User talk:Masalai

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Leave a message.

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)

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)

Contents

[edit] 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.

  • Well no, I don't really think that the discussion of the legal system belongs under the heading of politics. Masalai 06:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

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

[edit] 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)

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


[edit] 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)

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)


[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

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)




[edit] [No Title]

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

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)

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)


[edit] 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)

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)

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] PNG

Hi. There is a question at Talk:Papua New Guinea. Since I know you're a bit familar with the politics of the country perhaps you could have a look at it. Regards, —Khoikhoi 15:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! Cheers, —Khoikhoi 07:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Melanesia

I've replied on my talk page. Dougg 04:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beverley McLachlin

Hi. I reverted the spelling of "practiced" because the article appears to be written in "American" English. I'm not going to get into an edit war over something so silly, though. Just wanted to let you know my reasoning. —MiraLuka 08:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vikram Seth photo

I'm afraid I can't provide the necessary copyright information. It wasn't me who uploaded the image and, although I searched a little, I've no idea where it came from. Tim Ivorson 09:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CUSO

Hey, sorry I got the definition of CUSO wrong, mistaking it for some kind of unitarian thing. The version I found had already been edited, removing the meaning of the initials. Strangely, the CUSO website doesn't seem to say what they stand for either. I did a search for CUSO and the only thing I could find was Canadian Unitarian Service Org, so I figured that's what it was. Just confusion, not intentionally wrong. =) -- TheMightyQuill 11:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion

Hello! I noticed that you have been a contributor to articles on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. You may be interested in checking out a new WikiProject - WikiProject Anglicanism. Please consider signing up and participating in this collaborative effort to improve and expand Anglican-related articles! Cheers! Fishhead64 21:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edit to University of Regina

Hey, I changed back your last edit to the U of R article. I explained why on the talk page, so please respond there if you have comments relevant to the change that others may wish to read. Thanks! BigNate37 16:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] British Royalty

British Royalty Masalai, WikiProject British Royalty wants you!
WikiProject British Royalty is an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
DBD 11:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Duke of Windsor and brothers

Perhaps "loyal" was too strong a word; his brothers, particularly George, in the years left to him, continued to be in contact with the Duke, as did Henry, to a lesser degree. Hence, they remained in contact, as brothers, whatever their exasperationet cetera.Mowens35 16:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Then cite your concerns re Edward's behavior and how it annoyed his brothers, but don't allow the article to imply that his marriage caused a rift between him and his brothers when it didn't. It is splitting hairs but necessarily so.Mowens35 23:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon - book title?

For "The occult and paranormal writers Picknett, Prince, Prior & Brydon also allege that the royal family ignored wartime rations", you have the source "Picknett, Prince, Prior & Brydon, p. 161" but forgot to add the book's title. :) TransUtopian 01:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! TransUtopian 01:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think "Reported Quips and Humour" has more character as a section title than Quotations, especially if it's all arguably witty quotations. Btw, what does the self-service line mean? I have a couple ideas, but I don't know if either are right. TransUtopian 03:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I thought. As for the title, I think they're reasonably funny, at least worthy of a smile. Not barn-burners but adding to her character. I'm not insistent or anything about the section title, but that's my thoughts. TransUtopian 04:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree, that's a little much (OR and/or POV, in wikispeak). Do you mind if I change it back to "Reported Quips and Humour", or do you feel Quotations works better with the surrounding one word titles? TransUtopian 13:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Works for me. :) TransUtopian 15:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind you changing it, especially if you're adding a not-quite quip. Sleep, dear horse, sleep. TransUtopian 18:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regina images

As I posted, the process in Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission has to be followed for Wikipedia to satisfy legal requirements. Read through that page. Likely someone will have to get in contact with the website operators again and ask them to post a message on their site indicating that they release it under a free license (preferred), or to have them send a limited permission email to the appropriate Wikipedia email address if they aren't interested in releasing their works under a free license (not preferred). — Saxifrage ✎ 02:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Connexus Arts Centre

I do have a picture, but it's not much better. It was taken in the early spring and looks rather depressing. I live in Moose Jaw right now, but next time I'm in Regina I'll take a much better summery picture. But for now, I'll replace it, since the current image isnt that great anyways --Reginaguy 05:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mary Tudor and "Majesty"

You recently edited the Mary I of England page, removing "Her Majesty" and commenting that the style "His/Her/Your Majesty" was not in use during Mary's reign. You stated that the term "His/Her/Your Grace" was then in vogue. While it is true that "Majesty" was not always used in reference to English royalty, I can assure you that the term "Majesty" was definitely in use during Mary's reign. It was, however, sometimes interchangeable with "Grace," as the term "Majesty" was still relatively new, having been introduced by Mary's father Henry VIII (1509-1547). Henry used the term during the latter portion of his reign, especially after becoming King of Ireland in 1541. Mary's brother Edward VI (1547-1553) used the term throughout his reign. If you would like, I can send you digital photographs of original documents from the period that use the term "Majesty" repeatedly. These are documents that I have photographed during my research in the British Library in London, the National Archives Public Record Office at Kew, and various regional archival offices. As my username implies, I am a historian with a PhD in the field, and I work specifically in mid-Tudor English history. And my principal interest is aristocratic and royal history. PhD Historian 22:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not know precisely when "Majesty" completely replaced "Grace" as a term of address for English and British monarchs. I can say that by the end of the Tudor period, the use of "Majesty" was far more common than that of "Grace." This became especially true following the Stuart accession in 1603. At that point, as you know, the English monarch was also king (or queen) not only of England and Ireland, but also Scotland ... three kingdoms under one crown. Though Henry VIII began the use of the Crown Imperial upon being named King of Ireland in 1541, the concept if not the actual style and title of "imperial majesty" were far more applicable beginning with James Stuart. Thus "Majesty," a term of greater prestige and religious symbolism than "Grace," became the near-exclusive term beginning with James VI and I. The unabridged Oxford English Dictionary also indicates that "Majesty" became the near-exclusive term during the last years of Elizabeth's reign. In any event, by the late Stuart period (Anne's reign) the term "Grace" was used almost exclusively to address dukes. The OED suggests that the usage to address dukes was common enough by 1602 to be well understood in that way by Shakespeare's audiences. All I can say for certain is that I have never seen a document that addressed or styled the British monarch as "Grace" after Elizabeth I. The usage seems to have been all but obsolete by then when referring to the monarch. PhD Historian 07:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Honourable Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon

Thank you for your comment. Lord Charlton 12:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Seth, Vikram signature.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Seth, Vikram signature.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 16:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christ's Church Cathedral, Hamilton, Ontario

How long do you believe it will take to add material that may establish the notability of this Church? I'm certainly happy to leave you be for a number of days or perhaps a month before re-checking the article to make sure any concerns have been met. Erechtheus 08:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

My concern is simply that most Church locations are not notable. There certainly are ones that are, though. What you have mentioned already sounds promising, so I really don't think there will be a problem once you're farther along building the article. In fact, I'm rather looking forward to it. That's one part of the reason why I like to go back and look at the work done. Do remember to remove the proposed deletion template if you have not already done so. Erechtheus 08:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Ayong.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ayong.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 03:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ACC - primates

You seem to have a left a sentence unfinished in your latest edit... David Underdown 17:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A barnstar for you, Masalai.

The Barnstar of High Culture
I award you this barnstar with sincere gratitude for having given us the chance to learn that in Arnhem Land, in exchange for turtles and trepang, the Makassans introduced tobacco, the practice of circumcision and knowledge to build sea-going canoes. Thank you. Dasondas 08:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Well thank you. And here I always thought that a hex was in some respect something to be avoided. Masalai 21:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)



[edit] Église Episcopale

I have added a citation for this. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. :) Carolynparrishfan 15:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another JKG quotation ...

Hi, Masalai, any help you can give on this is appreciated ... thanks! Eleuther 08:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] repeated vandalism

Hi Masalai, I'm Mumun. The repeated vandalism on Regina, Saskatchewan has become intolerable and malicious (see history of the article) and so I took the liberty to try and get the article protected -- not sure if I went about the right way though. Anyway, it has been going on from similar IPs for at least a month. I thought I should leave a note here since you are one of the regular editors and authors. Mumun 14:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hullo again, Masalai. Indeed, when I applied for protection for Regina, I noticed that the admin you mentioned was involved those issues and so I appealed to that admin. directly. The admin. didn't protect the page but he temporarily blocked the IP that has been plaguing the Regina article for a month (or more?). ^^ Mumun 22:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Let's work on Culture in Regina Mumun 22:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi - The Regina, Saskatchewan article is quite large, but there is a lot that could be communicated about topics such as culture in Regina. I thought that since there's a pre-existing article, Culture in Regina, it could be expanded to include a greater variety of cultural activities that take place there. I added something on visual arts, but other sections might include 'annual festivals', First Nations culture in Regina, etc.

I think blocking a few IPs might not deter persistent vandals, so we may need to get a more substantial kind of protection. Mumun 12:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Somare - possible libel

Your edits to the article on Michael Somare are potentially libellous and Wikipedia is particularly carefull to avoid this for living persons. An earlier edit adding this material was even deleted from the history of the page. As you worded it, possibly it could remain but only if it is backed up with reliable veriable sources and you have not provided them. How do you know he turns a blind idea to being called King of PNG? How do you know he has benefited. It is vital that this is sourced. If you add the potential libel back again, I shall just refer the matter to the Administrators Noticeboard and I strongly suspect that they will block you. --Bduke 04:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The National and the Papua New Guinea Post-Courier, Tuesday, 30 January 1996: front page stories in both national newspapers. The Somares at no time disputed the reports, nor did they threaten libel. The stories were not followed up and no editorial commentary or letters to the editor were published; however, this was due to private threats made against the owners and management of the papers by members of the Somare family rather than any threat of legal action to vindicate the integrity of Sir Michael. Masalai 05:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:Bduke to keep discussion in one place.

Then why did you not reference these sources? I would still be very carefull using phrases like "According to reports in the PNG Post-Courier, .." and so on. I think you need to be particularly carefull about the stuff about Hong Kong residents trying to move elsewhere. The policy on living persons means you have to nail everything down really carefully. Even if you do that, it might still be a problem. Please keep the discussion in one place. Take care. --Bduke 05:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I have seen your comment on my talk page. I really wish you would keep the discussion in one place - here where it started. I am only stating what is a clear set of points made by Jimbo about articles on living persons. Remember the fuss earlier about the article that claimed the subject was responsible for the death of JFK. OK, this is different, but the general sense of being carefull is what Jimbo has prescribed. --Bduke 22:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Privy Council

I'm afraid that you are confusing the Imperial Privy Council with the Canadian Privy Council. The only persons authorised to use the post-nominal letters "PC" by virtue of their membership in the Imperial Privy Council are Peers of the Realm.

From the article on the Imperial Privy Council:

Though the Privy Council as a whole is "The Most Honourable", individual Privy Counsellors are entitled to the style "The Right Honourable". Peers who are Privy Counsellors also append the post-nominal letters "PC": as peers are already entitled to the style "The Right Honourable" (in the case of barons, viscounts and earls) or other higher style (in the case of dukes and marquesses), even when they are not Privy Counsellors, the letters "PC" are necessary to indicate membership of the Council. For commoners, on the other hand, "The Right Honourable" is sufficient identification of status as a Privy Counsellor.

Unfortunately, the current MoS prevents "The Right Honourable" and other similar prefixes from being used at the beginning of an article. I've given my views on that matter several times, but to no avail. --Ibagli (Talk) 02:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but it's been argued several times. --Ibagli (Talk) 04:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
[1] - Kittybrewster 21:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] an edit summary also has to be polite

Your one word edit summary "Irrelevant" is something I feel may be viewed as both hostile and rude. I view it that way. I find it strange that you can say that a "See Also" section that relates to the foreskin is irrelevant. Perhaps you would be kind enough to enlighten me. Meanwhile, since you view it as irrelevant and I view it as relevant, I shall be using the article's talk page to seek to build a consensus one way or the other. Fiddle Faddle 13:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree that the topic is irrelevant and unrelated. I accept that it is something which would not appear in the main text of the article, but believe completely that it has a valid place as an allied subjecy under "See also". Accepting that our views differ I have placed an area to build a consensus one way or the other on the article talk page. By the way, the edit summary is much longer than most people believe. Fiddle Faddle 14:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Probably the main thing we agree on is that our opinions differ. So I think it is best to allow consensus to take its course. Fiddle Faddle 15:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My apologies

Masalai the remark about the boys i wrote in above section wasnt directed in your direction, I apologize for doing a general scattershot remark when I was frustrated. Friesguy 06:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Julian Moti

Hi Malasai.

Sorry I didn't see your note in History earlier. I'm going to modify my comments on the talk page accordingly. I more than respect that you may have a different point of view, and if you think the initial Vanuatu trial is relevant to charges being laid by the Australian Government (as he is an Australian Citizen), by all means include those details. But you'll need to do so in a NPOV way, referencing correctly as per Wikipedia guidelines - your previous contributions essentially made the article a defense of Julian Moti, not a balanced factual account of what has happened. Please refrain from editorializing, and stick to the facts. If you look at the article in it's current state, I think you'll agree it's factual, neutral, doesn't take sides one way or another and also presents both the Australian Government and the Papua New Guinean and Solomon Islands governments POV. It's also completely referenced. My only concern with the article as it currently stands after my edit is that if it's to be a biography article, maybe some more personal info (such as DOB etc) of Julian Moti would improve the article's quality... what do you think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xlh (talk • contribs) 09:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:A_Suitable_Boy.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:A_Suitable_Boy.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ↔NMajdan•talk 16:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/a/s/User_talk%7EMasalai_9a3a.html"