User talk:Zacwill
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)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Union Jack, appears to have been inappropriate, and has been reverted. Please feel free to use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. - You obviously hadn't looked carefully at what you were changing, and were therefore confused about the effects of your changes. See also the frequent discussions on the article's talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:34, 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)
Zacwill16, you are invited to the Teahouse
|
Hi Zacwill16! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
Disambiguation link notification for August 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Inverness-shire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fort William. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 8 August 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)
- I personally think you are the ones pushing your own point of view by excluding the term 'United Kingdom'. But no matter. I have learnt through my time on Wikipedia that trying to make even small changes is like pulling teeth. Zacwill16 (talk) 18:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
November 2014
Hello, I'm Escape Orbit. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Rangers F.C because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:19, 23 November 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)
- I wouldn't say it's always an insult. I've met Rangers fans who call themselves 'Huns'. Zacwill16 (talk) 22:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Blackbury, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Midlands. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 25 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)
January 2015
Please do not add or change content, as you did to Battle of Barry, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 03:04, 6 January 2015 (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)
TalkbackMargaret Thatcher
Message added 00:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.