User talk:Masalai/Archive 1

Introductory guff

Welcome!

Hello, Masalai/Archive 1, 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]

PNG legal system

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.

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)[reply]

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) Thank you. That has been bothering me for YEARS. I checked your answer, so it is right. Now to tempt you. It is meter not metre, color not colour.Teedium 19:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That has been bothering me for YEARS. I checked your answer, so it is right. Now to tempt you. It is meter not metre, color not colour.Teedium 19:02, 29 April 2007 (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]

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]

[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]

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)[reply]

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

Melanesia

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

British Royalty

Masalai/Archive 1, 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.

D B D 11:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Works for me. :) TransUtopian 15:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The Honourable Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon

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

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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

ACC - primates

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Église Episcopale

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

Another JKG quotation ...

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Let's work on Culture in Regina Mumun 22:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

[1] - Kittybrewster 21:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

Exile of Duke of Windsor

I know. That's why I made this edit [2], as is explained in my edit summary. You seem to have mistaken my edit for this one [3] by an anonymous editor, which I have corrected. DrKiernan 12:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regina pics

Hi Masalai, thanks for your help on the Regina pages, I was driving around today and snapped a couple of pics where the Army and Navy used to be. There is also new hotel going in where the Anavets hall used to be on Saskatchewan Drive and Broad st. The new bus depot is just underway where Browns Auction used to be across from the City police on Osler st. at Saskatchewan Drive. I plan on tsaking pics as things around Regina change as you can feel the place booming in real estate and better attitudes. Ive also included a link to a page where I but some aerial pics from last spring over the Northwest end of town. In about a month I plan to take another flight and get some pics of all over Regina and area. Go to http://www.friesguy.ca/regina_pics.htm

The aerial pix are all Northwest Regina mostly between Pasqua St and Rochdale Blvd and in a couple of pics you can see the highway going to Sasktoon as a northern border. There are now several manmade lakes in town and they are used as an overflow system in the event of a heavy rainfall as well as add the the character of the community. Friesguy 14:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Fan vaulting in choir.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Fan vaulting in choir.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. 06:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Christ Church Cathedral (Victoria)

May I ask why you reverted this edit[4]? As I said in my edit summary, you cannot see the church in that photograph, just a tree covered in snow. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

URegina

Hey, I think you got me wrong. I wish I could say I took that cityscape, but all I did was upload the university logo. Somebody else takes the credit for snapping/uploading that pic (it appears to be User:Victor D). I guess I can't take credit when credit isn't due! Mr. Vitale 18:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks! Did you mean Image:UofR campus.jpg? Actually the pic would have been better with a better camera and good sunshine. Sorry I've no other pics of the campus expect this one and Image:UofR Athletic.jpg. I was there for a conference and didn't really get time to snap more pics. You can see more of my Regina pics here. Hope you like them too. I took some pics at Saskatchewan Science Centre which I'll upload soon. Please also have a look at our newly launched WikiProject Saskatchewan. Thanks.--Victor D ^PARLE 22:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure Masalai go ahead and prune, I was only trying to add more info where I thought we needed more fleshing out,.It is my understanding that until the early 60's there was no catholic system until the catholics formed their own system and broke away. But in my experience Catholic kids were never excluded from the public system it was only their faith that asked them to start up a separate school system, assign their taxes to their separate system and get funding from the government in the 60's. Technically though non catholic students arent to attend catholic schools, it happens all the time because one school might be closer than another, and the faith doesnt matter to some parents just proximity to their home, and as long as their taxes get signed over to the separate system it appears to be ok with the management of the separate board. There does seem to be about 250 -300 kids in homeschooling with the public system offering guidance and assistance to parents and students, and it is growing yearly.Friesguy 03:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will have a look and see ehat can be done. Friesguy 20:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I wouldnt be at all upset with deleting the Neighbourhoods as it was just an attempt to slow down the mass changes on the main Regina page with the change war that happened with mayor Quimby. But I am going to get a pic of the Serbian church on Winnipeg st, as they receently restored it. I think we need some more up to date pics as our whole article has a distinct old time feel to it when city is just over 100 years old, so it feels a bit out od whack to me, but thats just my POV i guess Also the new national RCMP heritage center (28 million was spent) opened yesterday on Dewdney Ave at the entrance to Depot Division so I am going to go get some pics of this gorgeous building and the area.Friesguy 15:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

