User talk:BushelCandle/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

BushelCandle, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi BushelCandle! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Naypta (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Irish passport, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page EEA. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll go and see if I can disambiguate it. BushelCandle (talk) 02:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done BushelCandle (talk) 02:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Mistaken autoblock

I am not "TitanTG" and believe I am the innocent victim of a mistake.

This is pretty baffling because when I look at the contributions list of "TitanTG" there don't seem to be any contributions whatsoever!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TitanTG

(I've tried switching on and off my router several times now - which should change my IP address - but this has not restored my ability to contribute!) BushelCandle (talk) 22:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

This user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

BushelCandle (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

127.0.0.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

---

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "TitanTG". The reason given for TitanTG's block is: " You have been blocked indefinitely from editing, because this account has been used only for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to Wikipedia's content policy. Also, your username indicates that the account represents a business or other organisation or group, which is against Wikipedia's policy: an account is for an individual, not a group. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a free advertising service. If you intend to make useful contributions about some topic other than your business or organisation, you may request an unblock. To do so, post the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} at the bottom of this page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:CentralAuth to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy. Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In this reason, you must: Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked. Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked. If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.".

• Blocking administrator: Alexf (talk • blocks)

---

Accept reason: Good faith user caught in a block intended for someone else. PhilKnight (talk) 01:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting this whoopsy, PhilKnight. Can you solve the mystery of why someone who ostensibly has never made any contribution whatsoever should be blocked, please? BushelCandle (talk) 01:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

There was a deleted contribution. PhilKnight (talk) 01:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Wow!

It must have been a pretty heinous crime if the account was blocked for just one (deleted) edit... Is there a way to see the wicked edit or has it been oversighted?

Is there anything I can do to avoid being caught up in this autoblock again, please? BushelCandle (talk) 04:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Mail to Irish Times

Hi, just wanted to ask whether you mailed the Irish times regarding the passport card? I think it's highly important for the Irish authorities to understand that this pre-determined validity of only in the EU/EFTA doesn't help, but makes other countries reject it, which we have now seen in the US, Serbia, Hong Kong and now, most recently, Canada and Australia (I finally managed to contact these two and they said they won't accept the passport card)

All of these base their answer only on the artificial restriction stated on the web André Devecserii (talk) 10:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Pia Wurtzbach

You changed the formatting from mm/dd/yyyy to dd/mm/yyyy. If you are going to do this you must do it consistently throughout the article as per WP:CONSISTENCY. If you do not, I will, and I won't keep starting from scratch. Quis separabit? 04:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, if you examine my edits carefully you'll find that I didn't do so intentionally. There is a difference between the body text of an article (where I do agree that it's better that a consistent date style is adopted) and the references (where it's generally understood both that more latitude is given and that the dd/mm/yyyy or YYYYMMDD styles are less confusing than the - unusual by world standards - Korean/Philippines/US format). It's really no big deal so please don't lose important content by nitpicking reversions. --BushelCandle (talk) 04:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Identity document, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page EEA. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

You're right. I'll go and try and fix things right away. BushelCandle (talk) 00:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done BushelCandle (talk) 01:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Crowthorne, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Preparatory school. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Quite right. Thanks for noticing, but I've been beaten to the punch... BushelCandle (talk) 05:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Citation needed tag talk page

I'm sure you realise as well as I do why editing other people's remarks on a talk page is essentially VERY naughty and something we never do. NOT "offensive", or "inappropriate" perhaps, so much as fundamentally dishonest - with the best will in the world you are (potentially at least) making another person say something they didn't say. Talk page comments are really best made separately rather than in-line - and over your own signature. What someone else has said on a talk page is what they have said (for good or ill) and is not liable to be "corrected" by others (in contradistinction to the text of an article - which is nobody's property, and often needs editing). I was strongly tempted to revert your "corrections" to others' remarks (including mine) on the above page but have left them for the moment as your intent was so obviously good that it seemed churlish to meddle, but please, for all our sakes, don't start to make a habit of this sort of thing... --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Just to make clear what we're talking about: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ACitation_needed&type=revision&diff=712724846&oldid=712724207

If I was really trying to put words into another's mouth, I certainly wouldn't even dream of using the clear flag edit summary I did.

In this case, since the rest of your comments were well crafted and coherent I (wrongly?) assumed that this is what you would have written if you had been more careful.

Since nobody has responded yet (and what I added was actually written by you and doesn't change the meaning one iota), you really need to go back and edit your own comment so that it reads exactly the way you want it to - either by accepting my clear invitation to revert my edit or by just editing it to read the way you want it to.

Incidentally, I'm somewhat amazed you chose to use a new heading to section off your comment at all, since it is obviously pertinent to the discussion immediately above. BushelCandle (talk) 00:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nepalese New Zealanders, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nelson. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for my inattention. I've now disambiguated Nelson to Nelson, New Zealand.BushelCandle (talk) 19:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ati people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Negros. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed in this edit. Thanks for the notification! BushelCandle (talk) 21:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:ANI about MOS:Images

At WP:ANI, I reported a matter you have been involved in: See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Request for full protection of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images page. Permalink is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification.

I'm a bit surprised and disappointed that you didn't ask editors on the MoS page's discussion page simply to stop editing specific and exact sections until a consensus had been declared but I have now reverted to your minimum consensual version of 20:37, 26 January 2016 and I hope you will now allow discussion to continue and progress to be made. BushelCandle (talk) 03:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Bracket crimes perpetrated in January 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Order of Saint John (chartered 1888) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

My heartfelt apologies. I have now rectified my sins of commission, I hope... BushelCandle (talk) 04:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Yet more sins!

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Cutlery may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[Plastic]] cutlery is made for disposable use, and is frequently used outdoors for ([[camping]], [[excursion]]s, and [[barbecue]]s for instance; at [[fast food|fast-food]] or [[take-

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for watching my back - off to expatiate my crimes now... BushelCandle (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

For you reading, um. pleasure

User:EEng#Museum_of_Computer_Porn EEng 04:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

In Singapore, that teaser invitation would be actionable for raising false hopes... When I get my next airport delay and free Wi-Fi, I'll spend some time with that; thanks! BushelCandle (talk) 06:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Perturbing "Undoer"

Why have you undone my alteration to the article? It was all in good faith. ‎ --Whatshouldichoose (talk • contribs) 21:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

	Please Stop
	You consistently undo my positive changes. Whatshouldichoose (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks but, being fair, I might have to share your award with others:

• Twofortnights reverted and removed your "positive changes"
• removal of your "positive changes"
• Dima1 reverted and removed your "positive changes"
• Dima1 reverted and removed your "positive changes"
• Laurentiu Popa reverted and removed your "positive changes"

If you believe we're all wrong, why don't you explain the lustre of your pearls to the swine at Talk:Visa requirements for Romanian citizens ? BushelCandle (talk) 06:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Coupla things

• 'EEng made his "magnificent" proposal which I then implemented ... no substantial reversion occurred until some 2 days later with User:Flyer22 Reborn's reversion of 20:37, 26 January 2016' -- actually, part of (only a small part of) what's weird about all this is that that's not a reversion of the M.P. (mag prop), which was only about #Size -- it's a reversion of really trivial changes to #Location, and in fact all his reversions are to #Location changes -- none to #Size.
• Something you need to know -- you can't refer to diffs by their date+time stamps, because every editor sees the timestamps adjusted to his own timezone. I know that seems impossible, because the timestamps are literally there in the source wikitext, but as the pages are served up the software recognizes the particular pattern of a timestamp and makes the adjustment.

Illegitimi non carborundum. EEng 03:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Not even if you specify the time-zone of the date-stamp for the diff (as UTC)?

Being fair to Flyer, she probably got very frightened at the sheer pace of change and forgot that, similar to a large river when it is temporarily obstructed, a large pressure for change had built up over the months of stasis and ignorant obstructionism. HeShe may have felt that the ice floes were cracking under him her and made the plea for complete page protection as an act of desperation. BushelCandle (talk) 04:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Re timestamps, in principle yes, but in practice it's very fragile and timestamps are sometimes not recognized when the context isn't a signature.

Full protection in a case like this is an utterly absurd idea. Perhaps 5% of my rewrites worked substantive changes in meaning (unintentional), and if he'd taken the time to look he could have just edited back in what he felt had been mistakenly lost or changed -- I wouldn't have cared.

EEng 04:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Let me add, after further observation, that you have a remarkably clear way of putting things e.g. this gem [1]. BTW, have you visited the museums? EEng 05:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I had not, but I'll try to arrange a visit shortly. First glance seems to indicate that I may need to bring a packed lunch... BushelCandle (talk) 05:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Or better yet, a compass, a sandwich, and a whistle. EEng 10:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you're wrong about the NFCC thing

So please stop reverting before you get in trouble with The Enforcers. More when I've looked into it. EEng 01:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, but what's a NFCC thing, please? BushelCandle (talk) 01:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

It's the argument about the Singapore note. Once an img is marked as nonfree on WP, all uses must follow WP's nonfree rules -- regardless of some detailed exceptions offered by the copyright owner (Sing. Central Bank, or whatever), because these are just too hard to keep track of -- and that means no display on article talk pages. But this matter was completely mishandled in a way that's familiar to me -- see the link I recently added to the ANI thread.

Just come up with a normal free image to use in illustrating your point at Image Use Policy. EEng 02:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Ahhhh, I see it now, it's Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. That policy needs to be changed. I understand that commons needs to have only material that can be used with minimum restrictions, including in commercial contexts, but Wikipedia is an educational project and we should be able to host and show images in situations where they are explicitly licensed by the copyright holder (in the case above, MAS, which I'm sure would be delighted for us to continue to display images of both the Singapore and the Brunei currency in an educational context). BushelCandle (talk) 02:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I see why you think that, but it's a lot more complicated than you imagine. We can talk about it some other time, but let me urge you to spend your time tilting at other windmills for now. Things are going nicely at MOS/Images, I think, no? EEng 02:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Big picture

Before we get too far into detailed improvement of the presentations of image syntax , I think we should consider first how to reduce the redundancy and overlap between all the various places that talk about it, since otherwise we'll be perfecting many separate things which ultimately should be combined. I know of at least...

• WP:MOS/Layout#Images
• WP:Image policy
• WP:Extended_image_syntax
• WP:Picture_tutorial
• WP:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility#Images
• WP:Manual of Style/Images
• WP:Wikimedia_Commons#Embedding_Commons.27_media_in_Wikipedia_articles
• Commons:First_steps/Reuse#Embedding_Commons_media_in_Wikimedia_projects
• WP:Uploading_images#Adding_images_to_articles
• WP:Images -- metalist of pages dealing with images!

EEng 03:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Often overlooked is Wikipedia:Ten things you may not know about images on Wikipedia and I think we should move the page that's currently called WP:Image policy to WP:File policy over a re-direct since that page also covers policies for sound and video files. (I'd do it myself, but moves are restricted to admins...) BushelCandle (talk) 20:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, there's someone I know who I suspect you will like. FourViolas, say hi, will you? EEng 03:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Pleasure, I'm sure. Any friend of EEng's is...well, probably a shifty character, but nice to meet you anyway. FourViolas (talk) 03:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, FourViolas, good to make your acquaintance. Now I have even more reading to do... BushelCandle (talk) 04:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

As usual, you're not wrong, EEng.

Unfortunately, because of the way I earn my living, it can often be difficult for me to complete time-consuming tasks involving careful editing and strategic planning. That's why I usually confine myself to trivial copy-edits - so as to avoid the anguish of losing significant work when the call light goes on or I lose my internet connection. The usual exception to that is on the rare exceptions that I find myself in a boring country with good internet connectivity...

PS: Can you point me towards a tool which would identify when a particular textual string was first used in a Wikipedia article, please? (I'm trying to identify when the px syntax was first deprecated and relative sizing suggested on various project namespaces...) BushelCandle (talk) 04:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

WRT yr PS, yes. On any page history page, look near the top for "Revision history search". The interface takes a bit of getting used to, but it works. I think the px syntax is very old and I doubt you'll identify its origin, but I could be wrong. EEng 06:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that!

