User talk:BushelCandle/Archive 2

Assistance for uploading images
Hi BushelCandle, I always appreciate you for creating pages and using good typos and skills. Today I need your help for uploading images using login method. When I logged in in Wikimedia Commons, it says " You are centrally log-in, reload the pages for user settings." Afterward, I logged out to Wikipedia account, but nothing happened. Please give me a hint to uploading media files on Wikimedia Commons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robin Hooke (talk • contribs) 12:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm very sorry that my current flight schedule does not really allow me sufficient time to make an adequate reply.
 * Might I wickedly suggest that you place your query here:
 * Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Images :
 * (It's not the right place, but there are lots of experts there and one of them might have the time and knowledge to help you...) --BushelCandle (talk) 15:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Precious
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Wow! Coming from you that's a really nice start to my day - I'll try and make your award justified... --BushelCandle (talk) 11:19, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Red link to your name
I see that you've been editing for almost 3 years now and you appear to know what you're doing. Might I suggest that you create a user page, even if it's empty, so that your user name isn't red linked? Otherwise people might assume that you're one of those drive-by editors who's WP:NOTHERE and feel the need to double check every edit you make. Just a thought. Happy editing! Regards, nagualdesign 03:51, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually it's even worse than that! Counting previous account names that I no longer have access to, it's considerably more than 12 years.
 * I do take your point; humans are hard-wired to make judgements based on limited (and often insufficient) information and it's only natural that they should assume that my edits need supervision. However, it is a conscious choice for at least two reasons:
 * 1) I'm used to finding my edits in page histories more easily due to the red colour. (When I started editing all those years ago, it was quite rare for registered editors not to immediately create a user page and my user-name stood out more. These days, there seem to be more and more registered editors that either choose not to or can't be bothered to create a user page so the utility of this ploy is steadily diminishing...)
 * 2) Perhaps because of all those time zone changes and less humane work rosters (or just because my faculties are diminishing) I do find I make some very silly and elementary errors - so maybe it's just as well that other editors do like to check up on my actions.
 * Thanks for your helpful assistance, as ever and don't let the buggers grind you down! --BushelCandle (talk) 16:58, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair points. I just use my browser to highlight my edits (CTRL+F then type "nagual") and on talk pages I just scan for my signature. I could design one for you if you'd like. And thanks very much for that last point! All the best, nagualdesign 17:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * , you probably already know this, but user pages are not required, nor are they necessary. Editors don't "own" their userspace anyway, so any suggestion that it's important to do so is misguided.  Further, I've seen numerous experienced and long-term editors who, after a period of time (sometimes years), ask for their user page to be deleted.  Bottom line, it's a "if you want to have one" kind of thing.  -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 17:44, 15 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, I did already know that - but thanks for your interest anyway.
 * I don't see nagualdesign's initial post immediately above as "misguided". He lucidly explained his concern and at no time did I take his post as anything other than helpful and an optional suggestion.
 * PS: I really do think you should now go out of your way to avoid interacting on the same talk pages/sections as he...
 * All the best! --BushelCandle (talk) 17:58, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Response to comments
Since the talk page discussion has been hatted, I'll respond to you here re: "We both know that you often have pertinent points to make, Winkelvi, but the very act of making them to Nagualdesign has perhaps reached the stage that it is completely counter-productive. :

I'm now forced to agree with you and have no hope that any amount of attempting to discuss rationally will now prove fruitful with that particular editor. Nor has it ever, truth be told. From the very first interaction I had with him  to the most recent, "you do play the fool. You appear to believe that you can use your Asperger's as a get out of jail free card. Well, I've encountered quite a few people on the autistic spectrum in my life and I can honestly say that none of them are quite like you. The negative traits you exhibit have nothing to do with Asperger's and everything to do with you being immature, self-absorbed, self-important...Saying, "Waah! Asperger's!" every time someone picks you up on your tiresome bullshit is an insult to people with Asperger's." . Indeed, it's never been productive or pleasant.

Thanks for the nudge. -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 18:00, 15 July 2018 (UTC)


 * My pleasure. Happy and productive encyclopaedia construction, Winkelvi ! --BushelCandle (talk) 18:05, 15 July 2018 (UTC)


 * (Later) I see that your helpful commitment to cease interaction with User:Nagualdesign has now been formalised here. I see that the commitment is one-way (ie User:Nagualdesign has made no such reciprocal commitment) so if this causes you any difficulties in future, please do not hesitate to contact me so that I can try and act as an intermediary and obviate the need for you two to interact directly with each other... --BushelCandle (talk) 23:13, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Horrible excuse for an edit summary
Could you please do better edit summaries than this horrible excuse for an edit summary special:diff/850907254, otherwise you might find people protesting or reporting you personally. 😊 --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:25, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Bearing in mind that my edit added one word (him) and a comma and removed the internal link to United Kingdom, what in particular do you think was inadequate or mendacious about my edit summary of "It is well sourced that many protested this horrible excuse for a pussy-grabbing human being PERSONALLY - not just his policies. Also, WP:OVERLINKING specifies that very well known geographical entities such as countries are not usually internally linked" when I edited our Donald Trump baby balloon article,  ? --BushelCandle (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Why do I need to bear in my the edit? My comment was about your edit summary, the actual edit was good thanks for your help. One inadequacy was the incivility that you were showing to his honour the 45th President of the United States, Donald J. Trump. Even if you may think that his character is not as good as other peoples, which is a subject matter and many many people would probably disagree with you, WP:SUMMARYNO says we should avoid incivility. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:47, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought that Trump only tweeted - I did not realise he edited here too. What is his Wikipedia account name so I can avoid being directly uncivil to him in future, please? --BushelCandle (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think might know.  -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know, WP:BLP applies to edit summaries too. I once posted a link to a funny YouTube video on a user talk page, foolishly using the title of the video as my edit summary. The edit was immediately RevDeleted by an admin who then placed a note on my user page, and when I responded by explaining that that was simply the title of the video I was blocked and my explanation was RevDeleted. It took several editors coming to my aid to get to the bottom of things and I was eventually unblocked. The moral of the tale is that people lose their fucking minds when it comes to talking about Trump, and freedom of expression goes out of the window. Although it's perfectly legal to say " I think Donald Trump's a sociopath", or WTTE, you're likely to be judged as if you'd just written "Donald Trump is a sociopath", which is a BLP violation (written here only for demonstration purposes). Happy editing! <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 22:48, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow!?!
 * Thanks for the heads-up ! --BushelCandle (talk) 22:54, 18 July 2018 (UTC)


