User talk:Instant Comma

How is a top Disney movie Herbie: Fully Loaded. not notable? ^[1]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Telecineguy (talk • contribs) 1:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

The film is notable. Not everything in the film is notable, including that song. Instant Comma (talk) 13:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I deleted two citations and two references because they were related to articles that didn't explicitly say that Martha Quinn left MTV in 1992. I had originally referred to the articles because they were from 1992, and I was essentially trying to indicate that Martha Quinn was part of MTV in 1992 but gone before the year was out. I deleted the two citations and two references because I thought that they were no long necessary in light of the new citation and new reference that I included today. The new citation and new reference refer to an article that does explicitly indicate that Martha Quinn left MTV in 1992. Maxikray (talk) 16:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks. Instant Comma (talk) 16:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Can you point me to where in the MOS prohibits the capitalization of the definite article in proper nouns. I can’t locate it and am genuinely curious as to the thinking behind it. Canterbury Tail talk 01:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Ah never mind, found it. Yup fair enough, apologies. Canterbury Tail talk 01:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Admittedly I was getting a little annoyed because i thought you were just trying to edit war over the most petty stuff imaginable, but when you brought up some examples, it actually reminded me of the time when the founder of the slam death metal band Gorevent proclaimed himself the "leader" of the band, and I realized at that point that it's clearly a very Japanese sort of thing. I guess it made sense when I realized that. / Second Skin (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Glad we could sort it out. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is prone to misunderstandings. Instant Comma (talk) 23:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention to the Wayne Brady page on Wikipedia.

I deleted the phrase "great deal" before "anxiety" because it is vague and difficult to quantify. Moreover, although a source says that Brady "suffered a great deal of anxiety,," we should not take it at face value. Kamtal75 (talk) 22:46, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand. If we consider it a reliable source, why wouldn't be take it at face value? If it's not reliable, why are we citing it at all? It doesn't make sense to me to cite a source and then say something different than what the source says. Instant Comma (talk) 22:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi - I'm letting your revert stand, but you are wrong about the possessive. In the English language, it is proper both ways - S'S OR S'. Neither form is "needed" as you incorrectly state in your revert and telling me that its a possessive by sourcing MOS:POSS is not really helpful since we both know what the sentence says. Please see - https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/what-happens-to-names-when-we-make-them-plural-or-possessive. Ckruschke (talk) 17:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

My purpose for citing MOS:POSS was not to point out that the word was possessive but to show what the style guide says about making the possessive form for single nouns that end in s. The style guide trumps Merriam Webster here. Instant Comma (talk) 23:21, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

You shouldn't have removed Oosgood Law School on Arthur Meighen, therefore I have reverted your edits. Ak-eater06 (talk) 22:45, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand. You've removed sourced material to restore unsourced material. Why would you do that? Instant Comma (talk) 00:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

My apologies. However, you should add that he studied at Oosgood. Ak-eater06 (talk) 02:13, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Osgoode is not mentioned in the source, so I don't feel comfortable adding it, and, in fact, that's why I removed it. If you have a source on Osgoode, would you please restore the sentence and cite the source? Instant Comma (talk) 02:24, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

On Louis St. Laurent I was going to remove the source anyway, just a heads up. Ak-eater06 (talk) 20:21, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Sorry if I acted prematurely. Instant Comma (talk) 20:38, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I notice you delete lots of uncited claims, which is fine with me. However, I'm wondering if you research these claims before you delete them? If you search up the claims and find a source that backs it up, please put it in the article you're editing. Ak-eater06 (talk) 21:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

It's easy to find sources to back up anything on Wikipedia, because almost everything on Wikipedia is repeated somewhere else on the Internet. If I can find a completely reliable source that doesn't just repeat the information on Wikipedia, I delete the relevant passage from the article Otherwise, we're just engaged in citogenesis. Instant Comma (talk) 21:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I saw you edit on Brian Mulroney that removed a comma. Isn't it supposed to be, "enthusiastically embraced political organization, and assisted the local PC candidate in his successful 1956 Nova Scotia provincial election campaign; the PCs, led provincially by Robert Stanfield" WITH a comma? Or is there a Wikipedia policy on commas? If there is, please link it. Ak-eater06 (talk) 17:28, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

