User talk:Mr Serjeant Buzfuz

Sláinte! Please Note: If you post here, I will reply to your posts on this page, rather than on your Talk Page. I find it easier to keep all the conversation in one place. If you disagree with one of my edits, by all means, please raise the issue on the Talk Page for that article. I will respond there, so that anyone who is interested in that article is aware of the discussion and can participate if they wish. Please do not come to my Talk Page to wag your finger at me, which I find rude and not constructive.

You're quite welcome :) For future reference, a stub tag is for articles that contain very little content (no more than a paragraph) and genuinely give no real information. See Wikipedia:Stub. Yours had plenty of content and was well referenced, so it definitely didn't need the tag. Good job anyway :) QueenCake (talk) 16:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your note, Mr Serjeant Buzfuz. The general rules are at Wikipedia:Article titles and Wikipedia:Naming conventions. See in particular Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Titles and styles and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#British nobility, which is not a very good title for titles of knighthood, but they are covered there. In practice, we don't include "Sir" in the article title for a knight unless for some reason it's useful. Moonraker (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation and the links. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you've added a signature to your post on my talk page, it looks like I responded to you several hours before you posted! He he heh... Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 21:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I wish it would add the sig automatically - I always forget the damn thing! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(except this time, of course!) Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Halifax Fisheries Commission, Mr Serjeant Buzfuz!

Wikipedia editor Kieranian2001 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Reviewed as part of page curation. interesting article already tagged.Kieranian2001 (talk) 12:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

To reply, leave a comment on Kieranian2001's talk page.

Thanks very much! glad you found it interesting! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Learn more about page curation.

Your question has been answered on American Revolutionary War talk page.Allied Rangoons (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've continued the discussion on the talk page. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I'm always happy to review well written, properly referenced articles. I would like to know more about his career in the army during WW2, but that's my personal obsession! Best wishes. Bikeroo (talk) 17:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you intentionally remove the Penalties for Breaches section content on Nov 3, 2015? Was there something wrong with the content? Ninel (talk) 20:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can't remember; that was four months ago!  :) I will check and come back.Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it; moved the penalties section up to the summary of the current state of the law last November and forgot to delete the heading. Thank you for the polite inquiry - best traditions of wikipedia! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I perfectly agree with you! I tried to resolve this absurdity, as you can see in my recent contribution, but it has been canceled. I wanted, succeedingly, to point out the "non sequitur". To no avail. NONIS STEFANO (talk) 07:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My Canadian Oxford dictionary (second edition) gives "commitment" with one "t". "Committed" is indeed spelt with two in Canadian English. Regards. Orenburg1 (talk) 07:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

− − Your expertise is needed at Patriation.--Moxy (talk) 23:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Electoral history of Alexander Mackenzie, Mr Serjeant Buzfuz!

Wikipedia editor Insertcleverphrasehere just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Great new articles! but please add wikiprojects to the new pages you create on the talk page (see this talk page for an example. You can more easily apply and search for wikiprojects using the rater tool.

To reply, leave a comment on Insertcleverphrasehere's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

— Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, both. I'll be adding talk pages soon. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:41, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Insertcleverphrasehere: Tried to use that "rater" function, but it's beyond my tech capabilities; read the "how to" page and my eyes glazed over. Have added Talk pages to each of the new Electoral history pages the old-fashioned way: Cutting and pasting from the ones you created :) Thanks! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, that works too. Its actually much simpler to install scripts than it looks though. Just create a page at User:Mr Serjeant Buzfuz/common.js, then copy "importScript('User:Evad37/rater.js'); // User:Evad37/rater" (without quotes) into the first line. (then you'll find a new link in the top bar near 'view history', under 'more'. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating List of Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada by Position, Mr Serjeant Buzfuz!

Wikipedia editor Barkeep49 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

I was surprised to see that this didn't already exist.

