User talk:Mr Serjeant Buzfuz

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Re: R. v. Coote[edit]

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[reply]

Naming conventions[edit]

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[reply]

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

Psychic powers![edit]

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

A page you started has been reviewed![edit]

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[reply]

Learn more about page curation.

Your question![edit]

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

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

Legal status of animals in Canada wiki[edit]

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[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[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[reply]

Henry VIII[edit]

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[reply]

Yves Fortier (lawyer)[edit]

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[reply]


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

A page you started (Electoral history of Alexander Mackenzie) has been reviewed![edit]

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[reply]

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

A page you started (List of Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada by Position) has been reviewed![edit]

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[reply]

Recent Canadian Provincial Elections[edit]

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[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[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[reply]

Convention results boxes[edit]

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

Candidate First Ballot
Votes cast %
Lester B. Pearson 1957.jpg Lester B. Pearson 1,074 77.8%

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 %
KimCampbell.jpg 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 %
Lester B. Pearson 1957.jpg Lester B. Pearson 1,074 77.8%
KimCampbell.jpg 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[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?
Candidate First Ballot
Votes cast %
Lester B. Pearson 1957.jpg Lester B. Pearson 1,074 77.8%

Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 09:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[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[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[reply]
Looks good! Thanks for taking care of this! – Reidgreg (talk) 13:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to show the post-election UK PM, in the infobox.[edit]

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[reply]

Autopatrolled granted[edit]

Wikipedia Autopatrolled.svg

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[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[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[reply]

Hyphens and en dashes[edit]

@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[reply]

No trouble at all: MOS:DASH Schwede66 17:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great, thanks!Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stub templates[edit]

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[reply]

Great! Thanks so much for all your help. --Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 09:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Waacstats: I think the word "about" is missing from both templates? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 09:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stubs ahoy[edit]

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

Sorry for posting here, but I don't know how to reply on the topic talk page.[edit]

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[reply]

Adding sub-cat[edit]

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[reply]

You added wrong info dude[edit]

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[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[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[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[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[reply]

Use of "Her Excellency"[edit]

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[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[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[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[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[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[reply]

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

Canada Act 1982[edit]

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[reply]

hi, thanks for asking. Section 52(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982 provides that the Canada 1982 is italicised, but no comma: Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:22, 22 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]

Following your lead[edit]

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[reply]

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

Louis Riel[edit]

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[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[reply]

JCPC category[edit]

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[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[reply]

Barnstar of Diligence[edit]

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

Use dmy dates[edit]

Thanks for reverting a few misplaced {{Use dmy dates}} tags added by me.

I noticed that on a few of them you had left an edit summary like this one: There is no basis to impose DMY as a standard; WP does not have a date standard, and date tags have to be inserted based on the content of the article. DMY is not a default and should not automatically be inserted.

So I wanted to explain what I am doing.

I am not trying to impose DMY as a standard, at least not globally. Per MOS:TIES and WP:DATEFORMAT, some countries default to DMY and some to MDY; the others have no default. Canada is one the no-default countries.

What I have been doing is adding {{Use dmy dates}} to article with close ties to the UK & Ireland, which do use the DMY format. My list-making involves a heck of a lot of checks to try to exclude articles which have closer ties to other countries, and in general this has succeeded: my error rate is about 0.1%.

One of the articles where you reverted the tag is Act of Union 1840. That was included in my tagging list because it is an Act of the United Kingdom Parliament at Westminster, so it has close ties to the UK. It also has close ties to Canada, so there is a balance to be drawn, and I can of course see that there is a case for regarding the Canadian ties as more significant. I am personally unpersuaded either way on which ties are more significant, but it's not worth debating. However, since Canada accepts both formats, I don't think it's an open-and-shut issue.

Hope that clarifies my approach. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:38, 16 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

April 2022[edit]

Information icon 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[reply]

LGBT rights in Canada[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 21:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Abortion in CAN[edit]

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-Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 17:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]

Be on the look out[edit]

Recommend you keep all the provinces on your watchlist. As I suspect you'll likely get reverted at Manitoba, in the near future. GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What about Northwest Territories and Nunavut? -- GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Working on them. Not constitutional monarchies; parliamentary system, with consensus gov't. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:18, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@GoodDay: Thanks for tidying up the provincial infoboxes / disputed tags. Just after I started getting involved in that discussion, some IRL stuff came up and I wasn't able to participate. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No prob. GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Confusing refill2[edit]

Cntl-F of one reference
Use of Cntl-F of that reference again

I will try again with the referencing on Cell (biology). Turns out Cntl-F of these particular references are exactly the same. Before you go on a revertation spree, please manually review the edit yourself. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 08:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also did the same by checking those other duplicated citations below. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 08:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe you had missed out crucial details on what the reference fix is before doing your revertations. If reFill2 did something like, say, changing emdashes and endashes erratically when either one of them was formerly correct, then sure I would admit a revertation would be necessary and that manual fixing and adjustments would be necessary. But for the Cell (biology) article (revision differences), that edit I made should have not been touched, or at least edited slightly for consistency. I would advise that you take the time to review the edit by looking at what has happened in the edit before you go press the undo button. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 09:10, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re:Naknak page[edit]

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[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[reply]

LGBT summary table for Canada[edit]

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[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[reply]

Great work![edit]

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
Great work in creating quality new articles for Wikipedia! Masterhatch (talk) 10:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Masterhatch: Thank you. That is very nice of you. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:56, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nomination of Arrest of Brittney Griner for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Arrest of Brittney Griner is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arrest of Brittney Griner until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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 until the discussion has finished.

Saucysalsa30 (talk) 04:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Joyous Season[edit]

Happy New Year, Mr Serjeant Buzfuz![edit]

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

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

Happy New Year .jpg 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[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message
CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Happy New Year![edit]

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[reply]