User:BushelCandle/sandbox

Test

The passport card is a passport in card format, and should not be confused with national ID cards elsewhere in the EEA, which are usable as travel documents in Europe (except for Belarus, Russia and Ukraine), Georgia and French overseas territories. (Recent EEA national identity cards typically use the designation "ID" in their machine readable zone; the Irish passport card is unique in using the designation "IP" reserved for passports. Although ICAO began preparatory work on machine readable passport cards as early as 1968, the Irish minister for foreign affairs and trade, Charles Flanagan, highlighted the novelty and utility of Ireland's Passport Card at its introduction.)

References

Travel documents

The current article says:

At present, four EEA member states (Denmark, Iceland, Norway and United Kingdom) do not issue national identity cards to their citizens. Therefore, citizens from these four countries can only use a passport as a travel document when travelling to other EEA member states or Switzerland, however when travelling within the Schengen Area, Nordic Passport Union or the Common Travel Area, any valid identity document is usually sufficient, if anything at all. Norway has decided to start issuing such cards from 2017.

This is not correct. The Schengen acquis does not in any way affect which travel documents are valid or required for traveling between the Schengen countries. The only effect of the Schengen acquis is that people do not need to show their travel documents at the internal borders. However, which travel documents are valid or required has nothing to do with the Schengen acquis. It is regulated by directive 2004/38/EC and other legislation, which is the same for all EEA, also member states outside Schengen (like UK and Ireland). --Glentamara (talk) 17:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I have removed "Schengen Area". But it can be remarked that for citizens of several countries in the EU, any for them valid identity document can be used in all of the EU and EEA, since only the national identity identity cards or passports are valid there. Thereby those citizens say "you can travel all over the EU without a passport". But not all citizens.--BIL (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how it is incorrect. It does not state that: because of the Schengen agreement, you can travel with any valid identity document. It states that: within the Schengen Area, you can travel with any valid identity document, which is correct as there is no border checks that would require travel documentation. You may still require valid identity documentation as this is required by law in many countries. Rob984 (talk) 21:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

But that's the problem. You are not allowed to travel within the Schengen area without national identity card or passport. There could for instance be an internal control of foreigners within the Schengen or temporary border controls for some reason at the internal borders. The Schengen acquis says explicitly that it does not affect which travel documents a person needs to travel around in the Schengen area. --Glentamara (talk) 05:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

It only states "usually sufficient". Is it actually breaking EU law to travel between countries without travel documentation? Rob984 (talk) 09:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, according to directive 2004/38/EC a person needs id card or passport. There is no difference in principle between Schengen countries and other EU countries since Schengen has nothing to do with which documents are valid or needed. --Glentamara (talk) 10:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

According to directive 2004/38/EC, a person has the right to enter or leave a EU member state, to another EU member state, with an ID card or passport. It also states the only requirement can be an ID card or passport. It does not state this must be a requirement. In many Schengen countries, you can travel without an ID card or passport, for example between Sweden and Finland. This article probably should state "often" rather than "usually" since many countries require persons to have an ID card or passport, even when only traveling (such as Belgium or Spain). Rob984 (talk) 11:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Article 5.1 in Directive 2004/38/EC states

(...) Member States shall grant Union citizens leave to enter their territory with a valid identity card or passport (...)

So yes, you are right that in principle the directive does not say that it is a must to carry a valid identity card or passport. On the other hand, however, there is nothing in the EU low (including the Schengen acquis) that prevents member states from requiring this, and in fact, most (maybe all?) do. You say that one can travel between Sweden and Finland without id card or passport. Of course you can normally cross the border without any valid travel documents since no systematic border controls exist. But legally this is not allowed. Except for citizens affected by the Nordic passport union, there is no right for EU citizens to be on e.g. Swedish territory without valid id card or passport. In fact, according to the Swedish aliens act 9 chap. 9 §, a EU citizen is obliged to present a valid passport or id card if requested by a policeman. Otherwise he/she is sent off.