 * "Sara Hershkowitz said the crowd of 15,000 at her Netherlands performance was “screaming like I was Beyoncé every time I sang above a B natural.”" - video, and it takes some patience. Whole thing is on YouTube. (You can also get blocked when you post links to possibly unfree videos, DYK?) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 22
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Visa requirements for Hungarian citizens, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Visegrad ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Visa_requirements_for_Hungarian_citizens check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Visa_requirements_for_Hungarian_citizens?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks once again for your tireless vigilance. I've now disambiguated to Visegrád Group via a pipe showing "V4". --BushelCandle (talk) 13:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


 * (Later): and been reverted without explanation by the edit warring tag team of User:Norvikk/User:Getgotgotten... --BushelCandle (talk) 21:51, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring
Hey, I get how frustrating it can be to have someone continually remove your comments. As I reminded here, removing comments from your talkpage is an indication that you've read, and understood them - and archiving to history is permitted. Please keep in mind that there is no exemption from the Three-revert-rule for restoring your comments on the editor's talkpage. SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me! 18:55, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the timely reminder.
 * I would have no difficulty if User:Norvikk was actually archiving to history but we both know he's not even reading the comments - never mind responding to them. Never mind, the wanton damage he's doing can be repaired when he sleeps... --BushelCandle (talk) 19:00, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Seems like I might have gotten thru to them on the last one. I'm not particularly thrilled with the personal attack in the edit summary, but it looks like another admin is addressing that. SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!  19:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a great pity to see two of User:Norvikk's accounts blocked at the same time as both of their accounts make some very good edits when they are not being pointy and reverting twice in 24 hours over many articles without explanation just because they can get away with it.
 * I will have to take a break too, now, since it would not seem to be "playing cricket" to rectify their damage without either of the blocked accounts having the opportunity to comment on any errors I might make... --BushelCandle (talk) 21:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Consensus
Hi, I appreciate your edits, but you also have to understand that when you go against consensus there is no point in undoing back and forth. A discussion needs to take place beforehand. Pushing your views through edits instead of through vigorous discussion isn't helpful. Please take time to listen to other editors and then once a common view is found we can all proceed with inserting such content into the article. Thanks!--Twofortnights (talk) 10:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * While I thoroughly agree with the broad principles you expound above I'm completely baffled as to exactly what you're referring to.
 * Please, therefore, provide diffs of both the edits I have pushed through and the consensus / discussion / policy page that meant they were non-consensual.
 * If you are really meaning that I shouldn't change or edit an article that you have "perfected" according to your stance, then I'm afraid that isn't the way that Wikipedias work and you will be doomed to frustration. --BushelCandle (talk) 10:48, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Henley index


Do you know what actual information is? Do you know where to look for it? Do you know when it is updated? Do you know sources?

This photo of my mail. This letter from the manager of Henley. I Russian also receive it in Russian. I think you can understand the first offer. "Update 10 July 2018 For the third quarter 2018" Everyone can ask about inclusion in mailing for media. It is available in many languages. 

You don't use easy ways. You are at war with good.

Relevant information is available on the website. Access and search very easy. It is so easy. 

By the way, article about the index has been spoiled. One of the users with administrator rights eliminated hundreds of edits. I think it was your friend. We lost the edits for several years. We have lost the great table. This table contained all countries and all years. We could see the dynamics of the changes for all countries. Now the article is a ruin. Many excellent users are gone. The articles were destroyed. Barbarians attacked Rome. Rome fell. Dark ages have come.

https://www.henleypassportindex.com/global-ranking

--Norvikk (talk) 20:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Do the job that BushelCandle didn't have time to do while learning to use Google search.--Norvikk (talk) 22:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

https://cdn.newswire.com/files/x/90/1f/ebfd3ff605448a1787c64c3153ec.jpg

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/japan-and-singapore-are-global-leaders-when-it-comes-to-passport-power-300677875.html

Unfortunately, you don't know how to work with the source. You need a reference to the source.

The Lebanese article has become much worse. Fixing the size of maps is necessary for the correct display on tablets. The image of the eye is disgusting. This is not an anatomical Museum. You're a few days destroy the articles.

May be you will do useful work? Uzbekistan is introducing e-visas. 200 articles and 200 maps need editing.

