User talk:Zacwill/Archive 1

Lairds and gentlemen

Hi, Thanks for you query on my talk page about lairds and gentlemen. Gentlemen are the lowest order of the untitled nobility in Scotland. This is seen in the Official Order of Precedence. Above gentlemen in the Official Order of Precedence are esquires. Lairds rank above esquires even and are thus ranked above gentlemen. This is presuming the laird is recognised as such, with a territorial designation recognised by the Lord Lyon King of Arms. You will find confirmation of this in Scots Heraldry written by the former Lord Lyon, Sir Thomas Innes of Learney (1956, p.204). The people who buy souvenir plots of land or ordinary property owners in Scotland do not count as lairds in this sense. Editor8888 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:22, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

March 2014

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to Piano. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Elassint ^Hi 23:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I have re-edited the article and added a reference. Zacwill16 (talk) 16:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Minor changes

Please note that the Wikipedia definition of a minor change is at WP:Minor. Many of the changes which you have marked as minor do not meet that definition. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I see. Thank you for providing clarification. Zacwill16 (talk) 18:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits to Button

Hello, and thank you for your recent contributions. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edits because I believe the article was better before you made that change. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! Sunrise (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Can you explain the problem with my edit? As I said in the Edit Summary, the primary and original function of a button is to hold fabric together, and in my opinion this should be reflected in the first paragraph. Zacwill16 (talk) 21:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Zacwill, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for talking - I know it can be frustrating when the reason for a revert isn't clear enough. :-) I reverted your edits because typically we should include all significant uses of a term in the introductory section, which functions as an overview of the topic. If buttons are important in archaeology, art, etc, then this should be mentioned. I would have no objection if e.g. you moved the statements to be the third paragraph rather than deleting it. Sunrise (talk) 22:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Former Counties

Hi there. If you trawl the back pages of WT:SCO (e.g. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland/Archive 12#A new plague of "traditional counties" activism) you will see that the issue of traditional or former counties has been a controversial one in the past. I am afraid that it has resulted in one or two enthusiasts for this topic receiving indefinite blocks for disruption. This is not to say that I think you are in danger of that but as you clearly have an interest in the topic it might be best if you raised it at WT:SCO and requested clarity. I would defintly avoid describing an edit as a reversion of 'vandalism' if it includes adding/removing information you don't approve of. I am actually very fond of the trad. counties and use them where appropriate but I suggest caution. I could give you my own opinion about this but, although it is entirely up to you, I suggest involving others as well. Regards Ben MacDui 08:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Norfolk

Would you please check Norfolk because it has a problem that can be seen by searching the page for "convert:". I'm not sure what should be done to fix that—possibly area_council_km2 should be set to be the same as area_total_km2? Johnuniq (talk) 03:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

That seems to have fixed it. I believe that field is for when the area governed by the county council is different from the total area of the county, but as Norfolk C.C. covers the whole of Norfolk that field is redundant in this case. Zacwill16 (talk) 15:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Kingdom of Great Britain (1707-1800)

Hi Zacwill, history text books and other encyclopaedia articles do not commonly use the name United Kingdom, particularly in opening paragraphs. Kingdom of Great Britain is almost universally used to my knowledge. Putting the name United Kingdom in the lead is not consistent with Wikipedia policy on neutral point of view because it gives the term undue weight. To support such a change to the article, I think most editors would agree secondary sources showing the name is in common usage with similar weight to the name Kingdom of Great Britain are needed. The primary sources and a few secondary sources in the Etymology section do not sufficiently make this case; this section has a different purpose. It puts the name Untied Kingdom in context and explains it with due weight. Whizz40 (talk) 13:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Rangers

"The Hun" is not a nickname for the team, it is a disparaging insult employed by opposing fans, most commonly Celtic. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell

This kept bugging me, so I figured out how to do this properly.[1] --  Gadget850 ^talk 14:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Coat of Arms of Croatia

Regards. What you wrote in the last summary is not a valid argument. First, it's not an argument but argumentum ad hominem (...then you must known very little about heraldry); and second, you did not gave a proper explanation why you think it's wrong. You would do well to explain yourself on article talk page, here or on my talk page as to what exactly do you find problematic because I see no problems with those blazons. And please restrain yourself from making personal comments and try to act civil. Shokatz (talk) 16:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to insult you, but some of the blazons on the page are complete nonsense, which would be obvious to anyone with more than a basic understanding of heraldry. Do you want me to explain what was wrong with that blazon specifically? a) "Bleu celeste" is not a standard tincture and as yet I have found no legitimate blazon in which that term occurs; b) the term "surmounted" refers to something laid on top of something else, rather than simply above it; if you wanted to say something was above something else, you would describe one as "in chief" and the other as "in base". Zacwill16 (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand perfectly fine that "Bleu Celeste" isn't a standard tincture...heraldry is my hobby for at least past 10 years. The point however is: that it is a valid description of the color of certain shields in the "crown" and is one of the main reasons why the design is so heavily criticized, in Croatia and abroad. It is also a direct transliteration from the law on the CoA of Croatia which specifically describes the shields in the "crown" as "dark blue" (azure) and "light blue" (bleu celeste). This is why one other user and I decided to introduce historical variants section and also expanded on the descriptions. The other problem I had with your edits is that you also removed some important information such as the number of chequers which BTW is also transcribed by that same law I mentioned and is also important because the discussion on the number of chequy fields and which starts first (red or white) is present even today and is heavily colored by ideological and quasi-historical issues, something which you perhaps were not aware of. Plus the change to the wording about the origin of the arms, which is a legend and a myth, rather than as you put it "historic tradition"...as a Croatian I can tell you it has nothing to do with "historic tradition". The origins and the meaning of the arms are unknown, but if you wish my personal opinion, it almost certainly has some connection with the House of Sponheim which ruled Carinthia and Carniola (mostly part of Slovenia and Austria and some parts of Croatia) and some parts of Croatia and through which the Habsburgs had a claim on the Croatian kingdom. I agree that perhaps some blazons should be adapted and after some thought "in base" and "in chief" are perfectly fine with me and would definitely be an improvment...it is your edits in general that I had a problems with, which is why I invited you to discuss this several time before. Shokatz (talk) 12:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I removed the stuff about the number of chequers, because in heraldry things like that aren't standardised; it's up to the artist how many chequers to depict. I suppose it is ok to include it if the law mentions it, though I assume whoever came up with the law was a politician and not a herald. Would it be alright if I changed some of the blazons, but left in the other information? Zacwill16 (talk) 13:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Clan Douglas

I have reverted your changes for a number of reasons. You removed the identity of the Earl of Douglas, when this is important for the historical context. As the 6th Earl's exact date of birth is not known, it is not possible to state that he was 16 years old. There is no evidence where the bull's head was placed, if it was indeed 'placed' at all. Shipsview (talk) 10:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Isobel Wylie Hutchison

I have recently created a page about this lady and would like to put a paragraph on the Kirkliston page about her if no one objects.I will then link it to her page

"Isobel Wylie Hutchison was a Scottish Arctic Traveller and Plant Collector. She was born in 1889 in Carlowrie Castle, Kirkliston and lived there until her death in 1982. She travelled to Iceland, Greenland, the Lofoten Islands Alaska and the Aleutian Islands collecting plants and information for her books. She travelled on her own. She wrote several books about her travels, wrote poems, painted pictures which she published on her return." Peter DC (talk) 14:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I have no objections. I'm familiar with Miss Hutchison from Donald Whyte's Kirkliston: A Parish History and she is certainly deserving of mention on the Kirkliston page. Zacwill16 (talk) 22:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits they have certainly improved it a lot but I would like to put back some of the pictures you have removed. I guess you live in Kirkliston or nearby. I live in Balerno. Would you be prepared to meet me to discuss the article on Isobel? Peter DC (talk) 22:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry for not replying earlier, I didn't notice your message. As you might guess from the picture on my user page, I live in Dalmeny. Do you mean meet up in real life? If so, do we really need to be face to face to discuss a Wikipedia article? Can't we just discuss it on the article talk page? Zacwill16 (talk) 10:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I would appreciate meeting face to face for several reasons. I am a beginner in wikipedia HTML and would appreciate some help here. I would like to get Isobel much better known in Kirkliston. Possibly some sort of display in the library. Also her grave is in a terrible condition and it is very hdifficult to read her name. Obviously this is the responsibility of the family. I would also like to get her life taught in the local primary schools. We could have one meeting to meet and could then decide if we could do anything more through the talk pages. Ring 4492520 and ask for Peter. Regards, Peter DC (talk) 16:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I would recommend contacting Kirkliston Community Council about the library display and about getting Isobel taught in primary schools. I'm not sure who's responsible for maintaining the graves; Edinburgh Council maybe (though it doesn't look all that bad from the picture on her page; certainly not as bad as some of the graves in that churchyard). As for Wikipedia HTML, if you ever need a hand just ask here and I'll do my best, though I'm not exactly an expert either. Zacwill16 (talk) 17:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Zach I used to know someone who lived on the Dalmeny Estate.Her name was Jennifer Myles. Her parents lived in Barnbogle Castle. I think they were the caretakers ( Mr and Mrs Swankie) Did you know them? ??Peter DC (talk) 16:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Can't say I did, sorry. Zacwill16 (talk) 13:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Manfred von Richthofen