So, yes, you need to bring your id card or passport when traveling within Schengen. You can of course take the risk and go there without any valid travel document, but you might get problems if you encounter an internal control of foreigners (or just a temporary border control at the internal border for that matter). --Glentamara (talk) 15:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Not all, for example in Germany foreign EU citizens are not required to have ID, and in France, a driver's licence is sufficient. It would not be illegal to travel from France to Germany without ID, or to travel from Germany to France with only a driver's licence. Please stop editing the article while discussion is ongoing.

See the travel advice provided by the UK government: https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/france/local-laws-and-customs

See the information on the Common Travel Area from the Irish Citizens Information Board: http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/moving_country/moving_abroad/freedom_of_movement_within_the_eu/common_travel_area_between_ireland_and_the_uk.html

I don't know why the Nordic Passport Union is mentioned if that is the case. If there is no provisions for all EU citizens, it's irrelevant. Do we agree that it should be removed?

Rob984 (talk) 17:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure, some member states have chosen to not require that EU citizens carry id cards or passports, but it has nothing to do with Schengen and is not a general rule applying in the Schengen area. However, the current formulation in the article implies that, which I think is wrong. We should not state things that are not correct on Wikipedia. I don't want to prolong this discussion but I note that the Commission writes the following on page 13 in this guide:

Removal of border controls means that passports or identity cards no longer have to be shown when crossing internal borders between Schengen EU countries. However you should always carry your passport or identity card as your right of free movement and residence is conditional on you being able to present these documents on request.

Furthermore I note that the Schengen borders code states the following in article 21:

The abolition of border control at internal borders shall not affect: (...) (c) the possibility for a Member State to provide by law for an obligation to hold or carry papers and documents; (...)

Best regards, --Glentamara (talk) 19:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how either of those contradict the statement. Under Directive 2004/38/EC, citizen's right to free movement is conditional on having an ID card or Passport. However it does not state that member states must enforce those requirements. The Commision is guiding citizens based on their rights per the EU Directive, not on each of the 28 member state's laws on what documentation is required. You legally can enter France from Germany with only a driver's licence. You do not have a right to do so under any EU Directive, but this is legal under French Law. Rob984 (talk) 09:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The reason the Schengen Area and CTA are mentioned is because a passport or ID card would always be required at a non-Schengen/CTA international border. Therefore it is relevant to Schengen as it is only possible as a result of those rules. I agree, it probably is not a "usually" the case and the wording shouldn't imply that. Rob984 (talk) 09:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

"valid identity documentation"

I don't think this is very good wording since it isn't very specific. Possible alternatives I can think of:

"valid government-issued identity documentation"

"valid official identity documentation"

"valid government recognised issued identity documentation"

"valid officially recognised identity documentation"

Thoughts? Rob984 (talk) 11:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Different identity documents are issued by different countries, and what constitutes a 'valid identity document' also differs. For example, in Sweden, there are the so-called 'national identity cards' (issued by the police and embassies) which, despite the name, can be used internationally, and then there are the normal identity cards (issued by the tax authority and various private companies) which only can be used nationally. And then there are Swedish EU-style passports and driving licences which typically also count as identity documents. All of these documents are de facto accepted where an identity document is required, but there is no such thing as 'government-recognised identity documents' as the government doesn't set up any lists of valid types of identity documents, and I'm not sure what 'official identity documents' or 'officially recognised identity documents' would mean in Sweden. Those who want to see an identity document are free to choose which identity documents they wish to accept. Then there are a couple of documents which, although they identity information, normally aren't accepted as identity documents, such as the European health insurance card and a card issued by the migration authority to immigrants. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Please don't miss the intention of this paragraph, which is concerned with the practical reality rather then formality. Anything which tends to establish that the traveler is either an EEA (or Swiss) citizen or has legal residence in an EEA country (or Switzerland) will suffice. Obviously passports (whether in card or booklet form) are the gold standard, but, even in law they do NOT have to be "valid" - they could have expired many years ago or even been cancelled (eg if another, newer passport has been issued). In most of the Schengen area and certainly in all of the common travel area of the British Isles and Gibraltar, most officials will accept documents and evidence that tends to establish status - for example the parole evidence of a passport holder that the accompanying travelers are spouse and child or utility bills and correspondence. Obviously this flexibility and relaxed attitude diminishes the closer the interrogation is to ports, but I have personally seen an illegal (according to UN resolutions) Rhodesian passport that expired in 1988 accepted by Spanish border officials in 2015 to admit from Africa a refugee from Zimbabwe on the basis that it was genuine, the photograph had not been tampered with and still identified the bearer as having been born in Ireland in the 50s and, consequently an Irish (and EU citizen) without evidence to the contrary. BushelCandle (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

An invalid passport will not guarantee travel from one EEA country to another. Admission from outside the EEA is not what is being discussed in the sentence.