I'm making progress. It was more than 7 years ago that fixed image sizes were first deprecated in our Wikipedia:Image use policy BushelCandle (talk) 07:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, first deprecated -- I misread it as first used. Good. EEng 09:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

This change made 00:37, 20 July 2012 UTC, seems to be the first one that made clear the benefits of using upright rather than px that remained without reversion for more than a year and settled image POLICY. BushelCandle (talk) 21:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• Since for whatever reason you seem to be visiting many of my old haunts: part of what makes the current contretemps over image syntax etc. so ridiculous is that I'm the primary architect of the current presentation at WP:MOSNUM, having made some 600 edits [2] over about a year, reworking it completely from top to bottom -- compare e.g. the old table of units, brainlessly arranged in alphabetical order [3], to the new one [4]. And never once any idiocy about "you need consensus for this". EEng 21:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

What parts of the advice at the Grammar and Style in British English: A Comprehensive Guide for Students, Writers and Academics website do you take issue with ? BushelCandle (talk) 22:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Um, I'm not British, so I'm not sure I've got a dog in that fight. It's pretty big -- is there a specific portion you'd enjoy seeing me savagely attack? EEng 20:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I didn't write clearly enough.

Since that website is accessible from all over the world online (for some weird reason the style guide of the Economist magazine is blocked in China and Myanamar and Vietnam) it's one I often consult and I wondered if there was any advice there that you disagree with? BushelCandle (talk) 20:58, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Think you that I've nothing better to do with my time than finetooth random style guides for overprescription? Nonetheless I'll do what I can in my odd spare moments. EEng 21:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

One of my problems with continually switching between Philippines, Indian, Australian, British, Canadian, Singapore, EU and US flavors of English is that I tend to get a bit mixed up about what are ugly and unacceptable styles and constructions in US English. For example, I didn't realise that (presumably unlike Theater -> Theatre) using meter rather than metre for the unit of measurement that's not often used in the US was annoying. That's why I wondered if any of the advice there was truly grating to US eyes. BushelCandle (talk) 21:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I like the grated-eyes imagery. EEng 02:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Ugh! That is a disturbing image you've conjured up!

My flight patterns for the next week mean that it's unlikely that I'll be editing much, although I may get enough intermittent connectivity and breaks to read (usually there is much too much latency to edit, though). Keep warm! (or cool, as you prefer...) BushelCandle (talk) 08:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Templated warning of 1 February 2016

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to a page, specifically Wikipedia talk:Image use policy, may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. See WP:NFCC#9. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:51, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:BushelCandle. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, but if you'd waited a little longer for me to respond, we might have been able to reduce admin overload, since I might then have had the time to respond appropriately.

I thought there was an exemption for the use of non-free content on certain administrative, non-article space pages as necessary to creating or managing the encyclopedia, Stefan ?

If you approach the Monetary Authority of Singapore (which has responsibility for both Singapore and Brunei banknotes) they will confirm that their 'Licensing Scheme for Currency Reproduction' that was introduced with effect from 1 October 2000 was initially relaxed with effect from 11 August 2006 and again recently. The rules on reproducing the Singapore currency for advertisements and publications were relaxed to grant permission to any person "to import, manufacture, sell, circulate or otherwise distribute any specified merchandise or product containing any photograph of or any drawing or design resembling any currency note or coin or part thereof." where 'specified merchandise or product' stated above means "any publication in which the reproduction of currency notes or coins is used for educational purposes, or in connection with any news or factual article or report, not being an advertisement for any merchandise product, or service."

There are remaining restrictions from MAS, but I believe we can comply with all of them, Stefan:

1) The use of the reproduction of any currency note or coin:
i) shall maintain, and not detract from, the dignity, integrity and image of the currency note or coin; and
ii) shall not have any risk of confusion with genuine currency note or coin.

2) The reproduction of any currency note or coin:
i) shall not distort images of the President or any national symbol;
ii) shall not show the currency note or coin in a manner that is offensive or against public interest; and
iii) shall be on a material which can unambiguously and easily be distinguished from coins, paper notes or polymer notes.

3) The reproduction of any currency note:
i) shall, unless the reproduction is in an electronic form, be at least 150% of both the length and width of the genuine currency note when the reproduction is enlarged or be not more than 60% of both the length and width of the genuine currency note when the reproduction is reduced in size;
ii) shall, when the reproduction is enlarged, reduced in size or to be viewed at an angle, be depicted proportionally;
iii) may be depicted at various angles, except that, where the whole currency note is depicted flat to camera, the reproduction shall contain the word "SPECIMEN" in black and bold lettering diagonally across the reproduction and which shall not cover any part of the portrait; and
iv) shall not be by way of duplex printing (that is, nothing shall appear on the reverse of the reproduction that may give the impression that it is a genuine currency note.

BushelCandle (talk) 00:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Result

For the sake of completeness, I've reposted the results of your referral to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents‎ below, Stefan. It was an educational experience...

User:BushelCandle

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This user continues to violate WP:NFCC#9 on Wikipedia talk:Image use policy by re-adding File:SGD 10000 Paper f.jpg after multiple removals. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Prefixing "File" with a colon is the right way to do it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I thought there was an exemption for the use of non-free content on certain administrative, non-article space pages as necessary to creating or managing the encyclopedia, Stefan ?

In any case, isn't this a free, copyrighted image within our peculiar meaning of the word?

If you approach the Monetary Authority of Singapore (which has responsibility for both Singapore and Brunei banknotes) they will confirm that their 'Licensing Scheme for Currency Reproduction' that was introduced with effect from 1 October 2000 was initially relaxed with effect from 11 August 2006 and again recently. The rules on reproducing the Singapore currency for advertisements and publications were relaxed to grant permission to any person "to import, manufacture, sell, circulate or otherwise distribute any specified merchandise or product containing any photograph of or any drawing or design resembling any currency note or coin or part thereof." where 'specified merchandise or product' stated above means "any publication in which the reproduction of currency notes or coins is used for educational purposes, or in connection with any news or factual article or report, not being an advertisement for any merchandise product, or service."

There are remaining restrictions, but I believe we can comply with all of them:

1) The use of the reproduction of any currency note or coin:
i) shall maintain, and not detract from, the dignity, integrity and image of the currency note or coin; and
ii) shall not have any risk of confusion with genuine currency note or coin.

2) The reproduction of any currency note or coin:
i) shall not distort images of the President or any national symbol;
ii) shall not show the currency note or coin in a manner that is offensive or against public interest; and
iii) shall be on a material which can unambiguously and easily be distinguished from coins, paper notes or polymer notes.

3) The reproduction of any currency note:
i) shall, unless the reproduction is in an electronic form, be at least 150% of both the length and width of the genuine currency note when the reproduction is enlarged or be not more than 60% of both the length and width of the genuine currency note when the reproduction is reduced in size;
ii) shall, when the reproduction is enlarged, reduced in size or to be viewed at an angle, be depicted proportionally;
iii) may be depicted at various angles, except that, where the whole currency note is depicted flat to camera, the reproduction shall contain the word "SPECIMEN" in black and bold lettering diagonally across the reproduction and which shall not cover any part of the portrait; and
iv) shall not be by way of duplex printing (that is, nothing shall appear on the reverse of the reproduction that may give the impression that it is a genuine currency note.

BushelCandle (talk) 00:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

That's limited to educational use, making the file unfree. And the exemption for certain administrative pages only means that there's about half a dozen of categories which do not need __NOGALLERY__. Other pages may not include non-free files. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

It should stay as a link, as I had it. Commenting it out is not necessary, and posting it as a picture on that page is not allowed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that helpful suggestion, Baseball Bugs. It's a good one since, with my limited understanding, that would comply with our policies AND allow Adam to see how much loot he (potentially) missed by not accepting my wager. It also has the serendipitous virtue of showing the file syntax used without having to bother to inspect the source code. I was going to do just that when another very helpful and knowledgeable editor added the dinky little colon for me. BushelCandle (talk) 06:41, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• BushelCandle's wrong about this -- though you have to click through about three links from NFCC to find out exactly what the exceptions are -- but for fuck's sake, can we please have some perspective about what's an ANI-worthy incident? This isn't all that important and it's certainly not urgent. I've dealt with Stefan2 before and to be blunt -- since this is the page where we let it all hang out -- while his dedication to keeping WP and Commons license-compliant is admirable, his communication skills ain't so good (see Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2014_June_4#File:WugTest_NowThereIsAnotherOne_FairUseOnly.jpg). My suggestion is that he find a NFCC-knowledgeable admin who he can call on in future to explain things to newbies he's having trouble getting through to, instead of wasting the eyeballs of 100s of stalkers here at ANI. EEng 01:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Ignorant miscreant being herded into the seahorse coral

Please don't be too hard on Stefan - his native language and culture may be very different and he probably has a huge task on his hand herding into the coral corral all the ignorant miscreant heifers like myself. I'm not convinced that the non-free content criteria are as inclusive as they should be, but obviously I need to comply with whatever misguided policy we have until and unless it is changed. Consequently, I think the helpful solution proposed by yourself (of choosing lower value banknotes to illustrate both my wager and the sizing equivalence of |20px| or |frameless|upright=0.1| for the vast majority of our readers) or by temporarily making them links as Baseball Bugs proposed are both good solutions. Sorry again for the trouble I've caused! BushelCandle (talk) 02:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Herded into the coral? EEng 02:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Surely you would be coralled into the corral? As that is the act of coralling? Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Herded into the corral; only after in the corral have they been corralled. Scr★pIron^IV 18:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rational organisation of articles about European identity documentation

I haven't been on Wikipedia because I've been busy with things. Anyway, I'm starting to feel like my efforts are pointless since, fundamentally, the structure of these articles is totally inadequate. We have Passports of the European Union, National identity cards in the European Economic Area, and dare i inform you... Passports of the European Economic Area (I notice you have not yet edited that article (': ). It is clear we want to take these articles in different directions, and it's ridiculous that we are having to have the same discussions across two (maybe now three?) articles because of the amount of overlap. Keeping the three articles presenting consistent information was a challenge previously, now with so many disputes it is impossible. So I believe merges and splits are needed. There seems to be enough information to create an article on Travel documentation in the European Economic Area. We could also consider a article named something like Identity cards in Europe, discussing the use of ID cards for the purpose of identification (therefore including the Icelandic ID card and others, but excluding the Irish passport card which is not designed for that purpose), including the degree to which national identity cards of different countries are actually used for identification (eg the lack of in Finland and Sweden). Then finally two remaining articles: Passports of the European Union and National identity cards of the European Union. These could primarily discuss the common design (specified in Resolution Document 41981X0919 of Official Journal C 241, for passports, and Resolution No. 15356/06, for national identity cards) of the documents which are outlined in Directive 2004/38/EC (which includes the Irish passport card when it is referring to "national identity cards", as evident by permitted use as travel documentation within the EEA). They could also briefly describe use within the EEA, with a "Main article: Travel documentation in the European Economic Area" at the top of the section. This is just my initial thoughts, and of course any change will likely require a lot of discussion. But first I really just wanted to ask if you are open to the idea of restructuring at all? Regards, Rob984 (talk) 12:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

My first reaction is that your proposals have a great deal of merit, Rob984.

I have not edited Passports of the European Economic Area because I believe the article should be deleted. (It currently contains nothing useful and is unlikely to in the future.)

Indeed, at 02:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC) I wrote the following at Talk:National identity cards in the European Economic Area:

Your analysis is correct, Rob984.
Normally I would favour merging the less inclusive article into the one with broader scope. However, in this case, I can not see any common features whatever (other than those dictated by the physical laws of the universe and international bodies like ICAO) between the passports of the EEA once you have subtracted the EU passports to leave those of Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. Consequently this article should be deleted.

However, the devil will lie in the detail.

1) Since the discussions will concern a number of articles, where do you think would be a good place to centralize discussions, please?

2) I must admit that I've found your reluctance to provide either diffs or authoritative sources for the holy text you so jealously wish to protect, quite bloody-minded and counter-productive but I do now accept in good faith your protestations that you are currently time-poor. After your helpful post above I've realised that you may have had another motivation for resisting what I regard as improving our articles: consistency across a number of articles with common themes and subject matter.

3) Rather than have a new article entitled Travel documentation in the European Economic Area and continually have to use awkward constructions like the EEA + Switzerland and EEA + Swiss citizens, I would propose that the new article have the shorter title of Travel documentation in the EU and EFTA. Then, early on in that new article, we could define and explain the "common residence right area (crra)" and have less tortuous text later. What do you think?

4) I like your proposal for the new, wider article of Identity cards in Europe. "Europe" should be defined as widely as appropriate. My proposal would be to have the same wide geographical area as in our List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe article but with the omission of Kazakhstan and the addition of some other contiguous territories. This area would be basically the 47 sovereign states with their dependent territories - such as Gibraltar, Ceuta, Melilla & Greenland - that are members of the Council of Europe plus the Transdniestrian Republic, Vatican City, TRNC, Abkhazia, Kosovo, Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia and Belarus. I am, at present, undecided as to whether it should contain the French overseas departments and the Dutch Caribbean territories of Bonaire, Saba and Sint Eustatius.

