User talk:Masalai

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Arch26 (talk | contribs) at 17:19, 23 April 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome!

Hello, Masalai, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! 

TheRingess 08:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify the section on the legal system you just added to Papua New Guinea? The second half gets the point across exactly - but the first half is thoroughly confusing. Furthermore, the relevance of a US court precedent is completely unclear. Ambi 12:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi. Thanks for your contributions on Papua New Guinea. Consider also editing the sub-articles Provinces of Papua New Guinea and Politics of Papua New Guinea, for example. Remember, the main country page is just a summary of the sub-articles, so maybe the Legal System section should be moved to Politics of Papua New Guinea.

Also, check out the Australia, Nepal, India, and Bhutan articles as models for the Papua New Guinea article. Perhaps we can upgrade its status to Featured Article. Thanks again for your contributions --Khoikhoi 06:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK

Show me the falsehoods I entered. I was taking overly complicated language and attempting to condense it a bit. Sentences with 5 clauses in it aren't clear and concise enough for our purposes here. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for the falsehoods you entered and then retracted the demand on the grounds that you were tired of arguing. That is unfortunate. I am complying with your deleted request anyway.

The Constitution is "autochthonous" (a constitutional term of art also used in Malaysia and meaning, literally, "aboriginal," indicating that legal continuity with the former metropolitan power was severed and the Constitution enacted by a constitutional convention of the newly independent state). It is also "entrenched," which means that it encompasses the idea of judicial review.

  • No, it doesn’t mean that at all. Judicial review means review of administrative action by the courts, for such flaws as denial of natural justice or ultra vires. “Entrenchment” of a Constitution means that it overbears ordinary statutes; otherwise any later-enacted statute would effect a pro tanto repeal of any inconsistent provisions. This is the case with New Zealand’s Constitution, which is not entrenched but is itself an ordinary statute.

The Constitution declares the "underlying law" -- that is, the separate common law of Papua New Guinea -- to consist of the Constitution, "customary law" derived from the "custom" of the various peoples of Papua New Guinea, and the common law of England as it stood at the date of Papua New Guinea's independence on 16 September 1975. Decisions of the British House of Lords, the English Court of Appeal, the English Queens Bench Division and other English courts up until Papua New Guinea's independence are. This reflected the fact that Papua New Guinea -- at least, Papua, the former British New Guinea -- was in law a British possession albeit administered by Australia as an External Territory. In other words, Papua New Guinea would utilize the common law traditions it had inherited from the United Kingdom.

  • This is true, but it is not what was said immediately previous but “in other words.” What was said immediately previous was that the case authority of the English courts up until 1975 is binding upon the courts of Papua New Guinea but the case authority of the Privy Council and the Australian courts is not.

It is entirely proper to clarify infelicitous prose and shorten sesquipedalian sentences. It is not proper to delete statements which are correct, though not as clearly made as they could be, and replace them with statements which are clearer but are also wrong. Masalai 19:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not place inverted commas inside square bracket links. That breaks the link. If something should be italicised the commas must be placed outside the brackets. Otherwise User:Masalai would read ''User:Masalai'' for example and the link would not work. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. All right. Thanks. Masalai 23:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Law section of Papua New Guinea

Hi. Please don't have sub-sections (=== ===) on country articles. They are meant to be an overview, with the sub-articles being more in detail. See Bhutan and Nepal for examples. I suggest you make the law section smaller and add all the details to a sub-article. --Khoikhoi 22:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done. Thanks for the advice. Masalai 23:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Ceremonial

I stand corrected: I had only ever encountered the word as an adjective. A quick check of dictionary.com shows that you are correct. It still sounds odd to my ears, but perhaps it's simply a usage not found in U.S. dialects. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe...but I've been to high church Episcopal parishes in the States and they are plus royaux que le roi as far as their Englishy ways go. Masalai 06:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Too true — and I haven't been a high churchman that long. Raised Presbyterian, me — a recent convert to the "bells and smells". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Commonwealth English and San Francisco

Hi! Re: Commonwealth English. I originally had "British English" in there, but I changed it to be more inclusive. Essentially, what I mean is I wish my fellow Americans would learn to spell "colour" with a "u", because such spellings are more widespread.

As for San Francisco, no, it does not need a state in the article. The Wiki should include the state name, but it need not be visible. That was not one of my additions to that article, but I'll go ahead and fix it.

Thanks for your help. Rockhopper10r 16:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salwar kameez

Masalai, that alternate spelling of salwar kameez is an extremely rare one. It would confuse readers to be told that it was a common variant. I know -- I daydream about buying clothes online and wander through various South Asian fashion websites. Salwar kameez is by far the commonest spelling. Zora 10:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Common in Pakistan, perhaps, but not in American and British English. I think "salwar kameez" reflects the north Indian pronunciation. There are millions of salwar kameez wearers in northern India, and in the Indian diaspora, and I think their usage has stuck. It may not seem fair to Pakistanis, but language is not fair. Zora 10:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evensong

The Willan reference was to his "Magnificat and Nunc Dimittus"; not an Evensong setting, but most certainly composed to be sung at Evensong. The way the article reads now, it's fine without. Thanks.Rockhopper10r 16:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I thought you were referring to Preces and Responses. I never heard of such a setting by Willan, but the choir with which I sing has used Willan's Mag & Nunc several times for Evensong. If you would like to start a Morning Prayer or Mattins/Matins article, feel free. Morning Prayer might be of note, seeing as many ECUSA parishes used to use it as their main service all but one Sunday of the month (some low church parishes still do). My own parish (as high as you can get in the Diocese of Texas, which isn't too high by some other standards) uses it as antecommunion once a month.Rockhopper10r 18:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]



Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon

Yes I agree, I am going to have a go at rewording this section to conform to the NPOV stance. Astrotrain 18:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]




[No Title]

I am glad that my photo can make a difference. Thank you for your compliment. Kirkland1 21:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re Anne, Princess Royal, your change was incorrect. Anne was born Windsor but her family became using Mountbatten-Windsor while she was a child. Née is usually taken to mean adult unmarried name, not childhood name replaced long before childhood. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, née is taken to mean longterm family name, not a birth name dropped during childhood. Anne's maiden name is generally presumed to be the name she had post 1960, not the name dropped at the start of her teenage years. It is standard to use née to mean the family name as existing in teenage and adulthood, not a name changed by legal means many many years before. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 03:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Presbyterian Church in Canada

I've just removed your recently added paragraph about 1925 and after. you might want to read some of our discussion on the PCC. Yes, I'm a PCC member, and aware of NPOV, too. If you take some time to read the original entries of the PCC on wiki, there were a number of PCCers not too happy with the shabby and biased comments. I'd also encourage you to read John S Moir's Enduring Witness, Third Edition, the PCC's Official History, written in 2004, along with any of the other works in the wiki bibliography. Bacl-presby 19:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am perplexed at your objection, and bemused that as you have not registered your name such that I cannot communicated with you directly. Is it that I suggested that relations between the United Church and the continuing Presbyterian Church are now friendly? I should have thought this uncontroversial. My grandparents were the prime movers in organising a non-concurring minority of their small town Presbyterian congregation in Western Canada to abandon their church building and re-constitute themselves as a continuing Presbyterian congregation; do you object to the fact that in due course they returned to friendship with the Presbyterian friends in the United Church? Or what? Masalai 14:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved some of your comments into "Ecumenical relations". Bacl-presby 17:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Easter Vigil and Oriental Orthodoxy

If you will examine the other sections of the article, you'll see that the section on Oriental Christainity is already more detailed than the others in every particular. The details of the services down to the words of individual hymns are not given in the others, which were deliberately presented in brief outline. I suppose one might make a case for expanding the others, yet for the purposes of an encyclopedia article, I think the outline more appropriate. The line about the Holy Qurbana was just the one I could address in the time I had available at the moment. (I was also reluctant to make significant cuts to a new section without discussion, which I had no time to engage in at the moment. I also lack the expertise to identify exactly the salient points that ought to be pointed up in a briefer account.) Analysis of the etymology and history of the word, fascinating as it may be, belongs in the article on the subject -- which I would very much like to see expanded, incidentally -- not in a different article that simply makes mention of it. (I assume you didn't know of the existence of the Holy Qurbana article since you didn't link to it.) In contrast, neither the EO nor the RC sections analyze Eucharist or Divine Liturgy; they merely mention them and link to them. (I assure you that the Divine Liturgy of St. John is quite as unfamiliar to most Westerners as the Liturgy of Addai and Mari.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto Rite

The source for this is The Toronto Rite -- Not a Substitute at the website of the Prayer Book Society of Canada. I will cite this. Carolynparrishfan 16:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regina

I have once again removed the POV statements from the article, Regina, Saskatchewan. Please refrain from replaceing them without a compelling reason and consider reading Wikipedia's policy on maintaining neutral point-of-view. Thanks! --Arch26 17:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have just read your comments on the page, User talk:Friesguy, and I do not understand why you do not believe that calling a place "pleasant" constitutes a neutral point of view (this is one example of many that had been removed from the article). I implore you to find an encyclopedia entry of any kind (online, or printed) that refers to a place as being "pleasant". For that matter (and the very reason why NPOV is encouraged), I know many people who do not find Regina pleasant at all... one must know where to draw the line. Calling Regina "pleasant" opens the door for more comments like "The University of Regina — is singularly lacking in the visitor amenities...". Neutral is neutral... there is no in-between. As an aside, calling Regina a metropole is simply a debatable point, which is why I removed it. It's very subjective and could probably be argued either way. I wouldn't necessarily describe Regina as being a major centre. It is only the 18th largest metropolitan area in the country (a country of only 32 million people to begin with), it is not the largest city in Saskatchewan and it shares its place in the Canadian prairies with three other much larger and much more significant cities. That is however, my point-of-view, which is also clearly not neutral, so feel free to debate this. --Arch26 20:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked in the dictionary... According to Webster's, the definition of metropole is... "see Metropolis". What do you have to say about that? I would strongly disagree that Toronto is the only metropolis in the country, and I would also agree with YOU that Regina is a metropole for southern Saskatchewan. As for the POV issue, yes, indicating that there is a lack of visitor amenities in an unsubstantiated manner is POV... I'm sure that if I were to ask the university myself, they would hotly disagree (that is THEIR POV). According to Wiki policy, you can ONLY get away with statements like that if you can provide a reference stating that indeed, it is known that amenities are lacking or that indeed, it IS "surprisingly pleasant" despite its location. My personal opinion is that Regina is decidedly UNPLEASANT (suprisingly unpleasant even) regardless of its location... but really, that's just heresay isn't it? I am not going to insert my qualitative thoughts into an article without a reference. So show me the newspaper (or other media) article that says that Regina has been determined to be "surprisingly pleasant", and I am not going to stop you from putting that in the article. You have indicated that you feel the Regina article is of high quality. If you look at other high quality articles (particularily those bearing good article or featured article status), you will see a lack of unsubstantiated qualitative observations such as the ones you are defending. And where they do exist, the good articles use a reference. This is all Wikipedia policy, they are not my opinions, so I don't know why you're arguing with me. I will continue to censor articles for POV until THAT policy is changed. (Also note that weasel words are also frowned upon.) --Arch26 03:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am a bit off-put by your attempts at "rallying of troops", so to speak, to try to get users like User:Friesguy to side with you. I believe that there are more appropriate re-courses. 1) Ask for support on Regina's discussion page so that everyone (including me) can be involved rather than "secretly" doing it on personal talk pages, or 2) Use the proper Wikipedia dispute resolution process. You can even report me on the Wikipedia incident noticeboard if you feel strongly enough. I am sorry you think my edits are heavy handed, but this is not discouraged by the encyclopedia and they are no more heavy handed than a lot of other user's edits. I feel strongly that I am acting in accordance with policy here. I have only good intentions.... but if you REALLY can't stand my edits, I fully encourage you to use the dispute resoltion process. Involve admins if you want, I'm okay with that! Cheers! --Arch26 04:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In case you are interested, there has been a little dialogue between User:Friesguy and me about the issue that you might read. Cheers! --Arch26 22:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I only made one edit to the Regina page... (except for my reversion... that makes 2). You are speaking like a re-wrote the thing. The only edit was the one regarding the metropole statement and the "suprising pleasantness". --Arch26 17:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Masalai&oldid=49776994"