I think "valid identity documentation" is probably OK. "valid" doesn't necessarily mean up to date. The Oxford Dictionary defines "valid", in this context, as "Legally or officially acceptable". Possibly we could clarify this is in regard to national law? Rob984 (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

According to directive 2004/38/EC, member states can require persons entering or leaving their territory, from or to another EU member state, to have an ID card or passport. Rob984 (talk) 15:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

And btw, the sentence is not concerned with practical reality, but rather the legal situation. In reality, you could travel throughout most of the Schengen Area with only a drivers licence and have no problems. Even countries like Belgium where an ID card or passport is legally mandatory, the authorities will, in practice, always accept a drivers licence. Rob984 (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The sentence is now "not concerned with practical reality but rather the legal situation" only because several edits (including some by you) have changed its meaning. At one stage, the relevant section was more informative and accurate:

Four EEA member states do not issue national identity cards to their citizens: Denmark, Iceland, Norway and the United Kingdom (except to residents of Gibraltar); although Norway has decided to start issuing such cards from 2016. At present, citizens from these four countries can only use a passport as a travel document when travelling to other EEA member states or Switzerland. However, when travelling within the Schengen Area or Common Travel Area, any evidence or document (such as a driving licence or EHIC card) tending to establish identity, nationality and/or official residence is often sufficient in practice (and as required by Article 5(4) of the Directive and regulation 11(4) of the EEA Regulations).^{(my emphasis added)}

A valid EEA passport does not "guarantee" admission to any state foreign to the state that issued it. Rarely and unusually, EEA passport bearers can still lawfully be refused admission to other EEA states on the grounds of ordre public - for example, if they are considered to be virulently contagious or seditious. Encyclopedias are not just concerned with narrow legal perspectives but also the practical realities of typical behaviors.

I don't think the notion that "member states can require persons ... leaving their territory, from or to another EU member state, to have an ID card or passport" is entirely true either. As far as I know all of the EEA countries are signatories to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 13 of which states:

"(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country."

BushelCandle (talk) 16:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Well obviously there are exceptions. I don't know why you are being pedantic when it's irrelevant to my point.

Being an EU citizen does not make you a citizen of every EU country. You have the right to leave your own country, but you don't have the right to enter any other country. Of course, you cannot be deported from your own country if you enter without a valid passport; so, if you are French, you can enter France from another Schengen country without a valid passport or ID card; but you can also enter with nothing, and this has nothing to do with the EEA. Like you say, it is a human right. Rob984 (talk) 17:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Could you tell me which revision had a different meaning? If accurate information has been removed accidentally, of course it can be re-added. But that's not a reason to replace existing, accurate content referring to something different. Rob984 (talk) 17:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

In summary: no human who is not otherwise lawfully detained, needs any documentation whatsoever to leave any country (including his own) that is a signatory - providing they have a competent lawyer and are (endlessly) patient (obviously this theoretically legally enforceable right will present insurmountable difficulties if the exit country is landlocked since there is no corresponding universal right of entry). On a practical level, passports and ID cards will speed up internal checks in the Schengen and Common Travel Areas but are neither legally nor practically essential. BushelCandle (talk) 17:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it is legal to cross the border into another EU country without a passport of ID card. If you cannot legally be in the country you are crossing into without an ID card or passport, then you are breaking the law by travelling to that country. For example, if you enter Belgium without and ID card or passport, you are breaking Belgium law as you do not have a ID card or passport on you while on Belgium territory; therefore it is illegal to travel to Belgium without a ID card or passport. This is the case for the many EU countries. Rob984 (talk) 17:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