This article would focus on the practical, de facto aspects, discussing the use of identity cards for the purpose of identification (and therefore including the Icelandic ID card and others and, you might be surprised to hear, including the Irish passport card even though the Irish government's official position is that it is not designed for that primary purpose). It should indeed include the degree to which national identity cards of different countries are actually used for identification (eg the lack of in Finland and Sweden) and also, on a practical level, what cards can be used to travel where and under what circumstances.

5) Passports of the European Union would fundamentally be what it says on the tin and MUST have the logical organisation of H2 headings of Ordinary passports, Diplomatic Passports, Service passports, EU Laissez Passer at least. The section with the H2 heading of Ordinary passports would have H3 headings of Passport booklets discussing the common design (specified in Resolution Document 41981X0919 of Official Journal C 241, for passports) amongst other matters but including and specifying the significant national differences (eg, that Irish and Brit passports don't contain fingerprint information), Passport cards and Emergency passports

6) The new National identity cards of the European Union would also fundamentally be what it says on the tin and MUST include the facts that neither the UK nor Ireland have National Identity Cards.

I reject your assertion that Resolution No. 15356/06, for national identity cards of the documents which are outlined in Directive 2004/38/EC includes the Irish passport card when it is referring to "national identity cards", including for the reasons that EU functionaries can not foretell the future and that they have no judicial power to gainsay the Irish governemental stance. I do think it's helpful that we briefly describe use within the EEA, with a "Main article: Travel documentation in the European Economic Area" at the top of the new article.

7)

BushelCandle (talk) 23:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

BUMP!!! It's been 2 months now, Rob, so I'd welcome your very early response. If I hear nothing further from you then I'm going to implement a lot of necessary changes to National identity cards in the European Economic Area without further notice...BushelCandle (talk) 01:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Visa policy of South Africa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Laissez-passer. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your vigilance, but this is one of the rare occasions when this was a considered and intentional link to a disambiguation page because we don't have a generic article on laissez passer.

Part of the DAB page reads as follows:

• Laissez-passer, travel document issued by a national government or certain international organizations
  • European Union laissez-passer
  • United Nations laissez-passer

readers who are interested can then click on which of the two articles interests them the most... BushelCandle (talk) 11:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

For your amusement

(and to prove not all MOS discussions are full of overserious ignorami): Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers/Archive_149#The_dairy_of_Anne_Frank, and read on to the next section too. EEng 04:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

The Irish passport card

Hello, finally got an e-mail from the Irish authorities, who stated there is no intention whatsoever to make the passport card valid outside the EU/EFTA. And as I've observed, unlike in the case of Swedish ID cards, other countries (except Turkey and Georgia, judging by your own reports) go by this restriction, so the chance of others (besides the Faroes+Greenland+microstates+possibly overseas French departments) accepting it are very slim.

If your friend's passport card isn't accepted once he lands in Australia, we can safely say this document is doomed to be even "weaker" than EEA ID cards

I'm going to try messaging Bosnia and Georgia about the acceptance, this time calling it an ID card, because we now know that calling it not an ID card will in fact increase the risk of rejection and not acceptance in those countries that accept EU ID cards - this happened with Serbia! André Devecserii (talk) 06:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

PRADO entry for the Irish passport card...

So they finally added the Irish passport card to PRADO... (maybe you're already aware)

Document: IRL-A-02001, PRADO

Welp. I retract everything. Although personally, I think it is bullshit.

I still think it should be included on the article because of its identical usage, but I accept entirely it is not an "National Identity Card".

Regards,

Rob984 (talk) 02:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for being gracious about this, Rob.

Yes, I saw the PRADO entry this morning and I'm miffed the DFA didn't notify me by email bearing in mind they phoned me nearly 2 months ago now blaming interdepartmental confusion.

They've also added insult to injury by restricting it to the EEA and CH in the PRADO blurb - so my Irish mates won't be able to helicopter into Andorra on it or avail of a snap holiday in Moldova.

Seems like I shall still have to shame the responsible Minister by writing to the newspapers about his department's crass incompetence and invincible ignorance...

By the way, he didn't have any problems with the Aussies at Melbourne - but then the PRADO entry hadn't been listed then. BushelCandle (talk) 04:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

BushelCandle WOW!!! He managed to enter Australia? Congratulations on that :D

I presume he used the SmartGate. Could it read the passport card fine or did he have to go to a SmartGate assistant? André Devecserii (talk) 01:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate for me to comment here about specific incidences since there are people that are hoping that the DFA will develop some expertise and stop artificially limiting its own product. (If you really wish to know, please email me in confidence...)

I can say in general terms that both the Oz and NZ SmartGates have the technology to identify and read any ICAO compliant MRZ. It's up to local software programming as to how they respond to what they have read. For example, NZ SmartGates don't open for any Irish passport, but OZ SmartGates do.

However, none of this is strictly pertinent for WP, since anecdotal reports by friends, aircrew and their passengers are not adequate sources.

Sorry you've had to wait for what you'll probably regard as a less than satisfactory response, André. If it's something quick and confidential like this, you might be better to email me since I can reply in a limited way on my smartphone to emails but I rarely use it to edit WP because of the painful (non)keyboard. BushelCandle (talk) 00:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Mailed you :) André Devecserii (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

eMailed you back :) BushelCandle (talk) 01:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Lead sentence at Passports of the European Union

I have been trying to avoid these articles for awhile, but the lead paragraph is a mess. The translations aren't a common design feature if only a small minority of states feature them. "Passport", "European Union" and the name of the state are all occasionlly translated into English (see Bulgaria), and some even into French (see Poland). So the paragraph desperately needs to be reconstructed anyway, but really they should be removed. Please look into it. Regards, Rob984 (talk) 11:37, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I've made several edits there and its now on my watchlist, Rob. BushelCandle (talk) 05:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Bailiwick of Guernsey

It is nice to have the Lieutenant Governor in the information box, but can we avoid the word government appearing at the same time ? I don't know how to do it. Ânes-pur-sàng - À la perchoine 09:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Template:Infobox country employs intricate features of template syntax and I'm struggling - and I have to feport for duty... BushelCandle (talk) 10:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Later: I see that Rob984 has made himself useful for once and, rather than instinctively reverting an edit I made, actually EDITED the template creatively and very nearly fixed things... Genuine thanks and kudos to Rob for his patience in experimenting with rather a complicated and intricate template to improve our reader experience! BushelCandle (talk) 10:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Why?

How can you think it is ok to start moving pages and changing the scope of articles without consulting anyone? Rob984 (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Because this is a Wiki and I read the article's discussion page and saw that a consensus had developed over several days to make changes?

Timeline was as follows:

• 08:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC) local User:Nigelroberts begins a new section entitled Major misconceptions - "Guernsey" and "the Bailiwick of Guernsey" are not coterminous
• 10:26, 4 January 2016 (UTC) local User:Ânes-pur-sàng responds that he "... agree with most of what (Nigelroberts) say..."
• 20:39, 5 January 2016 (UTC) non-local User:Kendall-K1 comments "... The confusion starts right in the first paragraph...". Discussion between these editors (and without any comment from you or I) continues until
• 17:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC) when local User:Ânes-pur-sàng proposes "... creating a new page for the Bailiwick...". On that very page he fleshes out his re-organisation proposals. Discussion between these editors (and without any comment from you or I) continues.
• 13:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC) non-local User:Kendall-K1 comments "... it's much clearer than what we have now. Given that there are already articles for the islands of Alderney and Sark, I withdraw my concerns about making the island and the bailiwick into two articles; this appears to be the best way to do this....". Local User:Ânes-pur-sàng states clearly and properly "... I'll leave it as a proposal till the end of the month in case anyone else wants to comment....." Discussion between these editors (and without any comment from you or I) continues.
• 16:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC) local User:Ânes-pur-sàng announces "Article now published Bailiwick of Guernsey" Discussion between these editors (and without any comment from you or I) continues at Talk:Guernsey. Meanwhile, at the Bailiwick of Guernsey page (which had languished as a re-direct for more than 12 years), local User:Ânes-pur-sàng creates the new article that he had so clearly signalled and achieved consent for at Talk:Guernsey at
• 15:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC) an edit summary of "create new page - the Bailiwick of Guernsey is NOT the same as Guernsey. The Guernsey page will need to be adjusted". Constructive and collegiate edits to this 'new' Bailiwick_of_Guernsey page continue (without any comment or relevant edit from you on any page that I am aware of) for more than two weeks until with just 180 seconds warning and with no attempt to achieve consensus whatsoever at
• 00:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC) you revert to the 12 year old re-direct and lose 10,809 bytes of other bona fide editors work

Notice2

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Rob984 (talk) 21:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, Rob.

I think this is an object lesson in why it's sometimes best to make progress slowly and make sure that there is either a clear policy justification or clear consensus for summarily reverting another's editor's lengthy work.

It's not my style to report you but, after you talked about 3RR, I looked it up and it seems you may have inadvertently breached this bright line rule:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bailiwick_of_Guernsey&type=revision&diff=703688081&oldid=703068924 00:56, 7 February 2016
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bailiwick_of_Guernsey&type=revision&diff=703799076&oldid=703760460 18:48, 7 February 2016
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bailiwick_of_Guernsey&type=revision&diff=703816698&oldid=703814152 21:00, 7 February 2016

Changing the topic, are you ever going to respond to the answers I gave you in the sections above ? BushelCandle (talk) 23:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I really don't care. I actually did just revert because screw you, you know? But I am happy to take a break from editing anyway =] Rob984 (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

That might be a good idea with regards to Guernsey articles. It's quite clear that your motivation is admirable, but sometimes you are just too quick to hit the revert button or template other editors. It does rankle that you made the accusations above in the earliest section of my talk page but have never found the time to provide either the diffs or the analysis that I requested. I don't bear you any malice, but I have delayed more than 2 months now with the improvements to EEA ID cards that you so summarily reverted. Consequently, it does rub a raw wound when I see you treating the Bailiwick of Guernsey article in such a disrespectful manner towards the local editor(s) that developed it over several weeks by reverting it to a years-old version that is just a redirect. BushelCandle (talk) 23:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

It was created two weeks ago... and I have apologised for the shit storm that followed when you intervened. I admit, if I had know that was going to happen I wouldn't have touched it. I feel bad for them. I was trying to sort it all out. I was going to come home today I write out the article modelled on the revision they made at Bailiwick of Guernsey. Then you happened.

I don't care what you do at National identity cards in the European Economic Area. I want to reorganise those travel documentation articles, but I wont have time for months. I'm not even sure I will bother considering how unpredictable you are.

Sorry but you really are a disruptive editor. Until you actually start discussing after you are reverted, I cannot have any respect for you.

Rob984 (talk) 23:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

That was helpful, Rob, since I think we may have identified why we rub each other up the wrong way.

I detect that you seem to think that reversion is not a slap in the chops for the bona fide editor that is reverted, but rather a necessary and useful tool to be wielded often and without warning. Certainly you're right where plain vandalism or uncited slander in biographies of living people are concerned.

My view is that it's more collegiate to actually take a little bit longer and a bit more effort and try and edit the article to see if there is some tiny part of the edit you are tempted to revert that can be preserved. If not, then it's sometimes less damaging of relationships to explain to the errant editor where you think they're going wrong and ask them to self-revert.

I've noticed that you often claim that you don't have the time to sort the wheat from the chaff, but if you limited yourself to a smaller number of articles you might be able to edit in a more collegiate way.

I concede I may be wrong here, but doesn't BRD only applies to edits that are intentionally bold?

If you had reverted the very first edit that developed the Bailiwick of Guernsey article from the 13-year old re-direct and then started a discussion about why that edit was not appropriate, then that would fit into the BRD methodology. But, to just revert without prior discussion or analysis a two week old article (where's the extreme urgency if you're not claiming ownership of the article?) is just plain rude, disruptive and abrasive in my view. BushelCandle (talk) 00:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your explicit permission to edit again ("I don't care what you do at National identity cards in the European Economic Area..."). I still have to develop the history section a bit more at User:BushelCandle/sandbox/National identity cards in the European Economic Area, but once that is done I will make wholesale changes to the mainspace article by replacing the whole code with the code I have developed there. So, please avoid another "shit storm" and tell me here if you change your mind and withdraw your permission... BushelCandle (talk) 00:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Any contentious edit is bold by definition. It's not a rule anyway. The rule is that you don't edit war per WP:EDITWAR.

I think my edits were damage control. Changing the scope of Guernsey from the Bailiwick to the island was problematic for linking and Wikidata. I though I could quickly amend this with the same result for the two editors. I was in the process of doing so before you intervened.

