Talk:Defence of Canada Regulations

Untitled
"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)

Reversion
Hi,. 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 ), 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * What more information would an edit summary saying "CE" (which would have been similar to ) have given you?
 * And given that you explicitly called me a vandal, how are you claiming to be assuming good faith? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 03:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)