Greetings, ymblanter! Just stopping by to provide you with this link, for what's it worth. All the best! --Niklem (talk) 00:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for your feedback on my edits. Just for clarification, what is the criteria for listing a lake by itself while also having its parent oblast listed? For example, you reverted my addition of the Category:Lakes of Russia to Lake Kovzhskoye. Your reasoning was that Lake Kovzhskoye is already listed under the parent Category:Lakes of Vologda Oblast. By that same logic, Category:Lakes of Russia should be removed from Lake Ladoga, as Ladoga is already included in Category:Lakes of Leningrad Oblast. Likewise Category:Lakes of Russia can be removed from Lake Sterzh, and so forth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encycloshave (talk • contribs) 16:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is correct, all these inclusions need to be removed - provided the categorization over Oblasts is already there (for instance, Lake Ladoga is shared between Leningrad Oblasts and the Republic of Karelia). Ideally, Category:Lakes of Russia must become a parent category without direct inclusions of articles.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I added a table under section background in article 2G spectrum scam but the final table doesn't look like what I wanted it to be. I tried to correct it on my own but failed. Plz help by :
Merging Remarks coloum for the rows Adonis Projects Pvt. Ltd., Nahan Properties Pvt. Ltd., Aska Projects Ltd, Volga Properties Pvt. Ltd., Azure Properties Ltd., Hudson Properties, Unitech Builders & Estates Pvt. Ltd. and Unitech Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. (i.e single Remarks entry for all the 8 rows)
Merging Remarks coloum for the rows Shyam Telelink Limited and Shyani Telelink Limited (i.e single Remarks entry for 2 rows)
Merging Remarks coloum for the rows Swan Telecom Pvt. Ltd and Allianz Infratech (P) Ltd.(i.e single Remarks entry for 2 rows)
Merging Remarks coloum for the rows Idea Cellular and Spice Communications Ltd. (i.e single Remarks entry for 2 rows)
If possible, plz adjust the hight and width of the table (The present table looks huge)--Aryan wiki (talk) 16:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done, pls check. You may also find this helpful for future work with tables.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very very much--Aryan wiki (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your contribution to wikipedia deserves appreciation. Thanks for your tireless effort. Keep it up Aryan wiki (talk) 21:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Yaroslav! Regarding this, I was actually wondering about the "Vaga volosts" part. Peter's edict refers to simply "Vaga", not to "Vaga volosts" (the only "volosts" explicitly referred to as such in Archangelgorod Governorate were Ustyanskiye), and as far as I know, it is more or less the same as modern Shenkursk (but I am not 100% positive, and I don't have my sources on this area with me today to check). Could you, please, clarify? Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 6, 2012; 19:05 (UTC)
Yes, you are right, the edict only mentions Vaga, and Vaga was Shenkursk. I will correct it now. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you're interested in meta-wiki affairs and that you are a native speaker of Russian, so I wonder if you'd be willing to translate the proposal from the m:Requests for comment/Meta-wiki requests for comment on users about the scope of the meta-wiki Requests for comment on users, and to notify ruwiki about it. I'm asking for your help with this because some of the participants in the meta-wiki RFC objected to the lack of involvement of other wikis besides the enwiki in that discussion
[1]. Thanks, ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can translate the request (not the discussion, as it is too long) and will do it by placing the templete on the Meta page (it will be obvious how it works). However, for a number of reasons I am not willing to make any edits on ru-wiki where I even do not have an account.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your kind words. I'm really not that concerned with any one specific article or any one specific editor. Rather, I am concerned about the whole constellation of issues raised. For example, I had planned on trying to expand the pre-existing biographies on other city concilmembers, but it's unclear whether that those articles might be deleted also under a similar rationale, etc, etc.
If the inclusion/deletion criteria focus on "verified in reliable source", then it's easy to know whether your time is useful. If the criteria is "sufficiently famous in the eyes of a group of strangers", I have no way to know if my work is useful or not.
I have 30 minutes of free time-- should I help round out a bio on a different councilmember, or should I give up and go play Warcraft? Right now, I don't know that giving that time to Wikipedia will actually help anything.
And that's not a problem if it's just me. The problem is, I bet it's lots of people. --HectorMoffet (talk)
As I just replied in the Village Pump, we can not solve all problems in once (even if it would be so nice). But I think (i) you raised a number of important points which could (or could not) lead to some developments - in particular, I would like to see more manual notifications and less robot-like templates; (ii) it seems to me that your particular problems are solvable. I am not so familiar with the details of the West Coast local governance, but most probably Wikipedia:WikiProject California or Wikipedia:WikiProject United States must be able to help you to determine whether your contributions are best kept as separate articles or parts of bigger lists/articles.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give proof that the next russian presidential election is in 2018? I gave proof for the 2016 election and was called a vandal. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind. I found a news article that says the election is in 2018. I must've had outdated information. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
* I definitely did not call you vandal and did not mean that. I am sorry if you understood my edit in this way, that was not the intention. In this case please accept my apologies. The Constitution was amended in 2011 to extend the presidential term to six years, and the 2018 date is now widely mentioned, see e.g. [2] (I am sure there are better sources, but this one is fine).--Ymblanter (talk) 20:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ymblanter,
Yes, thanks you for your help on the article I started, [[3]]. You helped with Wikifying links. I am trying to get this linked to other articles, but some would like it complete before this can be done.