Stop doing nonsense, do useful things.

P.P.S. I'm sorry for the harsh words again. I don't know how to talk to you. You're so stubborn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norvikk (talk • contribs) 22:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm deliberately going to take some time before I respond to give us both time to do some research and take a deep breath. --BushelCandle (talk) 23:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't know how old you are. I'm either dealing with a stubborn teenager or a stubborn old man.


 * I wish you the best of everything!


 * This is my last message. Conversation's over. --Norvikk (talk) 23:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I was still debating with myself whether there was any point in trying to pen a rational response when this happened.
 * It's a great shame since, when you were calm and rational, you contributed some very worthwhile technical edits to our visa and travel document articles.
 * I also see that now both you and your sockpuppet account of User:Getgotgotten have been blocked indefinitely from editing. Consequently if you wish to add anything to this page, please do not use an IP address (which may lead to range blocks) but email me a civil response and, if it complies with this project's rules, I will post it here on your behalf... --BushelCandle (talk) 10:37, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * FYI, you might want to see WP:PROXYING. stwalkerster (talk) 10:42, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the pointer (I suspected there might be rules governing that sort of thing).
 * I read there that "Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned or blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content."
 * I could probably pass the "independent reasons" test for posting responses on this my talk page but passing the verifiable or productive test might be tougher. Assuming the rules are mainly concerned with article rather than user space, do I have to prove that the email exists for the verifiable part or does that refer only to content placed or removed in article space - ie the usual verifiable and reliable sources?--BushelCandle (talk) 11:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

References and notes

 * References


 * Notes

Bold for former names
Manual of Style/Text formatting indicates to bold the first use of the title and the first use of titles that redirect to the article. I generally interpret this as bold former names (former names of companies and places usually.) That's why I bolded the old name in the Henley Passport Index article. It has since been rewritten. Just so you know my reasoning. RJFJR (talk) 19:33, 25 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation, RJFJR. (This refers to this edit. --BushelCandle (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

March 2018
Please stop your current behavior of targeting me. You have already personally attacked me three times, including the first time we interacted and and again when you repeatedly alleged I had an "agenda" with no evidence. You are now apparently following me around and editing pages that you have never edited before to reinsert including this revert with its edit summary. If you continue this behavior, I will take this issue to ANI because it is starting to feel like harassment. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Driver's license, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page EEA ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Driver%27s_license check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Driver%27s_license?client=notify 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) 09:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up, but another astute editor beat me to fixing it.--BushelCandle (talk) 22:54, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
You are Most Welcome.

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC) <br style="clear: both;"/>

RFC generality
That RFC you refer to was a general rule to apply to all Taiwanese articles so that consensus on one article does not apply to all of them. We had some editors using consensus on one page to affect all the others... we can't do that. Taiwan however did reach consensus on American English and we had to do it because of one editor changing every singles Taiwan article to British English. The Taiwan article was mostly American English and had been for quite some time. The one person who questioned it was the culprit that administrators had to warn in the first place. This was a done deal, but did not extend to date formatting. After some initial arguing about date formatting I relented to British style by some new evidence shown at Taiwan airports. But American English still stood. We can try and abolish any two-way words that can cause an issue and I encourage you to try yourself. As far as I can tell, the article guideline you changed (and I made more accurate) was really only used for the Taiwan talk page. We can certainly go back to before either of us changed it. Cheers. I do like your hemi-demi-semi-retired headpiece. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:24, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of BushelCandle/Advocacy


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, BushelCandle/Advocacy, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Cahk (talk) 07:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I really am not sure how I can explain more clearly than before. A Userpage starts with (USER:). The last 2 pages you created are mainspace article. I hope you can understand why they are tagged for deletion.--Cahk (talk) 08:01, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed I do and it's unfortunate that the two talk pages where I both thanked you profusely and apologised unreservedly were deleted within minutes (and presumably) before you had had a chance to read them, Cahk.
 * [8:14, 28 May 2019 RHaworth deleted page Talk:BushelCandle/Wikipedia:Advocacy (G8: Talk page of a deleted page) see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&offset=20190529000000&limit=250&type=delete&user=RHaworth&page=&wpdate=2019-05-28&tagfilter=&subtype=&day=28&month=5&year=2019 ]
 * Perhaps that is a defect in the template (perhaps the template should be amended so that a duplicate of any hot-button reply is placed on the miscreant editor's talk page too)?--BushelCandle (talk) 02:55, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I just noticed that Truth Gatekeeper is blocked
I don't trust his edits so am reverting them. Doug Weller talk 12:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * He has been on a bit of a mission to make sure "The Truth (TM)" regarding Abiy Ahmed's persecution of the Tigrayans of Ethiopia is published.
 * It's a pity that nobody has the time to take him under their wing and tutor him in our policies - he's certainly not lacking in enthusiasm and energy... --BushelCandle (talk) 04:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree. Maybe if someone had the time and energy.. but the "truth" bit might be an impediment. He's been socking since before at least 2, I think3 appeals as "Honesty lover". Check user confirmed.  Doug Weller  talk 12:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

E. J. Levy
Please see the talk page on E. J. Levy before reinserting the same incorrect material that was inserted by a COI edit warrior. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Please comprehensively name ALL the "edit warrior"s before you lazily hit the revert button again (losing painstaking edits in the process).
 * In my experience, over-use of the revert button (rather than painstakingly editing and correcting where necessary) is one of the hallmarks of disrespectful editors.
 * I've checked the sources - and the author herself is likely to be authoritative on how she identifies
 * "I am lesbian, so any characterization of me should use that term. (To call me "queer" when I identify as "lesbian"--and have written about same--is equivalent of calling a straight man "bi-" despite his published statements to the contrary. The broader category may contain but does not accurately represent the individual.)"
 * - and substituted the kindlier and more precise "lesbian" for "queer" as this is less pejorative in some non-US English flavours. --BushelCandle (talk) 03:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Please actually look at the edit history of the page and talk page. The user Hedgielamar has used 3 sockpuppets (all now banned by checkusers), has been banned once for edit warring on the page, and the user's edits been reverted by over half a dozen editors including several administrators. The user continues to add basically the same information that is meant to push their POV. They are listed on the talk page as a COI editor. The information they have added is incorrect and not supported by the sources. I reverted your edits that reinserted that same exact incorrect information. I never reverted any changes about her sexual orientation (see my reverts here:  ).
 * Also, as for "lesbian" or "queer", you are quoting a Wikipedia post by what is likely another sockpuppet of Hedgielamar. On that same noticeboard, I had already posted a comment from the author's Twitter account where she calls herself "queer", which calls into question even more the identity of the Wikipedia account "EJLevywriter". I don't care what is put as her sexual orientation as both lesbian and queer are sourced, but figured you should know.
 * I am going to revert the incorrect information added by Hedgielamar. I have noticed that you have added additional information that is not sourced. I assume you are still doing work on the page, but please note that information needs to be verified by reliable sources, especially on a BLP. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have emailed E. J. Levy for clarification as to whether the text in green above is a true quotation and reflection of her self-identification.
 * I appreciate that, even if she replies in the alternatives, it would still be better to have a secondary source as corroboration.
 * What I do detest, reading your reverts on the article and congtributions on the article's talk page, is people wikilawyering to do a hatchet job and righteously self-jistify. We should not allow sockpuppet dramas and allegations to subvert our encyclopaedic task of not deliberately printing untruths in the biographies of living people.
 * You write above: "I am going to revert the incorrect information added by Hedgielamar." You can not use the revert button to do that without losing the paisntaking edits of other editors (including admins and myself). You need to edit - not revert!
 * Short version: STOP hitting that revert button and take the time and care to actually edit! -BushelCandle (talk) 04:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * (Days later) Note to self for future squabbles: Wally can't plead ignorance of what constitutes edit warring and 3RR... --BushelCandle (talk) 03:36, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You know what, I actually have carefully edited the page. Several times. You would know if you had actually looked through the edit history. Instead you refuse to look at it, ignored the talk page, and reinserted incorrect material several times. I have reverted literally only the same incorrect information that has been reinserted repeatedly by a COI edit warrior. Maybe instead of talking so self-righteously, you need to actually look at what you are talking about and the actual edits. You already accused me of reverting your edits to her sexual orientation, which I never did. I believe you may be the who needs to pay more attention. I have spent plenty of time painstakingly trying to help you understand the disruptive editing that has been affecting the page. You seem uninterested in that, and so I am going to stop. BTW, please provide sources for your additions to BLPs, and that generally does not include opinion pieces or blogs as you have added to Levy's page. Any further discussion can be had on the article talk page. Thank you. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have looked through the edit history and I see you edit warring by reverting rather than editing out what is wrong. You did that to me - thrice in a matter of minutes:
 * 1, 2, 3 and now four times !
 * What exactly is "the same incorrect information" ??? --BushelCandle (talk) 05:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi there! I'm an involved editor in this as well, and while I may be shoving my face where it's not wanted by chiming in here, I was hoping I could clarify - I'm pretty sure Wally didn't intend to revert your stuff, they were only trying to revert User:Hedgielamar (currently on a 1-week block for edit warring).

The short version is that Levy's page has a section on the criticism that her upcoming book has been met with (using female pronouns for Dr. James Barry); that section is kept short (in proportion with the rest of her article) and the sources are reliable. The contested edit cites a low-quality source (Bustle, usually with the URL misspelled) in an attempt to downplay the controversy and refute the other, higher-quality sources.

Hedgie has been repeatedly attempting to insert their edit against consensus and has been ignoring repeated pleas to discuss this on the article's talkpage and/or their talkpage (or really anyplace, I'm not picky, they're just not communicating). They were already blocked once for edit-warring, and while blocked they circumvented it via a sock, earning a longer block. If you visit their talkpage you can see records of this, the admin's warning that if they sock again they'll earn themselves an indef, and repeated attempts to communicate with them. There are also two separate discussions on the BLP noticeboard about Levy, if you're interested in seeing more of this mess.

I hope this helps in terms of what the same incorrect information is; the book's not even out, so we're recording the controversy surrounding it as cited by multiple sources, and at least one person is dissatisfied and insistent. I'm always happy to discuss further if you'd like! NekoKatsun (nyaa) 16:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Taiwan Wikipedia Page
Hello BushelCandle,

Could you change the map on the Taiwan Wikipedia page to this? If possible, could you also change the file name?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Taiwan#/media/File:Taiwan_in_China_(%2Ball_claims_hatched).svg

Thanks! Est12345 (talk) 06:26, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Any editor (including yourself) can do both - but why would you want to? It's just likely to lead to an edit war with a lot of editors claiming that it is a renegade province of "China" (or the PRC) and another lot saying that it has a right of self-determination and self-identification (which I lean towards)... The current content is informative and relatively balanced. --BushelCandle (talk) 06:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

March 2019
Welcome, and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, this is an encyclopedia and articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits, as you did to Mike Lee (American politician). Readers looking for accurate information will not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, please use the sandbox instead, where you are given a certain degree of freedom in what you write. An edit like this is not helpful. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 07:05, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * [[File:Evil laughter.ogg]] --BushelCandle (talk) 06:46, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

IRL/ROI
You reverted my edit which contravenes the style guide at WP:IRE-IRL. Northern Ireland is not discussed in the article, it is not a sovereign state and forms part of the UK. There is no ambiguity in this. The Republic of Ireland is not the name of the country and has no official standing and it's only used when Northern Ireland is discussed in the same context, i.e. discussing the Irish border. Ireland on WP is used to refer to the state, not the island. I kindly ask you to revert your edit. st 170  e  13:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for bringing this to my attention.
 * I am still researching the (extensive) discussion and material, but I hope to have a substantive response to your concerns. When I do respond, it will most likely be on the Talk:Non-visa travel restrictions page. --BushelCandle (talk) 00:05, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:DERRY
Your edit contravenes the consensus set out at WP:LDERRY. The name of the city is currently – and has been since 1662 – Londonderry. The official name of the city hasn't changed. The name of the council, however, has changed but that is irrelevant. WP consensus is that the city should in all cases be Derry and the county Londonderry; the key exception is when a particular entity chooses a different name. st 170  e  13:39, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

April copyright violation
Your addition to Anand Teltumbde has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Shashank5988 (talk) 13:08, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately you have not modified the template notice you used above to include the diff that would pinpoint my alleged crime.
 * Please assist by providing a clear indication of what exactly you are on about!--BushelCandle (talk) 07:02, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Taiwan
You have successfully engendered further discussion, after deciding to implement a single person's idea. Don't revert again to the innovation until it is actually and thoroughly discussed. I have no idea what the "just like United States article" comment means, but after looking I don't see any parallel with the suggested change. See you at the talk page. Shenme (talk) 05:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The way that I understand consensus to work is that, if someone (ie a single editor) proposes an edit on the article's talk page and if after several weeks nobody has objected to or denigrated the proposal then you can hardly complain that you (or anyone else) didn't bother to discuss it. I look forward to seeing your input at Talk:Taiwan...--BushelCandle (talk) 05:52, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Revert on Taiwan page
Hi, it seems to me it's necessary to add "China" to PRC since most people would not know what "PRC" is nor know that "People's Republic of China" equates to the common name "China". The fact that Taiwan's official name is RO China lends to the easy confusion and wondering why Taiwan is called ROC, so brief explanation in the intro is appropriate and important. Mistakefinder (talk) 02:14, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the effort to write to me.
 * I believe it was this edit of mine that reverted your edit of
 * to the long-standing text of
 * I made this revert because:
 * a) The lead section of a long article like Taiwan is intended to summarise the main facts that are explored in more detail below
 * b) Anyone not understanding that the common name for the mainland of the People's Republic of China could simply click on the piped internal link and be taken to a fuller explanation of "common name" of PRC
 * c) given the political tension (including threats of invasion and forcible annexation of one by the other) between the Peoples Republic of China and the Republic of China your addition seemed an unnecessary aggravation
 * d) the etymologies are discussed in later sections
 * e) your addition might have been taken as expressing a non-neutral point of view regarding the correctness of the PRC's political stance
 * d) the etymologies are discussed in later sections
 * e) your addition might have been taken as expressing a non-neutral point of view regarding the correctness of the PRC's political stance


 * To sum up, you have not told me anything, I'm afraid, to make me change my opinion that my reversion was correct. Sorry! --BushelCandle (talk) 02:37, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Revert on Taiwan page
Hi, it seems to me it's necessary to add "China" to PRC since most people would not know what "PRC" is nor know that "People's Republic of China" equates to the common name "China". The fact that Taiwan's official name is RO China lends to the easy confusion and wondering why Taiwan is called ROC, so brief explanation in the intro is appropriate and important. Mistakefinder (talk) 02:14, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the effort to write to me.
 * I believe it was this edit of mine that reverted your edit of
 * to the long-standing text of
 * I made this revert because:
 * a) The lead section of a long article like Taiwan is intended to summarise the main facts that are explored in more detail below
 * b) Anyone not understanding that the common name for the mainland of the People's Republic of China could simply click on the piped internal link and be taken to a fuller explanation of "common name" of PRC
 * c) given the political tension (including threats of invasion and forcible annexation of one by the other) between the Peoples Republic of China and the Republic of China your addition seemed an unnecessary aggravation
 * d) the etymologies are discussed in later sections
 * e) your addition might have been taken as expressing a non-neutral point of view regarding the correctness of the PRC's political stance
 * d) the etymologies are discussed in later sections
 * e) your addition might have been taken as expressing a non-neutral point of view regarding the correctness of the PRC's political stance


 * To sum up, you have not told me anything, I'm afraid, to make me change my opinion that my reversion was correct. Sorry! --BushelCandle (talk) 02:37, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism on Abiy Ahmed
Dear BushelCandle, as I've seen in the article Abiy Ahmed, he's in 15th prime minister, not fourth. In addition, the person full name describes in bold. There is million people who have a name "Abiy". Otherwise it's seems like disruption or vandalism due to ambiguous office holding position. If he is in fourth position, it should be supported by reliable sources. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.156.95.9 (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I've replied to you on the biography's talk page, since I think you raise an interesting point...--BushelCandle (talk) 00:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
You are most welcome

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC) <br style="clear: both;"/>

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:34, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ethiopia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hypoxia ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Ethiopia check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Ethiopia?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I've now disambiguated "hypoxia" with a pipe to Hypoxemia --BushelCandle (talk) 16:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
You are welcome.

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:29, 21 August 2019 (UTC) <br style="clear: both;"/>

List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Asia
As you know, the latest pro-Palestine, anti-Israel, single-issue POV editor (with a twist of anti-Taiwan as well--he calls it a "rebellious province") once again is trying to classify the State of Palestine as if it were a generally recognized sovereign state. You have been an active editor for this article, so I wanted to remind you that if you wish to express your opinion on the issue, you may do so at the Talk page of the article in question and/or at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Palestine_country_categorization (which is the latest of several administrative complaints filed by the editor in question). Thank you, AuH2ORepublican (talk) 04:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * My commiserations, but I really don't think I have the time right now - never mind the stamina, doggedness and toleration of abuse and non sequiturs required... Sorry! --BushelCandle (talk) 13:28, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Templated warning from Wallyfromdilbert in August 2019
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Anand Teltumbde. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. 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 do not attack other editors, as you did at Anand Teltumbde. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:28, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Geographic Centre / Gravitational Centre
Hello BushelCandle. I noticed your use of bold text for "gravitational centre" in Talk:Nelson, New Zealand (at 16:13, 30 August 2019 (UTC)). This also the term that I changed to "geographic centre" on the Tapawera page, and I still believe that "geographic centre" is more appropriate there, if only for the simple reason that the 1962 newspaper article referenced also uses "geographic centre", and similarly on the various Nelson City Council web pages over the years which have also alluded to the 1962 calculations by Ian Reilly.

However, "gravitational centre" is also a term I have heard (and possibly even used myself, especially when I was much younger). Similarly with "centre of gravity" (of some country). So last night (NZ time) I added a redirect for "gravitational centre" to Geographical centre, and also rearranged/tidied up/expanded Geographical centre.

Finally, you also wrote "If you are excluding both land masses under water and the water that surrounds them, then you are not calculating the geographical centre". I reject that assertion, and have no idea what you are basing that claim on. (I did wonder if you were trying out Cunningham's Law - smile!)

Maybe you were thinking "geographic centre" cannot apply to a collection of distinct islands, or something like that?

A centroid (of area, for example) can certainly be calculated for a collection of separated regions. Ian Reilly did it in 1962 (for New Zealand), a two body system such as the earth and moon can still have a centre of gravity, etc., etc. Of course it is a little tricky to balance a map of a region consisting of more than one island on the tip of pin, but there is no problem at all doing it mathematically. If you want to do it the old fashioned way (e.g. with card, scissors, and a pin!) then you'd also need to do something like add a symmetrical support system that the pieces of card (representing islands, or distinct regions, etc.) could be placed on, such that with nothing else added then the support system is perfectly balanced on the pin to begin with.... tricky to do, but technically possible!

Imagine a circular country with a concentric circular hole in middle (so that a map of it might look like the shadow of a doughnut). If this was all perfectly symmetrical then the centroid (and centre of gravity) would be located at the centre of this two circles where there was nothing for the proverbial pin to make contact with (without additional support as alluded to in my previous paragraph). This doesn't mean our hypothetical country doesn't have a "geographic centre", but rather that the point would fall outside its boundaries (which would certainly be remarkable)!

SeeNoEvil (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
You are welcome.

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC) <br style="clear: both;"/>

Yet another templated warning from Wallyfromdilbert in November 2019
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Anand Teltumbde, you may be blocked from editing. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
 * Nuvola apps important.svg Please stop your inane and inappropriate Disruptive templating, Wallyfromdilbert. BushelCandle 11:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Please stop your disruptive editing and personal attacks against me. You followed me to the page as part of your harassment, and the next step will be to take you to 3RR or ANI for your tendentious editing. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 12:55, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know who you are (or care that much). What disturbs me is your tendentious and repetitive removal of sourced material and slanting BLPs in a way to denigrate their subjects. BushelCandle (talk) 13:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Your attempts to add unsourced POV to E. J. Levy were all rejected. You then followed me around to several articles, including Anand Teltumbde and Mike Lee (American politician) to make disruptive edits like this . You are now continuing to make false claims about my edits without any evidence at all, which violates WP:ASPERSIONS and is a personal attack. You also continue to keep a list at User:BushelCandle/3RR Evidence in violation WP:POLEMIC. If you do not remove your list and stop making disruptive edits at Anand Teltumbde, I will seek assistance from an administrator, as your inappropriate behavior towards me has gone on long enough. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry Martin - I simply don't have the time and, in any case, I'm Hemi-Demi-Semi-Retired. --BushelCandle (talk) 21:20, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Blocked from editing

 * Thank you for your prompt and effective response, 331dot, it's much appreciated ! --BushelCandle (talk) 00:18, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Alice's aide mémoire
see Template:As of              Help:Labeled section transclusion
 * gives:
 * gives: production of the series moved to Toronto

see Template:Cite web              Help:Colon trick               Thanks log              Citation template fix bot

Thank you for kind words!
Thank you so much for kind words! I do a lot of research for putting the most asccurate information as possible! My father works for the Portuguese Embassy in Luxembourg-City (L), in the citizen cards/Passports distribution departament; I guess my interest for national ID cards and Passports comes from there! I will try to put all the sources I used for making better the wiki page!

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi BushelCandle! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

-- 14:37, Friday, April 2, 2021 (UTC)

National varieties of English
Hello. In a recent edit to the page Driver's license, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking the trouble to leave a hand-crafted, personalised message on my talk page, Dennis.
 * However, I do think it more efficient to centralise discussion on this topic at the relevant article's discussion page...--BushelCandle 05:47, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

National varieties of English (2)
Hello. In a recent edit to the page Driver's license, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:09, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't you think it's a bit discourteous/redundant/irritating to leave two very similar (templated?) messages during the course of 7 minutes, Dennis? --BushelCandle 05:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Image below hatnotes
Why? (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taiwan&type=revision&diff=1006823508&oldid=1006803244) BushelCandle 02:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * See MOS:IMAGELOCATION.....basically it's a accessibility concern and formate preference. Best to avoid sandwiching the Hat note on small screens. ...and in mobile view the "Main" article links should seen first as there may be many and we don't want the image out of context.-- Moxy 🍁 03:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick explanation, Moxy; I can't see anything relevant at the particular section that MOS:IMAGELOCATION leads me to but I will accept your opinion that this is an accessibility issue. Sandwiching is almost never an issue with hat notes though unless 2 images appear opposite each other... In this case the image is not out of context and there are not many "Main" article links. BushelCandle 03:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * A bit more info at MOS:ACCIM see #8. Been a rule of thumb ever since mobile version came out.-- Moxy 🍁 03:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that link, which seems to settle it:
 * "Images should be inside the section to which they are related (after the heading and after any links to other articles), and not in the heading itself nor at the end of the previous section. This ensures that screen readers will read, and the mobile site will display, the image (and its textual alternative) in the correct section." (my emphasis added). However, I hope you will concede that the rationale for this advice [ensures that screen readers will read, and the mobile site will display, the image (and its textual alternative) in the correct section] is not appropriate to what I did since the image and any alt text will still display in the correct section... BushelCandle 00:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * On mobile all elements are presented in a vertical line, so the wikitext order is important to keep the hatnotes near the title on mobile as opposed to below images where their visually distinct background separates the images from the text. For screen readers I think it is also important that Main article notes are near the headers, for ease of comprehension, but I am less familiar with their workings. CMD (talk) 01:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you for sparing the time to educate me. I'll try and remember your advice in future... BushelCandle 08:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of African Review (disambiguation)


The article African Review (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "This disambiguation page (which now contains only one entry because other invalid redlink-only entries have been deleted) is not required. A previous WP:G14 was declined by "

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

GOCE June 2021 newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 12:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC).

Image below hatnotes
Why? (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taiwan&type=revision&diff=1006823508&oldid=1006803244) BushelCandle 02:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * See MOS:IMAGELOCATION.....basically it's a accessibility concern and formate preference. Best to avoid sandwiching the Hat note on small screens. ...and in mobile view the "Main" article links should seen first as there may be many and we don't want the image out of context.-- Moxy 🍁 03:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick explanation, Moxy; I can't see anything relevant at the particular section that MOS:IMAGELOCATION leads me to but I will accept your opinion that this is an accessibility issue. Sandwiching is almost never an issue with hat notes though unless 2 images appear opposite each other... In this case the image is not out of context and there are not many "Main" article links. BushelCandle 03:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * A bit more info at MOS:ACCIM see #8. Been a rule of thumb ever since mobile version came out.-- Moxy 🍁 03:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that link, which seems to settle it:
 * "Images should be inside the section to which they are related (after the heading and after any links to other articles), and not in the heading itself nor at the end of the previous section. This ensures that screen readers will read, and the mobile site will display, the image (and its textual alternative) in the correct section." (my emphasis added). However, I hope you will concede that the rationale for this advice [ensures that screen readers will read, and the mobile site will display, the image (and its textual alternative) in the correct section] is not appropriate to what I did since the image and any alt text will still display in the correct section... BushelCandle 00:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * On mobile all elements are presented in a vertical line, so the wikitext order is important to keep the hatnotes near the title on mobile as opposed to below images where their visually distinct background separates the images from the text. For screen readers I think it is also important that Main article notes are near the headers, for ease of comprehension, but I am less familiar with their workings. CMD (talk) 01:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you for sparing the time to educate me. I'll try and remember your advice in future... BushelCandle 08:18, 16 February 2021 (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 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)

Alice's aide mémoire
see Template:As of              Help:Labeled section transclusion
 * (to render a spaced en dash)
 * gives:
 * gives: production of the series moved to Toronto
 * (to render a spaced en dash)
 * gives:
 * gives: production of the series moved to Toronto
 * gives:
 * gives: production of the series moved to Toronto
 * gives: production of the series moved to Toronto



see Template:Cite web              Help:Colon trick               Thanks log              Citation template fix bot          THE INSULT FILE VERSION 6.13              Help:HTML in wikitext

Here's a hint: read the source; hide the source; wait 60 seconds; write your summary in a text editor based on what you remember, without looking at the source: unless you've trained in raw memorisation, your wording will almost certainly differ from the source; after you've written your text, go back to the source and make corrections where your text is misleading or inaccurate, since it's likely that you mis-remembered some details. Boud (talk) 15:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Great advice ! (stolen from User talk:Wowzers122)

September 2021
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:36, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought I was reverting an IP vandal, but if you think that restoring spelling mistakes and grammar errors is not vandalism, then I bow to your better judgement... --13:43, 6 September 2021 (UTC) BushelCandle
 * No intention of blocking you since the IP's edit appear to be nonconstructive. But to claim the exemption from 3RR, it needs to be for "obvious vandalism" (among other things) and you need to make the reason for your reverts clear (such as in edit summaries and talk page warnings for the IP). Since you hadn't done this it didn't seem appropriate to warn only one party. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:49, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Thanks for the advice and sorry to cause you extra work... --14:08, 6 September 2021 (UTC) BushelCandle

Image without license
Unspecified source/license for File:User-BushelCandle-user-page-before20210402-deletion.jpg Thanks for uploading File:User-BushelCandle-user-page-before20210402-deletion.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like (to release all rights),  (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * File copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 01:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I've added a  template in the "Licensing" sub-section of the file page to produce this effect:
 * [ I'm very new to all this, so I do hope that was the right thing to do... ] BushelCandle 01:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

September 2021 GOCE news
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:11, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Tigray Defence Forces


The article Tigray Defence Forces has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Had been declined as a Draft at AfC, the TDF is not mentioned in the unreliable sources at all, moving a declined draft to Mainspace seem somewhat strange"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:27, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the "Heads up", it's much appreciated.
 * I appreciate that it's a thankless task, reviewing draft articles, but in this case other experienced editors than myself thought that, after your review, reliable sources had been added sufficient to move the article into Main article space.
 * I hope you will understand that after I removed your erroneous "failed verification" tags after reformatting two New York Times citations and providing apposite direct quotations - including that quotation that directly supported the assertion of who is the commander of the Tigrayan Defence Force in the body text - I then removed the PROD template placed in error by yourself since that template is only "meant for uncomplicated deletion proposals that do not meet the strict criteria for speedy deletion" & "PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected".
 * Also, your concern that "Had been declined as a Draft at AfC," is seriously outdated due to new sourcing & the TDF is now mentioned in reliable sources (NYT). Consequently moving the draft you previously declined to Mainspace is now appropriate and to be expected and, in my opinion, NOT strange at all but rather appropriate and to be expected. --BushelCandle 10:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

December 2021 GOCE Newsletter
Distributed via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Removed edit on Guinea page ?
Why did you revert my edit on the guinea page that fixed per cent to percent? LuxembourgBoy42 (talk) 01:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Because your 'fix' was to an unusual English spelling for Africa?
 * Also, edits that only change the established English variety in an article are prohibited...
 * See The Observer Style Guide and The Economist Magazine Style Guide and The Queens University Style Guide and Australian Government Style Guide and the New Zealand Law Style Guide and a cache of the Government of South Africa's guide to communications, which states per cent (two words); but percentage. You may also refer to the spelling section of the United Nations Editorial Manual Online which states at Section 4 – Numbers: "The words 'per cent' are normally written out. The % sign may be used in tables if space is limited."
 * The English Style Guide of the European Commission also recommends two words, as does the African Union. Etymologically, I believe it may be regarded as an abbreviation of the TWO Latin words per centum.
 * PS:It's great that you are using helpful edit summaries. Keep that up !--02:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC) BushelCandle

Tables
Tangentially related, just for a laugh: User:Austronesier/Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Don't worry, I've got "a life" although yes, occasionally I do things that make me look like I need to "get a life". :) –Austronesier (talk) 12:18, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Isn't User:EEng right in what he said?
(At https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EEng&diff=prev&oldid=951929691 ) --89.134.151.163 (talk) 15:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Tedros Adhanom talkpage
Hi - In adding a new section to the Tedros Adhanom talkpage, I noticed that the topmost section, Too much advertising, was neither signed nor dated, and thought to at least date it. But I can't find the original post, either before or after you archived the talkpage. Might you know if that got lost somehow when you archived? I also notice that the final post that was archived, Lemma, was left unanswered. This is essentially the same question that I have, since Tedros is usually referred to as "Ghebreyesus" in current news articles about Covid or the WHO. Milkunderwood (talk) 08:23, 19 December 2021 (UTC) Please ping me - I'm not watching your talkpage. Thx. Milkunderwood (talk) 08:24, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * On your first point, I believe that this was the edit that introduced the "Too much advertising" section and I have now made the appropriate attribution. BushelCandle 19:07, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

March 2022
<div class="user-block" style="padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid #a9a9a9; background-color: #ffefd5; min-height: 40px"> You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for evasion of the block on User:W. Frank. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. GeneralNotability (talk) 03:16, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

GOCE April 2022 newsletter
Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

June GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors' October 2022 newsletter
 Baffle☿gab  03:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2022 Newsletter
Sent by Baffle gab1978 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2022 Newsletter error
The GOCE December 2022 newsletter, as sent on 9 December, contains an erroneous start date for our December Blitz. The Blitz will start on 11 December rather than on 17 December, as stated in the newsletter. I'm sorry for the mistake and for disrupting your talk page; thanks for your understanding. Sent by Baffle gab1978 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors 2022 Annual Report
Sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors June 2023 Newsletter
Sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Septermber GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2023 Newsletter
Message sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)