For the sake of the two editors, can we revert everything back to before I edited the article on Saturday (including deleting Guernsey (island)–probably just by redirecting it to Guernsey)? So there would be Guernsey and Bailiwick of Guernsey? It's going to be a pain fixing the links and Wikidata stuff but at least it wont be a mess like it is now. Then you can propose creating an article for the jurisdiction and discuss it with them?

Rob984 (talk) 00:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

And you really think that reverting two weeks work of editing back to a re-direct was not contentious but mere "damage control"?

But the edits I made were NOT "Changing the scope of Guernsey from the Bailiwick to the island". That's your biggest problem, you seem not to take the time to actually analyse the changes that editors are actually making - refraining from using the revert button and actually editing their changes would help you see what the edits objectively do. (For example, my edits were not turning it from a Bailiwick article into an Island article - that's why I moved the page to Jurisdiction - surely that must have given you a clue?

I absolutely don't agree with your reversion proposals - I've outlined the way to proceed at talk Guernsey and I will await other's comments with interest...

I never withheld permission. I simply ask you to follow consensus. I am not the only editor at that article with a problem with the changes you made. I will probably still revert anything that is absurd. Rob984 (talk) 00:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Please stop the hyperbolic language. You were asked months ago to comment (and edit if you like) my draft at User:BushelCandle/sandbox/National identity cards in the European Economic Area. If you fail to do so and then start your wholesale reversions again, there definitely will be a "shit storm". Three months is long enough for anyone to cogitate on my proposed changes! BushelCandle (talk) 01:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I am going to sleep. If you agree also, please revert the articles to Saturday before I edited, and redirect Guernsey (island) to Guernsey. I might not have time during the week. Rob984 (talk) 00:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

That seems to be another difference between us. You seem to define consensus as anything that you do (even though there was clear disagreement with your proposals about Guernsey) and anything that I do as going against consensus. Am I missing something here? Where are the voices (precise diffs, please) that agree with you that there should not be a substantial article rather than a re-direct at Bailiwick of Guernsey and where are the voices (precise diffs, please) that agree with you that Guernsey should not be moved to Jurisdiction of Guernsey and a new article (which you actually started yourself!!!!) at Guernsey (island) ? BushelCandle (talk) 00:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

There isn't consensus for what I did specially, like I said I think it was damage control. However there was consensus to have two articles, one on the island and one on the whole Bailiwick (see Talk:Guernsey#Major misconceptions - "Guernsey" and "the Bailiwick of Guernsey" are not coterminous.). And the names were only suppose to be temporary, then later moved to how the two editors wanted. The way I saw it, I, a more experienced editor, was helping two editors with a technical issue. I didn't express any view, nor do I now, as to how the articles should be structured. I don't agree with you moving the article to Jurisdiction of Guernsey, as neither of the editors expressed wanting to do that. You ignored their discussion by moving the article, and did it because you though it was correct. What I did was purely technical, and trying to archive the same thing as they wanted.

BTW, my problem isn't that I watch too many articles. I actually enjoy making changes to articles and discussing how to improve articles with other editors. Helps relieve stress I suppose? My problem is that I revert an edit and then end up in content disputes that take up so damn much time. They are generally not fun, but when an editor makes a change you disagree with... its too hard to resist. And I have not much free time because of university studies and work, so it can be really frustrating. Rob984 (talk) 00:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I've never doubted your motivation, Rob, and I've said as much several times above. What I do doubt is the rash haste of some of your reverts. Please think before you leap.

If you had carefully read the discussion, you would have realised that there are at least THREE Guernsey entities that needed articles - not two: the Island, the Jurisdiction and the Bailiwick. You were bound from the start to create chaos and confusion if you tried to shoehorn them into only two. Think of the mess that would result if you tried to combine the three articles of England, Great Britain and United Kingdom into only two...

I really do entreat you to consider my advice: before you reach for that revert button or that template, STOP. Discuss your feelings on the editor's talk page or the article's discussion page. If editors are obdurate or refuse to discuss, then by all means go back to reverting and templating. As you now seem to realise, this way may actually turn out quicker in the end... BushelCandle (talk) 01:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

If you make a wholesale edit to an article, it will probably get reverted. Simply because if there is one thing I disagree with, one thing that needs discussing, I will revert the whole revision. Why? Because I can. And if you edit war you are solely in breach of WP:EDITWAR because you are solely trying to add material without consensus. After you revert three times I will go straight to WP:ANI/3RR. I told you already that making wholesale edits is a pain in the ass. And no, I wont read you draft. I am not the only editor who needs to agree you know? See WP:CAUTIOUS. You know, if you piss other editors off, you are simply making things more difficult for yourself. That's how Wikipedia works. Rob984 (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• "if there is one thing I disagree with, one thing that needs discussing, I will revert the whole revision. Why? Because I can." No, you can't, and that attitude will get you in a world of trouble, Rob984. It's your responsibility, assuming at least some reversion is appropriate or justified, to revert only those portions of the changes for which reversion is justified. You can't throw out the baby with the bathwater just because you're in too much of a hurry to be more careful. EEng 01:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

@EEng My editing attitude's actually fine as far as I know. I was just being pedantic because I was pissed off. That said, when someone does (and it is pretty common), you can just redo the revision without the contentious changes outlined in reverter's edit summary. Yet he doesn't. He actually does the opposite. He will redo his edit and in the same friggen revision, perform another bunch of other edits.Then I have to go through and revert the specific changes again because I am trying to be pleasant or whatever. I think you would agree that just reverting at that point is fair enough. Rob984 (talk) 01:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

You have it backwards. If you revert A, B, C, and D just because you object to D, the original editor is justified in simply reverting your changes -- it's not his job to separate, for you, that which you like from that which you don't. Broad-brush wholesale reverts show disrespect for you your fellow editors, and combined with your "because I can" comment, will get you in trouble. Take a hint from the total lack of interest in your ANI complaint, and be thankful you didn't get a boomerang. EEng 02:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Like I said I was just being pedantic. Of course it shows disrespect... that was kinda the point? Why would you think I am going to behave that way to editors in general? You seem to have ignored my explanation on what happens in practice with this editor that led me to making that comment, as well as the prior events. And no... I'm certainly not thankful. Rob984 (talk) 14:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

<rolls eyes> Look, let's stop. In your spare time, you better look up pedantic in the dictionary. You can have the last word now, if you must. EEng 14:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Result2?

For the sake of completeness, I've reposted the results of your referral to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents‎ below, Rob. It was another educational experience...

Mess at Guernsey with one editor unilaterally moving, creating, and mass-editing articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Following a discussion at Talk:Guernsey, it was agreed to split the article into two. User:BushelCandle has attempted to move the article to a new title and create a third article without consensus. See Guernsey: Revision history, Guernsey (island): Revision history, and Bailiwick of Guernsey: Revision history. I don't know what I can do at this point. Rob984 (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I think the article (Guernsey) needs to be rolled back to revision 699771192 (10:50, 14 January 2016) (before any reorganising began), and any new articles deleted, and then discussion needs to be had to determine how the article should be split/reorganised. But someone needs to enforce this. Rob984 (talk) 21:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't really know what needs to happen, but I do hope the move-warring will stop so I can get on with editing the content, wherever it ends up. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• When are we going to institute some kind of modest badge of shame to be permanently displayed on user pages – one for every time the user comes whining to ANI about a kitten up a tree, a lost pencil, or (as here) a non-important, non-urgent, just-a-content-dispute-with-discussion-in-progress-at-this-very-second non-incident? EEng 21:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• I don't see a good deal of move-warring; all I see is Guernsey getting moved to Jurisdiction of Guernsey and back, just once. That's hardly move-warring. Did I miss something? Anyway, Rob's asking for technical assistance at resolving a big mess with page histories, something that requires G6 housekeeping deletions among other things; the admin boards are the best place to make such a request. I disagree with his assessment of the situation, but it's not a run-too-fast-to-ANI situation. Nyttend (talk) 21:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Every post here sucks up something like an hour of editor time, just for 200 stalkers to spend 20 seconds eyeballing it. ANI is for urgent or incorrigibly chronic situations. First step: ask a friendly, neutral admin to take a look. Next step: post at AN (not ANI). Maybe after two months, bring it here. EEng 22:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Well I give up. It's impossible dealing with that editor. They also surpassed 3RR, so you could deal with that. This is the first time I have come here I think? Where the hell am I suppose to go? Or am I expected to keep reverting his crap? I can't be bothered. Rob984 (talk) 22:33, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Also there is not ongoing discussion. At the time I submitted this he was simply reverting. Now he is just yelling at me because I apparently have no knowledge of the topic... Rob984 (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I already said where you should go: ask a friendly but uninvolved admin to take a look. EEng 05:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

So just drag in some random admin I know who may or may not want to be involved in the issue? Where they can say "Ugh, here, let me get a hold of admin X", who then gets ahold of admin Y, who then finds the right solution to the problem? Alternatively, post to an admin board, where an interested and willing admin can step forth, solve the issue, and save everyone time. Your proposed "wasted time" is no more than a few minutes of reading. Hardly an issue. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 06:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Not drag, but ask some random admin, who may or may not want to be involved. If he or she does, great. If not, then you might go to WP:AN, but not here to ANI. There's a huge difference between the two, and it's not (as you say) a few minutes of reading. Hundreds of editors watch here, and even 20 seconds from each, just to skim the thread and move on, represents a huge waste of editor time. And BTW, the only reason I suggested an admin is that, apparently, some admin tools may be needed to correct page histories etc. If it weren't for that, I'd be telling the OP he should have tried WP:3O, WP:DRN, etc. before coming to AN or ANI. EEng 07:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I admit I did not know the difference. You could have just pointed me there to begin with (if I new of "a friendly, neutral admin", I would have asked). Though the editor has now decided he is actually willing to discuss his proposals. Thanks anyway. Rob984 (talk) 12:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Pardon?

I started "discussing" your (so far unsupported) proposal at 12:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC) - a mere 59 minutes after you made your proposal at 11:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC). This referral to ANI by you was made at 21:11, 7 February 2016 (UTC) a full 9 hours and 22 minutes after I had started "discussing" but before you had bothered to address the points I and others had raised on the article's discussion page.

Sometimes you do need to give editors time to respond to proposals before you unilaterally implement them. Not every editor with good material to contribute is necessarily able to respond within seconds and minutes rather than hours and days. Our Bailiwick of Guernsey article wasn't so awful or misleading that there was a desperate and pressing need to keep turning it back into a re-direct without justification by either policy or the consensus of your fellow editors. BushelCandle (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Right, regardless, you were edit warring to push your changes that had not yet been agreed (even if you had proposed them on the talk page). You need to realise that is not acceptable per WP:EDITWAR. Anyway, apparently this isn't the place to discuss such matters, so I recommend an admin closes this thread. Rob984 (talk) 19:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Rob984 writes above "it was agreed to split the article into two" but provides no diff of where this mythical agreement was reached (unless the agreement was with himself). In fact a knowledgeable local editor developed our Bailiwick of Guernsey from the re-direct it had been for several years and then, to his great anguish, User:Rob984 unilaterally reverted all his hard work. I do agree that all this moving and re-naming and reverting needs to stop and a plan for article development relating to Guernsey be agreed. If both User:Rob984 and myself agree to abstain from that discussion, I should imagine that agreement can be agreed within a matter of hours and days. BushelCandle (talk) 22:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Rob984's talk page

I will just remove your comments if the discussion has nothing to do with you. Its annoying. It also may be a breach of policy. See WP:WIKIHOUNDING. Rob984 (talk) 12:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

You do have that right of removal (in most cases), Rob.

However, WP:TPO does state

Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection.

Obviously I do object to you removing my words that were addressed not only to you before they may have been read and ask you courteously: please revert yourself. (As for you trying falsely characterise or label my behaviour yet again, it's certainly not my intention to traipse around after you repairing your damage. You may not realise the number of people who have thanked me for various edits after you have crossed swords with them. You're now getting to the stage where trying to politely answer your various points is seriously affecting my mainspace editing time.)

Personally, I do appreciate the delicious irony of these two successive edits of yours within 26 hours:

1) you wrongly accuse me of changing your comments when all I did was add a neutral sub-section title for better organisation on this, my user talk page

followed by

2) your removal of my comment in its totality from a discussion about removing comments on your user talk page.... Keep warm! BushelCandle (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

You may not realise the number of people who have thanked me for various edits after you have crossed swords with them.

Okay... this editor was edit warring on a Palestinian-related page (which are generally considered to have 1RR). They may not have breached 3RR, but it was clearly disruptive behaviour. This was then brought up on the talk page by another editor. Funnily enough, I agreed with their edit, but I have a no bullshit attitude on disruptive editing. I'm sure they appreciate your sympathy lol.

You're now getting to the stage where trying to politely answer your various points is seriously affecting my mainspace editing time.