The article has been there for about as long as Wikipedia has existed, and the German "noble" honorific ("Freiherr") of his name has always been in German rather than English. Personally I suspect there are a number of reasons for this - one of which is probably that "Baron" is at best a rather loose translation - we very simply have never had a simple one-for-one equivalent. As explained in the article his "real" title, in other words, was Freiherr - although we often refer to his in the article as "The Baron" or something like that. A English person with the title of "Baron" would inherit the title (if it was inheritable) on his father's death, and as the eldest son he would hold it exclusively. "Our" Manfred's name follows the German pattern - the title Freiherr was held not only by him but by all his brothers, male cousins etc. - and while their fathers were alive. All in the article, if you care to read it. In other words it's not really a title at all, in the English sense of the word. It is reasonable for a well-meaning editor to raise a question about something like this on the talk page, rather than assume that everyone who has edited an article during several years is, well, what exactly do you think we all are? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

My German-English dictionary defines freiherr as "baron". A German freiherr might not be directly identical to a peerage baron in England, but they are broadly equivalent titles, and I see no reason in including random German words throughout the article. I'm sorry you see this as some kind of personal slight against you and your editor buddies. Zacwill16 (talk) 10:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

They're not "random words throughout the article" - they're part of his (full) (German) name. After all, we don't translate any other part of his name. (If we did, we might well call him something like "Freddy, Baron of Richcourt"). In fact, in Wikipedia we go with the best authorities, which mostly refer to the form of his full name we use here rather than any made up "English" version. Anyway, I'm very glad you didn't make the change you did because you thought everyone else who ever edited the article was an idiot. I'm sorry YOU thought I'd implied anything of the kind. Those three words (I'm sorry you") are of course nothing like an apology, and I don't intend them as one any more than you did. Incidentally, I sometimes wish that we were all "buddies" here - in so far as we can be, you are on exactly the same footing as I am. Anyway, bring this back to the talk page for the article anyway and we can all chime in if we want. This is YOUR talk page, not mine, and I am quite happy to let you have the last word here. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

SOrry, having said what I did above I should have the decency to piss off - but as a term of address "Lord" is a much closer equivalent to "Freiherr" than "Baron" really - so following your avoidance of the German title of a German aristocrat why not render his name as "Lord of Richthofen" (assuming we're translating the "von", and disregarding my silly idea of rendering "Richthofen" as "Richcourt". I honestly think there's no need to change anything from how it was before. And I really AM sorry for being a bit gruff above, at my advanced age it largely comes with the territory. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Quite all right. It is at least explained further down in the article that a freiherr is equivalent to a baron, so I suppose that will have to do. I do reserve the right to continue calling him a baron outside of his article. Zacwill16 (talk) 11:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring

Per [2]: Your edit has been consistently undone by three different users. It's longest run without contest was six days; that does not make the content "established". The onus is thus on you to gain consensus supporting your change.

Also, you have made three reverts in 24 hours. One more and you will be in breach of WP:3RR. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

One of them reverted it because of an issue which has now been resolved (the use of the word 'royal'); you and the other person gave no reason. Zacwill16 (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Three users, yes. That's what I said. Regardless of each's rationale for reverting your edit, you're still alone in restoring your edit over the objections of others, which is the definition of edit warring.

The responsibility is still yours to obtain consensus. I've done your job for you and started a discussion at talk. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Name of 'Robert Marmion, 3rd Baron of Tamworth' Page

Hi Zacwill. You changed the name of the Robert Marmion page to "Robert, Baron Marmion of Tamworth". Seeing as there were 4 Barons of Tamworth all called Robert Marmion shouldn't the correct page name be "Robert Marmion, 3rd Baron of Tamworth"?

See Baron_Marmion#Baron_Marmion_of_Tamworth_.28c.1110-14.29 for list of the Barons. Sliven2000 (talk) 12:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, feel free to change it. I don't know if it's really necessary to include his surname though, since peers generally don't use their surnames, especially when they're the same as their title. "Robert, 3rd Baron Marmion of Tamworth" would be the most appropriate title in my opinion. Zacwill16 (talk) 12:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the first few Baronies listed here; List of baronies in the Peerage of England it does look like the convention being used here is to repeat the surname, e.g. "William de Ros, 1st Baron de Ros". Will change the Marmion one to match. Thanks. Sliven2000 (talk) 11:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Moving pages

Please do not move any more pages unilaterally. Moves of baronets and peers are controversial and should follow the process for controversial moves at Wikipedia:Requested moves. DrKiernan (talk) 10:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

One month after receiving the request above, you moved a whole range of different peers and baronets, knowing the moves to be controversial. This is disruptive. Please do not move any further pages unilaterally against consensus. If you have a problem with WP:NCNT, then take it up at that talk page. Do not ignore wikipedia's editing guidelines. DrKiernan (talk) 22:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Heraldic addition

Hi Zacwill16. Could you please not add random coats of arms into biographies of medieval figures. If you're following a reliable source that specifically states that these men bore such-n-such heraldry - cite it (per Wikipedia:Verifiability). It your just assuming they did - then don't add the pictures (per Wikipedia:No original research). You're assumption could be wrong and you could be misleading others with your edits. I while ago I tried to explain to you that Wallace's heraldry is unknown. I'm not sure if the heraldry of the elder Andrew Murray is known either, although his father is known to have borne on a seal 'three stars of six points within a bordure charged with ten roundles or roses'.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 21:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm fully aware that Wallace's heraldry is doubtful: hence why I specifically stated that the arms are said to have been borne by him, but may have been adopted by the Wallaces after his death. I have given sources for this in the past; I can add them to the article, though I doubt this will stop you immediately undoing my work. Which I notice you've been doing over at Commons, with the completely false claim that I'm violating copyright. Zacwill16 (talk) 22:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

His heraldry isn't doubtful its unknown. It's up to you to come up with a reliable source stating Wallace (or anyone else) may have borne such-n-such heraldry.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 22:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I've re-added the arms, with Nisbet as a source. I'm not using him to suggest Wallace really bore those arms, just to prove that they are the arms traditionally attributed to him. You cannot now claim it is misleading, given that I explicitly stated there is no contemporary evidence of their use. Zacwill16 (talk) 23:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

And it's been undone again. Zacwill16 (talk) 17:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Richard I of England

Added a section to the article's talk page to discuss your May 28, 2015 edit. Good stuff if you can source it. WCCasey (talk) 20:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Earl of Fife.svg

Zacwill16, images from wappenwiki.org aren't 'free'. They're released under the "CC BY-NC-SA 3.0" license, a licence which is regarded as 'non-free'. You've instead labelled it as CC BY-SA 3.0. They aren't the same. The major difference is that "CC BY-NC-SA 3.0" has this condition: "NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes". Considering the outcome of the Wallace arms, in which one editor though it the lion was below the threshold of originatly, you could swap the incorrect licence for the {{PD-shape}} template like I did with the Wallace arms.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 00:41, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining, though I wish you could have done this before instead of just nominating things for deletion. I'll take your advice and use the {{PD-shape}} template on the files I've uploaded from Wappen Wiki. I think all of them are simple enough that it is justified. Zacwill16 (talk) 13:14, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

"Arthur, King of the Britons"

You recently changed the opening phrase of the lead on the article King Arthur from "King Arthur is a legendary British leader" to "Arthur, King of the Britons is a legendary British leader - without an edit summary, or any discussion. As the title of the article remains "King Arthur", I reverted. You restored your edit, with the edit summary "I don't mind if you think that it was better before, but it would be nice if you provided some reasoning instead of mindlessly reverting". That's a bit rich from someone who declined to provide any reasoning for your change. I'm not inclined to pay much attention to people who demand higher standards of others than they do of themselves. --Nicknack009 (talk) 11:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I changed it because that is his full name, as it is generally found (I can provide citations if necessary). I don't see why it matters that it isn't the same as the article title; Wikipedia policy is that the common name is used for the title, but the article begins with the full name; to take an example from your user page, the article on Stuart Tresilian is titled as such, but begins "Cecil Stuart Hazell Tresilian...". You're right that I should have explained my logic when I initially made the change, and I apologise. Zacwill16 (talk) 11:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Removal of family names of peers

Please could you not remove family names of peers as you have been doing in various articles, i.e. Garter stall plate. This may well be the way peers are addressed by the monarch in writs, but is not helpful in biographical articles which aspire to clarity. The family name is important as well as the title, not just to follow general usage (i.e. Debrett's Peerage, etc) and to assign the correct family's heraldry, but also to disambiguate, for example Earl of Bedford and Earl of Essex was held by various families. Thus your edit including changes of Henry Bourchier, 2nd Earl of Essex to "Henry, Earl of Essex"; Henry Howard, 7th Duke of Norfolk to "Henry, Duke of Norfolk" are not helpful to the clarity of wikipedia and serve no purpose I can think of. Please desist. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)) P.S. I note the same point has been brought to your attention above by Sliven2000, 3 May 2015, to which your response was "peers generally don't use their surnames". That is not relevant to biographical articles.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 09:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC))

Of course the full name should be used in that peer's article, but when a peer is simply mentioned in another article, I see no reason why the shortened form of the name shouldn't be used. Zacwill16 (talk) 18:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I've just explained the reason above.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 17:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC))

You need to be more careful with this. If you continue to remove surnames, knowing that such edits are controversial and after two (now three editors) have raised it as an issue, then it is likely to be seen as disruptive. DrKiernan (talk) 21:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Rationale

Can you explain your edits at Jane Smeal? Victuallers (talk) 16:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The infobox is just useless clutter, since all the information in it can be gleaned from the text in five seconds. See Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes. Zacwill16 (talk) 16:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Crest (heraldry)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Crest (heraldry) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Calvin999 -- Calvin999 (talk) 10:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Crest (heraldry)

The article Crest (heraldry) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Crest (heraldry) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Calvin999 -- Calvin999 (talk) 16:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar for You!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		For your contributions to bring Crest (heraldry) to Good Article status.  — Calvin999 11:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Crest (heraldry)

The article Crest (heraldry) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Crest (heraldry) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Calvin999 -- Calvin999 (talk) 11:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Cornwall, England, UK

Please could you read Wikipedia:WikiProject Cornwall/Guideline. Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 22:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

What a stupid and pedantic rule. Zacwill16 (talk) 22:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

If there were no stupid and pedantic people it wouldn't be needed. DuncanHill (talk) 22:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Implying that it isn't stupid and pedantic to religiously revert any breach of a pointless rule? Zacwill16 (talk) 22:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not pointless, its point is to prevent, or at least reduce, edit warring, and on the whole it seems to have worked. DuncanHill (talk) 22:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Burton upon Trent

Please see WP:RMUM. As this is clearly not an uncontroversial move (it has been moved several times in the past) it is generally recommended that instead of moving it back after your move has been reverted you should instead request a move on the talkpage. I have therefore reverted to the stable version, as per guidelines. Request a move and we can get fuller feedback and discussion from other editors. To be honest, I have seen both versions, but I think it's more commonly seen without hyphens (as per Newcastle as opposed to Stratford - not sure where you got "Consistency with other articles using 'upon'" from, as Newcastle is invariably seen without hyphens in the modern day). But let's see what others say. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Although I'd prefer to see it spelled in what I think is the more logical way, I don't really care enough to go to the effort of requesting a move. Sorry. Zacwill16 (talk) 14:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Virginia Dare

The spelling variants of Eleanor Dare's name are relevant and belong in the article. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 23:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

West Country

If you think the area covered by the term is "well understood", I suggest you browse through the article talk page. There are many different - often conflicting - definitions. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC) PS: And please do not leave ungrammatical sentences of text, and inaccurate edit summaries. You need to discuss this on the talk page - after reading all the previous discussions. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I said "ungrammatical" because you left this wording. Anyway, thanks for catching my repetition. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Wilhelmina, Duchess of Cleveland

I have reverted your edits to the above, which I consider to have superficialised and dumbed-down the article. For example, you treated the fact that she was mother of a Prime Minister as a mere detail, actually removing the blue link from his name! This is not helpful in informing readers, especially those reading from paper print-outs who cannot click on blue links to find out which Earl of Rosebery we are talking about. Your edit has destroyed much valuable information and I think your edit summary calling factual material "awkward and clunky" misunderstands that WP is not meant to be easy-going bedtime reading but a source of factual information which at times may have to be read studiously and with application. Please desist from such destructive edits in future.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 17:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)) Please also refer to my post of 14 July 2015 above re "Removal of family names of peers", along the same lines.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 17:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC))

The weird lede sentence

Hello. I support you for this. I had tried to explain the weird thing before you but nobody supported me. Best,--IllusIon (talk) 21:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

G. W. Pabst

Please review WP:BRD. When your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss it on the article talk page, not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring. During the discussion, the article remains in the status quo ante.

I have started a discussion concerning your edit at Talk:G. W. Pabst#Removal of professional name. Please make your arguments there and do not revert again, per BRD, and the policy on edit warring Thanks, BMK (talk) 23:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Upstate New York

I have done what I had requested you to do, as per WP:BRD, which was to start a discussion on the article talk page instead of reverting the change once again. My interpretation of the Wikipedia Manual of Style (particularly, MOS:BOLDTITLE) makes it fairly clear to me that the whole article title (i.e., Upstate New York) should indeed be included in the first sentence and bolded, regardless of whether we expect the person clicked on the article name and should expect to know what they're reading. There seems to be a distinction on removing only parenthetical disambiguations, which the "New York" part of "Upstate New York" is clearly not. I will wait a few days for consensus, but the onus is on you to provide some supporting evidence on the article talk page that your desired edit does not violate the Manual of Style on bold titles.

For now, in accordance with WP:BRD, I am moving the page back to status quo ante. Please do not revert this change until discussion/consensus has been achieved.

Vmanjr (talk) 12:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Jeremy Corbyn discretionary sanctions

Not sure if you are aware, but as far as I know there is a limit of one revert per day on the Jeremy Corbyn article. I see you made two edits which might be construed as reverts today, so you should be careful of that.--ℕ ℱ 21:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Jenson Button

I wasn't making it up about the consensus for the wording of British Formula One driver articles. It was contrived to satisfy all points of view at the time, although I accept it is a little clumsy. The alternative is just to leave out the "from England" from the sentence. Check any British F1 driver article and they all say much the same thing (Jim Clark, Jackie Stewart, Lewis Hamilton, Derek Warwick, Eddie Irvine etc etc). The WikiProject has discussed it from time to time with the same result and it is strictly adhered to. In FIA-sanctioned events, British racing drivers compete under the British flag at all times and are always described as such in official documents, press releases and prize-giving ceremonies. As motor racing is the source of Button's notability, this is the nationality his article carries per consensus, per WP:UKNATIONALS#Sport, and per WP:OPENPARA paragraph 3. We can have another discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One if you like, but you'd need to overturn the existing consensus. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The Baroness Thatcher

Where a woman has inherited a barony in her own right - or had a life peerage bestowed upon her, then "Baroness" is the correct form to use in the infobox and in other parts of the article. For other examples see here:

Shirley Williams, Barbara Castle, Virginia Bottomley, Frances D'Souza, Betty Boothroyd, Janet Fookes, Floella Benjamin, Janet Royall, Margaret Jay and Jean Barker.

The infobox should only use "The Lady" if the woman concerned is the wife of a baron, for instance: Elizabeth Douglas-Home, Mary Wilson, Sarah Churchill and Mary Soames.

Robin S. Taylor (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Debrett's says that both forms are correct, though 'Lady' is more traditional. Given this, and that Thatcher herself preferred 'Lady', I think 'Lady' is the more sensible choice. Zacwill (talk) 17:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Robin S. Taylor, do you intend to reply? Zacwill (talk) 21:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Stop removing names from ledes

I have now seen three articles where you have edit warred over this. That should show you that you're wrong to remove it. I'm not following you, but I am seeing a wake of destruction in your wake. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: and yet you have not provided any justification as to why it isn't pointless and clumsy to write out nicknames and initials when they are already in the title. "It's standard" is a) not true and b) not an argument. Zacwill (talk) 12:57, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I take it that WP:CONSENSUS isn't enough for you? Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Another false non-argument. Zacwill (talk) 14:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Also from Marcel Proust. Please stop this disruptive behaviour. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC).

Start arguing any time. Zacwill (talk) 05:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

It is useful to have the nickname next to the surname as a guide to the name by which someone is known, for example Stephen William is more often known as "Billy Bragg". I fail to see what you are trying to achieve. Please leave this alone and find something useful to do, there is enough work out there without this pointless fiddling. Britmax (talk) 10:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

But it isn't useful considering everyone and their mother knows that Billy is short for William. It's just clumsy, useless clutter that'd never be found in a professionally written encyclopedia. Readers aren't going to be left confused if you take out "Billy", or for that matter if you don't explicitly write out that a person's known by one of their middle names.

I think improving the style of Wikipedia is a perfectly legitimate way of spending my time. Zacwill (talk) 12:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

It would be. Britmax (talk) 13:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge

Hi. I've noticed the good work you do on here. I was wondering if you'd be interested in contributing to this ambitious British Isles challenge to bringing about 10,000 improvements to the UK and Ireland. The drive is fuelled by regional contests every few months, but it general an ongoing content improvement development. If you'd be interested in chipping in with the articles you improve please add your name to the participants and start adding your entries to the big list. Diversity of input will make it much more interesting to peruse! Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Jewish

Hi it's not that it's undue weight it's that it is not verified by independent RS and that it's an extraordinary claim. Please review the complete talk page threads. At any rate, I hope you'll agree that we should allow the talk page discussion to reach a clear resolution before adding derivative content such as a category template, which depends on the unresolved issue. Please consider. SPECIFICO talk 00:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: the only person blocking this is you. This information meets the criteria of WP:SELFPUB and isn't "extraordinary" at all. You seem to have some kind of POV reason for keeping it out - you think it gives Molyneux an excuse to be antisemitic? True or not, that's irrelevant. Zacwill (talk) 01:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not "blocking" it -- and I am far from the only editor who's reverted this content from the article. So I'd like to ask you to read all the talk discussions and not accuse me of POV. If he were to say something extremely improbable and unverifiable in order to give cover to his views (IF) that would indeed be reason to require far stronger sourcing. At any rate, as you know, the WP:BURDEN is on those who wish to include. You've now been reverted so you see at least one other editor agrees with me. Please review all the history of this. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 01:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: then the information should be added with the qualifier that it comes from the man himself, i.e. "Molyneux has stated that his mother is of Jewish heritage". Zacwill (talk) 03:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

That's a possibility, however what he actually said was "my mother was born into a pretty Jewish clan..." which has kind of a nice pre-War antisemitic tone to it. You know how clannish those Hebrews are, etc. I don't think this wording was an accident. Mr. Molyneux is a gifted communicator and highly selective in his choice of language. At any rate the category would only come up after the content is decided and if we only state his claim then that wouldn't really fit the category which is not for claimed but rather for uncontroversial or confirmed. SPECIFICO talk 03:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

SPECIFICO—you say that it "has kind of a nice pre-War antisemitic tone to it" but what source says that? Bus stop (talk) 14:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I do see his point, especially since Andrew Anglin of the Daily Stormer agrees that Molyeneux's supposed Jewish ancestry is a cover story. But as I said in my previous comment I think the information should still be there. Zacwill (talk) 16:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

KU Leuven

Never mind, I agree. I found an older official document that also makes me doubt, it seems the university itself is not even sure.

September 2019

Hello, I'm Toddst1. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Rockville, Maryland, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Just because those words appear on a web page doesn't mean it's their motto. See WP:ISAWIT. Toddst1 (talk) 22:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Crest (heraldry)

Hello Zacwill ! Why have you removed wikilink to lime wood from Crest (heraldry)? --Mezze stagioni (talk) 10:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I've made a redirect from Lime wood to Tilia#Wood. --Mezze stagioni (talk) 11:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Newry

My edit of Newry is not "messing up the article" as you describe. Being made a city is a very important event in the history of Newry and it deserves its own paragraph to highlight its importance. You should have explained why you reverted my first edit! We need to get another opinion on this. Devokewater (talk) 08:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Devokewater: If you'd only created a new paragraph I wouldn't have objected to your edit. That's not what you did though. You cleaved an existing sentence in two and left the first part as a fragment, which I think qualifies as "messing up the article". Another user has joined me in trying to fix it, so you've got your second opinion. Zacwill (talk) 16:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Your improper move

Not all moves need a consensus. We just went through this with Lady A. The group doesn’t need your permission to change its name--BaseFree (talk) 22:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I didn't say you needed my permission. I said you needed a consensus. The Lady Antebellum page was moved because there was a consensus in favour of doing so, and if there's a consensus in favour of moving Dixie Chicks then that page will be moved too. Zacwill (talk) 22:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

No, Lady A was moved because it never should’ve been moved back to Lady Antebellum in the first place. Context matters. You’re the only one who moved the page prematurely.--BaseFree (talk) 22:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

The premature mover in this case was a user named Jasonbres, who moved the article to "The Chicks" without opening a move request (which goes against WP:MOVE). A move request is now open and a consensus will be established once everyone has given their opinion. Zacwill (talk) 22:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Making up reasons why a page shouldn’t be moved, such as claiming it goes against policy without proper citation, is very very wrong--BaseFree (talk) 22:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Iqaluit

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Article title terms says that bolding should be used on "the first occurrence of a term (commonly a synonym in the lead) that redirects to the article". In this case Frobisher Bay is not a redirect but a stand alone article. Further down at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting#When not to use boldface indicates that you should "Avoid using boldface for emphasis in article text." and "Avoid using boldface for introducing new terms. Instead, italics are preferred...". In addition bolding the colonial name does not look great. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 01:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather: The reason that the Frobisher Bay article doesn't redirect to Iqaluit is that it discusses the bay itself and not the city at its head. "Frobisher Bay" is nonetheless a synonym for "Iqaluit" and should be displayed in bold (compare the Kitchener and Naujaat articles for examples of this). I don't see how the fact that the name is a "colonial" one is relevant to the discussion. Zacwill (talk) 08:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Frobisher Bay is not a synonym for Iqaluit. It is the name of the bay and the former name. The MOS is clear that the first instance should be italics. The fact that others exist does not make them right. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

A defunct synonym is still a synonym. Zacwill (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

But Frobisher Bay is not a synonym and even if it was the MOS says "commonly a synonym" not always one. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Semantic wranglings over the precise definition of the word "synonym" aside, I think it's helpful to highlight the name the community went by for fifty years (and which continued to be used even after the town was officially renamed, from what I've gathered). This is consistent with Wikipedia's normal practice, which I've shown with examples, and can show with more, if you'd like. I'd also like to note that until a user rearranged the leading paragraph the name "Frobisher Bay" was in fact emboldened in the article. Zacwill (talk) 22:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Church of St Nicholas Without

I think that the name should have remained. It performed a useful disambiguation task. There are two churches of that name in Dublin: one in the Church of Ireland and the other in the Catholic Church. See Church of St Nicholas of Myra Without, (Roman Catholic). How do you propose to restore the disambiguation? Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Laurel Lodged: I wasn't aware that there was a similarly named Catholic church in Dublin. I don't object to you restoring the page's previous title, provided that you remove the ungrammatical comma. Zacwill (talk) 21:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Speaking of commas, Old Church of St George, Hill Street Dublin is missing one (and surely the "Hill Street" can be removed, unless there's another Old St George's in Dublin). Zacwill (talk) 22:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Personal attack in edit summary by User:Zacwill. Thank you. --Inops (talk) 23:19, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

• Don't do that again. Seriously. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:29, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Armagh County Council

You have twice now removed different versions of the coat of arms of Armagh County from the article on Armagh County Council. The file description at "File:Armagh coat of arms.png" says that it is a "digital recreation of The Coat of Arms ("crest") of County Armagh". I suspect you are making a distinction between the arms of the county and the arms of the county council. Rather than repeatedly removing the existing arms, it would be much more helpful if you inserted a digital recreation of what you think the arms of County Armagh County Council actually looked like. In the meantime please do not keep removing the existing arms until we have a consensus. Dormskirk (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

@Dormskirk: Armagh County Council was never granted arms. The arms displayed on the page belong to the City of Armagh, despite what the file description says. Zacwill (talk) 15:14, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

OK. Do you have a source for your assertion that Armagh County Council was never granted arms? Dormskirk (talk) 15:18, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

@Dormskirk: Feel free to consult civicheraldry.co.uk. You'll find File:Armagh coat of arms.png listed under "Armagh City and District Council", but you won't find anything for County Armagh. For whatever reason, it was the only one of Northern Ireland's counties never to receive a grant of arms. Zacwill (talk) 15:24, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the explanation. Dormskirk (talk) 15:33, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

@Dormskirk: No problem. Zacwill (talk) 15:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Re: requirements

A requirement is to use article talk pages rather than edit-warring like this. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:03, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

You opinions about articles are to be discussed on their talk pages, not proclaimed in edit summaries. I hope you have read this. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Rhumbline network

I had to restore my version from oct, 2015, wich was perfectly clear. I've also transcluded the original discussion, that clarifies every possible doubt from lay readers.. The version that you have been judging as written by a non native speaker, it wasn't mine.. I am 77, and I've been working 35 years at Honeywell as a system engineer using English every day at work..-- Mcapdevila (talk) 12:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Arms of Queen Mary University of London.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Arms of Queen Mary University of London.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Recent "pseudohistorical" deletions

I see some of the edits on recent articles have included the deletion of sources such as this and the work of Frank Stenton. Are they unreliable or incorrect? Harryhenry1 (talk) 06:01, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@Harryhenry1: The intention of my edits was to remove material added by an anonymous user with some very peculiar views regarding the Germanic peoples. By googling certain distinctive phrases, I was able to find what I believe to be this user's personal website. His central contention seems to be that the Jats of India are an offshoot of the Jutes. This is of course a totally bogus idea, and his edits on Wikipedia were just as bogus. In the History of Warwickshire article, to take just one example, he used Stenton as a source for his claim that the River Itchen and the village of Itchington take their names from the Jutes (known as the Iutan in Old English). In fact, Stenton mentions neither the river nor the village in the cited work, and reliable sources do not support this etymology. Furthermore, there were no Jutes in Warwickshire, since their presence in England was limited to Kent, Hampshire, and the Isle of Wight. Zacwill (talk) 19:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC)