? Mellk (talk) 19:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I now made it more clear, let us see what happens. Ymblanter (talk) 19:08, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also noticed that the same editor in the same IP range is making similar edits in Kazakhstan-related articles e.g. this yesterday and this today (which does not follow the title). Mellk (talk) 13:34, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly the same user; I blocked the second IP, a full revert is probably needed. Ymblanter (talk) 16:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some good people blocked the range for 3 years. Now we need to revert. Ymblanter (talk) 17:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted some of their recent edits, they made a few hundred edits recently. Mellk (talk) 18:02, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does this look like the same person? Another proxy, same interest in pronunciation/translations in same area, and the IP range is blocked on metawiki. Mellk (talk) 10:27, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is probably the same. Ymblanter (talk) 18:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hey man im josh's nomination of Category:People from Sukhum Okrug to Category:People from Sukhum okrug may contain a typo, I think it should be Category:People from Sukhumi okrug. It has just been moved for processing. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it is not a typo, but I agree it should be consistent. I will take it to CFDS now. Ymblanter (talk) 18:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle: I was just trying to downcase the "Okrung" part of the title to match the article, I had not actually realized that the name of the article itself had changed along with the capitalization with it moved. So, while "Sukhum okrug" was my intended target, your suggestion is more appropriate and I'm glad to see it's been tagged. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You protected this page on 25 September for a week from IP's pushing a POV. Once the protection expired the same IP returned to make the same edit. Do I need to wait for more reverts or can you protect it for a longer period of time? --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And again.[10] --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, protected for a month. Ymblanter (talk) 17:04, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you sir. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:11, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem. Ymblanter (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you protect Erimena for a month?--Kansas Bear (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a bug in protection software which sometimes resets the protection period to 2 days, and I was hit by it and did not notice. Now protected for a month. Ymblanter (talk) 17:25, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's all good, Ymblanter. You do one hell of a job here and I appreciate that. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 19:02, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm posting here what I posted on FormalDude's page. Please forgive me for not being super Wiki-literate yet. I was just looking for some help and noticed that FormalDude isn't an admin so I found your page, Ymblanter:

Hi FormalDude. Could you take a look at the NYU Law Review's page? This user "Randykitty" for some reason feels the need to erroneously remove our logo from our page. You reversed him once already last year but he just removed the logo again (for the same reason you'd reversed him) claiming the logo isn't being used by the Law Review. Here is evidence of the Law Review using the logo that's on the Wiki page (that Randykitty will for some reason try to remove again): https://www.instagram.com/nyulawreview/ https://www.linkedin.com/company/nyulr/ https://twitter.com/nyulawreview Nyulrlogo (talk) 21:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The direct way to solve the issue is to discuss this with Randykitty (on their talk page or on the article talk page). Ymblanter (talk) 21:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

why you reverted all my edits? they all were true? Asigooo (talk) 10:32, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I explained this at your talk page. Ymblanter (talk) 10:37, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm not sure if the bot correctly finished its work related to these categories. It appears that Category:GA-Class LGBT articles still has a lot of sub-articles left behind, despite the bot thinking it completed the move to Category:GA-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles as it already removed the move template, which I thought was the last step? Same for the various other sub categories. Maybe this would have needed to be place into WP:CFD/WL instead of WP:CFD/W, since some of these sub-categories have a few thousand pages? Raladic (talk) 18:42, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the bot operator, and I do not know how the bot works, but typically if the templates have been removed and some short time already passed, the bot will not do anything else. I will check later, but generally speaking the reason the deleted category is still populated may be either that there is caching problem (in which case it will resolve itself soon) or that the pages are added by a template, in which case the template needs to be edited. Ymblanter (talk) 18:45, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, an empty edit removes the page from the category, meaning we have a caching issue. Ymblanter (talk) 18:46, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah right, I forgot those rating categories are dynamic, so I forgot that it could just be a caching thing. I guess we'll see if it clears itself up by tomorrow then. Thanks :) Raladic (talk) 18:54, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it takes longer, but in any case this is part of a workflow for admins cleaning up the CFDW page, so you do not need to worry about it. Ymblanter (talk) 19:03, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found it actually partially had to do with the fact that the Wikiproject template had to be updated so the pages with that template actually put themself in the now renamed categories - Template:WikiProject_LGBTQ+_studies.

An edit request was made on the talk page now.

Somewhat related, could you also move the last one from Wik.ipedia.Pro:Categories_for_discussion/Speedy#Current_requests (Category:WikiProject LGBT studies to Category:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies) which I had posted a few hours after the ones that you already moved for processing? Raladic (talk) 19:09, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I always wait for 48h. If it gets into my evening batch in about 20 minutes, I will move it. Ymblanter (talk) 19:13, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, should be in there then as it now passed 48 hours (but hadn't earlier when the other moves started).

Thanks so much for your explanations and help with this :)

Have a nice evening :) Raladic (talk) 19:15, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is Category:Old requests for LGBT studies peer review supposed to be moved as well? It is not currently nominated. Ymblanter (talk) 19:18, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it looks like I missed it in my original nomination, I can raise a new nomination for it and you can move it in 48 hours, or you can just do it now with the other one under WP:IAR, please let me know your preference :) Raladic (talk) 19:29, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List it now, I will move it in 48h. Ymblanter (talk) 19:33, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Raladic (talk) 19:37, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 19:39, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Добрый день. Интересуюсь тут разницей между Ru и Еn. А она есть? Каков ваш взгляд? Все же более 10 лет прошло Воскресенский Петр (talk) 01:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Да, разница есть, и очень заметная. На подробную лекцию, уж извините, у меня времени сейчас нет. Ymblanter (talk) 05:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Yaroslav! Could you please take a look at user Ymblanter77?
Is that your account, or is someone impersonating you? Rampion (talk) 18:34, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It is not me, presumably it is somebody impersonating me. I probably can not block them because I am obviously involved. Ymblanter (talk) 18:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying this! Based on your explanation I blocked their account on the Russian Wik.ipedia.Pro, where they also appeared. Rampion (talk) 18:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 18:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I blocked them here; I ain't involved.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. Ymblanter (talk) 19:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This is LTA Jan777/Lidaz. Obviously a gift to you that you recently protected articles from them. Mykola 20:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There are so many of them that I can not tell any more who is who. Ymblanter (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's the gift that keeps giving.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, certainly for the foreseeable future. Ymblanter (talk) 20:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed this LTA for a while, they seem to be editing from Special:Contributions/2A02:AD8:80:0:0:0:0:0/42, but probably this range is too large to be blocked. Is WP:ANV the correct avenue to report them or do admins there expect more edits/warnings first? Mellk (talk) 16:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is this LTA, no new warnings are needed. I block single IPs when I see them, I do not feel confident working with ranges at the moment. Ymblanter (talk) 17:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will refer to this page in future then. Mellk (talk) 17:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The recent IPs are coming from Moscow and it does not look like they are using a proxy, should the new location be added to the LTA page? Mellk (talk) 12:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, or may be we can wait and get some statistics. Ymblanter (talk) 13:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are still vandalizing Tatyana Golikova, can you block the IP? Thanks. I also requested page protection since they are returning to this page. Mellk (talk) 13:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. I would rather not protect the page, since they are going to find a new target anyway, and here we can notice their vandalism sooner. Ymblanter (talk) 13:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have seen that you have reverted the adding of images in the articles of several Bulgarian metro stations. As far as I understand, the use of images for non-commercial uses is allowed in Bulgaria. Regards, --Gligan1 (talk) 09:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Non-commercial use is not good for us, we need CC-BY-SA which also allows commercial reuse. Ymblanter (talk) 09:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When you protected this template, were you aware that it is regularly updated only by the anon? These updates make the template valuable; there's little point in having it if only old projections are listed. You might also need to look at the template talk page, where I explained the template has always provided only the current projections from each provider, not historical ones, as historical opinion polls are already covered at Opinion polling for the next New Zealand general election, and this template is transcluded there so the current projections are available.-Gadfium (talk) 22:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I have unprotected and left the message at the talk page. Ymblanter (talk) 06:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wik.ipedia.Pro. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]