Well maybe stop following my activity? If you think there is something persistently wrong with my editing behaviour then make a complaint. You have chosen to spend your precious mainspace editing time on following my activity and engaging with me in other areas of Wikipedia... and now you complain I am taking up your time? I don't even know what to say to that.

Rob984 (talk) 13:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

No.

If you examine this page, much of it, right from the very start is filled with you templating, warning, threatening and hectoring me. When I ask you to provide exact and precise diffs you don't. When I ask you to comment on draft changes I would like to make to all the articles you think you 'own' (such as at User:BushelCandle/sandbox/National identity cards in the European Economic Area) you respond with your usual rudeness and write that you will continue to revert bona fide edits 'Just Because I Can™'. I've tried to reach out to you and you just respond with more rudeness.

If you really can't engage constructively and believe that everyone else is edit warring except for you, then in my current mood I'm certainly not going to aggravate your general disruptive behavior by wasting more editors' time by reporting you.

Yes, you read me right. Go right ahead and revert all you want, 3 times or 4 times: for a reasonable time you have a free pass from me for 3RR - at least until such time as someone less tolerant of your shenanigans reports you or I really do start hounding you. BushelCandle (talk) 15:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Well that was just humorous. Au revoir. Rob984 (talk) 15:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

NFC prefixing

Hello, BushelCandle. I usually replace the NFC file with a dummy rather than prefix it to convert it into a link. I do this in order to keep the layout of the page unchanged. In this case, it's a table, so preserving layout is all the more important - or at least I assumed so. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the trouble to explain your legitimate edit. I appreciate you have a very busy schedule of file-zapping to continue with.

Since I hope this expanded, updated and prettified draft version at User:BushelCandle/sandbox/National identity cards in the European Economic Area‎ will eventually replace the flawed main-space version at National identity cards in the European Economic Area‎, I prefer just prefixing the file identity with a colon because

1) This makes less work to remove them when I copy and paste its code in its entirety at a later date

2) If I forget to remove the colons, it will then be more obvious that they need to be removed due to the glaring errors rather than displaying a cosy

BushelCandle (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for sending me all those thank-you's :D Are you from Singapore? Tiger7253 (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

When I see really outstanding edits, I just can't help myself.

However, I do know that sometimes I need to reign in my enthusiasm: if you look at these comments on this page and also here you'll see that "thanking" can annoy some.

As for being from Singapore, I couldn't possibly comment. I am supposed to be anonymous after all (shy grin)...

Peace and love to you, Tiger! BushelCandle (talk) 01:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of passports, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Laissez-passer. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, but

a) I only simplified and re-arranged the page - the link to the disambiguation page of Laissez-passer had been there for many years

b) this is one of those rare occasions when the link is both intentional and useful BushelCandle (talk) 21:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

<3 Tiger7253 (talk) 06:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

How kind!

Now where did I put that cream... BushelCandle (talk) 21:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Sellers

Per WP:BRD, when your Bold edit has been Reverted, please Discuss, rather than just edit war your preferred version back in, as you did here. FWIW, the lead and IB both summarise those points for which Sellers is best known, not the minor chaff too. - SchroCat (talk) 07:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

And the reasons you don't think he's adequately known for making films are what exactly ? BushelCandle (talk) 21:31, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Bongbong Marcos is NOT a graduate of Wharton

Bongbong Marcos is NOT a graduate at Wharton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvindy (talk • contribs) 12:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, but wasn't he enrolled there as a student even though he did not graduate?

An alumnus (/əˈlʌmnəs/; masculine, plural alumni /əˈlʌmnaɪ/) or alumna (/əˈlʌmnə/; feminine, plural alumnae /əˈlʌmniː/) is a former student or pupil of a school, college, or university. Commonly, but not always, the word refers to a graduate of the educational institute in question. An alumnus can also be a former member, employee, contributor, or inmate, as well as a former student, can't he? BushelCandle (talk) 23:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

{{Geographic Location}} boxes

Hi BushelCandle, As much as I agree they should be removed some editors seem to think they're useful so you need to get consensus before removing, I myself have removed a few only to be taken to the swamp for it so it's probably best you get consensus first, Thanks and Happy editing :), –Davey2010^Talk 00:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, but haven't you got this the wrong way round?

There needs to be a consensus to ADD new material, not to remove it.

Sometimes that consensus is implicit and silent (ie nobody reverts the new omission), sometimes it's not.

In the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle, the addition of the confusing and erroneous waste of space {{Geographic Location}} box is the Bold new addition: this may be useful for locating American prairie hamlets that are aligned to a north-south, east-west grid but is generally not at all useful in other parts of the world. I then reverted the bold edit. Your next move should have been to explain why you support the addition of the {{Geographic Location}} box - not reverting my reversion of the bold edit. BushelCandle (talk) 00:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I wasn't aware the previous editor added the box, I simply assumed you decided to remove them..., Also please don't Assume Bad Faith in regards to Twinkle - There was no abuse... although I do admit I should've clicked AGF but either way they were AGF in my eyes ..... Anyway you're right the other editor should've got consensus and I apologize for reverting you. –Davey2010^Talk 01:29, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt and gracious apology.

(edit conflict)

Since I don't use Twinkle or any other automated editing tools and it's rather time consuming and tedious to revert all your reversions of my reversions, could I trouble you to restore the status quo or long term stable versions of these country level articles, please? BushelCandle (talk) 01:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I've undone all of the reverts, I would ask in future that if for whatever reason I revert you that you actually discuss it first instead of "You abused Twinkle" etc etc as it doesn't lead anywhere and causes more problems than it solves, Anyway thanks and Happy editing. –Davey2010^Talk 01:36, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Most kind and appreciated.

I agree the slender question mark in the section title I chose on your talk page was entirely insufficient to denote that this wasn't a real complaint about abuse and I apologise unreservedly for my 'tone of voice' in that post which was much too hyperbolic. Sorry, and sorry again!

(I've reproduced what I wrote on your talk page - and that you entirely justifiably removed without comment - as a subsection of this section below, since otherwise your comments above taken out of context are baffling to other readers of this talk page...) BushelCandle (talk) 01:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Abuse of Twinkle?

(moved from User talk:Davey2010) Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback, should not be used to undo good-faith changes unless an appropriate edit summary is used.

You've already said on my talk page that you don't agree with adding geo location diagrams so why are you abusing this tool to mass revert my reversions of their bold addition without resorting to the relevant discussion pages, please?

A simplified diagram of how consensus is reached. When an edit is made, other editors may either accept it, change it, or revert it. Seek a compromise means "attempt to find a generally acceptable solution", either through continued editing or through discussion.

Further information: Wikipedia:Editing policy; Wikipedia:Be bold; and Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle

Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached. In this way, the encyclopedia is gradually added to and improved over time. An edit which is not clearly an improvement may often be improved by rewording. My edit summary when I reverted the (mass) new additions of these confusing graphics was quite plain and explanatory wasn't it?

Substantive, informative edit summaries indicate what issues need to be addressed in subsequent efforts to reach consensus. Repeated reversions are contrary to Wikipedia policy under Edit warring, except for specific policy-based material (such as WP:BLP exceptions) and for reversions of vandalism. Frequently a minor change in wording can end arguments but that hardly is the case here.

Your mass abuse Twinkle to revert a reversion when you patently don't support the novel addition of {{Geographic location}} diagrams in country articles is really problematic and you should cease this.

Even its authors have written This template provides for a convenient compass-based navigational aid for articles about communities. It allows you to display the communities surrounding the subject of your article. Surely the clear implication is that they are for municipalities and not for countries, continents or other geographical features that do not lend themselves easily to being located on an orthogonal grid? BushelCandle (talk) 01:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Bushel, thanks for fixing the typo, I corrected that same error two or three times now as with all of this back and forth reverting it keeps getting dragged back up! Cheers. trackratte (talk) 02:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

My pleasure.

(It's baffling how IPs from Portugal suddenly find that page and do these imprecise reverts, isn't it [sly wink] ?) BushelCandle (talk) 02:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Pings

This, it turns out, does not actually work. The pinging code is super-mega-particular. In order for failed ping to be fixed, the entire comment block has to be removed, the page save, then a new one made with a fixed ping and a new sig. (Because of the last fact, no one can fix anyone else's ping, though one could add a ping to the conversation to draw the intended editor in). Not needed in that case anyway, since my post had already been responded to.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

That's something else you've taught me. Thanks!

PS: I don't mind my noisy editnotice being borrowed, but please rewrite it in your own words. Mine is an idiosyncratic message describing my personal approach to things. People might even think we're WP:Sockpuppets of the same person, and neither of us need that kind of WP:DRAMA.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

It's very difficult to improve your prose but I've tried to differentiate the 'look and feel' of my editnotice by using a different background colour, image and truncating. I've also made clear that we're not related. Sorry again for the sincerest form of flattery (runs away quickly, dodging and weaving...) BushelCandle (talk) 22:33, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Reverting pictures

Can I have some clarifications as to why you keep reverting the pictures in the Philippines page??? It ends up being messy and all over the place. Sorry if I made a mistake posting a message here. It's my first time. Kindly provide your reasons.Nonoyborbun (talk) 20:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

You did exactly the right thing by posting here, Nonoyborbun. That post right above this was your very first comment on any talk page whatever (after several years of complete and total silence) both there on talk pages and in edit summaries. I feel greatly honoured!

As to clarification, I already posted that on your own talk page at User talk:Nonoyborbun more than two days ago:

Flouting advice about images

I realise that this is probably a one way conversation with somebody that is unlikely to ever bother replying (judging by the edit history of this page) and that I am, therefore, wasting my time, but let it not be said that I did not try:

I have tried to reduce extreme WP:SANDWICHING by diminishing left-right staggering and moving images to more closely align with apposite paragraphs but you seem intent on negating all my work.

Why?

Assuming you are too lazy to read the advice at MOS:IMG in its entirety, here are some selected highlights:

Horizontal placement

• In most cases, images should be right justified on pages, which is the default placement.
• Multiple images in the same article can be staggered right-and-left. However, avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other, or between an image and infobox, navigation template, or similar.
• In a few web browsers, bulleted lists overlap with left-aligned images. It may be preferable to avoid placing a left-aligned image near lists.
• It is often preferable to place images of people so that they "look" toward the text. (Do not achieve this by reversing the image, which creates a false presentation e.g. by reversing the location of scars or other features.)

Vertical placement

An image should generally be placed in the most relevant article section; if this is not possible, try not to place an image "too early" i.e. far ahead of the point in the text discussing what the image illustrates, if this will puzzle the reader. Avoid referring to images as being to the left/right, or above/below, because image placement varies with platform, and is meaningless to people using screen readers; instead, use captions to identify images.

It is not possible to place a thumb image within a paragraph, as the occurrence of such an image causes a paragraph break; i.e. the current paragraph ends and and a new one is begun. BushelCandle (talk) 01:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Why didn't you bother to read it/reply to it there on your own talk page?

You've made a good start by posting here but if you ignore my question (Why didn't you bother to read it/reply to it there?), then I reserve the right to pose an addendum to Talk:Philippines#Image of bulol because you really are messing up our Philippines article even if you don't understand what you are doing. Your policy flouting edits really have to stop or I will agitate for a Philippines topic ban for you. BushelCandle (talk) 07:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Citation needed tag talk page

I'm sure you realise as well as I do why editing other people's remarks on a talk page is essentially VERY naughty and something we never do. NOT "offensive", or "inappropriate" perhaps, so much as fundamentally dishonest - with the best will in the world you are (potentially at least) making another person say something they didn't say. Talk page comments are really best made separately rather than in-line - and over your own signature. What someone else has said on a talk page is what they have said (for good or ill) and is not liable to be "corrected" by others (in contradistinction to the text of an article - which is nobody's property, and often needs editing). I was strongly tempted to revert your "corrections" to others' remarks (including mine) on the above page but have left them for the moment as your intent was so obviously good that it seemed churlish to meddle, but please, for all our sakes, don't start to make a habit of this sort of thing... --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Just to make clear what we're talking about: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ACitation_needed&type=revision&diff=712724846&oldid=712724207

I changed, what at first blush seemed like a question without a closing question mark:
Is that a cn tag is in itself NEVER an "improvement" to any article.
to a clear opening statement:
The basic difficulty of the "cn tag lover's" argument is that a cn tag is in itself NEVER an "improvement" to any article.

If I was really trying to put words into another's mouth, I certainly wouldn't even dream of using the clear flag edit summary I did.

In this case, since the rest of your comments were well crafted and coherent I (wrongly?) assumed that this is what you would have written if you had been more careful.