To reply, leave a comment on Barkeep49's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's no point in reverting updates based on recent provincial elections. Quebec's new premier will be sworn in in a matter of days, just leave the updates. This way, it's done ahead of time. 2607:F2C0:9494:B000:D180:A453:E65B:13C4 (talk) 00:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned in the box at the top of this page, I find it much more productive to discuss edits to a page on the Talk page of that article. That way, anyone who is interested in that page can see the discussion. I have responded to you on the Talk page for the template on current provincial governments, and will not discuss the issue here. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 18:59, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And as mentioned in the section at the bottom, sorry for posting here. Just wanted to let you know I'm now spending the time enjoying your talk page, too. Didn't want to make a whole chapter here just to let you know, though, y'know? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at some of your "Election History of..." articles. In the convention results box near the end of the article:

I'm concerned that the bold blue-on-red text may be difficult to read (see Wikipedia:Colour contrast). Similarly in the Kim Campbell article:

Candidate		First Ballot		Second Ballot
		Votes cast	%	Votes cast	%
	Kim Campbell	1,664	48.0%	1,817	52.6%

What if the colour scheme of these tables were changed to something like:

Candidate		First Ballot
		Votes cast	%
File:Lester B. Pearson 1957.jpg	Lester B. Pearson	1,074	77.8%
	Kim Campbell	1,664	48.0%

They may not be the official colour tones of the parties, but I feel legibility is important. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:46, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Reidgreg: Sorry for the delay in getting back to you; some stuff IRL and limited computer access; find I can't tinker with tables on my iPad. I certainly take your point that legibility is important. I like the pale blue you suggest for the Conservatives, but I find the pink just too washed out for the Liberals; personal subjectivity, of course! I poked around in the colours articles and found a slightly darker red that I think is still legible; what do you think of it?

Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 09:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pinging me, and don't worry, there's no deadline.

I put your suggestion into Snook's colour contrast tool and it came out as non-compliant with WCAG 2.0 standards (for small to medium sized text). However, it's a definite improvement on the original and I feel it's relatively easy to read the bold text (non-bold text might be difficult though, should anyone change it). I tried playing around with a colour chooser but as I lightened the background colour it always skewed towards salmon/pink.

I'm fine with your suggestion. Will you be able to implement the change in the articles or should I? – Reidgreg (talk) 16:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Changing codes on existing tables was easy on a tablet. Just find it difficult to create new tables, like the one I did here. But ended up using the colour code for the federal Liberals from the table of Party colors - found it was pretty close to the one I suggested above, and equally legible. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 18:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! Thanks for taking care of this! – Reidgreg (talk) 13:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. I've opened up an Rfc at 2019 United Kingdom general election, concerning all UK general election articles' infoboxes. If we're going to change something to your preference, we should be doing it for all of them, not just the 2019 article. GoodDay (talk) 14:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Schwede66 03:04, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We had bold leads at the following high view articles but over time this was changed (messed up some transclutions but that was fixed). What do you think is best here? I am ok with no bold ....but we have about 15 articles that all start the exact same way....designed to take the readers away for the article off the bat. Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic version with bold and Socio-economic impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic version with bold. --Moxy 🍁 13:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Moxy: Hi Moxy, sorry for the delay in responding. I don't check my Talk page very often. I'm afraid I don't understand your question? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 08:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Schwede66: Hi Schwede66, a few months back you pointed me to the style differences for hyphens and en dashes for dates and page numbers, but I can't find the discussion or the style section. Sorry to be a pest, but could you point me to the section in the MoS? Thanks! (I've pinged you on my talk page so I won't lose the discussion again; if you could reply here it would be greatly appreciated.) Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No trouble at all: MOS:DASH Schwede66 17:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks!Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have created two templates for use on Canadian politicians they are {{UpperCanada-politician-stub}} and {{ProvinceofCanada-politician-stub}}, currently both these templates send articles to Category:Canadian politician stubs but once you get approximatly 60 articles marked with each of these templates you can either create the category and cange the template to send them to the new category or let me know on my talk page and I will do so for you. Waacstats (talk) 08:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks so much for all your help. --Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 09:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Waacstats: I think the word "about" is missing from both templates? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 09:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome to the stub community - thanks for the barnstar! Her Pegship (?) 04:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing Australia and Canada is not a simple one-on-one mapping. You are correct that the Canadian provinces are sovereign powers in their own right, but they derive their sovereignty from the Canadian Government. In Australia, the States delegate their powers to Canberra. Even the title Lieutenant Governor implies a junior role unlike the Australian Governors. Your point that because the Governor General acts with the Monarch's powers, the appointment of the Lieutenant Governors is equally by the Monarch is a fatuous truism, because everything done is equivalent to being done by Her Majesty, but in Australia the State Governors are appointed directly from the Palace, not via the Governor-General. Another point of difference is that State Ministers can advise The Queen but not the equivalent in Canada, so there is the potential for a conflict in Australia, but is unlikely to happen. It is not generally acknowledged that the Australian States are actually separate realms that overlap with the CofA.

I regret that I could not work out how to reply to you on the correct talk page. However, you probably want to leave that page showing that you had the last word, even if your response was very Canada-centric and clearly displays a lack of understanding of the Australian Constitution that is unique in many ways. You are apparently a Jurist of considerable stature, and I feel rather cheeky disputing Constitutional Law with you without being more respectful in my disagreements. The Law is infinitely divisible.

The point that I am disputing with you has no practical relevance, but as a newly-converted Monarchist, I am fascinated by the Constitution. I used to have a FaceBook page called Melbourne Monarchists, but FaceBook banned me when I wrote in defense of HRH the Duke of York. Now I have no one to talk to. NaumTered (talk) 23:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't see this sooner, and I'm glad you figured it out! Cheers, Her Pegship (?) 22:26, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey check the Hate speech laws in Canada page of Wikipedia every province and territory in Canada prohibits hate speech so edit the summery table section of the LGBT rights in canada page where you mentioned the hate speech prohibited column as YES/NO Rex30 (talk) 17:12, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned at the top of this page, if you have a comment on an edit I’ve made, please raise it on the Talk page for the article so that anyone who is interested in the article can participate in the discussion. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of prime ministers of Canada by time in office, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of prime ministers of Canada by time in office until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just replied to you on the talkpage. Please consider that Featured Articles (FA) are not (PA) Perfect Articles...we don't have PA! Hence, the large number of edits made to Flight 93, since its promotion in 2008. FAs and GAs aren't set in stone,(at least they shouldn't be...), always room for improvement and additional information. Back in July, I made a run thru, adding much needed paragraphs, etc, etc, and Very Boldly changing the hierarchy of the section headings! This is how it appeared before, with everything crammed under Flight. Much better now, and no one objected! And I am a very junior editor, compared to you...

I had a look at your wonderful user page, so well done, and humorous! And here on Talk, the "don't wag your finger" plus the stick figure with the red tongue, just made my day! Very nice to meet you, Best, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 20:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tribe of Tiger: Thanks very much for your kind words. I enjoyed both your encouragement on the Flight 93 issue, and your comments here. Sorry for the delay in responding; that IRL life thing, plus I got tied up with a debate on the Original Research discussion page. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:12, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you reverted this edit of mine on Louise Arbour. This link, specifically the section "How to address diplomatic and consular corps", should substantiate what I said. I'm not entirely sure where the citation would go on the page, though. INDT (talk) 18:06, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. My personal approach, as stated at the top of this page, is that if a response is about an edit relating to the substance of an article, it should be raised on the Talk page of the article, so that any editor interested in the article can follow the discussion and contribute to it. If you comment there, I will reply. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 18:33, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I'll take better care to read notices next time. I've copied my reply to Talk:Louise Arbour. INDT (talk) 18:41, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. I just don't like the idea of "side conversations" about the content of an article, buried away on Talk pages where other editors can't follow it.Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 18:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see you reverted my edit on Pierre Trudeau, where I bolded "PET." Meanwhile, articles such as Franklin D. Roosevelt have their initials bolded. Why? Ak-eater06 (talk) 19:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned at the top of this page, my view is that discussions about edits to a particular article should be made on the Talk page of that article, so that anyone who is interested in the article is aware of the discussion. Side discussions on user talk pages do not help to build an article. Please feel free to raise the issue on the Talk page of the article, and I will respond there, so that all editors can follow the discussion. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 19:10, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mr Serjeant Buzfuz I left a message on that talk page. Ak-eater06 (talk) 19:44, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My edit was based on the assumption that this was only a British law and not part of Canadian law as such (though it contains Canadian law), partly because no one formatted it with a comma. Should it have a comma? Hairy Dude (talk) 11:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hi, thanks for asking. Section 52(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982 provides that the Canada 1982 is italicised, but no comma: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-13.html#h-59. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:22, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

However, I do wonder if this issue of italics should be treated more like a question of style. In Canada, in legal writing, all statutes are italicised, whether Canadian, US, British or international (eg treaties). That's what our legal style manuals recommend, and what the courts do. If we followed that approach on Wikipedia, if an article is about Canada, all statutes would be italicised, regardless of source, but in an article about Britain, all statutes would not be italicised, regardless of source. After all, if an article is using British spelling, we don't switch to American spelling if part of the article is touching on American matters. I would think a consistent usage throughout would be better, because less confusing to the reading.

For instance, I'm working on the Demise of the Crown article, and am just getting to the section where I will cite some Canadian statutes. If I follow Canadian style for Canadian statutes in that section, but British style for British statutes, then there will be a mishmash - English/British statutes non-italicised, Canadian statutes italicised. My inclination, however, is to follow British style throughout, and not italicise the Canadian statutes, because the article is mainly about British law. I think that approach is less confusing to the reader. Thoughts? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:46, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've followed your & Peter Ormond's lead & removed links to "head of state..." in all the governors-general & former governors-general categories. GoodDay (talk) 03:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: Just noticed this. Glad you find it a sensible approach. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's definitely not okay. I've reverted it and given him a warning not to try that stunt again; however, as I've been concentrating on other things the past few days and not paying too much attention to Cblambert's crazymaking, please advise me right away if he tries it again — I've literally gotten to the point that I'm willing to apply a partial block so that he can't edit Louis Riel or the talk page at all anymore. Bearcat (talk) 18:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: Thanks. This is the time of year for R&R, so appreciate you taking a look at it. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner about your category question; I wasn't on here at all on the specific day you posted your question to my talk page, and by the time I was back I had several other issues to deal with and yours got lost in the shuffle. My apologies.

It sounds to me like the topic you describe is one that would probably make more sense as a list than as a category. As a rule, we categorize people by their defining characteristics, not necessarily by every intersection of multiple traits that they may happen to possess. A category for "people who did both X and Y" is generally discouraged, except in the circumstance that you can find sources that explicitly discuss the people who did both X and Y as a group, in order to ascribe some encyclopedic significance to the intersection as a thing in its own right. (For example, although there are musicians who have gone into politics, we don't have a category for musicians who have gone into politics, because there isn't much evidence out there that musicians going into politics get collectively analyzed for the political or cultural significance of an intersection between those two occupations — but conversely, there does seem to be some collective analysis out there about the cultural significance of sports figures going into politics after they retire from sports, so we do have a Category:Sportsperson-politicians tree. (That said, I'm still not convinced that we should, because people routinely think its existence justifies the creation of "other occupation-politicians" intersections for every other career that two or more politicians might have had before entering politics — but that one has been kept even as other "equivalent" categories have been deleted, because there was a consensus established that the sourceability of the topic had a different basis than some of the others.)

So the basis for a category for "judges of the JCPC who wrote decisions in Canadian constitutional law" wouldn't be "are there multiple people who could be filed in it?", it would be "are there sources out there treating 'judges of the JCPC who wrote decisions in Canadian constitutional law' as a group who are analyzed for the significance of the intersection of those two traits?" — if there aren't, then you'd be better off thinking about a list rather than a category. There's still no guarantee that a list would be kept if somebody challenged the notability of the topic at AFD, but the basis for a list isn't exactly the same as the basis for a category, so things that aren't appropriate for categories can sometimes still be acceptable as lists. Bearcat (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: Thanks, no probs with delay; it’s a busy time of the year. 🌲

I hadn’t thought of a list article, but that makes more sense. There is a lot written about this group of judges, particularly from the perspective whether their interpretation of the BNA Act significantly weakened the federal government in a way not consistent with original intent. Viscount Haldane, who wrote a lot of decisions, has been characterized as « the wicked Godfather of Confederation ». Another one whose name comes up is William Watson, Baron Watson. Academics such as F. R. Scott and Peter Hogg have written a fair bit about the JCPC judges and this issue, so I would think that a list would pass notability requirements.

The name is still an issue: I wouldn’t want it to be a list of JCPC judges who wrote decisions in Canadian cases generally, because that’s too broad a class. Those non-constitutional decisions were important at the time, but haven’t generated the same level of academic discourse as the constitutional ones. It’s specifically the constitutional cases which have attracted a lot of attention. But « List of Judicial Committee judges who wrote Canadian constitutional law decisions » is way clunky and long. Would you have any suggestion?

The more I think about it, doing a list would let me include a lot of info: years of service, number of cases, list of cases. That would be of much more value. Thanks! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:11, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That's very generous of you. Instant Comma (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for my mistaken undo. Meters (talk) 00:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Meters:No apologies needed! The back and forth of dialogue and opinions is what makes Wikipedia better! And I see Singularity42 has now started a discussion on the content of the template, based on our interaction. That's all good. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Ost316. I noticed that you recently removed all content from White Canadians. Please do not do this. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. As a rule, if you discover a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If a page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you wish to experiment, please use your 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. Ost (talk) 17:47, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm trying to update the LGBT summary table for Canada. Please review it to update anything that is missing. Thanks tom950 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom950 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So i am not sure how we can word this ...but no provider beyond "23 weeks and 6 days" yet BC clinics will do so if the mother is at risk of death up to "24 weeks and 6 days" and QC till 24 weeks...then after (very rare could only find 3 cases in 9 years) ...we have "Septic abortion" that happens in hospitals if there is risk of death to the mother at any time.Moxy- 17:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Moxy: - I tinkered with the sentence in the lead a bit; please see what you think of it. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:04, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I posted in the talk section of the Naknak page, and I'd like you to read it please. TherealGordon94 (talk) 16:06, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know. I have replied on that Talk page. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had put in services and commercial premises because they are protected by the Human Rights Laws in Canada however you decided to remove them. Now when it comes to the references to Health Insurance, Labour and Banking and all other financial institutions I was the one who originally put those in the summary table but decided to remove them in order to better update that entry to reflet what is said in the Human Rights laws page. Can you please tell me where in the human rights laws of Canada where those are included? thank you, tom950 Tom950 (talk) 00:59, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you for a cite when you said these items were not included. Instead of providing a cite, you deleted them. If you wish to discuss further, please take the discussion to the Talk page for the article. As I state at the top of this Talk page, in my opinion any discussion of the content of an article should be on the Talk page for that article, so that any interested editor can participate and there is a record of the discussion. Thanks. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:42, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wish that you may have a very Happy Holiday! Whether you celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Hogmanay, Festivus or your hemisphere's Solstice, this is a special time of year for almost everyone! May the New Year provide you joy and fulfillment! Thanks for everything you do here. Yeeno (talk) 01:31, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Coffee/Holidays}} to your fellow editors' talk pages.

Happy New Year!

Mr Serjeant Buzfuz,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Mr Serjeant Buzfuz: Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My best wishes for the new year ahead, Mr Serjeant Buzfuz! On espère qu'elle annoncera des bonnes choses. À la prochaine Safyrr 18:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see your revert until just now, after I had made my comment here about my concern with the article, but if there is an issue with the way the archived links are added to the citations via IAbot, feel free to manually add the archived links yourself in your preferred formatting style, but the links were added ensure that readers are still able to verify the facts of the article if the references no longer work. There have been instances where links would work when they're being checked before going to the main page and then suddenly go offline/404 right before the article hits the main page by sheer coincidence. I'm not concerned about the format of the citation, so by all means please add them how you prefer it to be formatted; my concern there is future-proofing the citations against link rot, especially when it's going to be on the front page with many people reading and checking/scrutinizing the references, that's all. - Aoidh (talk) 01:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear in case it seems like I sound accusatory which is not my intention, I am fine with you reverting it and retaining the preferred style, I would just ask that you consider adding the archived links in whatever style you're using and comfortable with, since it benefits readers in the event that the link suffers from link rot. I would add them myself but I'm not familiar with the style and have no intention of reverting your revert, even in part. - Aoidh (talk) 02:23, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The ref system I'm using is the ref key and the link key from the editing box, with the link, the name of the bio, the author of the bio, the name of the work, the volume, and the publishers. If using the ref key and the link key are no longer considered sufficient then they should be removed from the editing box. Bear in mind that if Wikipedia is truly the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, we have to be cautious about continually increasing the standard of technical facility that we expect of editors. And, bots should not use patronizing and insulting edit comments like "Rescued X number of citations". Rescued from whom? Incompetent editors? Highly insulting and not assuming good faith. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I flipped back your revert to the legend for the map at Thirteen Colonies. Your comment indicated that both color and text were previously there, which wasn't the case. The switch to color boxes was due to issues with how the color labels (on a map that's probably not very accessible in the first place) didn't match what was seen on the screen. I've not seen MOS:COLOR applied to map legends, but went ahead and restored the names along with the color boxes so that hopefully the map makes more sense. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the Defender of the Wiki Barnstar! That whole situation was crazy, and I really appreciate the support 🙂 I had actually just seen your page the day before, as I casually stalk the recent successful GA nominations, and saw your Constitution Act article get GA! Congratulations, and keep up the good work, what you do is appreciated. Cheers! Johnson524 (Talk!) 14:18, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnson524:, you're very welcome. It can be intimidating when governments put pressure on a publisher. Glad Wikipedia stood up to it as well. Thanks for the comments on s. 54. I'm gradually (very gradually) going through the CA Act and turning sections blue in the overview box. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 18:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a Request Move discussion about William IV. Since you participated in the previous move discussion involving William IV, I thought you might want to know about this one. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:30, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British possession as requested on my talk page. WCM_email 14:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help! I was wondering-- what do you do when another user kind of stalks you and systematically undoes all your edits? I've been having this problem since May, and I don't know what to do. Didicool14 (talk) 14:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a formal dispute resolution process, collectivley called the Administrators Notice Boards. I've never been involved in anything there. Before going there, though, I would suggest you send a message to an administrator and ask for help. The admins are regular editors who have been given some oversight functions, to ensure Wikipedia keeps operating. Two admins that I would recommend talking to are User:Bearcat (he's a Canadian admin), and User:CaptainEek (she's in the States). We want people to feel safe at Wikipedia. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. I've contacted both of them, hoping for the best. Didicool14 (talk) 15:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to do that very move. But I was going to gather a bunch of sources to show the move was justified first. Thank you doing it. I support that 100%. Masterhatch (talk) 16:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve got a few that I’ll add to the Talk page. The article was named this originally, then got moved by an editor who cited Stats Can. But Stats Can had no authority to name towns. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had been worried correcting the name would ruffle some feathers so I wasn't going to tackle it until I had time to defend it. Which other ones were you looking at? Masterhatch (talk) 16:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve reverted the spelling change recently made on the Souris River article. That’s what caught my attention, as I’ve got the Souris on my watch list. Haven’t noticed any others. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for deleting this unsupported addition. I just wanted to let you know there's an easier way to undo edits. Cheers! — W.andrea (talk) 18:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mr Serjeant Buzfuz. :) I'm looking for people to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just letting you know that I made some edits to one of your comments regarding "Need help with a new category: Disestablishments in Canada East" because parts of the text in what you were writing were not displaying. For example, references to {{Title decade}} were being blanked out because there isn't a decade mentioned in the title Wikipedia:Help desk. I inserted the "nowiki" designator where it appeared to apply. See my edit at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1190120318&oldid=1190119785&title=Wikipedia:Help_desk . If this doesn't correspond to what you meant, feel free to change it back. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. I really don't understand the coding displayed in that parent category, but your corrections will help anyone else who looks at it. I appreciate all the help that you and other editors are giving on this tech issue. (As the subject matter indicates, I'm much more familiar with 19th century canadiana ... ) Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:40, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Masterhatch (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Merry Christmas! Are you enjoying this record breaking heat? Gotta love El Niño. Masterhatch (talk) 08:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like I should be sitting out on the stoop with a cold beer:)! Best wishes! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 04:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024!