This is really ridiculous. Two weeks ago I was arguing with another editor whether passports and ID cards are always required to travel within Schengen Area. Now you are arguing that they are never required? BushelCandle, I completely agree that in practice, you do not need an ID card or passport to travel within the Schengen Area. I have personal travelled with only a French driver's licence between many EU countries that "require all persons to have an ID card or passport". Of course authorities are not going to require a British citizen to carry a passport everywhere. But there is no source for this so it cannot be added to the article. However the legal situation is very clear because we can simply look at the law. That is what is currently conveyed OK? Rob984 (talk) 18:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Article 5 (1) of EU directive 2004/38/EC states that EU/EEA citizens have the right to enter other EU/EEA countries if they are in possession of a valid passport or national identity card. The article does not seem to forbid member states to grant admission to a country if a person is not in possession of any such document. One example is the Nordic Passport Union, which has the effect that Nordic citizens also can use a bunch of other identity cards when entering Nordic countries. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

BushelCandle, in Sweden, for instance, Swedish citizens are required to carry a passport when leaving the country, otherwise you are not allowed to leave Sweden according to the Swedish passport law. The only exception is when you travel to another EU/Schengen country (until July 1, 2015 we were not even allowed to go to non-Schengen EU countries without carrying a passport). So no, there is no general right to leave a country without documents. --Glentamara (talk) 19:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

References

Ireland's passport card

It is a passport in card form. It may be used as ID, so can social welfare cards, Garda IDs, and ID issued by Intreo. I see any adjustment is usually met with "it is a national ID card". So before it is re-add, please as with this encyclopedia add a source. Murry1975 (talk) 17:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Ireland's passport cards are not passports. Passports are standardized and have to be 125 × 88 mm (4.921 × 3.465 in) and have several pages. Ireland's passport cards have a name similar to "passport", but that does not mean they are passports. They are travel documents which follow the European Union standard for national identity cards, and are designed to be usable as national identity cards, at least outside Ireland and UK. The term "national identity cards" is obviously too controversial in Ireland to be used there, but that is the EU term. The reason for this article is to show the identity cards which can be used as travel documents in the EU. We can write that they are locally called "passport cards" but not delete them.--BIL (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Murry, provide a source that there is a difference in anything but name. Also that these are actually passports... which they are not. Rob984 (talk) 12:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

BIL, where's the source that they can be used "as passports" in the EU? What does that even mean? Within the EU, there is no distinction between passport and ID card use. Rob984 (talk) 12:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I have not claimed that they can be used "as passports" in the EU, I claimed that they can be used as national identity cards. The justification is: They are not passports since those are governed by ICAO and have to be booklets of 88 × 125 mm with specified characteristics to be accepted as such outside Ireland (since Ireland is not expected to be able to introduce a new type of passport and get it accepted just like that). The Free Movement of Citizens Directive says that EU citizens need identity card or passport to enjoy free movement.DIRECTIVE 2004/38/EC. If they aren't passports and can be used as EU travel documents, they have to be identity cards, at least outside Ireland. So far no one has provided a source on the main issue we discuss, if they are defined as passports or identity cards by EU and by Ireland.--BIL (talk) 21:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The new card is in no way a passport, it is not even called passport but passport card, which is just another name for national id card. Importantly, the passport card does not fulfill international standards for passports, for instance the format 88 x 125 mm, regulated by ICAO Doc 9303, Part 4, Point 2.2. There's no room for entrance or exit stamps in the card since it only consists of one single page. The card is not valid for travelling outside the EU/EEA. However, the card fulfills all criteria that national id cards fulfill. For instance it can be used as a travel document within the EU/EEA in accordance with directive 2004/38/EC. The name of a thing does not determine its nature. What is called passport card in Ireland is undoubtedly the same as what is called national id card in the rest of the EU. --Glentamara (talk) 11:18, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

And I wonder what is the controversy with national id cards? Must be guilt by association. If they are voluntary, people who don't like them don't need to get them. It is written in Irish Passport that they contain all information from the passport data page. That means they contain birth city which can be seen on photos of them. But Sweden also has the same, voluntary travel documents in card size, and they are called National identity cards, and they do not contain birth city, which would be kind of controversial in Sweden to show and is not needed for EU travel. That means Swedish national id cards are de facto less controversial by design than Irish passport cards. It's the name only. So Irish people, relax somewhat.--BIL (talk) 14:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

In the UK, the controversy was largely over the national identity database, not the ID cards themselves. Although they must have a database of everyone who has owned a passport? Sweden and Austria's identity cards are similar to Ireland's—essentially just card-form travel document, entirely optional. The cards alone are not really more controversial than passports, although I can understand the skepticism with policies making them compulsory, and storing information such as finger prints, iris scans, etc—as proposed in the British scheme. Personally, I think it would be nice to have the option of a ID card for travel, but I haven't actually had any issues traveling with solely my drivers licence in the Schengen Area, even in Belgium, Spain and Portugal. Anyway, I think the only unique thing about the Irish card is that you must have a passport with at least 30 days validity when you apply, however the card is still valid after your passport has expired and can be replaced without a valid passport. Rob984 (talk) 15:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Then what is the controversy here about? Anyway I found that the first letter in the machine-readable zone is I for the Irish passport card, which means identity card, while P would be passport. Read about Machine-readable_passports.--BIL (talk) 16:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

BushelCandle, discuss, don't edit war. Rob984 (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

What an interesting stance. Perhaps it's better I do not respond fully until on or after 24 November 2015 since Annex 9 of ICAO's Facilitation Standard 3.10.1 reads as follows: ‘[f]or passports issued after 24 November 2005 and which are not machine readable, Contracting States shall ensure the expiration date falls before 24 November 2015’. This effectively means that all non-machine readable passports should be out of circulation by tomorrow, 24 November 2015.

Standard 3.10.1 is best understood in conjunction with Standard 3.10, which stipulated the 1 April 2010 deadline for the issuance of ICAO-compliant machine readable passports (MRPs). As Standard 3.10 has been generally implemented universally, the Standard 3.10.1 deadline for removing non-MRPs from circulation by 24 November 2015 presents the next important universal deadline for MRTD compliance.

Meanwhile, please note the distinction between the set of specifications for Size 1 (TD1) Machine Readable Official Travel Documents (MROTD), and and Size 3 (TD3) Machine Readable Travel Documents (MRTD).

Do you think that is accidental?

Have you editors really failed to grasp that ICAO specifies different characteristics for their MRZs?

[TD1 sized Official Documents (typically Identity Cards, Crew Member Certificates and Passport Cards) have 3 lines of 30 characters while TD3 sized Documents (typically Passport Books) only have 2 lines of 44] ?

Or have some editors just not bothered to read the whole document and its associated working party reports and analyses?

Ireland's Passport Card is a passport in card format, and should not be confused with national ID cards elsewhere in the EEA, which, although they are usable as travel documents in Europe (except for Belarus, Russia and Ukraine), Georgia and French overseas territories, had entirely different and separate domestic purposes at introduction. Even if recent events mean that not all EEA national ID cards can continue to be used for international travel, their domestic utility will not be affected.

Ireland's Passport Card has a relatively high initial cost (because it can only be issued to those who have an Irish Passport Booklet) and can't be issued to anyone under 18 and it's stated primary purpose is for international travel rather than domestic use.

Although they are both TD1 size, recent EEA national identity cards typically use the designation "ID" in their machine readable zone; the Irish passport card is unique in using the designation "IP" reserved for passports. Although ICAO began preparatory work on machine readable passport cards as early as 1968, the Irish minister for foreign affairs and trade, Charles Flanagan, highlighted the novelty and utility of Ireland's Passport Card at its introduction.) BushelCandle (talk) 06:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Gallery of EEA national identity cards now redundant?

Now that we have space in the table above it for images of "EEA national identity cards", is the section entitled "Gallery of EEA national identity cards" redundant? 06:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)BushelCandle (talk)

Security

All EEA electronic identity cards (and the passport card newly introduced in Ireland) should comply with the ISO/IEC standard 14443. Effectively this means that all these cards should implement electromagnetic coupling between the card and the card reader and, if the specifications are followed, are only capable of being read from proximities of less than 0.1 metres.

They are not the same as the RFID tags often seen in stores and attached to livestock. Neither will they work at the relatively large distances typically seen at US toll booths or automated border crossing channels.

The same ICAO specifications adopted by nearly all European passport booklets (Basic Access Control - BAC) means that miscreants should not be able to read these cards unless they also have physical access to the card. (BAC authentication keys derive from the three lines of data printed in the MRZ on the obverse of each TD1 format identity card that begins "ID" (or "IP" in the currently unique and special case of Ireland's passport card).

According to the ISO 14443 standard, wireless communication with the card reader can not start until the identity card's chip has transmitted a unique indentifier. Theoretically an ingenious attcker who has managed to secrete multiple reading devices in a distgributed array (eg in arrival hall furniture) could distinguish bearers of MROTDs without having access to the relevant chip files. In concert with other information, this attacker might then be able to produce profiles specific to a a prticular card and, consequently its bearer. Defence is a trivial task when most electronic cards make new and randomised UIDs during every session [NH08] to preserve a level of privacy more comparable with contact cards than commercial RFID tags.

The electronic identity cards of Austria, Belgium, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Portugal and Spain all have a digital signature application which, upon activation, enables the bearer to authenticate the card suing their confidential PIN. Consequently they can, at least theoretically, authenticate documents to satisfy any third party that the document's not been altered after being digitally signed. This application uses a registered certificate in conjunction with public/private key pairs so these enhanced cards do not necessarily have to participate in online transactions.

An unknown number of national European identity cards are issued with different functionalities for authentication while online.

Portugal's card has an EMV application.

References

Image syntax experiment

Original image file is only 200 × 133 pixels and is here displayed using the default syntax of |thumb| with no width specified

Original image file remains only 200 × 133 pixels and is here displayed using the deprecated syntax of |thumb|440px| which has no discernible enlarging effect

Same image file of only 200 × 133 pixels and is instead here displayed using the syntax of |thumb|upright=2| which also has no discernible enlarging effect

Javascript

/* User:Technical_13/Scripts/OneClickArchiver */ importScript( 'User:Technical_13/Scripts/OneClickArchiver.js' ); // Backlink: User:Technical_13/Scripts/OneClickArchiver

Image of bulol

The image in question.

This one guy keeps repeatedly removing an image of bulol and will not discuss his reasons. I think it's a nice and illustrative image, what are your thoughts? Palosirkka (talk) 09:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I think that the image is interesting and in focus. It was also (before Nonoyborbun successively deleted it without any explanation whatsoever on 6 December 2015, 8 December 2015 and 16 December 2015) placed in an apposite position above text that read "Early Philippine sculpture is characterized by frontal nudity. One of the earliest forms are the bulols by the Ifugaos which serve as an assurance for bountiful harvests. Original function of these sculptures are related to the ceremonies and beliefs..." and with the default image syntax of a thumbnail floated right. However, it might have been thought by the repetitive deletionist Nonoyborbun to be inadequately lit or concentrating too much on the scenic view over the bulol's right shoulder.

And therein lies the whole problem, Palosirkka. I'm not telepathic and I presume none of my fellow editors here are either. Although to date Nonoyborbun has made more than 300 edits since 11 April 2011, s/he has not once ever left an WP:edit summary explaining this wholesale deletion of images.

WP:FIES states unequivocally: It is considered good practice to provide a summary for every edit, especially when reverting (undoing) the actions of other editors or deleting...

Neither has s/he ever, until today, ever used a talk page to explain these (otherwise) inexplicable deletions.

But please don't think you are being singled out for a special cold shoulder from Nonoyborbun, Palosirkka. When I wrote above that s/he has never ever used a talk page, that encompasses not only article discussion pages like this one, but also User talk:Nonoyborbun. S/he did not reply to my message left there 2 days ago with a section title of Flouting advice about images either.

At the end of the day, we're all volunteers here and don't have endless time to try and educate our compadres about collegiate behaviour when they ignore all advice. If they remain really obdurate (over a period of many months in this particular case), editors who are tired of this behaviour may ask for a topic ban on articles relating to the Philippines.

Here are some examples of other unexplained deletions:

1. 26 May 2015 Nonoyborbun deletes from this article an example of a pre-Hispanic fortress found in the Philippines File:Idjang 2.jpg without any explanation
2. 13 June 2015 Nonoyborbun deletes from this article an image of "the only well known female composer during the 19th century" in the Philippines:without any explanation
3. 13 June 2015 Nonoyborbun deletes from this article an image of the Tabon Caves at Lipuun Point, Quezon, Palawan: without any explanation
4. 13 June 2015 Nonoyborbun deletes from this article a different image of the Tabon Caves and (mendaciously) "its carvings":without any explanation (although, being fair we might guess that s/he may have thought that having two images of these world significant caves is excessive - but why none at all?)
5. Revision as of 17:04, 15 August 2015 Nonoyborbun deletes from this article an image of the world famous Banaue Rice Terraces. S/he may have thought that it was inferior to another image s/he uploaded - but don't we deserve some explanation? This image is a panoramic view so I am going to break with my usual practice in expositions like this of using tiny thumbnails and allow you to judge its merits adequately:
   

   The Banaue Rice Terraces where Ifugao/Igorot utilized terrace farming in the steep mountainous regions of the northern Philippines over 2000 years ago.

(Incidentally, Nonoyborbun has also deleted other material relating to the rice terraces in other articles eg: 22 May 2011 and 19 July 2011. Again, in an effort to be fair, this material, although undoubtedly truthful and accurate, was inadequately sourced - but why not give editors a clue as to why it was deleted and/or an opportunity to source it? an adequate source?

6. 13 June 2015 Nonoyborbun deletes from this article a different image of the Tabon Caves and (mendaciously) "its carvings":without any explanation (although, being fair we might guess that s/he may have thought that having two images of these world significant caves is excessive - but why none at all?)

Armenian-ethnicity

Armenian-ethnicity

Due to a state of war existing between the Republic of Armenia and Azerbaijan, the government of Azerbaijan not only bans entry of citizens from Armenia, but also all citizens and nationals of any other country who are of Armenian descent, to the Republic of Azerbaijan (although there have been exceptions, notably for Armenia's participation at the 2015 European Games held in Azerbaijan).

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

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

Sandwiching

I'm afraid I take issue with this edit and the edit summary that accompanied it of "Everything piled on one side make the article look a bit amateurish." Consequently, unless someone can advance policy-compliant reasons for why it should be endured, I intend to negate it.

There are good reasons why MOS:IMAGELOCATION advises Most images should be right justified on pages, which is the default placement:

1) It is really highly subjective and a matter of personal preference as to whether articles look better with most images consistently on the left, consistently on the right or alternating at wide intervals between left and right positioning. Some prefer one layout - similar numbers of readers prefer the other.

2) However, with relatively narrow screens and many browsers, there are distinct readability advantages to having all images, infoboxes, maps, tables and other non-text elements consistently positioned on either the right or the left and this is an objective fact.

3) What we should really try to avoid is a thin worm of text that is difficult to read because it is "sandwiched" between right and left-facing images:

Military

Republic of China Navy Kidd-class destroyers

Republic of China Air Force Indigenously produced fighter airplane

Republic of China Marine Corps frogmen during the 2016 National Day celebration

Republic of China Military Police is a separate branch in the armed forces. In the picture, a military policeman stands guard in Hsinchu Air Base

To­day, Tai­wan main­tains a large and tech­nologic­ally ad­vanc­ed mil­it­ary, main­ly to count­er­act the con­stant thr­eat of in­vas­ion by the Peo­ple's Lib­era­tion Army us­ing the Anti-Sec­ess­ion Law of the Peo­ple's Rep­ub­lic of Chi­na as a pre­text. This law author­izes the use of mil­it­ary force when cer­tain con­dit­ions are met, such as a dan­ger to main­land­ers.

From 1949 to the 1970s, the primary mission of the Taiwanese military was to "retake mainland China" through Project National Glory. As this miss­ion has transitioned away from attack because the relative strength of the PRC has massively increas­ed, the ROC military has begun to shift emphasis from the traditionally dominant Army to the air force and navy.

Consequently, unless someone can advance policy-compliant reasons for why this policy-busting edit should be endured, I intend to negate it shortly. BushelCandle (talk) 04:39, 25 May 2019 (UTC)