There is no comma before and unless (a) and introduces an independent clause or (b) you are using the Oxford comma in a list of three or more items. For more, see here: https://www.grammarly.com/blog/comma-before-and/. Instant Comma (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I can assure you that I am not a sock puppet. I am a real unquie person. I reverted it because the edits seemed to be unnecessary, and nonproductive. I kindly ask you to revert your previous edit. Thank you have a nice day. HarryOwens100 (talk) 24:08, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, you are saying that your very first edit on Wikipedia consisted of reverting a long series of edits, the same long series of edits that had also, coincidentally, been previously reverted a couple of times by another new editor? Instant Comma (talk) 13:55, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Ya when you put it like that it does sound like I'm a sock puppet but I can guarantee I'm not. I reverted the edit because the text was cited, and fits the information presented. As for my first edit, you have to start somewhere right. I mostly read Wikipedia, and have for years. Not really see a need for an account. Finally, I created this account as a new year resolution. To start editing. That does not make me a sock puppet account.HarryOwens100 (talk • 17:13, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Might I suggest you read WP:Duck and stay away from the Ernest Manning article for a while? If you continue to dispute these edits, you'll only convince more and more people that you're a sock puppet. Instant Comma (talk) 18:00, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I hope you are well. Many Exorcists say that Yoga is evil because it has connections to demonic figures, amoungst other reasons. Do you think a 'devout' Catholic would practise something that is considered evil by many in the clergy?

He seems to have been a womanizer, as stated in the biography Just Watch Me.

Fornication, polygamous relationships and cohabitation are all contary to the teaching of The Catholic Church. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HelpfulPi (talk • contribs) 12:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Please see: ^[1]

Hello, I would just like to ask about your edits with the reasoning that it wasn't cited. especially concerning the oil sands and oil development. Those sources have two pages. With much of the material on those second pages that you might've missed. have a good one.Rommel's editor (talk) 03:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

You've made a lot of edits to that page — likely somewhere between 50 and 100. Would you please specify which edit you are talking about? Instant Comma (talk) 16:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		You deserve this Barnstar for your continued diligence in articles about Canadian prime ministers, checking what the articles say is in the source and comparing it to what is actually in the source. Thank you for your efforts to make the statements and the citations as accurate as possible!

Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 23:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! That's very generous of you. Instant Comma (talk) 01:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Ak-eater06 (talk) 19:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes. It's in the Manual of Style. Instant Comma (talk) 19:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

The MOS doesn't say you have to write it in words. I'll be reverting your edits to the way it was before as they are unconstructive. "Write 3%, three percent, or three per cent." Ak-eater06 (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

See MOS:PERCENT. Instant Comma (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

My apologies. I didn't read that. Ak-eater06 (talk) 03:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

See WP:USI. You should add a [Citation Needed] tag rather than mass deleting unsourced content. Why don't you do this? Ak-eater06 (talk) 10:02, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not going to look for sources for material that I believe is inaccurate. If you believe the information is true, the burden of proof lies with you. See: WP:BURDEN. Instant Comma (talk) 13:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

You don't have to look for sources for material, you can just add a citation needed tag. Ak-eater06 (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Why would I leave incorrect information in place? Instant Comma (talk) 19:08, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Please heed the above advice. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:44, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I would repeat what I said above. If I believe the information is incorrect, the best approach is for me to remove it. False information with a citation-needed tag doesn't help Wikipedia. Instant Comma (talk) 17:29, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

If you believe? Who are you to determine what's correct and incorrect? Further, what makes you think you're beyond Wikipedia policies and practices? Both @Ak-eater06: and myself (a far more experienced editor than you) have told you to insert 'cite-needed' tags. That tag prompts other editors to search for a source as well as alerting readers that the information may not be sound. When you just delete the info, nobody knows it was ever there unless they search through the edit history and why would they do that?

From WP:BURDEN: "Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.[4] When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source, and the material therefore may not be verifiable.[5] If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." You did not use the 'cite-needed' tag. You did not state in your deletion that it may not be possible to find a reliable source. You did not look for a citation yourself.

it's laughable you try to lecture me on WP:BRD when you were the Bold editor deleting the info and you were Reverted. The D stands for "discuss", not "revert the revert". I should warn you, as well, that you're now at three reverts within 24 hours; another will put you in breach of WP:3RR. You can also be reported for edit warring. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:54, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

My apologies. I expressed myself poorly. To be clear, I do not believe that I am the one to determine what is true and what isn't true. Whether something is true or not is determined by a verifiable source, added by the person who wishes to include the information, per Wikipedia policy. As for BRD, my understanding is that the bold editor is the one who adds the material in the first place. Removing that material is the R (revert) in BRD. Finally, my additional apologies if I came off as lecturing you. Again, that wasn't my intent. It isn't always easy to strike the right tone in an edit-summary box. Instant Comma (talk) 21:31, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

It hasn't just been in the edit summaries; you repeated the same "it's incorrect" claim above. How do you know it's incorrect? WP:V is a red herring; no one is disputing the need for reliable sources. What is at issue is your removal of material instead of placing a 'cite-needed' tag (which, based on Ak-eater06's remarks, seems to be a tendency). If you feel so strongly that "the person who wishes to include the information" should provide a source, you'd make the effort to find the editor who originally added the material and ask them for the source. But, instead, you deleted the info and tried to just walk away. If no other editor has the time to immediately drop everything and find the source, the deleted material will be lost under subsequent other edits. Putting a 'cite-needed' tag at least gives some time for some other person to do what you apparently expect them to. The editor who added the material you dispute is User:SimonP. He put it in 18 1/2 years ago. After all that time, the editor who deletes it is making the bold move. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:18, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

That is not at all my understanding of the relevant policies. The policy I quoted in my edit summary says, "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material ...." So the burden here, in this case, would be with you, the editor restoring the material. I don't see any policy that grandfathers information. If the information is incorrect, it's incorrect, regardless of how long it has been on Wikipedia. Instant Comma (talk) 22:42, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Who provides the source is irrelevant. The very same policy states (again), "consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source, and the material therefore may not be verifiable. If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it."

The policy does not state "immediately delete anything that doesn't have a source." --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

The policy does not say that I must add a citation-needed tag; it says I should consider doing so, which I did. Who provides the source is relevant, per the policies that I have quoted above. Instant Comma (talk) 02:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Ya gotta begin a discussion on the talkpage of the article, the content dispute is occurring on per WP:BRD. In the case of Roland Michener (as an example), you deleted material & another editor restored it. At that moment, you were suppose to go to the talkpage & seek consensus for your deletion. Merely reverting, without engaging at the talkpage, is frowned upon on the project. In the meantime, as the other fellows mentioned. Adding 'citation-tags' would be preferable to outright reverts. GoodDay (talk) 15:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

See my response to all these points above. Instant Comma (talk) 15:35, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Check this out Westminister system. "The head of state or his or her representative (such as a governor-general) formally appoints as the head of government whoever commands the confidence of the lower or sole house of the legislature and invites him or her to form a government."

If that's not reliable enough for you, then here: https://www.britannica.com/topic/parliamentary-system ("the party (or a coalition of parties) with the greatest representation in the parliament (legislature) forms the government") read about it. I have given you four sources (two in one of my edit summaries) while you haven't given me any. Ak-eater06 (talk) 13:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

You are missing the point. Paul Martin was invited to form a government in 2003. Can you find a reliable source that says he was invited to form a government again in 2004? No, because he already was the head of the government. The election didn't change that. All the election did is change his government from a majority government to a minority government. Instant Comma (talk) 00:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Then how do you explain the two sources I provided in the edit summary of the 2004 election article where it says the Liberals formed government in 2019/2021? Ak-eater06 (talk) 00:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Here is your reliable source:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2004/06/29/canadas-ruling-party-loses-its-majority-in-elections/b119a07d-39cc-4531-8e51-419a13e18eb6/ ("by forming the nation's first minority government in 25 years.") Ak-eater06 (talk) 00:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring your message. I'll address it substantively once I get the relevant books from the library. Instant Comma (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

"Also wrong is the suggestion that the Governor-General will 'call upon' Mr. Martin to form a government. It's the United States where a re-elected incumbent must again be sworn in, not here. Mr. Martin doesn't need to be asked to form a government because he already leads one." (Guy Giorno, "Should the GG Be Able to Fire the PM?" National Post, 26 June 2004, p. A19) Your first two citations above (to Wikipedia and Britannica) do not address the issue. I don't deny that the governor general invited Martin to form a government in 2003, as I said above. I am saying that after the election of 2004, the governor general would not invite a sitting prime minister to form a government, because Martin had already done so. There's nothing in the Wikipedia or Britannica articles that says the governor general invites a sitting prime minister to form a government. As for your citation from the Washington Post, I would suggest that a Canadian lawyer and former chief of staff to a premier and a prime minister (Guy Giorno, above) is a more reliable expert than an American journalist. Instant Comma (talk) 01:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Here's another constitutional expert: Elections in Canada "normally produced a clear one-party majority in the House of Commons, leaving no doubt in the mind as to who should have the right to be first invited to form a government or continue in office." Notice the clear distinction between continuing in office and forming a government. (Edward McWhinney, The Governor General and the Prime Ministers: The Making and Unmaking of Governments, p. 95) Instant Comma (talk) 01:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay Sherlock. Whatever you say. I won't revert it. Ak-eater06 (talk) 02:18, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure you didn't mean to call names or ridicule me, but you may wish to clarify the meaning of that last remark. Instant Comma (talk) 14:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for being insistent and reminding me that I should not be editing when I am tired!

Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:14, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

My pleasure! Thanks for the goat! Instant Comma (talk) 17:57, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Does the source say "he had minimal knowledge of Quebec"? Ak-eater06 (talk) 19:52, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

No. Of course not. If the statement had been sourced, it would have been wrong of me to remove it. To be clear: it's not true and unsourced. If you're going to restore it, the onus is on you to provide source. Instant Comma (talk) 19:54, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

"Revert an edit if it is not an improvement" it says.

Also the editor in the 2021 election article never even left an edit summary.

Hope this helps. Ak-eater06 (talk) 02:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

The policy is contradictory. It also says this: "Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reversions happen." And then there is this: "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes." And this: "BRD is never a reason for reverting. Unless the reversion is supported by policies, guidelines or common sense, the reversion is not part of BRD cycle." And this: "Partial reversion, WP:PARTR, is better than complete reversion." And, of course, as I pointed out before, there's another policy that speaks to this, WP:DONTREVERT: "Do not revert unnecessary edits (i.e., edits that neither improve nor harm the article). For a reversion to be appropriate, the reverted edit must actually make the article worse. Wikipedia does not have a bias toward the status quo (except in some cases of fully developed disputes, while they are being resolved). In fact, Wikipedia has a bias toward change, as a means of maximizing quality by maximizing participation." Instant Comma (talk) 12:06, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:DONTREVERT is not a policy, it's an opinion. As it says at the top of the article, "This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." Ak-eater06 (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is a guideline while Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary is an essay or opinion piece from Wikipedia. Citing the latter on every edit summary will not further your argument as you are citing an opinion that happens to agree with yours, not a rule. Ak-eater06 (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Not at all. You've linked to a page that says the following at the top: "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." Instant Comma (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I did link WP:DONTREVERT. You are correct. Congratulations for noticing. Your argument exactly is...? Ak-eater06 (talk) 17:44, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

You said that it was "a guideline," but the article itself says that it is not a guideline. Instant Comma (talk) 17:46, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Okay. My bad. However, you should stop citing WP:DONTRevert in your edit summary as I said in the talk page section above. Ak-eater06 (talk) 17:49, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Another question, are you going through my User Contributions every single day? Even obscure and non-political articles, such as Louis-Alexandre Taschereau and Mike Bossy, are getting edited by you after I edit. A bit creepy to be honest...just a thought. Ak-eater06 (talk) 17:51, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

These days I primarily edit pages dealing with prime ministers and premiers, though occasionally, I edit other political articles. In the past, I have edited hundreds of pages on music and soccer, and still edit those pages from time to time. I was on Bossy's page today because I had been reading obituaries about him and wanted to know more. I hadn't realized that you had edited that page. Instant Comma (talk) 17:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

So do we cut it? Pictureprize (talk) 23:54, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Do we have permission to cut it? Pictureprize (talk) 23:56, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Regarding this - there is consensus. I am therefore unsure why you have waded in and restored the version in breach of BRD and when Walter has ben blocked. This is pure meat puppetry. GiantSnowman 08:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I didn't see consensus in the discussion and, to the best of my knowledge, Walter hadn't been blocked at the time I made the edit. Had he been? Instant Comma (talk) 12:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, there was no meat-puppetry involved. Walter did not recruit me to his side. Walter and I have disagreed frequently in the past. I just happened to agree with him this time. You should assume good faith unless you have a good reason not to, which clearly you do not. Instant Comma (talk) 20:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

User:GiantSnowman: I have checked; Walter was banned after my edit. So all your accusations above are without merit. Instant Comma (talk) 20:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Then I apologise. GiantSnowman 17:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Jay Monteith a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into J. Waldo Monteith. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 14:35, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I did try to move the page by using the "move" tab, but the system wouldn't let me. I'll try seeking help as you suggested. Or, if you have the necessary authority to make the change, would you help me? Instant Comma (talk) 15:03, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I have already repaired the flawed page move. In the future, if you need to move a page and are unable to do so due to technical limitations, please request help at Wikipedia:Requested moves. — Diannaa (talk) 15:13, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Check out By-elections to the 44th Canadian Parliament. Mackenzie is resigning. GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

That's not how it's worded in the cited sources on that page or on the other one. I don't pretend to be an expert on this, but I do think the article should reflect what's in the sources. E.g.: Instant Comma (talk) 00:41, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Reflecting exactly what's in a source, doesn't mean it's 100% accurate. I've brought this matter to WP:CANADA, to settle this. GoodDay (talk) 00:57, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, if the source isn't accurate, it shouldn't be cited. An accurate source should be cited. It doesn't make sense to cite a source and then say something different. Instant Comma (talk) 01:09, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

As usually (yes I remember months ago), you resort to edit-warring. GoodDay (talk) 01:12, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what issue you are talking about from months ago. My understanding is that reliable sources is a basic principle of Wikipedia. I don't think it's edit-warring to ask that that principle be respected. Instant Comma (talk) 01:15, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I just went back and see that I did revert you three times, so I might well have been edit-warring. I also notice that you have reverted me three times - in your case to insert material that doesn't respect WP:RS. Instant Comma (talk) 01:18, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I restored the version before our little disagreement. Will see what's decided at WP:CANADA's talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 01:22, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

One more thing: you might want to check my block log (and yours, particularly as it relates to edit-warring and putting unsourced material in biographies of living persons) before again casting aspersions on my track record. Instant Comma (talk) 01:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sinai rosefinch, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palestine. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

		Happy New Year!
		Looking backwards, looking forwards, best wishes for the New Year. Happy wikifying! (Regardless of UTC, it is still January 1 where I'm posting!) Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:22, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks for this. I wish you a happy, healthy new year! Instant Comma (talk) 15:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding some kind of incident involving the Anna Paulina Luna article - you're not mentioned directly, but apparently you're among a nebulous group of people being berated for removing "truthful, accurate, properly sourced information" information. Good luck. The thread is Information removed. Thank you. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Someone, who appears to know the subject of the article, has been adding unsourced material. Instant Comma (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I see that the individual in question has been blocked from editing that page. Instant Comma (talk) 19:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I reverted your edit to cent (currency) but I see from your other edits that you know what you are doing. I still disagree with your addition of a comma after "however" in this line (and similar ff), despite the general rule:

• Aruban florin, however, all circulating coins are in multiples of 5 cents.

Yuck. How about

• Aruban florin but all circulating coins are in multiples of 5 cents.

Better? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:41, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Much better. Thanks. Instant Comma (talk) 13:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

tch tch, my primary school teacher would blow a gasket, the very idea of writing , but (or , and). But everybody does it, Miss! "and", she replied "they write Miss Jones' book but that doesn't make it right, does it?" <collective sigh, not the apostrophe lesson again> No, Miss. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:31, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

The rule, as I understand it, is that a comma precedes but or and when but or and introduce an independent clause. So it would be "Jane and I ate cake" and "Jane ate cake, and I ate pie." Instant Comma (talk) 14:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

See WP:JOBTITLES:

"Offices, titles, and positions such as president, king, emperor, grand duke, lord mayor, pope, bishop, abbot, prime minister, leader of the opposition, chief financial officer, and executive director [...] are capitalized only in the following cases:

• When a title is used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office, e.g., the Queen, not the queen (referring to Elizabeth II); the Pope, not the pope (referring to Francis).

Thus, it's, "as 10 September was a Sunday, the order-in-council was tabled in the House only on the following day, when the Prime Minister [title substituting for Mackenzie King's name] told that chamber that the Cabinet had issued the order [...]"

It's, "Minister of Justice Ernest Lapointe threatened to resign and asserted the Prime Minister's [substituting for Mackenzie King's name] statement went against the Statute of Westminster."

It's, "Nazi Germany's continued armament and violation of treaties forced the Prime Minister [substituting for Mackenzie King's name] to accept that Canada might once again have to fight alongside Britain [...]"

The term "prime minister" uses lower case only when referring to the position in general. ₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:27, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Point well taken. Thanks.

Instant Comma (talk) 23:05, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

No worries. I'm learning new MOS things every day. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:42, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

"Not clear why you removed "up to". Would you explain?"

Hi, I removed the phrase up to because it appears that he could be sentenced to above 70 years, hence the plus. It doesn't seem to make grammatical sense for it to be "up to 70+ years" because up to signifies a maximum of 70 years, but 70+ signifies that it could be above 70 years which is contradictory. Happy to leave it how it is, just thought it sounded weird. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acmeism.Data (talk • contribs) 13:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it sounds weird. But isn't it also possible that he could be sentenced to less than 70 years? If you remove "up to," doesn't it mean that it could not be less than 70? Instant Comma (talk) 17:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Instant Comma, I understand your frustration about how an article can simultaneously state that the coat of arms established the national colours as red and white, without expressly saying so. The answer is heraldry. Heraldic language is meant to be compact, and also has various conventions. One of the conventions is that when the full blazon includes a « wreath » (meaning a twisted cloth or cloths) the colours of the wreath are the colours of the armiger (the person who bears the arms, in this case the monarch). By extension, those colours are also the colours worn by the armiger’s supporters. In medieval times, that would be the armiger’s fair lady and personal retinue, but now, by extension, it means the country. So we check out the blazon of the Canadian arms, and there’s this passage:

And upon a royal helmet mantled argent doubled gules the crest, that is to say, on a wreath of the colours argent and gules a lion passant guardant Or

That’s herald speak for a wreath composed of white and red cloths twisted together, which means that white (argent -silver) and red (gules - blood) are the heraldic colours of the king of Canada, and by extension, the national colours of Canada, all without using the words « red » and « white ». Best wishes in heraldry, Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:33, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm thinking of this from the point of view of the reader, who will likely not be an expert in heraldry. If what you just said is important, then why not say it in the article? If it is not important, why hint at it at all, when the hinting just causes confusion for the reader? Instant Comma (talk) 13:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I think Matheson's book on the flag deals with this point, since he also has a chapter on the adoption of the arms. I'll see if I can find a cite from Matheson, which is more accessible than wading through herald-speak. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:58, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thanks. Instant Comma (talk) 15:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I would like to ask why the flag of the King should not be used in the Arms of Canada article but the flag of Anne, Princess Royal. 2401:E180:8841:B282:8297:1599:3CC8:211C (talk) 09:28, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the question. Instant Comma (talk) 21:11, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I had previously made an edit to replace the Princess Royal flag with the King's flag, which I thought was a permanent design (less likely to change with the change of monarch), but that edit was reverted. 2401:E180:8842:CD49:9262:475B:FCD4:9B08 (talk) 01:16, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

When the edit was restored, the article was also added this sentence (though, it does not mention anything about national colours, specifically) 2401:E180:8842:CD49:9262:475B:FCD4:9B08 (talk) 01:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Who reverted your edit? And when? Instant Comma (talk) 13:18, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

05:17,17 May 2023 User:Miesianiacal 2401:E180:8841:5B02:4908:F1A4:E71E:8750 (talk) 14:08, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

(I just found out that he doesn't seem to participate in the discussion here...

By the way, I want to ask you, there is a paragraph in the introduction of the Canadian coat of arms (the Flag used by members of the royal family also has elements of the Canadian coat of arms). The example currently used here is the flag of Anne, Princess Royal. I would like to ask you what you think can make him Would it be better to change to the Flag used by King? 2401:E180:8841:5B02:4908:F1A4:E71E:8750 (talk) 14:14, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Flag currently in use:

File:Royal Standard of Princess Anne, Princess Royal (in Canada).svg .

I recommend using King's Flag instead:

File:Royal Standard of Canada.svg. 2401:E180:8841:5B02:4908:F1A4:E71E:8750 (talk) 14:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry. I really don't know anything about this and can't offer an intelligent opinion. Instant Comma (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I understand, it's okay. 2401:E180:8840:CA48:3DF9:FE04:FD37:5DDB (talk) 01:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Instant Comma,

Thank you for the thank you on the Foreign Relations of Canada article. I really enjoyed reading your User Page, as I am having the same experience.

Cheers and Happy Editing!

Edward Bednar (talk) 23:27, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I'm glad I'm not alone! Instant Comma (talk) 13:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)