Bruinfan12 (talk) 08:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did the DYK review on the 1925 Santa Barbara earthquake. Looks pretty good. I put "1925" in front of earthquake in the hook, and complained (too much) about the placing of the citation. Also I assumed "the nominator doesn't have five DYK credits (otherwise the QPQ - review needs to be done)." Good job! Smallbones (talk) 03:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is my third one. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Yaroslav! If you can spare a moment, may I ask you to comment in this thread, please? I'm only asking you because the two of us account for probably 99% of edits to this template's instances and the two people who have commented so far weren't very specific. If there are things in this template you like or dislike (especially the ones you dislike), I would greatly appreciate you sharing them in that thread. While I personally am quite content with this template (with the exception of its visual appeal which I do believe could use some overhaul), it is hard to argue the case being the only one interested in discussing possible improvements :) If you don't have time or don't want to get involved, feel free to ignore this message. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 17, 2012; 20:41 (UTC)
I tried once when the whole story started, and I failed to understand what the issue is. Will give it a second try tonight.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. There's a little (OK, I'm lying, there's a lot) more on my talk page, if that helps. In a nutshell—someone else wants to re-write this template from scratch (for reasons which remain unexplained), with the biggest issues being the automatic tagging of uncited pieces with {{citation needed}} (which, as the claim goes, makes the template ugly, off-putting, and unorthodox, as no other template does that; my belief is that it's necessary as per WP:V and more convenient, as I would eventually mark the uncited bits manually anyway), and that the subtemplate this template calls is too big and unnecessary (I agree on the first one, but not on the second one). I'm not asking you to blindly support my assessment of the situation, of course, but I am very interested in your take on this, since you are one of the two people actually filling this template out methodically and aren't as biased and attached as the person who created it :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 18, 2012; 13:35 (UTC)
your 12:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC) post on ANI was very well stated - and I think VERY accurate too. Just in the last 2 weeks I can think of 2 new admins. that made a couple big boo-boos. All good intensions - just learning mistakes. It honestly does take a lot to become good at being an admin. (and I'm not saying I am one - by the time I check things out? .. someone else has already acted on it.). But I just wanted to say that I was very very impressed by your very astute observation. — Ched : ? 12:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Well, I had ...hmm... extensive personal experience in a different WMF project in the past. This is why I try to keep here around 98% edits in the article space.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Cheers and best, :-) — Ched : ? 13:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ymblanter, we do have an OTRS permission from the museum to reuse the text of their website. I've now added it to the talk page (I just forgot it when I included the text, sorry for that). Thanks for reminding me to do it properly and helping me to improve the entry. And feel free to reuse the text of the dhub-bcn.cat website. Our OTRS permission is only for the text, not for the images, but it's a good step further in opening museum's websites. :)--Kippelboy (talk) 05:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks for clarification.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ymblanter! Thanks for helping improve the list I started:
List of World Heritage Sites by year of inscription. I am trying to find out if there were any sites from a First Session of UNESCO, but I think they started inscribing/adding the first sites from the Second Session.
Bruinfan12 (talk) 07:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for participating in the January 2012 MTC Drive. The drive was a big success. As a result of the drive thousands of files was transferred and many files was nominated for deletion because of copyright issues or because they were not usable. For your big work transferring files to Commons you are hereby awarded this barnstar. Cloudbound (talk) 20:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Ymblanter. You have new messages at Sabrebd's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi. Do plan to do much more editing to the Lauren Jackson article? :) Just curious. --LauraHale (talk) 10:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, not really. I just saw your post, decided to check the article, and saw two dubious statements, then corrected them. If you need my help in checking some Russian sources on her (smth like the basketball league statistics), please let me know.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I restored the two important ones, no problem. Laura has taken care of the other three.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lovely! Thanks for fixing them,.. twice!! ;-) John Vandenberg(chat) 09:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help. :) If you can find the sources and improve the Russian section, that would be appreciated. We're going to take to GA but after the DYK. Hoping we can get a picture of her two weeks. (Seen her in person a few times at the basketball and roller derby.) --LauraHale (talk) 09:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Greatly appreciate your help, the last two in particular need some heavy proof reading and copy editing!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. In some cases I could not even recognize the club names, I will possibly check them later when I have time.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Boris Apukhtin I'm concerned about something about Albanian football but vague. The Russian source or Russian wiki might make it clearer.. Having connection problems still so progress this afternoon will be slow..♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An IP and a personel judgement ('not comprehensive'). I can revert myself and changed it into "incomplete", if you think it is better appropriate.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since you have already done that, it hardly seems worth asking my opinion, or for me to give it. SpinningSpark 16:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I first asked your opinion and then noticed that you already reverted my edit. Please feel free to edit as you wish, I am not going to interfere anymore. Writing in the body of an article that the material is incomprehensible is, in my opinion, incompatible with the principles of Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So sorry. I thought I was helping by filling out some information on the article. Stupidity. KudzuVine (talk) 10:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I believe I put all relevant information from your edit (I was not sure about Classical and Neoclassical revival simultaneously, but please put it there if you think it should be there as well).--Ymblanter (talk) 11:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am no expert about architecture. I was copying from the Elkman infobox generator. I get architectural enthusiast disputing things from that database, but we will eventually get it to a consensus! Fine job on the article. KudzuVine (talk) 19:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed up Alpatov a bit, and found a nice portrait of him. BTW, good to see another ru.wiki émigré over here. Your fellow émigré Evermore and I have been working on the Russian literature side of en.wiki for quite a while, the result being beautiful articles like A. K. Tolstoy. Not many people on here doing serious work on Russian subjects, but quality rather than quantity. INeverCry 03:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for working on the article. It would be great to have an art historian looking at it, since this is not at all my area of expertise, but at least this is a start-class now.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He has a clear conflict of interests promoting pieces of art from his own collection and promoting his own book, and I do not believe a bit in his credentials concerning the 20th century Russian art.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User:Shakko would be a good one, but I am afraid she would have no interest in the topic.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Ymblanter. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Agent00f. Message added 15:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I gave a response to your question about why the tennis articles are being targeted. Hasteur (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
HI, you may recognize my username from Agent00F's RfC/U
Could you enlighten me as to how you came across This AfD? Newmanoconnor (talk) 14:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As with all other AFDs I voted, I was just looking at either the current day AfD list or the previous day list. My starting point is usually WP:AfD.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I left my opinion for this particular one, since I noted it was relisted three times which is unusual, and I though extra opinions are especially welcome. I never came across this name before.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Yaroslav! Regarding this, I actually removed the ref on purpose because the source does not say "established on August 1"; not for this district, not for others. It says only that the district became a part of Novgorod Okrug of Leningrad Oblast in August 1927. I don't have a date of establishment for Demyansky District offhand, but for similarly worded Starorussky District the actual establishment date is July 18, 1927 (and I did provide a source for it). Could you, please, review this part once again? Was the August 1 date perhaps from some other source you did not cite? Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 30, 2012; 16:04 (UTC)
This is a bit complicated and detailed on page 39 of my source. My understanding is that there was first a decree issued on July 18, where the districts in Northwestern Oblast were defined, and then another one from August 1, where the oblast was renamed Leningradskaya, and the districts were actually formed. The reform finally was enabled on October 1, 1927. Sources like [4] mention August, 1927 explicitly. I do not care so much whether we decide that the districts were formed on July 18, August 1, or October 1, but we need to pick up one date and be consistent. Currently everything is set to August 1. The issue is related to about a hundred of articles (Novgorod, Pskov, Vologda oblasts, and all localities I edited).--Ymblanter (talk) 16:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thanks. I think I had a similar problem with Murmansk Oblast. Let me do some background reading about this as well, and in the meanwhile I'm going to leave the August 1 date alone. Thanks again.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 30, 2012; 16:28 (UTC)
Great. If you decide we need to change the date, pls let me know.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm back sooner than expected :) Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but it seems that July 18 is more correct. I've looked at the text of the actual August 1, 1927 resolution ("О границах и составе округов Ленинградской области"), and all it does is list the districts and the okrugs to which those districts belong. The Resolution does not explicitly establish any districts; it merely lists them under corresponding okrugs. That, on its own, does not mean much, because that same Resolution is the source for the date of establishment of Murmansk Okrug districts, but in that case there was no other document establishing those districts prior to August 1, so August 1 can safely be considered the date on which the districts of Murmansk Okrug were established. The Resolution is also confusing in that it consists of two parts: part one lists the territories of which former uyezds and volosts are to become parts of the okrugs, and part two actually lists the districts corresponding to those territories (and to confuse the matter even further, part one was revoked in 1931).
With Novgorod Okrug, however, the source I have (one I used in the Starorussky District article) is a little more clear than the one you used. While, like your source, mine does state that the division of Novgorod Okrug into districts was finally approved by the August 1, 1927 Resolution, it also states that the districts of Novgorod and Borovich Okrugs were already established prior to that ("После рассмотрения ряда проектов на территории бывшей Новгородской губернии образовалось два округа — Новгородский и Боровичский и 32 района в них. Это деление было окончательно утверждено постановлением ВЦИК от 1 августа 1927 г."), and in the chapter dealing with Novgorod Okrug it gives the July 18, 1927 establishment date for both the okrug and its districts. In the district- and uyezd-specific sections, the establishment date is also consistently July 18, 1927 (in the Demyansky Uyezd section, for example, it says, verbatim, "По Постановлению ВЦИК от 18 июля 1927 г. в составе Новгородского округа образован Демянский район..."). Other districts are worded similarly, and that is the most direct statement I was able to find.
All in all, however, I don't want to rush into making changes right away—there will indeed be too many, and if I missed anything, it would only pile on more problems. When you have some time and inclination, would you be interested in double-checking the information above? If you find it correct, I'll be happy to assist you with making changes, of course. In the meanwhile, I'll continue with the Novgorod Oblast district articles as before, but I'll skip over this particular aspect. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 30, 2012; 17:17 (UTC)
Yes, indeed, it looks like we need to change it everywhere. Probably the best way would be to agree on the text (for instance, whether we want to mention Northwestern Oblast), and then to perform mass replacements.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just forgot one thing. Are you planning to add sometime the lists of selsoviets/volosts and municipal settlements to the articles on districts of Vologda, Novgorod and eventually other oblasts? Right now we do not even have lists of urban settlements, which means they are sometimes difficult to find: One needs to know that the links are in the articles on administrative divisions.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am definitely planning to add them, but it's moving slower than I anticipated. First of all, I want to put the urban okrugs, cities of federal subject significance, the districts, and all possible high-level interactions between them in order (and I'm about half done with that task). After that I'm planning to tackle the urban settlements and their corresponding administrative divisions (i.e., towns of district significance and the urban-type settlements). All in all, however, I don't believe having separate articles for urban settlements is beneficial, just like having separate articles for urban okrugs is seldom beneficial. What little can be said about the urban okrugs can be easily covered in the article about the cities (with a few quirky exceptions here), and the same goes for the urban settlements (the most valuable piece of information about which is their composition, and that can be covered in one section in the article about corresponding town/urban-type settlements). The various "XXX Urban Okrug"s and "YYY Urban Settlement"s should, of course, be redirects to corresponding administrative divisions whenever there is a 1:1 match (which is most of the time; here's an example) or only a small difference (which is most of the rest of the time).
That said, if you think there are things I'm not seeing and which would be best presented in a standalone article, please let me know.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 30, 2012; 19:20 (UTC)
I think it is ok to not have separate articles about urban settlements, at least in most of the cases. What I do not like is that currently even urban-type settlements are not mentioned, for instance the article of Plyussky District does not link to Zaplyusye. But this is not urgent, and if you are doing this work, I am perfectly fine with waiting for several more months. Anyway, probably the two of us are all who care about these articles anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Probably :) And believe you me, I'm itching to get to work on organizing the smaller towns, urban-type settlements, and selsoviets and their corresponding municipal units. What I previously found the hard way, however, is that when you rush to do interesting work, it will come back and bite half your ass off if the preliminary tedious steps aren't taken care of first :) In this case, taking care of the urban okrugs, larger cities, and districts will really make working on smaller divisions much easier in the long run. And even with only a half of upper divisions done, it is already easier to track and properly update high-level changes. I only wish I had a turbo button to finish this sooner :) Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 30, 2012; 19:44 (UTC)
Coming back to the July 18 foundation date question, if I make corrections in the district articles and provide sources (similar to what I did with Starorussky District), would you be able to proliferate those changes to other, non-district articles? Anyway, I'll probably do a run separate from my overall review of the Novgorod Oblast districts. I still want to read up on this and to double-check everything before starting. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 30, 2012; 20:42 (UTC)
Yes, sure, I will be able to do it. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are totaly wrong Ymblanter! He is mentioned in those articles! If you can russian, there is no problem to read and check! --Lukoshkov (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Responded at your talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please, check it by yourself, if you can russian. Two articles are just about him, and in another one he and his creative work is mentioned among other famous people from Shenkursk! --Lukoshkov (talk) 16:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. Everything works when I click on them. --Lukoshkov (talk) 16:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, now I understand you. But I think it is good to have them, because Lukoshkov studied in Leningrad, those painting schools. He is a "product" of that Leningrad school of painting and represents Leningrad school.--Lukoshkov (talk) 18:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, understand. I will remove the link to Ivanov's article. --Lukoshkov (talk) 19:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! You were right! Thanks for help! Sergei--Lukoshkov (talk) 19:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By the way. Can you remove some tags? I think that the article looks much better now, than before. Sergei --Lukoshkov (talk) 20:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is too early, it is not written in proper English and needs in some copyediting. I will work on it in the coming days.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I would appreciate your help! Sergei --Lukoshkov (talk) 20:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ymblanter. You've promised to help with english grammar and tags. When can you do it?
Hi Ymblanter. When can you remove the tags from Lukoshkov's page/article? Everything is ok now.--Lukoshkov (talk) 23:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not ok. It needs copyediting. However, I do not like pressure like this and I suggest you ask an independent user to evaluate whether the tags are in place.--Ymblanter (talk) 04:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. But anyway thank you very much for your help! Sincerely yours, Sergei --Lukoshkov (talk) 18:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Ymblanter, for !voting at my successful RFA; I am humbled that you put your trust in me. I grant you this flower, which, if tended to properly, will grow to be the fruit of Wikipedia's labours. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...RfAs, how do you feel about being nominated for adminship here on en_wiki? I'll be happy to nom you, if you are interested. You've certainly been around here long enough, and WikiProject Russia could always use another active admin to do janitorial work (which, as you know, we have plenty of). Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 5, 2012; 16:20 (UTC)
Thanks, but it is too early now. I can even foresee what I would get on RfA: too short period of activity in Wikipedia space; few AfDs closed; few conflicts, it is impossible to determine how I would behave in a difficult situation; insufficient AVI activity and so on. I have no chances for the next half a year at least. And, in addition, you know, I have been an admin already for three years, and I know it is hardly a pleasant or rewarding activity, so that I can definitely survive for half a year more without the tools. It is a pity indeed to see that there is a lot of janitorial work nobody is interested in, but at this point this is the reality we need to face. I will have your suggestion in mind and contact you when/if I decide I want to stand an RfA. Thanks again.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand (although not necessarily agree with every point). Anyway, when/if you are ready, just holler me. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 5, 2012; 16:33 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know that I'm done with the basics of the Leningrad Oblast districts. I'm planning to do Pskov Oblast next; as per your previous request.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 6, 2012; 14:16 (UTC)
Came across your edits to Materialization (paranormal), noticed your facility with Russian, and wondered of you might review the Wolf Messing article, particularly the material cited to "Oreshkin". Thanks - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will check it, but possibly tomorrow, I am on European time.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid, I can not do anything since none of the sources is online. Technika Molodyozhi was an interesting journal which often published unusual material, but they often published utter bs.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Yaroslav, I noticed you added some pictures to the Belgian monuments lists from the Commons unused photo categories. If I click on the French or Dutch equivalents of the monuments list I see other pictures. How are you doing the updates? Do you have a bot or something? Is there any way to synchronize all three lists so they always include all photos? It seems like so much work to do by hand! Thanks in any case for your efforts so far, Jane (talk) 20:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jane. I have this page (created at some point by Maarten) in my watchlist, and every day I take one or two monuments and place them to the lists according to the index. If there are multiple pictures of the same monument, I just chhose one I like. I did not try to syncronize the pictures (there is a similar problem with Switzerland, where we have lists in four languages), but I am not sure this is really necessary: In the end of the day, all of the slots will be filled by pictures, and as soon as pictures represent monuments correctly, it is not so important which ones we pick up. But I do not have strong opinions on this point: If you think it is better to syncronize, I can syncronize, no problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK thanks for your quick reply! I can imagine the problem is huge for Switzerland. I was just curious how you were doing it, and when you say "In the end of the day, all of the slots will be filled by pictures", do you mean that when all of the bot-magic is done at the end of WLM all the pictures will be in all lists, or do you mean that someone somewhere has put these in by hand? I assumed it was going to be done by bot, which is why I stopped working on the lists. I didn't want to create empty lists and wanted to wait until the lists were filled, but they still seem empty. Jane (talk) 21:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, my understanding is that the lists can not be filled by bot, they should be filled manually. Manually we can fill them either taking pictures from other language versions (when I have a bit more time, which does not happen so often, I even search for commons categories and choose the picture I like), or based on these pages which Maarten creates and maintains by bot. If you tell me what lists you created I can also put pictures into these.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I created all the lists in Category:Lists of protected heritage sites in Wallonia, which is just the tip of the iceberg. I had an excel template which broke due to someone else renaming the lists, so I will have to dig into my archive to fix it first. Maybe next week. Jane (talk) 06:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I believe these are exactly the lists I am filling in. (And lists for Flanders have not been created).--Ymblanter (talk) 06:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just finished creating the lists for Liege - I will try to finish up Wallonia and then start in on Flanders. Jane (talk) 13:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great. I tried to translate Dutch lists, but translating from a non-mother-tongue to a non-mother-tongue goes very slowly, I do not know how long would it take.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Transfiguration Church in Kovalyovo DYK question[edit]
Actually, I did not nominate it and this is the first time I hear about the nomination, but I will have a look, thanks for letting me know.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now I see, that was your nomination. Thanks, I will look for the info.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for asking me to have a look at your article, which is very interesting. I am no expert on architecture (I have just written too many church articles), and am not much of a copyeditor either. But I have made a few changes, which I hope make it a little easier for natural English readers. If you do not like any of my changes, please revert them.
Just some comments.
The words "Novgorod" and "Balcan" are unfamiliar to the English. Are there any links that would clarify them?
You refer to the dead Jesus being in a "coffin". I'm not sure what that means; perhaps it is something in the Christian Orthodox tradition. So far as I know, Jesus was placed lying in a tomb ( a cave-like structure rather than any sort of container). So for the Western Christian reader, the word "coffin" seems a bit odd.
If you wish to reply, please do so on this page. I shall be watching it, and its keeps any discussion in one place. I do not see any significant problem at DYK, and it should earn you a "medal". Best wishes. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the changes and suggestions. I inserted the links. For coffin vs tomb, my understanding is that this is indeed an Eastern Orthodox tradition, and I can not even properly translate it (ru:Не рыдай Мене, Мати), but putting "tomb" should be safe anyway, so that I have also changed this.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well done for rescuing that article. I remain concerned about the addition of these geographic stub articles - as you pointed out in the AFD discussion a number of critical details in this article were originally incorrect. I've no idea how many more basic errors exist in the stubs which were added at the same time. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid they need to be investigated on the one by one basis.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's obvious that Russian people ..they don't know their own history ...not to speak about the 2 main things which characterize Russians : Idiots and bad roads.
YESTERDAY I've came from Vologda !!!...This museum is PART as "Vologda territory" because is couple of km away, in the middle on nowhere !
to which region belongs ?
UFO ????
I've been there this week and I've spend 3-4 days in Cherepovets and Volodga !
You don't have any ideea about your geography or history of your country !
Go and study ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.146.196.162 (talk) 12:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do have ideas, and much better than you do. The ethnographic museum is in Semyonkovo, which is Vologda District, not Vologda. I will revert your edits now.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
True, but until all the stats are updated, there should be a note to explain the discrepancies. Also, the most recent change always sparks some temporary interest, so it makes sense to leave the paragraph in for a while. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 9, 2012; 16:36 (UTC)
This is fine, and this is why I did not actually removed the par. However, we need to handle the transfer consistently. What I can do it to update the articles on Troitsk, Shcherbinka, and Moskovsky (I would also remove them from the MO template). Yeaterday, I created articles on Troitsky Administrative Okrug and Novomoskovsky Administrative Okrug, and now we need to update Administrative divisions of Moscow - I would not know how to make the tables since I do not quite understand what subdivisions are - are settlements going to stay? Is there some other division? The rest I guess is not urgent - some minor geographical issues like the Pakhra River which now suddenly flows through Moscow.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually going to handle the transfer consistently myself, but ran into a snag. When a merger or other similar change occurs, I usually wait until all pertinent laws are amended and updated (in this case, it's the administrative-territorial laws of Moscow and Moscow Oblast, and the municipal laws of the affected Moscow Oblast's districts), but the oblast bureaucrats sure take their sweet time—Moscow Oblast laws are still in their old condition as of today, even though Moscow's laws have already been amended! How typical...
Anyway, based on what we have now, the settlements are most certainly here to stay (they are considered a new type of administrative unit in Moscow, and on par with the districts), but I'd wait till all corresponding laws are properly amended before doing a grand re-design. That's not to say you are not welcome in the meanwhile to take on this task if you want to, but I'm certain we'll have to return to this whether we do changes now or not (so might as well not do it in order not to waste time). The top-level articles are in more or less acceptable condition now, so it's just a bunch of low-level stuff that needs tweaking. I'm planning to take a generic approach (like here) until all the legal framework is in place.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 9, 2012; 17:20 (UTC)
Ok, let me then handle the three towns (to avoid having outdated information), and then occasionally low-level stuff; the rest can wait until the laws have been amended.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You posted at one wikiproject, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, about the current AFD about North Dakota historic sites. I think that the topic is more relevant to North Dakota editors, and I don't think there are any active North Dakotans involved at WikiProject NRHP. The topic does not belong to the NRHP editors, who, besides me, seem to have a lot of antipathy about North Dakota articles. Why not post at the North Dakota wikiproject? --doncram 13:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A good idea. I will post there as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please refrain from placing a photo of the Theodore Eldridge House in the spot for the Henry P. Fennern House. It's obviously not the correct picture. The Eldridge house is in east Davenport and the photo is already there. Thank you. Farragutful (talk) 21:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. It just means that the picture (on Commons) possibly has a wrong template on it. I was taking pictures from this page. For now, I will stop working on this page and place missing photos in the lists, I have done the bulk of the work, and for the rest, one needs an expert.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll check the pic out. I did remove it from that list as I didn't realize it was there until later. I'll look for that expert. Thanks. Farragutful (talk) 23:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why undoing me by calling sock ? Irontaker (talk) 17:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You exposed yourself anyway by choosing this username and leaving the second edit on the popular page. You may as well leave a message at ANI asking to block you.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Phallus. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 23:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interlanguage wikipedia link within artile discussion[edit]
Some Chinese Wikipedian told me, English Wikipedia is a improper place to discuss this issue. I closed the discussion and moved to meta. Please continue the discussion in meta.--王小朋友 (talk) 08:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My fault entirely - I took about 300 pix in Philly, so I guess I'm not ashamed that Pubdog has now found 2 photos of the wrong building (there may be a third!). The one he found here is older, and much better looking than the correct building next to it! Smallbones (talk) 15:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Btw it is already the second time I get asked to stop adding wrong pictures, and my impression is that what is left at the unused images pages somehow needs attention of experts - preferably before September 1st, because after that date it will get flooded by WLM photos. I am afraid at this stage (about 50 images) I can not help anymore - though I will try my best to help in September.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have approved your request. Do keep up the excellent content work as well though :) You may also wish to consider helping out with the backlogs at NPP and AfC. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am a regular visitor at NPP, removing couple of dozen articles per day from the back of the queue. I will check AfC since I believe I have never been at that page. Thanks for the suggestions and also for the flag.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi i think i addressed your questions on the Maximus page. thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peggyo11 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. This is indeed how I see it.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Ymblanter/2012! The instructors at the Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy have seen your hard work reverting vandalism, and we would like to thank you. But do you want to go to the next level? Would you like to know how reverts, warnings, reports, blocks, and bans all come together to keep this Encyclopedia free from disruption? Then consider enrolling today! ElectricCatfish 23:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the notice.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For your excellent prolific quality edits on Russian articles. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, much appreciated.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you check the translation from ru wiki for Ogdo Yegorovna Aksenov? I will try to source it afterwards. Regards♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but not immediately - sitting in a middle of a workshop. Will do it withing the next couple of days.--Ymblanter (talk) 03:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the Bucks pond photo from the NRHP county list because I think it is a copyvio. I guess I should start the AfD at Commons, though I've always let others do that in the past. Thanks for keeping up with this list. I've got to figure out a way to clean it up without putting copyvios, etc. into the county lists. Will contact Multichill again.
Indeed, I should have checked this before placing the photo to the list. I nominated it now for deletion. Thanks for letting me know. The page is in my watchlist, and I will certainly help in September, but we need more people - we can as well get several dozens or even hundreds new monuments every day, and they are going to land to this page every morning (every night for the US).--Ymblanter (talk) 14:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It may be trivial but you might be interested in the following pic I took as an experiment in using my cellphone camera yesterday. The photo itself is bad, but it is on a NRHP site! File:Please do not block the driveway.jpegSmallbones(smalltalk) 17:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The photo itself may be not bad, but definitely not suitable for inclusion to the lists, since it would block the real images from the site from showing up at the unused images page. I think this is one of our problems.--Ymblanter (talk) 23:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You started to delete the Official Video I had posted, then offered to discuss. So discuss. What do you think is wrong here? Trackinfo (talk) 22:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since your connection is sketchy right now, please drop me a note on my talk when you are able to reply. Trackinfo (talk) 22:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem I see is that we have several dozens direct links to a commercial website. It might be nothing wrong with it per se, but it would be better to discuss it on one of the Village pumps.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is a different perspective than I was expecting. I guess if you consider the Olympics a commercial entity, then yes this is their site. However, we treat the Olympics as a global news event. It is the definitive standard for athlete notability in a whole self-created category of sports. We cover it extensively, which essentially transitions it from a hugely commercial event, into news coverage. If you watch the commons area, you will find the IOC is extremely protective of their copyright, even (exceeding their rights, in my opinion) claiming to own the rights to private photos taken inside the stadium. Some wiki super-editors are choosing to recognize those rights and are deleting lots of valuable content donated by private photographers. Here, however, is actual content that the copyright holding organization HAS released to public viewing. And its actual video of the events we are reporting on, the exact subject of the article. In that regard, I think it is completely appropriate to link to that publicly viewable content. If you were to take the stance that the Olympics is a commercial entity, then that leads to a slippery slope where we should just delete all mention of the Olympics, or just a very limited article describing what it is and what its products are (like we treat other commercial entities). And we should do the same thing to the NFL and other major sports. If we remove all content from commercial entities, just because they are a commercial entity, I think we will find the majority of the population would find such an omission of content to be horribly irresponsible on wikipedia's part. Now if you want to take this discussion to some wikipedia back room, my opinion of that microscopic minority view of wikipedia could (as it already has happened too many times) result in some absolutely psychotic decision or edict. As of this moment, you are the only person who seems to see a problem. If your issue is with youtube, because they insert commercials before their content (they,google, do need to make money) then you would suggest we remove every link to every source that has commercial purposes? Yahoo, Google, New York Times, practically every newspaper or aggregator, or any source that isn't POV pushing (the POV being their commercial product, as in most anything associated to American politics) . . . Same thing, the global logic is flawed and not practical. Trackinfo (talk) 09:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my issue is with youtube. I would probably not be too fond of the link to the IOC or the Olympics website, but I could live with that. Again, if I am the only one, it is fine, but I do not know how to know this. I suggest again to open a Village pump topic. If there is consensus for inclusion, I will go with the consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back! Hope you had a productive trip. As you've probably noticed, I'm following up on my promise to review the foundation dates of the Novgorod Oblast districts. For now, I've set them all to October 1, 1927; as per page 85 of Snytko. I've also reverted my July 18 addition to Starorussky District. That date is mentioned by Gelman for Demyansky, Krestetsky, Malovishersky, and Starorussky Districts, and it is backsourced to a July 18, 1927 VTsIK Resolution; however, I was unable to find its text. Gelman's book overall is not very specific about numerous important details, so I thought for now it's better to use a clear source (Snytko) and re-examine this issue once the text of the Resolution becomes available. Sorry about all the confusion!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 31, 2012; 18:04 (UTC)
Thanks, I think this is for the time being a perfectly fine solution.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing: I saw that at some point you started to add categories of the territories founded in year xxx, and then stopped doing this. I generall thing the categories are a good idea and plan to add them to the existing articles on districts, oblasts, and governborates, but pls let me know if there was a good reason why you changed your mind.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
About the cats, no, I haven't changed my mind; they are indeed useful. It's just that when I do my rounds, there is a specific set of edits I make in each article included into those rounds. There's also a bunch of minor things which I add if I remember; those include adding accents and names in local languages, making sure date/spelling formats are consistent, and yes, adding the establishment cats. So if you see me miss some, it most likely means that I got busy with the main edits and forgot about the cats. Please, by all means add them to the articles I missed. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 31, 2012; 19:27 (UTC)
Good, I will make a round.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For your excellent prolific quality edits on Russian articles. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, much appreciated.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you check the translation from ru wiki for Ogdo Yegorovna Aksenov? I will try to source it afterwards. Regards♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but not immediately - sitting in a middle of a workshop. Will do it withing the next couple of days.--Ymblanter (talk) 03:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carole Bamford[edit]
Hi. I noticed you uploaded some pics of historical buildings in Casper, Wyoming. It's nice to know that someone else realizes what few photos there are of Casper on Wikimedia! I'm wondering, though, how come you didn't get a shot of the Townsend Hotel, as it's right next to the Masonic Temple downtown? Chevsapher (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to disappoint, but the pictures are not mine. They were just uploaded by someone during the Wiki Lives Monuments contest, and I merely added them to the articles. It might very well be that the shot of the Townsend Hotel also was uploaded, but did not make it to the article yet. We have a straight production line, and it the picture is there, it normally gets to the article next day.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, that makes much more sense. I should have guessed. Thanks for implementing them on the proper articles, though! Chevsapher (talk) 16:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Sorry that I could not find time for the full-scale review, I am involved with WLM in September and also busy with my work till Christmas.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm new to wikipedia so sorry if my question appears to be stupid. Thanks for helping to categorify my recently uploaded file http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lamp_post_MSU_1.jpg However, you removed the Cultural heritage number that I assigned to it, with comment "different building". Did you mean that this entry: http://kulturnoe-nasledie.ru/monuments.php?id=7710451001 does not refer to the Main Building of the Moscow State Uni, but to smth different? That seems unlikely to me, because two adjacent buildings, the Faculties of Chemistry and Physics, are also enlisted in Cultural Heritage. Thanks for your help, Dima Heuschrecke 12:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. What they mean by the "new" building is the building complex on Mokhovaya Street (formerly Prospekt Marksa). This is obvious from both the address and the construction year. I still need to check whether the new building (Vorovyovy Gory) is a recognized heritage monument. If this is the case, I will insert the correct number to the pictures. Thanks for the files, they are really pretty. The new building is still protected by the author rights and can not be uploaded to Commons, but for your files we can argue it is de minimis, since the posts are the main focus.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it does not seem to be in the database. It could still be protected though since the database is incomplete and contains a lot of errors.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your detailed anwer! All the best, Heuschrecke (talk) 12:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ярослав, вы только редактировали статью, я вспомнил одну вещь. Когда-то я все страны СНГ кроме Белоруссии в раздел 90 дней отправил, потом, правда, пришёл аноним и всё обратно. Понятно, вы не юрист, но у меня чисто мнение спросить. По закону все граждане СНГ кроме Белоруссии безвизово могут находиться только 90 дней, потом они должны покинуть Россию. В этом отношении они вряд ли отличаются от, например, граждан Турции. Так что они вряд ли подходят под раздел "Unlimited period". Им единственное послабление, что для граждан СНГ нет системы «90 из 180», и они могут проще получить разрешение на работы (другим вроде нужна специальная виза). Так что мне наверно всё-таки вернуть всё? Или я не прав?--Luboslov Yezykin (talk) 00:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Да, я думаю, надо вернуть. По-моему, Вы совершенно правы.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[5] Do you mean Yaroslav Blanter, apparently your former persona? Sorry mate, but here, in English Wikipedia, the late Yaroslav Blanter with his track of administering and interaction unlikely could be elected to the Arbitration Committee. You make a mistake dismissing all that you said then as a "trash". Certainly, Yaroslav Blanter was excellent in driving away trolls and deterring nationalistic PoV pushers, but not in anything about conflicts between established, non-PoV-pushing users. I see that you come to help, in your best faith, but I do not need it. Not because I am upset about you – past conflicts in ru.wikipedia are far away now. Just because I do not need defenders. I never hid myself behind loyal followers, and never rallied the people to defend my person, like you did in 2009–2010. I am glad that you eventually abandoned all this and started a new life. See you later and good luck! Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you may happen to remember that at those election I still got more than 80% votes. Anyway, since I am not going to return there it is irrelevant. I am afraid you DO need defenders in the current situation, since the ANI discussion is well on track to at least a topic ban which I believe is not an optimum decision.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To a topic ban? Don't be paranoid. Look at WP: Editing restrictions: most of residents are PoV pushers or, al least, persons which are really uncollaborative. I do not believe that a couple of angry waste-makers and policy trolls together with few (legitimate) users which were upset about my remarks and are not willing to present grievances to me directly, all have a sufficient power to invoke a topic restriction. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we will see. Not that I care so much, frankly speaking. After I have unwatched WikiProject:Physics, I do not think we have any overlap in the articles.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did not have any problems with you in articles. Did you have any, with me? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I still think the creation of a disambig in place of Discrete spectrum was a wrong decision, which may be good from the perspective of a mathematician, but clearly contradicts to the textbook material from the point of view of a physicist. On the other hand, I have so many discussions on physics in my real life, that I did not want to fight also for my hobby, and just decided to quit the topic.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I contributed to the cockup in Discrete spectrum initiating that ill-fated discussion; now I understand that your position was the right one and there was no need to touch anything given consequences which Wikipedia has now in Discrete spectrum (physics). But it was not me who started actual manipulations; I only attempted to mitigate the awful dab page when it already was created. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know. After the discussion resulted in the splitting of the article, I unwatched WikiProject:Physics, and I do not know what happened next. I also never contributed to the article, it is not of my direct interest.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it works for a minute without any result. I generally have a pretty good connection.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, and I've been getting a weird "too many users are trying to view this page" error for the past few hours. Anyway, thanks for checking.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 24, 2012; 16:53 (UTC)
Please be careful adding images to NRHP pages[edit]
You twice added the same image to National Register of Historic Places listings in Worcester County, Massachusetts, once after I reverted you. The image was clearly incorrect, since it was labeled (by the photographer, whose descriptions are generally quite accurate) as being in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, and also did not depict a church (which was the subject of the listing). The NRHP listing for the church had the wrong reference number. Please take care that when you make these contributions using images that aren't yours that they actually make sense. Thanks. Magic♪piano 13:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. This is strange, since I added hundreds of images which are not mine (and dozens which are mine), and I always check them. Anyway, I will see what can be done with the image.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixing the number in the list should have solved the problem. Will see tomorrow.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Photo Changes in National_Register_of_Historic_Places_listings_in_Colorado[edit]
Ymblanter, I uploaded photos of Sim Hudson Motor Company, one of which (I think) you used in National_Register_of_Historic_Places_listings_in_Colorado. But I had the wrong NRHP reference number on the photo so it went to the wrong entry. I have corrected the reference numbers in the photographs, moved the photo you had used from Flagler Hospital to Sim Hudson Motor Company, and linked to a just uploaded photograph of Flagler Hospital for that entry. I'm new to editing and hope I've done all this correctly.Eric (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Eric, from what I see, everything seems to be fine.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the depth of your comment at the AfD (alongside changing mine) for clarity. I hope this isn't an issue, IRWolfie- (talk) 12:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, thanks--Ymblanter (talk) 12:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Yaroslav! Just wanted to clarify about this district, after seeing your most recent edit. Leningrad Oblast's law on the administrative-territorial divisions is somewhat similar to Pskov Oblast's, in that it defines the administrative divisions via the municipal divisions. The law was adopted in June 2010, but the OKATO section dealing with the cities of oblast significance of Leningrad Oblast has remained unchanged since 1999 (so it's quite outdated—it's actually based on the old 1994 law). As per the current law, the only town which is not a part of any district is Sosnovy Bor (since it's the only urban okrug in the oblast). Same goes for the volosts—they were established in the 1994 law, but the 2010 law no longer recognizes them. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 24, 2012; 13:25 (UTC)
I see. Could you then please cross-check the articles Boksitogorsky District, Boksitogorsk and Yefimovsky to check the divisions and the references? I think I will manage to do the others (provided we have just one law for the whole oblast).--Ymblanter (talk) 13:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look. As for the law, there's only one that deals with the administrative-territorial divisions, but the municipal laws are entity-specific (there's one for every district, except for Vsevolozhsky and Vyborgsky Districts, which for whatever reason are covered in the same law).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 24, 2012; 14:27 (UTC)
Good, thank you very much.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have your changes automatically accepted on pending changes level 2 protected pages, and
Administrate article feedback.
Please remember that this user right:
Can be removed at any time for misuse, and
Does not grant you any special status above other editors.
You should probably also read WP:PROTECT, since this user privilege deals largely with page protection. As the requirements for this privilege are still in a state of flux, I would encourage you to keep up to date on the WP:REVIEWER page. Feel free to ask me if you have any questions! Happy editing! Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your restoring the conversions, can you do it for the rest of the article? (Am not familiar with the formatting myself.) Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 17:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, will do it in twenty minutes when I get home.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Уважаемый коллега! По истории упомянутой статьи я вижу, что Вы следите за этой статьей и активно противодействуете внесению в нее недостоверной информации и превращению ее в пиарный материал. В связи с этим хочу обратить Ваше внимание на некоторые материалы по аналогичной статье в русскоязычной Википедии:
Надеюсь, что эти материалы дадут Вам дополнительную пищу для размышлений относительно истинного предназначения этой статьи. --Grig siren (talk) 10:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Да, я это видел. Здесь я открыл тему на форуме по конфликту интересов, Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Marianna Yarovskaya, но она сейчас уйдёт в архив, а никакой реакции там нет. Она, когда ей что-то не нравится, статью просит стереть как основной автор, а потом воссоздаёт с очередного сокпаппета в иденточном виде.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Увидев ситуацию, открыл обсуждение на СО страницы. With regards, Oleg. Y. (talk). 06:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Спасибо. Я написал Risker.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Broadwell[edit]
Hi. Thanks for tidying this up. That's what I get for messing around with a manual close and failing to properly follow instructions! Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 13:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ymblanter! You helped me a while ago with a Russian geography article Pay-Khoy Ridge. I was wondering if you have some time to find some more information on the Molodo river. Keep up the great work! --Tobias1984 (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, will do now.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks really great! Your the best! --Tobias1984 (talk) 19:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the edit. However, I have one question, how can the name Amar Mitra refer to Amar Mitra Perriredy? The link for Amar Mitra was created from the Sahitya Akademi List of Award Winners where some one has created an article for Amar Mitra Perrireddy. Now, I being an Indian have never heard of Amar Mitra Perrireddy. While, Amar Mitra (writer) is an acclaimed writer in my mother tongue Bengali. However, there are not many sources on him in the net, may be due to lack of information on Bengali Literature. Please help, this disambiguation page is only required if there were two Amar Mitras. However, we find only one, the other one carries a different name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamikbangla (talk • contribs) 18:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are indeed two Amar Mitras, and one of them is Amar Mitra Peddireddy (of whom we have an article). The fact that you or I never heard of him is irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that if there is an article, he is presumably notable, and then somebody can be looking for him. The situation when somebody is looking for him but gets to the other article instead, is not really acceptable. I see two further ways to deal with the situation. First, if you think Amar Mitra Perriredy is not notable, please nominate this article for deletion. If it gets deleted, the disambig should be transformed into a redirect to the other article. If you think he is still notable, but a vast majority of searches would lead to the writer (i.e. the writed is "much more notable" than the politician), nominate the disambig for deletion. It then could be transformed into a redirect, and in the article about the writer we could att a hatnote directing to Amar Mitra Peddireddy.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can stop bringing that block up, because it is irrevlant to the situation.
Proof Galstyan isn't an Armenian citizen is more neccessary than proof otherwise because termination of former citizenship isn't required. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 14:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. To me it looked like complete nonsense, but still I should not have been lazy and do it myself (as I usually do).--Ymblanter (talk) 16:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your recent contributions to the Beijing Subway articles. They are much appreciated. 非常感谢！ Azylber (talk) 19:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. More pictures are coming.--Ymblanter (talk) 00:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the next few weeks we're going to have dozens new stations to take photos of, when line 6 opens and all the new stations on lines 10, 8 and 9 open. Let's divide the work or something! Which line(s) are easier for you? 6, 8, 9 or 10? Azylber (talk) 14:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am only here till Dec 30, and my understanding is that 6, 9, and 10 are still not open. I have the complete set of 8 (north of outh Gate of Forest Park), need to post-process, probably will upload tomorrow. I planned to take 15, Changping, Daxing, 9 and Fangshan before I leave (the rest of what is open now I took two years ago). If I have no time, 9 and Dangshan have lower priority. I did not yet check what is available (may be those line all have photos). If 6, 10, connection of 9, and the southern branch of 8 get open before Dec 30 these become for me high priority.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All the new stations are supposed to open on the 28th, but you hear a lot of people saying they're going to open on the 31st. Either way, I think it's a bit too late for you.Azylber (talk) 14:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
28th is still fine, I have my flight on 30th afternoon. Then I will try to take what I wanted to before 28, and see whether the new station open. I live close to Zhichunli, so that the west part of 10 and the south part of 8 will be my first priority. I will post here what I managed to take. (I can also do it elsewhere, if you point me a good place).--Ymblanter (talk) 14:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's great, because I'm near to Ping'anli, so I can very easily do 9 & 6 Azylber (talk) 13:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great, let's keep in touch. The north part of 8 is already in the articles.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
15 and Daxing done, will upload after post-processing.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I saw all the recent photos, they're looking great! I'll go on my photo rampage of line 6 and the new stations of line 9 as soon as they open! By the way, I got back to Beijing last night. Oh, and congratulations on the survival of Genrikh Graftio Azylber (talk) 08:31, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have got now three days more or less free, but the weather is not really inviting, so I will try to do Changping tomorrow, and then I am going to wait for the opening. If they open on 28, I do what I can, if not - may be I walk to Beijing West and then take 9 + Fangshan on Saturday.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:35, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Please check your email, I'm going to Haidian Huangzhuang now.
Hello, Ymblanter. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I have made photos of Changping line, and, if I got it right, there was in the news that 10 and 6 are open. I will go in the city now anyway, if everything is fine, will take pictures as well (10 is the top priority, 6 only if I have more time).--Ymblanter (talk) 01:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, all of them are still closed. Will see tomorrow.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think now they're supposed to open on Sunday. But information all the information I've seen is very inconsistent, so X3! Azylber (talk) 07:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I saw some people today, who tried to cross to Line 6, Line 9 on the National Library (the trains are arriving there, but they do not let anybody to board the train) or to take 10 beyond Bagou. Anyway, I personally do not have so many options. If some of the stations will open tomorrow, I will try to take as many pictures as possible. If they do not, I will do 9 and Fangshan, the only open stations I have no photographs of. In this case, on Sunday I will check Line 8 and may be northern part of Line 10 on my way to the airport. In any case, Sunday night I will post what results I have by then.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks indeed like Sunday afternoon. I have my flight at 14:30, so that it will be without me. [6]--Ymblanter (talk) 09:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a shame! Thank you very much for all the great photos you've taken. I will try to take the rest next week Azylber (talk) 10:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Today, I made photos of the existing part of Line 9 plus the first two stations of Fangshan Line (up to Daotian). I will check tomorrow Line 8 on my way to the airport, just in case, but most likely it will still be closed. If it is open, I will post the results here on Monday.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Line 8 was open in the morning, only two stations out of three, and I have taken pictures of those.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Line 10 complete! Except for the 2 stations that haven't opened yet! They're supposed to open in May Azylber (talk) 17:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks. We also need to categorize the photos on Commons, but I can do it later, there is no rush. So we only have Line 6, one station on 9 and a part of Fagshan Line left?--Ymblanter (talk) 17:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes damn I forgot about Baiduizi station on Line 9!! I suppose I can do it when the Military Museum opens for Line 9. Aa regards Line 6, Chinese people have been adding photos of many of the stations in the Chinese Wikipedia, and I've been bringing them to the English articles. But I suppose it will still be necessary to go and take all the photos for the missing ones. Fangshan Line I have no idea Azylber (talk) 17:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion nomination of Genrikh Graftio[edit]
Hello Ymblanter,
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Genrikh Graftio for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.
Me again! It would be super nice of you, if you could add some soviet encyclopedia info to Chinge River. Thank you for being such an incredible go-to-guy. --Tobias1984 (talk) 15:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, will have a look later today.--Ymblanter (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be an obscure creek. I found a map and added some details to the article, but I am afraid at this point this is the only thing I can do.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good already. It will just sit there and wait for a editor from Tuva to come by and bring it to GA status :) --Tobias1984 (talk) 14:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done, pls check. You may also find this helpful for future work with tables.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very very much--Aryan wiki (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Transfiguration Church in Kovalyovo at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Maile66 (talk) 11:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