Since nobody has responded yet (and what I added was actually written by you and doesn't change the meaning one iota for a very careful and moderately intuitive reader), you really need to go back and edit your own comment so that it reads exactly the way you want it to - either by accepting my clear invitation to revert my edit or by just editing it to read the way you want it to.

Incidentally, I'm somewhat amazed you chose to use a new heading to section off your comment at all, since it is obviously pertinent to the discussion immediately above. BushelCandle (talk) 00:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for giving the impression I was objecting to your edits as such (if I had I would have reverted them). Just pointing out what I'm sure you know as well as I do - making edits in this form ON A TALK PAGE (as opposed to in the text of an article or project page) is indeed very liable to leave you open to a charge of "putting words into another's mouth". If you managed in this case to avoid the obvious pitfall then good on you - but I still think it would have been wiser to say anything you wanted to say over your own signature. Hang in there and don't let them get you down. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Noted.

Thanks for taking the time to clarify your stance. BushelCandle (talk) 01:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Filipino name, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bernardino. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

No, although it was not I who added the internal link to a disambiguation page (I merely re-ordered the list), this is one of the rare occasions where the link to Bernardino is a name of Italian, Hispanic, or Portuguese origin, which can be a given name or a surname. is entirely appropriate... BushelCandle (talk) 08:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Possessed!

Yeah, I meant to move that possessive, not remove it. Derp.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:04, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I know - it's something I do often myself.

I think you know that the most important reason for using relative image sizing (rather than hard coding a fixed pixel width)) is not to respect the minority of logged-in users' thumb size preferences, but rather to be better prepared for the probable case that there is a change in the default size from 220px, don't you? BushelCandle (talk) 08:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I applaud SM for taking ownership of that possessive error. EEng 12:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

The edit war at Monarchy of Canada

The edit war continues despite the attempt at discussion on the talk page. As there has been no consensus and editors continue to alter the images, I will have to bring any further changes to the banners being displayed to WP:ANEW. Please note that I am notifying all editors involved in altering the banners, and that this notification can be considered the equivalent of {{uw-ew}}. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 00:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I hope you don't class me as an edit warrior!

I've tried to engage in rational discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&oldid=713811491#Unexplained_image_removal and it's a pity it's proving so hard to reach a rational consensus. BushelCandle (talk) 00:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I've opened a survey to gauge what's being sought there, concerning the royal banners. Feel free to give your input :) GoodDay (talk) 01:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

2016 GA Cup-Wrap Up

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Final/Wrap-Up Hello to our truly awesome GA Cup competitors! Thursday, June 30 saw the end of the 2016 GA Cup. It was a huge success. In the final, our five competitors reviewed an astonishing 207 articles, the most in any GA Cup final thus far. We continue to reach our goals and make a substantial impact in how quickly articles are reviewed for GA status. On March 1, the start of this competition, the article longest in the queue had languished there since June 26, 2015 [5]; in the July 1, 2016 list, the average wait length is just four months [6]. It's clear that we continue to make a difference at GAN and throughout Wikipedia, something we should all be proud of. Thanks to all our competitors for their enthusiasm, and for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success. Remember that most articles can't even be considered for FA status unless it's been passed to GA first, so our efforts have created hundreds of potentials FAs. That is, as they say, a big deal. The final this time represented a real horse race between our 1st and 2nd place winners. First-time competitor (who had won all previous rounds) Sainsf earned an impressive 1456 points with 91 articles reviewed during the final. Close behind, in second place was Carbrera, also a first-time competitor, reviewed the most articles (94). Their enthusiasm was a treat to witness. Congrats to you both! The competition went relatively smoothly, with very little drama this time. We had to clarify one rule: in order for the points to count, you must mark your reviews as completed; it's not up to the judges to ensure that all reviews are completed by the end of a round. We were strict about adhering to this clarification, especially at the end of the final. We intend on stressing it in the stated rules for our next competition, which will be announced soon, so watch out for it. We also intend on applying for a grant through Wikimedia to include gift certificates for our winners, to further incentivize the GA Cup. MrWooHoo should receive special recognition for acting as our main judge, and for stepping in for the rest of the judges when real-life busyness took over. He reviewed the majority of the submissions during our final round. Thanks for your hard work, and for the hard work of all our judges. We look forward to the next competition. Again, thanks to all our competitors, and congrats to our winners. Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Flag edits

Hi there, I noticed that you reverted my edits to a bunch of European identity card pages for various reasons (usually saying they obscured meaning or made something less clear). I was hoping you could explain the reasons behind these reverts in more detail as I found the edit summaries a bit confusing.

I personally felt that making the infobox more concise (especially removing where the infobox showed an EU flag while calling it "Europe" then listing all the non-EU/EEA countries in Europe like Ukraine and Belarus) makes it more clear where the cards are valid and the wikilinks for EU and EEA are sufficient for readers who are unfamiliar with the acronyms... and that by going back to the previous revisions by undoing these changes is making things less clear and more long-winded when it doesn't need to be. I was also interested that in your edit summary here you said it was "less accurate and unsourced". I am more than happy to add a source from the EU's "Your Europe" page indicating that either a national identity card or passport is a valid travel document for EU/EEA nationals within the EU if you feel it is necessary, but again I feel it is more accurate to state that identity cards of EU/EEA member states are recognized by the EU and EEA (and Switzerland) then to state the vague notion of being recognized in Europe generally.

Please let me know your thoughts. Cheers, RA0808 ^talk_contribs 17:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

My flight schedules won't allow me to give you a fuller reply for quite a while but, meanwhile please read Flag of Europe and understand that there are far more countries in "Europe" than just EU/EFTA countries like Gibraltar or Switzerland ("Europe" also includes Moldova, Andorra and Macedonia as just 3 examples among very many) and that I will have to revert any continuing obfuscatory edits that don't take account of the facts. There is nothing vague about the de jure and de facto acceptance of EU identity cards by all three of those countries! If you ping André Devecserii, he may be able to enlighten you before I can... BushelCandle (talk) 21:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Rob984's November 2015 templating

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Rob984 (talk) 13:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Please give me a clue as to where exactly my "edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted or removed." Diffs would be helpful if you can spare the time... BushelCandle (talk) 09:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Persistently changing National identity cards in the European Economic Area despite consensus that Ireland's passport card should be included is disruptive. Hence "If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page". Also refrain from excessively "thanking" edits. I'm assuming that's in good faith but it gives me a notification every time which is a little annoying. Regards, Rob984 (talk) 12:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course I'll try and remember to honor your stated preference to avoid "thanking" you. Apologies in advance if I slip up from time to time.

Have you had a chance to read and understand that WP:Consensus does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote? Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns and you should not arbitrarily remove sourced material just because you don't like it or it does not meet with your own view of things. BushelCandle (talk) 09:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to National identity cards in the European Economic Area. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Rob984 (talk) 09:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Exact diffs please, because it's not obvious what you're talking about! BushelCandle (talk) 20:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

BUMP I'd still like to see those diffs, Rob. My subsequent experience with you leads me to believe that this templating is just so much hot air and you're talking through your hat again... BushelCandle (talk) 05:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

BUMP, double BUMP: It's now more than 4 months with no diffs provided, so I will have to assume that you really were talking through your hat again if I don't see those diffs in the next 2 weeks, Rob. BushelCandle (talk) 03:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

GA Cup Announcement

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup Greetings, all! We would like to announce the start of the 4th GA Cup, a competition that seeks to encourage the reviewing of Good article nominations! Thus far, there have been three GA Cups, which were successful in reaching our goals of significantly reducing the traditionally long queue at GAN, so we're doing it again. Currently, there are over 400 nominations listed. We hope that we can again make an impact this time. The 4th GA Cup will begin on November 1, 2016. Four rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on February 28, 2017), but this may change based on participant numbers. We may take a break in December for the holidays, depending on the results of a poll of our participants taken shortly after the competition begins. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same, as will the scoring. Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on October 31, 2016. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors, so sign-up now! If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the judges. Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Incipit edit in the Ferdinand Marcos article

Good day to you.

It came to me that my edit in the Ferdinand Marcos article - the first paragraph, to be precise - was reverted, and I believe I can explain myself here for my revision, as the comment box in the edits can only permit me 140 (or 160, I don't remember) characters.

The reason that was put forward in the reversion was that my edit "weakened the lead paragraph". That is indeed my motive in giving my edit, because the first sentence immediately containing the world "kleptocrat" can put people off in reading the article, and while I do personally agree on this label on the person discussed, I nevertheless believe that introducing any person - a dictator, no less - in this way will do injustice to everyone. This is why I "weakened my lead paragraph" to the Marcos article to avoid this problem. However, this is my secondary reason.

My primary reason for "weakening the lead paragraph" is that as it stands now, the paragraph is not only too strong, its language is loaded. Literally introducing Marcos as a "kleptocrat" in the first sentence must be absolutely avoided, as are other contentious labels that might be applicable, however accurate it may be or how many citations support it. If anything, it may be moved elsewhere in the introduction, but ideally not in the beginning sentence. This extends to the fact that the neutrality of the introduction might have been violated in the standing language, and could incite rounds of counter-edits by other users, registered or otherwise, in whatever political orientation. The purpose of my edit is to make the introductory paragraph more opinion-neutral, keeping in line with Wikipedia's Core Content Policy of content neutrality.

After my points, however, I will not undo your reversion yet, as I will leave this to your judgment and our agreement over how we will deal with this. We can continue here in the talk page to continue our discussion in our own time, and I await your response.

Thank you for bringing this up.

Ferrand L (talk) 23:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

But Marcos was not only undeniably a kleptocrat, he was first and foremost a kleptocrat. Kleptocracy verily defined his presidency. If you like I suppose the word could be moved to the second sentence of the lead, just as Adolph Hitler doesn't call him a dictator until the second sentence. EEng 04:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I do recognize that Marcos was by all accounts a kleptocrat, which is why in my edit, I did not take that word down. I primarily changed the first sentence because I do not desire that word placed there (for the above reasons), instead moving it elsewhere in the first paragraph. But it required changing the entire paragraph to accommodate it, and at the same time to avoid contentious connotations. I guess that caused a "weakening" in that paragraph, as denoted in the reversion comment.

Seeing that Adolf Hitler's description of "dictator" shows up only in the second sentence, we can indeed emulate that example here. (If I remember correctly, I placed "kleptocrat" farther into the paragraph in my edit.) I'm looking forward how this will be achieved here, though.

Ferrand L (talk) 13:23, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I was half-joking. kleptocrat goes very appropriately in the first sentence re Marcos, and would be completely appropriate in the first sentence re Hitler. But I don't really care that much. EEng 21:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup Greetings, all! We would like to announce the start of the 4th GA Cup, a competition that seeks to encourage the reviewing of Good article nominations! Thus far, there have been three GA Cups, which were successful in reaching our goals of significantly reducing the traditionally long queue at GAN, so we're doing it again. Currently, there are over 400 nominations listed. We hope that we can again make an impact this time. The 4th GA Cup will begin on November 1, 2016. Four rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on February 28, 2017), but this may change based on participant numbers. We may take a break in December for the holidays, depending on the results of a poll of our participants taken shortly after the competition begins. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same, as will the scoring. Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on November 14, 2016. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors, so sign-up now! If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the judges. Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. We apologize for the delay in sending out this message until after the competition has started. Thank you to Krishna Chaitanya Velaga for aiding in getting this message out. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, BushelCandle. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

LL221W

So I just now realized why User talk:LL221W#Blocked never got a response. His account got globally locked (it actually happened before you even posted there). Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping me informed, User:Jackmcbarn.

I see that User:LL221W's global account was locked by Tegel just some 5 hours after you blocked the Wikipedia account. I don't know the details of (or how to find out) the (additional?) abuse that prompted that global lock.

