Jump to content

User talk:BushelCandle

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BushelCandle (talk | contribs) at 21:14, 5 March 2016 (→‎top). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

If you leave a new message on this page,
I will usually reply on this page unless there's a very good reason not to...
HEMI-DEMI-SEMI-RETIRED
I'll be pretty unreachable for the next week or so...

—Talk. Don't Talk. Please bEgIn @ ThE eNd


Thanks

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

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)[reply]

Rob984's November 2015 templating

Information icon 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Information icon 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

For you reading, um. pleasure

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

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)[reply]

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 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Please Stop
You consistently undo my positive changes. Whatshouldichoose (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks but, being fair, I might have to share your award with others:
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Mailed you :) André Devecserii (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
eMailed you back :) BushelCandle (talk) 01:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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)[reply]

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

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...

EEng 03:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
Hi, FourViolas, good to make your acquaintance. Now I have even more reading to do... BushelCandle (talk) 04:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Oh, first deprecated -- I misread it as first used. Good. EEng 09:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I'm not sure I like the grated-eyes imagery. EEng 02:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Notice

Information icon 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Self-identified seahorse heifer BushelCandle has learned that an educational use only license means it's not free. She has been coralled into the corral, and we're done here. Katietalk 21:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Herded into the coral? EEng 02:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Herded into the corral; only after in the corral have they been corralled. Scr★pIronIV 18:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.

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)[reply]

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

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 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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)[reply]

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:
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

Notice2

Information icon 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • "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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
<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)[reply]

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

Admins were so bored that they didn't even notice User:Rob984's pleas to end his self imposed ordeal and close the thread. Eventually even Lowercase sigmabot III got bored too and archived the referral without a formal close. User:BushelCandletalk

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

A bowl of strawberries for you!

<3 Tiger7253 (talk) 06:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BushelCandle&oldid=708479190"