Hello Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024. Happy editing, ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:37, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:37, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much. Excellent sentiments in your e-card, for both the wiki-world and the real world. Best wishes for the New Year. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 04:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year 2024!

Hello Mr Serjeant Buzfuz: Wishing you a great New Year full of good experiences, happiness and fulfillement! Cheers, Safyrr 17:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since Canada East and Canada West were just conventionsl designations of areas within the Province of Canada, which was the actual political entity at the time, do you think we could have a Lawyers from the Province of Canada category? I am not sure any other poliyical unit that constituted British North America would have enough articles, but I brlieve this one would work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John Pack Lambert, I’ve thought about your suggestion but I don’t think it would work. There was no single bar for the Province of Canada, because the legal and court systems were different. Lawyers in Lower Canada / Canada East were members of the Law Society of Lower Canada, trained in the civil law. Lawyers from Upper Canada / Canada West were members of the law Society of Upper Canada, trained in the common law. Neither set of lawyers had right of audience in the courts of the other section. There was clear continuity in the lawyers from Lower Canada / Canada East / Quebec, and a separate continuity in the lawyers from Upper Canada / Canada West / Ontario. That’s why I’ve suggested putting a sub-category of Lower Canada lawyers in the existing category of « Lawyers in Quebec », and a sub-category of Upper Canada lawyers in the existing category of « Lawyers in Ontario ». I would also say that if a lawyer was called to either bar prior to Confederation, but continued into Confederation, they should just be catégorised as a Quebec lawyer or an Ontario lawyer. If they ceased practice before 1867, then I’d put them in the sub-categories.

The reason I suggest this approach is that the division of the province of Canada into Canada East and Canada West wasn’t just conventional. The Province of Canada was a quasi-federation, and the separate court systems and legal systems, with separate bars, was one of the strongest markers of the quasi-federal nature.

Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The political unit from 1841-1867 was called the Province of Canada. These people were lawyers in that Province. I do not see any way that this category is inaccurate. I would argue it is more problematic to treat Upper Canada and Lower Canada as if they continue after 1841 when there is just one political unit from 1841-1867.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• • Canada West does not even have its own article. It is treated in 1 paragraph in the article on the Province of Canada. The political unit was the province of Canada. Most categories in the Lawyers by former countries tree use from not in.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Regardless, the Lawyers from the Province of Canada should not be deleted. The contents clearly belong in Province of Canada people. If the category is not kept its contents should be upmerged to Province of Canada people, since the articles would otherwise not be there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lawyers in Lower Canada/Canada East has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lawyers in Upper Canada/Canada West has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sarge, are you OK with my cropping this one to remove the black and white borders and the text (or, if you prefer, just cropping the borders but keeping the text)? If you're good with this change, I'll upload it as an extracted version and transfer the usages. -- WikiPedant (talk) 05:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! sounds good, thanks. No need to ask; if you see something that could do with a fix, have at it! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiPedant: While you're at it, could you take a look at the image of Lewis Thomas Drummond? It's got a tag for Montreal City Archives on it, but I don't think that needs to be kept, since they were not the creators of the image; it's an extract from a drawing back in the 1850s. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Drummond.jpg Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both done. Anytime . . . WikiPedant (talk) 02:28, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]