Talk:Defence of Canada Regulations

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian law.

Military history: Canadian / North America / World War II Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Canadian military history task force
	North American military history task force
	World War II task force

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

"A number of prominent Communist Party members were detained until 1942 when the Soviet Union joined the Allies" - this doesn't make sense. Soviet Union joined the Allies in June 1941. -- int19h (talk) 01:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion[edit]

Hi, Walter Görlitz. Regarding your recent reversion, I'm wondering what your concern with the edit is. And apologies that I forgot to note in the edit summary that I was copy-editing, largely to conform to the MOS. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 01:03, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I explained it quite well in the revert: your changes were unexplained and unnecessary. Hoever, since you've afforded me more space: there was nothing wrong with the version, and your WP:LANGVAR changes were simply wrong. Both terms, "World War II" and "Second World War", are used in Canada, with the latter being preferred in recent years. If it's not a LANGVAR issue, it's a WP:NOTBROKEN issue. Since you failed to provide an edit summary, what was the actual problem you were trying to fix? Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:09, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Walter Görlitz: The edit:

Merged three single-sentence paragraphs per WP:PARAGRAPH
Italicized "habeas corpus" per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC, in line with the usage at the article on the subject
Uncapitalized "regulations" when not being used as part of a proper name per MOS:CAPS
Uncapitalized "communist" and "communists" when not being used as a proper noun per MOS:CAPS
Reordered sections per MOS:ORDER
Alphabetized categories as there was no discernible order of the categories, per MOS:CATORDER
Removed a link to World War II per MOS:DL
Introduced the term "Second World War" as I felt it helped the sentence flow better

If you take issue with the latter change, that's fine by me. But did you read actually WP:LANGVAR or WP:NOTBROKEN before citing them? If both terms are acceptable in Canadian English, our guidelines on national varieties of English aren't relevant. And WP:NOTBROKEN applies only to redirects, not articles.

On what basis are you arguing that the changes are "unnecessary", despite all the changes but one being made to correct stylistic choices made in direct contravention of the MOS? And like I said, I forgot to include an edit summary indicating I was copy editing (which would have been similar to this edit), but I fail to see the relevance of that as that wouldn't have clarified anything here. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 01:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. LANGVAR does apply as the original use is more common in English, but as I said, it's a minor issue. NOTBROKEN applies to changing a link within an article to avoid a redirect so it applies. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:55, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Walter Görlitz: LANGVAR does apply as the original use is more common in English To which provision of WP:LANGVAR are you referring?

NOTBROKEN applies to changing a link within an article to avoid a redirect so it applies. Uhh, what link was changed to avoid a redirect? I genuinely have no idea what you're talking about.

And that doesn't address the main question I asked: "On what basis are you arguing that the changes are 'unnecessary', despite all the changes but one being made to correct stylistic choices made in direct contravention of the MOS?" 142.160.89.97 (talk) 03:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The secondary issue was that changing a link from World War II to Second World War. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:42, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Walter Görlitz: Yes, but how does that bypass a redirect (as you seem to be asserting it does)?

And that doesn't address the primary issue: "On what basis are you arguing that the changes are 'unnecessary', despite all the changes but one being made to correct stylistic choices made in direct contravention of the MOS?" 142.160.89.97 (talk) 03:45, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was a wholesale, unexplained change. Without details, it’s speculative. Based on your other behaviour, I assumed unnecessary fiddlin while not giving up on AGF. Now that you’ve explained your edits, I’d be fine with you restoring the edits provided that you don't change the wording of World War II. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:49, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Walter Görlitz: What more information would an edit summary saying "CE" (which would have been similar to this edit) have given you?

And given that you explicitly called me a vandal here, how are you claiming to be assuming good faith? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 03:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you would like to compare my edit—where I actually provided an edit summary of "formatting", and where the diff is absolutely clear that I removed redlinks and corrected terminology—to your edit—that moved sections around, there are no clear indications of whether content in a paragraph was changed or not via the diff tool—as being somehow similar? I've love to hear more about that.

And if you act like a vandal, you will be called one. I believe that I have had enough here. I do not plan to respond any longer as we are not discussing the article, but you are impugning my character. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:03, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Walter Görlitz: that moved sections around You... you genuinely couldn't guess why the references section (section in the singular, by the way) would be moved above the further reading section?

there are no clear indications of whether content in a paragraph was changed or not via the diff tool If you don't actually read the diff, that is (which one is obliged to do before reverting).

I've love to hear more about that. I would certainly oblige. What would you like to know?

And if you act like a vandal, you will be called one. Taking into account the definition provided in the first sentence of WP:VANDALISM, how do you feel I acted like a vandal?

I believe that I have had enough here. I do not plan to respond any longer as we are not discussing the article, but you are impugning my character. If your character was impugned here, it was through your own doing. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 05:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]