User talk:BushelCandle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
If you leave a new message on this page,
I will usually reply on this page unless there's a good reason not to...
Die Fliege
HEMI-DEMI-SEMI-RETIRED
I'll be pretty unreachable for the next week or so...

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


Alice's aide mémoire[edit]

BushelCandle is a Grand Tutnum (when including edits from two prior accounts and IP edits) and, after 639 weeks of service, is entitled to display this Bronze Editor Star.
  • {{As of|2019|06|16|lc=y|since=y|post=,}} gives: since 16 June 2019,
  • {{As of|alt=Beginning in early 2019|2019|01|post=,}} production of the series moved to Toronto gives: Beginning in early 2019, production of the series moved to Toronto

see Template:As of               Help:Labeled section transclusion

  • <ref>{{cite web |url= |title= |last= |first= |date= |website= |publisher= |access-date= |quote=}}</ref>
  • <ref>{{cite web |url= |title= |author=<!--Not stated--> |date= |website= |publisher= |access-date= |quote=}}</ref>

see Template:Cite web               Help:Colon trick               Thanks log              Citation template fix bot          [1]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svgThis user has pending changes reviewer rights on the English Wikipedia. (verify)

Mail to Irish Times[edit]

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)

Passport stamps for Schengen[edit]

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

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

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

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

Are you talking about this reversion of an IP editor at Passport stamp, André?
If so, then I hope I've already made the relevant change and sorry I didn't spot it was you or I would have been more circumspect...
However, my change now rather conflicts with the earlier bullet point in the "no stamp" column:
Family members holding a residence card issued under Article 10 of Directive 2004/38/EC who are accompanying or joining EU, EEA and Swiss citizens exercising the right of freedom of movement doesn't it? BushelCandle (talk) 20:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Correct, was just too lazy to log on at the time. And yes, I now see that's basically already mentioned, but the fact remains that an "ordinary" residence permit holder will (or at least should) get stamped. The document (reference 14, the one I quoted above) does not state that residence permit holders in general are stamp-exempt, nor is this the case for the non-EU/EFTA nationals I know André Devecserii (talk) 07:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail![edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, BushelCandle. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 02:20, 31 July 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Nikkimaria (talk) 02:20, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Ping. Please respond ASAP if you're still interested. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm terribly sorry for the very late response - I've been in hospital. I've completed the short application form just now... --BushelCandle (talk) 10:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for kind words![edit]

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!

Thanks. I just noticed that Truth Gatekeeper is blocked[edit]

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)

National varieties of English[edit]

Information icon 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 (talk) 05:47, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

National varieties of English (2)[edit]

Information icon 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 (talk) 05:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

E. J. Levy[edit]

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: [2] [3] [4]).
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)

March 2019[edit]

Information icon 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)

[FBDB] --BushelCandle (talk) 06:46, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Taiwan Wikipedia Page[edit]

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)

IRL/ROI[edit]

Derry or Londonderry? A clockwise or anti-clockwise pirouette? Some may see the figure suddenly spin in the opposite direction. The illusion derives from an inherent ambiguity arising from the lack of visual cues for depth. To switch the perceived rotation, try following the shadow for a bit and then look above to the raised leg itself --BushelCandle

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. st170e 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[edit]

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. st170e 13:39, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

April copyright violation[edit]

Stop icon 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 Wikipedia: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—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[edit]

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[edit]

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
Neighbouring states include the People's Republic of China (PRC, or "China" for short) to the west, Japan to the northeast, and the Philippines to the south.
to the long-standing text of
Neighbouring states include the People's Republic of China (PRC) to the west, Japan to the northeast, and the Philippines to the south.
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
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[edit]

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![edit]

Kitten (06) by Ron.jpg

You are most welcome

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)