However, it does seem antithetical to most concepts of natural justice if the poor bugger can not write in explanation/mitigation/denial of his offence(s) at User talk:LL221W#Blocked! BushelCandle (talk) 11:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

4th Annual GA Cup - Round 1

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup Greetings, GA Cup competitors! November 28, 2016 was supposed to mark the end of the first round. However, we needed 16 competitors to move on, and currently only 10 have completed articles. Thus, the judges have come together to let the participants decide what we shall do. Please complete this quick survey to let us know whether you would like a holiday break. There will be two options for what we will do next in terms of Round 2 depending on the results of this poll. If the survey indicates that the competitors want a break, we will have a 2nd round after the break ends with just the 10 competitors who have reviewed articles, starting in January (with a specific date TBA). If the survey does not indicate that participants want a break, we will extend Round 1 until the end of December. We apologize for sending out this newsletter late. Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase! To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

4th GA Cup - Round 2

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup Greetings, GA Cup competitors! December 29th marked the end of the first round, after it was extended from its previously scheduled conclusion at the end of November. Because of the smaller pool of contestants this year, it was decided to keep sign-ups open throughout the month of December. This extension proved to be very helpful as we saw that more users signed up and completed many reviews. Krishna Chaitanya Velaga earned an impressive 402 points, followed by Cartoon network freak with a close 338 points. Shearonink who signed up after our extension was in third with 170 points. We had a rule clarification in Round 1 which was that many articles were being passed with blatant copyright violations and plagarism occurring in the articles. Thus, the judges have concluded that if an article is passed even if it has a copyright violation/plagarism, we will not provide points for that article as it wouldn't be considered a "complete review" under the scoring rules. In the end, 94 articles were reviewed by 14 users who will all advance to Round 2. The judges had planned on having 16 contestants advance but since only 14 did, we are changing the pools in this round. We will be having 2 pools of 3 and 2 pools of 4 in Round 2, with the top 2 in each pool advancing to Round 3 as well as the top participant ("9th place") of all remaining competitors. Round 2 will begin on January 1 at 00:00:00 UTC and will end on January 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 2 and the pools can be found here. Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase! To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

4th GA Cup - Round 3

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Round 3 Hello, GA Cup competitors! Sunday saw the end of Round 2. Shearonink took out Round 2 with an amazing score of 499. In second place, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga earned an astounding 236 points, and in third place, Cartoon network freak received 136 points. Originally, we had plans for one wild card for 9th place, however it appears that both Chris troutman and J Milburn were tied for 9th place. Therefore, we have decided to have both advance to Round 3. In Round 2, 91 reviews were completed! At the beginning of this GA Cup, the longest wait was over 7 months; at the end of Round 2, the longest wait had decreased to a little over 6 months. It's clear that we continue to make a difference at GAN and throughout Wikipedia, something we should all be proud of. Thanks to all our competitors for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success, and for your part in helping other editors improve articles. We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in Round 3 so we can keep decreasing the backlog. To qualify for the third round, contestants had to earn the two highest scores in each of the four pools in Round 2; plus, one wildcard. For Round 3, users were placed in 3 random pools of 3. To qualify for the Final of the 3rd Annual GA Cup, the top user in each pool will progress, and there will also be one wildcard. This means that the participant who comes in 4th place (all pools combined) will also move on. Round 3 has already started and will end on February 26 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 3 and the pools can be found here. Also, we'd like to announce the departure of judge Zwerg Nase. We thank him for all his hardwork and hope to see him back in the future. Good luck and have fun! Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, and MrWooHoo. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

4th GA Cup - The Final

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Final Hello, GA Cup competitors! Sunday, February 26 saw the end of Round 3. Shearonink finished in first with 616 points, which is more than the point totals for all the other competitors combined! In second place, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga earned an impressive 152 points, followed by Sturmvogel_66 in third with 111 points. Chris troutman and Kees08 each received a wild-card and were able to advance to the Final Round. There was a major error on the part of the judges, and initially, 8 users were advanced instead of 5. This has been corrected, and we sincerely apologize for this confusion. In Round 3, 71 reviews were completed! At the beginning of this GA Cup, the longest wait was over 7 months; at the end of Round 3, the longest wait is still holding steady at a little over 6 months, the same as for the previous round. By the end of all three Rounds, the total number of nominations increased slightly - this suggests that users are more willing to nominate, knowing that their articles will be reviewed. We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in the Final so we can keep tackling the backlog. In the Final Round, the user with the highest score will be the winner. The Final has already started and will end on March 31st at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Finals and the pools can be found here. Good luck and have fun! Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, and MrWooHoo. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

4th GA Cup - Wrap Up

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Wrap Up Hello, GA Cup competitors! Saturday, April 1 concluded the 2016-2017 GA Cup. 64 reviews were completed by our finalists. Although the backlog increased by 42 over the reviewing period instead of declining, the increase suggests that the contest is encouraging editors to nominate articles for review. Congratulations to Shearonink, who is the winner of the Cup, finishing with 672 points! Once again, just as in last round, this is more than the point totals for all the other competitors combined! It was a close race for second place between Krishna Chaitanya Velaga, who achieved 164 points, and Sturmvogel_66, who earned 150. Though Sturmvogel_66 reviewed one more article than Krishna Chaitanya Velaga, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga managed to earn 14 points more due to reviewing older articles. Our two wildcard competitors, Kees08 and Chris troutman, came in fourth and fifth, respectively. There were some bumps in the competition this time: The sign-up deadline and the first round were both extended due to fewer competitors signing up then was planned for. And there were delays in tallying points and getting out the newsletter. The judges apologize for this latter difficulty. Lastly, mid-way through the competition we bid farewell to Zwerg Nase, who stepped down from their position as judge due to other commitments. Information about the Final can be found here. Thank you to all of our competitors, and congrats to our winners! Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, and MrWooHoo. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

Minor barnstar

		The Minor Barnstar
		Thank you for participating in the 2016 GA Cup! Although you didn't end up making the top 16, you did fantastic and we thank you for that. MrWooHoo (T • C) 20:35, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Passport stamps for Schengen

Hi, saw you undid my edit regarding passport stamps for holders of Schengen residence permits.

The fact is, according to the document referred to, only Schengen residents having a family member who's an EU citizen and travelling with them will not be stamped.

"The Commission recalls that third-country nationals, family members of Union citizens, are exempt from stamping on entry and exit when travelling with a residence card issued by Member States under Article 10 of Directive 2004/38/EC, accompanying Union citizens who exercise the right of free movement or residence. On the contrary, a third-country national, family member of a Union citizen, is not dispensed from stamping when travelling alone or when the person, accompanying a Union citizen, does not present the aforementioned residence card (e.g. the person lives with an EU citizen outside the EU and does not hold the residence card)."

In addition, my friend is a Philippine national with a permanent residence permit. She always gets stamped in/out of Schengen, without exception. I even asked the border guards at Arlanda airport whether she would have to obtain a new passport for her visit to the Philippines, as her passport was full. They said she would André Devecserii (talk) 16:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Are you talking about this reversion of an IP editor at Passport stamp, André?

If so, then I hope I've already made the relevant change and sorry I didn't spot it was you or I would have been more circumspect...

However, my change now rather conflicts with the earlier bullet point in the "no stamp" column:

Family members holding a residence card issued under Article 10 of Directive 2004/38/EC who are accompanying or joining EU, EEA and Swiss citizens exercising the right of freedom of movement doesn't it? BushelCandle (talk) 20:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Correct, was just too lazy to log on at the time. And yes, I now see that's basically already mentioned, but the fact remains that an "ordinary" residence permit holder will (or at least should) get stamped. The document (reference 14, the one I quoted above) does not state that residence permit holders in general are stamp-exempt, nor is this the case for the non-EU/EFTA nationals I know André Devecserii (talk) 07:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Passport stamps for Schengen

Hi, saw you undid my edit regarding passport stamps for holders of Schengen residence permits.

The fact is, according to the document referred to, only Schengen residents having a family member who's an EU citizen and travelling with them will not be stamped.

"The Commission recalls that third-country nationals, family members of Union citizens, are exempt from stamping on entry and exit when travelling with a residence card issued by Member States under Article 10 of Directive 2004/38/EC, accompanying Union citizens who exercise the right of free movement or residence. On the contrary, a third-country national, family member of a Union citizen, is not dispensed from stamping when travelling alone or when the person, accompanying a Union citizen, does not present the aforementioned residence card (e.g. the person lives with an EU citizen outside the EU and does not hold the residence card)."

In addition, my friend is a Philippine national with a permanent residence permit. She always gets stamped in/out of Schengen, without exception. I even asked the border guards at Arlanda airport whether she would have to obtain a new passport for her visit to the Philippines, as her passport was full. They said she would André Devecserii (talk) 16:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Are you talking about this reversion of an IP editor at Passport stamp, André?

If so, then I hope I've already made the relevant change and sorry I didn't spot it was you or I would have been more circumspect...

However, my change now rather conflicts with the earlier bullet point in the "no stamp" column:

Family members holding a residence card issued under Article 10 of Directive 2004/38/EC who are accompanying or joining EU, EEA and Swiss citizens exercising the right of freedom of movement doesn't it? BushelCandle (talk) 20:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Correct, was just too lazy to log on at the time. And yes, I now see that's basically already mentioned, but the fact remains that an "ordinary" residence permit holder will (or at least should) get stamped. The document (reference 14, the one I quoted above) does not state that residence permit holders in general are stamp-exempt, nor is this the case for the non-EU/EFTA nationals I know André Devecserii (talk) 07:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Bharti Airtel into Telenor India. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

You're absolutely right and I apologise for my naughtiness.

I've tried to make amends with this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Telenor&type=revision&diff=781115276&oldid=781115048

(I actually copied text from Telenor India into Telenor) BushelCandle (talk) 05:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Visa restrictions

Hi. I see you created a template for visa restrictions. Considering this template would be used on all visa requirements articles, would it not be better to make sure that the information there only applies to that nationality? I'm on Visa requirements for Irish citizens and there is information about a ban on Armenian citizens visiting Azerbaijan. This should be removed from the overall template and should be included on the Armenian citizens article. The information relating to Nagorno-Karabakh should be left as is. st170e 20:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

No, the template is for Non-visa restrictions - ie universal restrictions that apply to all nationalities and holders of all passports whether they require or do not require visas for particular countries.

Ireland permits dual nationality, so it is entirely possible for an Irish passport holder to also be an Armenian citizen.

If you read a little more carefully, you will also work out that even citizens of countries that do not allow holding multiple passports may have Armenian heritage that is betrayed by their names. Obviously, there will also be Irish passport holders that also visit "naughty" territories (as perceived by some Azerbaijanis)...

What precisely is the information here below that under no possible circumstances could not be relevant for Irish citizens:

Passport validity length

Many countries require passports to be valid for at least 6 months upon arrival and to have at least one or two blank pages for stamping.

Countries requiring passports to be valid at least 6 months on arrival include Abkhazia, Afghanistan, Algeria, Anguilla, Bahrain, Bhutan, Botswana, British Virgin Islands, Brunei, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cayman Islands, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Côte d'Ivoire, Curaçao, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gabon, Guinea Bissau, Guyana, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq (except when arriving at Basra and Erbil or Sulaimaniyah), Israel, Jordan, Kenya, Kiribati, Laos, Madagascar, Malaysia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Myanmar, Namibia, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Somaliland, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Taiwan, Tanzania, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Tokelau, Tonga, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Vietnam, Yemen and Zimbabwe.

Countries requiring passports valid for at least 4 months on arrival include Micronesia and Zambia.

Countries requiring passports valid for at least 3 months on arrival include European Union countries (except Denmark, Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom), Albania, Belarus, Georgia, Honduras, Iceland, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Liechtenstein, Moldova, Monaco, Nauru, Panama, Saint Barthélemy, San Marino, Switzerland and the United Arab Emirates.

Bermuda needs passports to be valid for at least 45 days upon entry.

Countries that require a passport validity of at least 1 month on arrival include Eritrea, Hong Kong, Macao, New Zealand and South Africa.

Other countries require either a passport valid on arrival or a passport valid throughout the period of the intended stay.

Vaccination

Many African countries, including Angola, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Republic of the Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Ghana, Guinea, Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Rwanda, São Tomé and Príncipe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Uganda, Zambia require all incoming passengers to have a current International Certificate of Vaccination.

Some other countries require vaccination only if the passenger is coming from an infected area.

Israeli stamps

Iran, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen do not allow entry to people with passport stamps from Israel or whose passports have either a used or an unused Israeli visa, or where there is evidence of previous travel to Israel such as entry or exit stamps from neighbouring border posts in transit countries such as Jordan and Egypt.

To circumvent this Arab League boycott of Israel, the Israeli immigration services have now mostly ceased to stamp foreign nationals' passports on either entry to or exit from Israel. Since 15 January 2013, Israel no longer stamps foreign passports at Ben Gurion Airport, giving passengers a card instead: "Since January 2013 a pilot scheme has been introduced whereby visitors are given an entry card instead of an entry stamp on arrival. You should keep this card with your passport until you leave. This is evidence of your legal entry into Israel and may be required, particularly at any crossing points into the Occupied Palestinian Territories." Passports are still (as of 22 June 2017) stamped at Erez when travelling into and out of Gaza. Also, passports are still stamped (as of 22 June 2017) at the Jordan Valley/Sheikh Hussein and Yitzhak Rabin/Arava land borders with Jordan.

Armenian ethnicity

Due to a state of war existing between the Republic of Armenia and Azerbaijan, the government of Azerbaijan bans entry of citizens from Armenia, as well as citizens of any other country who are of Armenian descent, to the Republic of Azerbaijan (although there have been exceptions, notably for Armenia's participation at the 2015 European Games held in Azerbaijan).

Azerbaijan also strictly bans any visit by foreign citizens to the separatist region of Nagorno-Karabakh (the de facto Nagorno-Karabakh Republic), its surrounding territories and the Azerbaijani exclaves of Karki, Yuxarı Əskipara, Barxudarlı and Sofulu which are de jure part of Azerbaijan but under control of Armenia, without the prior consent of the government of Azerbaijan. Foreign citizens who enter these occupied territories, will be permanently banned from entering the Republic of Azerbaijan and will be included in their "list of personae non gratae".

Upon request, the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic authorities may attach their visa and/or stamps to a separate piece of paper in order to avoid detection of travel to their country.

References

?? BushelCandle (talk) 20:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Your one size fit all approach does not work. Keep Armenian descent in the article if you wish, but information relating to citizens of Armenia should be removed. That's almost like putting on every Visa requirements article that American passports must be used to enter America. st170e 21:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

It's a pity that you've failed to answer my pertinent question, so I'll pose it again: What precisely is the information in the template that under no possible circumstances could apply to Irish citizens?

It would simply be incorrect to write that "American passports must be used to enter America" but most of the information in the template applies to most citizens of any nationality and all of the information applies to at least one citizen of every nationality.

Which is the citizenship that has a government with such an infallible police state apparatus that it is able to ensure that 100.00000% of its own citizens do not also possess Armenian citizenship and/or ethnicity? (It may surprise you to know that I personally am aware of more than 20 Irish Armenians!) BushelCandle (talk) 21:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

With the current state of the template, Armenian citizens being banned does not affect citizens of Ireland (so long as they use their Irish passport). If they were banned completely, even using their Irish passport, then I'd see the merit of including it. I also see the merit of Armenian ethnicity. But I think the template would be better if the restrictions were listed by country, such as:

• Azerbaijan Citizens that are of Armenian ethnicity are banned from entry.... etc

I'm not criticising you so don't take this personally. (Also, it would be correct to write that US citizens are obliged to enter the US on their US passport, but that information doesn't belong in the template). You may know Irish Armenians, but this page is for Irish citizens alone so it would be pointless to add information about Azerbaijan banning Armenian citizens on every visa requirements page. Leave that for Armenian citizens, but include Armenian ethnicity.

I hope I've given you the information to your pertinent question. st170e 00:01, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Removal of the dates of introduction of visa-free arrangements for Macau passports

Please do not remove information on the dates of introduction of visa-free arrangements for the Macau passports holders. First of all it is not found in edit history and second of all even if it was that is not the way to read articles anyway. If you wish you can suggest the removal of this information from the article on the article talk page but please arm yourself with better arguments than the information is "silly". Thanks.--Twofortnights (talk) 15:29, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

My edit summary that removed this silly section was actually "delete entire silly section if it documents dates of introduction of visa-free arrangements for Macau passport holders, since this info is already recorded in edit history & certainly does not belong in this position!". Why exactly do you think this information is so precious and belongs in prime position right below the visa requirements map? Why do you think that esoteric info about the dates of changes to visa requirements more than 2 years ago is relevant to our readers or appropriate for inclusion at this prime position at the head of the article? Please read WP:IINFO and WP:NOTUS. BushelCandle (talk) 15:37, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

It is very relevant as it shows the timeline of the visa-free arrangement development for certain countries. These are encyclopedic articles, not mere info pages for tourists showing current data. I don't care where people from Macau can travel without a visa, I care about geopolitics and seeing how the visa-free access developed post 1999.--Twofortnights (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough.

If you had put that in your edit summary of your restoration of what I deleted, we might have saved a bit of time...

However, because of the article's title, would you have any argument/reason not to move the section further down the page and change the name to the less baffling: "Timeline of visa-free access post 1999" ? BushelCandle (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Well OK you can move it in Macau article if you wish but please refrain from moving similar content down in other articles where historical perspective usually goes first.--Twofortnights (talk) 17:47, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Do these "other articles" have baffling content and misleading titles too? What are the articles' names so I can judge whether your request is raesonable or not? BushelCandle (talk) 18:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but I do not see any baffling content or misleading titles in this article.--Twofortnights (talk) 21:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Macau

Hi,

You removed information about the Philippines. This is a mistake. I try to explain why.

Change a name of a country, change of political system, change of jurisdiction cannot be considered automatic cancellation of the legal relationship.

example. The USSR and Vietnam had a visa-free agreement. After the collapse, the agreement continued to operate for Russia (untill 1994) and Kyrgyzstan (still in force). These are the facts. Next statements are true. 1. Russian citizens can visit Vietnam without a visa from 1982 to 1994 (as citizens of the USSR from 1982 to 1991) and from January 2009. 2. Kyrgyz citizens can visit Vietnam without a visa from 1982 (as citizens of the USSR from 1982 to 1991).

exemple. French citizens can visit New Zealand without a visa since 1947. All? No. Residents of the Metropolitan France from 1947. Residents of New Caledonia and Haiti from 1987. Residents of all other Overseas territories from 1995. If New Caledonia will be an independent state, visa history with NZ begins not with Independence Day, from 1995.

Philippines canceled visas for residents of Macau from 1994. This is a fact. The fact that Portuguese Macau became Macau, China is irrelevant in this matter. We cannot ignore this fact. If Macau will change the jurisdiction, will become an independent, the visa issue will not happen changes. I assume that not only the Philippines has lifted visa requirements for residents of Macau until 1999. Try to find information about it. It is hard and time consuming. And in most cases fails.

You as a reader may not agree with these statements. Choose the view that suits you.
You as the editor should present all possible information.

The information about the Philippines should be in the article.

Happy editing. --Norvikk (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Map size

Relative size 3.4 is smaller than what was decided as an optimal size years ago for maps showing small island states. I noticed you reverted the 3.7 size without discussing. Would you be interested in discussing this proposed change without first editing the articles? Thanks.--Twofortnights (talk) 23:24, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes.

I do think that discussion and better edit summaries are sensible.

Please provide a diff or other URL to where and when and what "was decided as an optimal size years ago for maps showing small island states". Bear in mind that for readers that are not logged in or readers that have not changed their personal thumbnail size preferences and are using the desktop version, a width of upright=3.4 is a close equivalent of a fixed pixel width of 800px (which is what many of these Visa regime maps were previously set at) whereas 3.7, means moving screen focus to the right on many common screen widths...

I do think that wider input is needed than holding discussions on my talk page - where would you suggest as a good place to discuss passport and visa matters, please? (edit conflict) BushelCandle (talk) 23:39, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Map error

Please do not revert Visa requirements for Slovenian citizens to that version because this is how it looks like - http://i.imgur.com/xOfO36x.png --Twofortnights (talk) 23:22, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I failed to spot that, unusually, it uses the Template:Wide image. BushelCandle (talk) 23:45, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Visa requirements for Chinese citizens of Hong Kong

Hi. I noticed you undid my edit in this article and thus reverted back to the version vandalized by an IP user who inserted false information that are not supported by the source - [7]. I presume this was a mistake so I reinstated the original version. In case I am wrong I am willing to discuss this.--Twofortnights (talk) 23:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't categorise the IP as a "vandal". I thought his edit summary of "changed inconsistency of visa free country number in the first paragraph" was spot on when you compare the numbers in the first part to the latter statement of "The official figure provided by the Hong Kong Immigration Department of countries and territories granting visa-free access to Hong Kong SAR passport holders is 158 as of 03 March 2017. (However, this figure excludes countries and territories which are not officially recognised by the People's Republic of China, such as Kosovo and Taiwan so the practical figure relevant to travellers is actually higher.)"

I do agree that I was wrong to revert you without an edit summary - I suppose I was encouraging you to use edit summaries when you revert edits that are not clearly by vandals... BushelCandle (talk) 23:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:N-VR

Template:N-VR has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. CapitalSasha ~ talk 03:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Visa requirements for Lebanese citizens

Your edits are destructive. You added an irrelevant reference to China, which states France as the nationality and Iraq as the destination. I removed it as there is already a relevant Timatic source added earlier. You removed vaccination infos, validity tables, and rejection scenarios. Which is odd. Why remove them? I don't get it. They're key sections in many other wiki-pages of the same sort. Plus, stop removing thee and . Don't engage in an edit-war, this is a punishable act on Wikipedia.

I do not believe it is true that I added an irrelevant reference to China, which states France as the nationality and Iraq as the destination. Neither do I believe it is true that I "removed vaccination infos, validity tables, and rejection scenarios. Can you provide diffs that substantiate your allegations? BushelCandle (talk) 12:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Israeli stamps

@BushelCandle +Twofortnights, the problem with the Israeli stamps us that them seem to target specific type of countries: East Asian/West Pacific [China, Hong Kong, Japan, Korea (South), Philippines, San Marino, and Thailand], major historically-Catholic countries [Andorra, Brazil, France, Hungary, Mexico, Monaco, Poland, Portugal, and Spain], and some random set of countries [Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Norway, and Serbia]. It explicitly excludes most Anglophone countries except Australia and New Zealand, African countries, Carribean countries, and certain large countries such as India, Italy, and Russia. There seem to be an intrinsic reason why the editor is intent on forewarning people from these countries. That and the statement reamins unsourced which may equate to vandalism. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 20:00, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Presumably we have more than 200 individual articles about the various passports. My personal feeling is that either ALL of them (with the possible exception of the Israeli passport article) or NONE of them should carry information about the difficulties caused by having Israeli stamps placed in them. If the decision is for all of the articles to carry this information, then this should done by use of specific template to reduce chores and errors. I've raised this issue here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Travel_and_Tourism&oldid=786797087#Template_for_Israeli_passport_stamps BushelCandle (talk) 17:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Update: Template:N-VR now includes these restrictions. BushelCandle (talk) 12:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Question

Hi BushelCandle. There's probably a really obvious explanation that I'm missing, but I was wondering why you archived sections of someone else's talk page. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 01:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

The obvious explanation might be that both of the bot-placed notices were well past their use-by-dates (voting invitations dating from 24 November 2015 and 21 November 2016). Nonoyborbun is notorious for never using edit summaries or talk pages (including his own) despite some very contentious reverts/edits. However, I must confess that I was not just doing some (necessary?) housekeeping.

My motivations included

(1) to try and goad her/him into a response

(2) make it clearer to other editors that hell might freeze over before they could expect a dialogue with Nonoyborbun.

You'll get an instant barn-star from me if you actually get him to provide a coherent rationale for his continual edit-warring on Philippines articles... BushelCandle (talk) 14:52, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)}  If you reply here, please ping me by using {{re|Ks0stm}} in your reply.  23:23, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, {{re|Ks0stm}}, it's appreciated. BushelCandle (talk) 15:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, BushelCandle. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Passp-restr

Template:Passp-restr has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Pppery 16:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

N-VR

Hello. You added ‘Non-visa travel restrictions’ for visa articles. You did not do all the visa articles? Why? Why are you not finished?--Norvikk (talk) 07:21, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Laziness? Other uses of my time? (We are talking about many dozens of pages here and I usually try to check my additions rather than adopt a scatter-gun approach...)

Although I thought it would be useful to create the template (which has now been turned into an article (Non-visa travel restrictions) which is transcluded on many pages), I am semi retired! --BushelCandle (talk) 15:43, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Phamat123

Sorry, I haven't read it yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phamat123 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Passp-restr

Template:Passp-restr has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Pppery 16:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with the current situation where the template was merged into Non-visa travel restrictions and subsequently transcluded onto appropriate pages. --BushelCandle (talk) 15:53, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Visa requirements for Emirati citizens

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors has been completed.

I also fixed some but not all of the citation formats, added several citations that were missing, and fixed several other issues I noticed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 18:48, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for all your elegant and hard work, User:Twofingered Typist; it's very much appreciated! --BushelCandle (talk) 18:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Northen Island

It is a county. The sources are wrong and Northern Island is a county in it's own right. There is also masses of prove on wiki that the UK is made up of 4 county's which are England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Island. I find this very insulting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slindsell15 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Do you really mean "county" (as in County Londonderry or County Armagh or Yorkshire) or do you actually mean "country" (as is England, Wales and Scotland)?

If the former, you have a very unusual stance and will struggle to find reliable sources for your novel stance; if the latter, then your position is already covered in the material I restored...--BushelCandle (talk) 23:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Abiy Ahmed, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amhara (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert.

I've disambiguated Amhara to Amharas (which is a re-direct from Amhara (people). --BushelCandle (talk) 12:07, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you !

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks! Joseph Sakr (talk) 14:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

How thoughtful. Thank you very much! --BushelCandle (talk) 14:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC)