This is an archive of past discussions with User:Zarcadia. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Please indent your posts with one more ":" than what you are replying to, i.e. begin with ":" if replying to an existing topic and "::" if replying to a reply.
I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your Talk page (or the article Talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to watch this page until you are responded to, or specifically let me know where you'd prefer the reply.
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. -Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 21:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited John Sargent (boxer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page American (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.
Very tedious that you should choose to edit war to try to force such a stylistic change to an article. Particularly with someone who has done a lot of work on the article in question. You say 'fine before' is not a good reason for a revert. Why not? Your sole reason for making the change is that you believe, completely subjectively, that your changes represent an improvement.
Having been reverted once, let alone multiple times, you should take the matter to the article talk page or the talk page of the other editor involved. You should not simply try to force the change through by continually readding it. You are the one seeking to change the stable text. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC) This editor is a now-blocked sockpuppet. Zarcadia (talk) 22:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I think you need to carefully read both WP:DRNC and WP:OWN before you continue reverting edits. I explained the reason for my edit yet your reason is an unsatisfactory 'fine before', maybe if you provided some sort of argument against my edit I wouldn't have reverted but it seems you simply don't like it. Also, it makes no difference how much work you have put into an article, other editors have just as much right to contribute as it is not your article. Zarcadia (talk) 18:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
:: To be frank your attitude represents precisely why my enthusiasm for WP is fast fading. It doesn't matter how much time one has spent on an article doing the hard work of adding cites etc, there will always be individuals who have contributed precisely nothing to it who will come along and edit war to try and make trivial changes which are not an improvement, and then immediately shout WP:OWN once reverted.
You, wholly subjectively, believe your change to be an improvement. I, wholly subjectively, believe it not to be. This is what 'fine before' means. This is a wholly subjective point with no "perfect" answer, it is purely a matter of editorial judgement. However look at tens of thousands of company articles, e.g. Microsoft or SAIC Motor or Allianz, and you will find exactly the same formulation as currently is used in C&W. It is in no way wacky or unusual, it is a perfectly standard wording for the opening sentence of company articles and in perfectly correct English.
If you are so desperate to waste time and energy on this triviality, instead of working to actually improve the vast number of articles in need of serious help, then take the issue to the article talk page and gain a consensus for the change. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC) This editor is a now-blocked sockpuppet. Zarcadia (talk) 22:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I took me quite a time to figure out the thing with the zeroes — I was wondering why our results were coming out so wildly different. BTW, if you want to strike through comments just use <s> and </s> on either end of the material to be stricken. So, <s>[[All your base are belong to us]]</s> yields All your base are belong to us. — AjaxSmack23:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.
Move request pertaining to Ivory Coast sub-articles
It has been proposed that Rugby union in the Ivory Coast be moved to Rugby union in Ivory Coast. This move request will have far-reaching implications for all sub-articles and categories involving the Ivory Coast. The discussion is located here.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Diacritic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vowel pointing (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.
Instalment is the British/Commonwealth spelling, with installment being the US English version. I see from your response your edit was made in good faith and no harm done, there are numerous words that differ in spelling between varieties of English: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Spelling. Zarcadia (talk) 22:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Zarcadia. You have new messages at Talk:Aquatica (water parks). Message added 22:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Thank-You for watching a page that someone has been writing bias slander on a company. You are on top of things. Medal should be awarded to you. Gregtampa (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello. Would you care to explain why you've been doing mass moves of places in Belgium? You cite WP:PRECISION, but I can't see anything there that mandates the changes you're making. Cheers, Oreo Priesttalk18:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't really see what the independence movements have to do with it (consider also that Wallonia's is next to nonexistent). I also don't really see anything in WP:PLACE to explain it either. I'm not sure it needs to be contested, but I wanted to understand where you were coming from. Oreo Priesttalk18:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I do understand that it may be a sensitive issue for some people, and if you want to move it back then a requested move should build up a good discussion. I certainly didn't mean any offense and my moves were made in good faith, I have no vested interest in either formatting. Zarcadia (talk) 19:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Your assertion that these edits were done according to either WP:PLACE or WP:PRECISION fails when measured against WP:NPOV, and your assertion that the secessionist movements should have the final say is certainly POV. If and when Flanders (or Wallonia) secede from the federal state then that is when a distinction should be made, not before. Enough POV (Flemish and Walloon) parochial vandalism occurs within Belgian place names without you adding to the mix, particularly in locations within Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde (Belgian governments and constitutions break on this issue) - it's a sore point in real-life Belgian politics and while your edits appear highly POV that may not have been your intention. I note that you did not post your intention to move on Talk:Halle, Belgium where you would have found several discussions on whether or not other language place names should be included in article leads - a strong pointer to the controversial nature of these edits. FanN|talk04:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
I've undone your changes. WP:PRECISION doesn't apply, and your invocation of WP:BOLD is incorrect: you had every right to make these bold moves, but you can't claim that people wanting to undo them should start a WP:RM. Per WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS, undoing your bold moves is equally acceptable: if you then still want to change the consensus, you are the one who needs to start a WP:RM. Please don't make incorrect claims like "if you wish to contest please open a WP:RM" in edit summaries in the future. Fram (talk) 06:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Fram, i think you misinterpreted my intentions. The reason i said open a RM was if they disagree users can't restore that page without being an admin, I never intended my move to be an absolute. I totally accept that consensus was against me and happy to accept the restoration of the original article titles. Thanks. Zarcadia (talk) 18:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, these moves could be undone by anyone, not just admins (in general, any move that has had no further edits to the resulting redirect can be undone by anyone). But I'm glad that this can be closed on a positive note. Fram (talk) 08:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
WP:NPA
I care more about this snide comment of yours than I do the ubiquitous Fizikanauk. You have no evidence to base your claims[ that my primary purpose on here is to push a POV], and as you know, baseless accusations with regards to behaviour are personal attacks. Refactor or retract your comment altogether, and I will desist. GotRTalk17:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Welcome to the Punch, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BFI (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.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to SCP may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
* [[Salisbury City Police]], a defunct city police force in Wiltshire]], England operational between 1838 - 1943
No problem. I think it was a genuine mistake but the other editor should have seen there was an edit conflict (I got one myself trying to re-add your comments). Zarcadia (talk) 21:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
The proposed move of Independent (politician) has been altered to the new title of Political independent. This notice is in case you would like to review your vote. Dralwik|Have a Chat15:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
| talk 04:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to James Eustace Bagnall may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.