User talk:92.23.53.164

October 2018

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. -- ferret (talk) 14:42, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

@Ferret: I am not the Nazi troll. Have I ever made references to "sooJ", "sesproc gnisopmoced", "selihpodep", etc? Please unblock me. 92.23.53.164 (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dbfirs: My contribution to a discussion at the Miscellaneous desk was reverted because I was mistakenly confused with the Nazi troll, who was active at that time. Can you add it back? It's at the end of the section "In a same-sex marriage, who is the husband and who is the wife?" and it can be restored by copy/pasting the following:

This is a serious question (not trolling). I don’t think you’re right about the husband/wife thing. A woman in a lesbian relationship referred to her partner as my husband. In a same-sex relationship does not one partner play the role of the man (husband) and the other that of the woman (wife) in a conventional marriage? See [1]. If you’re wrong about this couldn’t you be wrong about the Camilla/Charles thing as well?

On the subject of legal wonkery, see [2]. The county court said the bakers were guilty of discrimination, and so did the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal, but the Supreme Court said they were not. During those four years people may have said "Amy and Daniel McArthur are guilty of discrimination no matter what legal wonkery you can come up with" but they have been proved wrong. Can you cite a judgment (of any court) which says Camilla and Charles are married? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.53.164 (talk) 11:56, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In this case the law is not even ambiguous. As of 31 December 1949 nobody suggested that Camilla and Charles (had they been of full age and not two years old) could have lawfully married in a register office. Prior to 1837, members of the royal family could only marry in Anglican churches. Under the 1836 Marriage Act they could still only marry in Anglican churches. S.24 made the position clear:

And be it Enacted that this Act shall extend only to England, and shall not extend to the Marriage of any of the Royal Family.

As of 1 January 1950 the position was exactly the same - s.24 was bolstered by the Marriage Act 1949, s.79(5) which reads "Nothing in this Act shall affect any law or custom relating to the marriage of members of the Royal Family." Just to remove any lingering doubt, in October 1955 Viscount Kilmuir, the Lord Chancellor, confirmed:

Marriages of members of the royal family are still not in the same position as marriages of other persons, for such marriages have always been expressly excluded from the statutes about marriage in England and Wales and marriage abroad and are therefore governed by the common law.

This means that in England and Wales, such a marriage can be validly celebrated only by a clergyman of the Church of England.

So are you suggesting the law has been changed, and if so what is the title of the relevant Act and when did it come into force? 92.23.53.164 (talk) 12:12, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to Antarctic circle

@Dbfirs: this edit introduces nonsense. What do you mean by the centre of the sun "remaining partially below the horizon"? The centre of the sun is a point - it cannot be partially above or below anything. If you can't explain your edit I'll revert. 92.23.53.164 (talk) 15:57, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good point! I'll remove the "partially". Dbfirs 16:00, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dbfirs:It's still not right. You're now saying that within the Antarctic Circle "at least once the sun is partially obscured at local noon" while still referencing the drawing of the circle to the centre of the sun. That's a very different kettle of fish. The limiting conditions for the sun being partially obscured are (a) the bottom limb just fails to clear the horizon and (b) the top limb just clears the horizon. There is a wide latitudinal band where this is true at a given point in time, and the definition draws the circle at the point where the sun just fails to rise on the day of the solstice. The source does not support your definition. It says "During the winter solstice the centre of the Sun reaches the horizon at the Arctic Circle, so the Sun rises and sets north of the Circle on this day". The lead and body now disagree, because the lead makes no mention of the centre of the sun but the body does. 92.23.53.164 (talk) 17:12, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed another "partially". Can we find an accurate source? Dbfirs 19:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.