User talk:Zacwill

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)

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. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Osarius (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Hello, Zacwill. You have new messages at Talk:Margaret Thatcher#Lady/Baroness.
Message added 00:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sesh84 (talk) 00:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to try to explain why I believe Margaret Thatcher's title should be Baroness Thatcher and not Lady Thatcher in her infobox. Although it's true that male peers are customarily referred to as Lord rather than Baron in day-to-day speech, female peers are still commonly referred to as Baroness. For example, on Parliament's website the Lord Speaker is consistently referred to as Baroness D'Souza, while the Number 10 Downing Street website refers to the Leader of the House of Lords as Baroness Stowell of Beeston. Since Baroness is still the standard for female peers, I believe it should be used in Margaret Thatcher's infobox, just as it's used in the infoboxes of other female peers, including Baroness Scotland of Asthal and Baroness James of Holland Park).Sesh84 (talk) 03:30, 19 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)

Disambiguation link notification for March 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alexander Nisbet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jacobite (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Coat of arms of the University of Cambridge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Cooke (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 7 April 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)

Margaret Thatcher

Your recent editing history at Margaret Thatcher shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Mjroots (talk) 18:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Commonwealth realm. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

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)

Disambiguation link notification for May 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gladstone baronets, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Biggar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 2 May 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)

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. Why do I waste my time on this fucking site? Zacwill16 (talk) 17:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)