Greetings! Please check my request for comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Saskatchewan. What do you think? Have I gone overboard? If you have any comments it would be good to add them there. Mumun 無文 21:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A quick link to Regina you may enjoy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Kj6hHuuV68 There seems to be a couple of videos at this location you may enjoy. Friesguy 18:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this was done by a few public high School students and it was intended to be a promo fro part the city's I love Regina campaign. In a recent Canada wide survey (Fraser Institute, I beleive) Regina and Saskatoon people said they were more happy and expect to be more happy than any other cities in the country with the exception of Vancouver. The economy here right now is just flying a home, that sold for 115,000 last march just resold yesterday for 219,000 (1000 sq ft bungalow no garage)Friesguy 00:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Todays story in the Leader Post on the St. CHad's area development http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/news/city_province/story.html?id=a75c8879-6e9e-4129-a37a-201924d00a83 . It looks like 400-500 condos and a strip mall is going in. Friesguy 14:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I used to live a few houses north of the northwest corner of there. Went to church on the south end of it. Went to school, at nearby Peart, which is now since gone. Cut through that field many times. --Kmsiever 19:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:St Chad's College.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:St Chad's College.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

City of Lethbridge

Now we know where i have been editing too much. :) --Kmsiever 16:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regina Neighborhoods

Hello there. I added the citation and definition. There should also be Sububan development areas which the neighborhoods belong to. I found these Saskatoon and other large centres. They are also used to develop cities, and I would think Regina's size would warrant using them as well. I wish I could have cited the city of Regina website for the neighborhood listing, but to no avail. The real estate developers give quite a lot of neighborhood info online. You have done a lot for Regina's articles it is awesome!!! SriMesh | talk 15:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you are putting some time into the Regina neighbourhoods article. It may help you out to leave an introductory article about Regina neighborhoods, and make individual articles about notable City of Regina neighborhoods rather than these six major Regina cultural areas to help to maintain NPOV. If the City of Regina neighborhood articles follow the WP Cities article formatting with a layout similar to this outline...Saskatchewan Communities this perhaps may also help to maintain NPOV. SriMesh | talk 01:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. The profiling of a neighborhood which gives the stats in terms of housing, employment, income levels, population is what Stats Can groups the neighbourhoods by. My comment about the NPOV was rather to try to reply to the comment made at the Talk page, that perhaps if the article went further than the area that the disruptions were aimed at, then the focus of the anon IP &etc may also dissipate, as the article would broaden, and the disrupter may lose their focus somewhat. (long sentence hey?) My you'se is from the side of the family that spoke Hungarian, which is now somewhat lost. I found the spelling of neighbourhoods changed from real estate agent postings to City of Regina postings which I found rather unique. My busy season at work is abating somewhat, so I should be able to be more online again, so will double check the spellings again. Regina has been rather unique to me, I have an old map where all the original roads went around and about in circles with spokes intersecting them, which I should put online. To me as a Regina 'outsider', I find the naming of older historic neighbourhoods as compared to newer recently built neighbourhoods interesting to learn about. Each Saskatoon area seemed to have a new concept for the city planning department to try out or experiment with, ie a new attempt at firstly world war planning neighbourhoods, then indoor malls, then suburban centers, then court type neighbourhoods, then family, school centered type neighbouhoods, and so on. Each neighbourhood in its era of construction seemd to play with the 'modern' concepts of the age. The older neighbourhoods mainly arose from proximity to trail/water/rail etc. Regina's evolution seems to have covered different topics with cultural areas, political areas, various timelines different from Saskatoon, and planning strategies, which compare and contrast to Saskatoon. Is your anon IP problem abating? I suppose my list is my way of starting to learn about what Regina's planning department was thinking on each area, and its time of construction, and who chose to live there, and why...You'se started the article about the neighbourhoods which have some flavour and food for thought, and notability to them. It's interesting that those written up about are so, so very colourful, and the others are so neutral or like almost invisible, but I don't know why that is. Sorry for the long reply... SriMesh | talk 04:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Invite to join Saskatchewan WikiProject

Hi, you are graciously extended an invitation to join the Saskatchewan WikiProject and WikiProject Saskatchewan Communities & Neighbourhoods! The Saskatchewan WikiProject is a fairly new WikiProject. We are a group of editors who are dedicated to creating, revising, and expanding articles, lists, categories, and Wikiprojects, to do with anything Saskatchewan.

We look forward to welcoming you to the project!

Thank you for the invitation. I don't think I am sufficiently well versed in Saskatchewania for this project, my expertise being somewhat confined to the Qu'Appelle Valley and Regina. But thank you again.

On a slightly different note, you will perhaps find that the contributors to the Regina article have somewhat coalesced into a little sub-community, which generally finds it appropriate that major edits be discussed before being unilaterally imposed. Possibly you could discuss major edits on the talk page before making them?

Hello This is one of my first articles which I started ... Bay of Bengal, so to me this is major, and what I added to Regina was minor, but I will talk page from now on. Thanks for the heads up...SriMesh | talk 02:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kind regards. Masalai 18:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. You have actually done a fair amount, if you have already contributed those articles onto Wikipedia. Thank you!! The Wikiproject is fairly new, just to not let Saskatchewan articles get 'lost', make sure they are in lists, categories, talk page WP project categories and the like, and perhaps even raise some to "A" or "featured" status. We would love to hear from you here and there, if you want to peek in at what's happening. SriMesh | talk 22:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saskatchewan

You know, if you're interested in Canadian-related topics, there's a project dedicated to it, and also a noticeboard for Canadian-related things.

If you're interested in Saskatchewan-related items there's a WikiProject Saskatchewan and WikiProject Saskatchewan Communities & Neighbourhoods dedicated to Saskatchewan! Come join us!!SriMesh | talk 15:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC) |}}} |}[reply]

response about edits

Hi Masalai! I think that some of the individual additions of ^{[citation needed]} in the text, as well as the banners, could be troublesome because it isn't immediately apparent how some of the assertions could be supported, i.e. are there publications that could be cited? I think you are right that some of these concern things that are 'common knowledge'. On the other hand, we are so familiar with Regina that we may be 'too close to the data', as my archaeologist colleagues say. In some ways, the user actually is providing us with a view of an editor who may have more distance (but whether the editor is more objective than we are is an open question). Thus, perhaps this is a chance to further improve and tighten the article. I think we should address the issue on the Regina talk page and attempt to engage the editor. Mumun 無文 05:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buerton quote

Hi Masalai! I may not be correct on the exact words, but would you happen to know an appropriate source for this oft-repeated quote of Pierre Berton?

"Toronto does the least with the most, but Regina does the most with the least".

I recently added it to Saskatchewan in popular culture, but it may not stand without a citation. Mumun 無文 19:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right of course, it is 'Berton'. I found a paraphrased version of the quote here. It can be found at the end of the Mayor's address. Still no direct web-related reference, though. Now that you mention it, in my memory it seems that I did hear it first on Morningside and Gzowski was one of the people who was keeping that quip alive. Mumun 無文 02:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Labret Residential School

According to the info I grabbed from the assembly of first nations (seen at List of Canadian residential schools) there was a school called Qu’Appelle Indian Residential School (later renamed Fort Qu’Appelle Indian Residential School and then Lebret Indian Residential School) in Lebret, Saskatchewan; opened 1884; school burned down in 1908; closed 1969 (Roman Catholic). I'm not from the area and know nothing about it. Do most people refer to it as the Lebret Residential School, not the Qu'Appelle Residential School? - TheMightyQuill 01:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since it seems to have had a few names maybe just "Residential School on Mission Lake opposite Lebret in the Qu'Appelle Valley" would be best? The school isn't still standing, is it? - TheMightyQuill 02:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're familiar with the school, would you mind contributing your thoughts at: Talk:Canadian_residential_school_system#Last_Residential_School:_White_Calf/Lebret?

Saskatchewan newsletter

Would you like to add a comment about the progress of Regina area articles to the proposed under construction July newsletter? We would appreciate / invite you and yours working on Regina and area to let us know how its going... Wikipedia:WikiProject Saskatchewan/Newsletter/July 2007 SriMesh | talk 04:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your userpage

Because of the tendency for you to receive messages on your userpage, and the fact that you leave links to it in your signature, might I suggest that you may wish to make your userpage a redirect to your talk page? Just a thought, I'm not suggesting you should do it. BigNate37_(T) 22:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be Civil

Please do not assume ownership of articles such as Regina, Saskatchewan. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you.

I would normally assume good faith but it is clear you're trying to be very sarcastic. The whole presumption that I am an Aboriginal Australian and that all Aboriginal Australians can't speak good English is racist as you did here [5] This clearly is a case of incivil behaviour WP:SKILL#Examples Does this accusation arise from a case of WP:OWN? I like any editor have every right to edit and question missing or questionable claims. You or any other editor can revert my changes or discuss in a civil and mature manner if you wish Michellecrisp 12:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is kindness as to your seriously defective English now considered to be considered racist in Australia? I hadn't known! Thank you for advising me and the wider Wikipedia community. But if now you propose to enter into the fray as to the editing of Wikipedia articles, especially as to matters that are far beyond your ken, dear Madam, you must allow your seriously defective English now to be edited with all due punctilio. 18:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Defective English, that is a personal attack. I am a native speaker of English thank you. This baseless constant assertion is a deliberate attempt by you to be uncivil. Also. to label "overseas" contributors as implying inferior. Your assertion that because you think my English is substandard is racist because it assumes only Aboriginal Australians speak substandard English (which some do but some are quite educated too). That is racist assumption (ie defective English = must be Australian Aboriginal, this weak connection would be considered racist by many Aboriginal Australians) My identity is on my user page, unlike yours. A bit of WP:KETTLE on your part. I have given you evidence of contributions. Further incivility will result in your behaviour being reported. I do not wish to enter into debates that end with uncivil responses rather than productive comment. Michellecrisp 00:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of significant contribution in English

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Newtown%2C_New_South_Wales&limit=250&action=history Michellecrisp 12:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Old_Falconians&limit=250&action=history Michellecrisp 00:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stereotyping is a form of racism

To characterise someone who doesn't speak English well (and that's not me) as "must be Aboriginal Australian" is a form of stereotyping, in fact racism. "The constant stereotyping through the media and education sector based on racial background. This is particularly the case for Indigenous peoples" http://www.hreoc.gov.au/worldconference/consultations/adelaide.html

The Macquarie Dictionary defines racism as: the belief that human races have distinctive characteristics which determine their respective cultures. An example would be assuming an Australian with poor English must therefore be of Aboriginal heritage.

Suggest you read, if you wish to respond, you're welcome but remember uncivil comments may be used at a later date for reference. Michellecrisp 00:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriate warning

With regard to your comments on User:Michellecrisp: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. LibStar 01:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may also want to read this policy, you have used some of the "typical" arguments displayed in WP:OWN#Events. LibStar 01:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second LibStar's warning. I have seen what has been going on, and I really think you both need a good discussion over a warm brew. If either of you need to talk to an outside party or want someone to help thrash things out, please don't hesitate to ask. Thewinchester ^(talk) 04:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a content dispute, I've not been told specifically what content is in dispute (just that someone is unhappy with my edits, WP:OWN). As with other articles, I'm always happy to discuss content. But to continually characterise me as a non-native English speaker and Aboriginal Australian, which I am neither, is a personal attack that is not related to the content or improvement of Wikipedia. Michellecrisp 04:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid misplaced judgements of me

I have added myself to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:User_en-N Michellecrisp 12:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Episcopal Church

Not Legal pedantry... the question here is usage. Go to episcopalchurch.org and look for the word "Protestant". Look who owns the copyright on the website and you will see it is the "Episcopal Church". PECUSA dropping the "P" was done for a reason. There has been ample debate else where at WP about the legal name and it is clear that general usage - both at Wikipedia, within the church, and in secondary sources, exludes the word "Protestant". To include it is to be confusing at least (as another Church now uses that name) anachronistic at best (because the Episcopal Church doesn't) and offensive at worst (because some folks in the communion are sensetive.)

The Traditional Protestant Episcopal Church seems to be who that is refering to. Please respect usage and do not revert, unless you really mean to link to the Protestant Episcopal Church. Thank you. -- SECisek 07:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could not agree with you more. Tolerance, manners, and politeness, long the hallmarks of Anglicanism, are starting to become scarce in the Communion. It sometimes feels like we are living in the days of Laud and Cromwell or Cranmer and Pole. Yes, I am easily excited these days...sad. -- SECisek 08:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your message re:Michelle Crisp

Dear Masalai,

I'll be honest here, your comments to Michelle Crisp were a thinly veiled personal attack and also I agree with her view that you are making racist inferences. Secondly, your initial comments to her were aimed to insult saying that she was need in English lessons etc. Your comments like "my entirely neutral inquiry was by way of a friendly attempt " is full of weasel words. Lastly your comment to me fails to acknowledge the strong case of WP:OWN you have over the Regina article as your main aim was to discourage Ms Crisp from contributing to an article you have a strong attachment to. Especially WP:OWN#Events At the other extreme, the owner may patronize other editors, claiming that their ideas are interesting while also claiming that they lack the deep understanding of the article necessary to edit it. as shown here [6]

Why not make a genuine apology to Michelle Crisp instead of this thinly veiled sarcasm? If you continue with this facade, I have to warn you, you may be reported.

And please put messages on my talk page not user page. LibStar 11:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also find no evidence of defective English, given the quality of English used in her edits and discussions on topics. LibStar 12:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy that you have decided not to pursue the quarrel with MichelleCrisp. (you say so on thewinchesters talk page) However, please then also stop this negative characterisation of her. If you truly want to leave the matter behind, then please do. MichelleCrisp was not the only one interpreting your comments as unacceptable. Your characterisation of own conduct here is also misleading. You wrote:

Are you an aboriginal Australian? In that case, welcome to Wikipedia, and our sincere compliments on your splendid command of 
English, considering your disadvantaged background! You do very well, it must be said. We in Canada are very well aware of the 
difficulties that aboriginal Australians face in confronting the 21st century.

Our sincere compliments on your progress thus far, but may one suggest that you explore the possibility of becoming somewhat more 
fluent in English before you start wholesale deleting sections of articles on the English-speaking Wikipedia instead of making 
contributions? We are sure that there must be coaches in basic English in Australia who can help you with attaining fluency in 
English.

Is kindness as to your seriously defective English now considered racist in Australia? I hadn't known! Thank you for advising me 
and the wider Wikipedia community. But if now you propose to enter into the fray as to the editing of Wikipedia articles, 
especially as to matters that are far beyond your ken, dear Madam, you must allow your seriously defective English now to be 
edited with all due punctilio.

Oh, dear madam, I note that you have urged on my user page that I "be civil." I shall try. Thank you indeed. Shall I in future
post such messages on your own user page? One notes the obvious defects as to civility, grammar and spelling in your many 
overtures to overseas Wikipedia contributors.

Phrases such as "disadvantaged background", "difficulties confronting the 21st century", "seriously defective english" and "obvious defects as to civility, grammar and spelling" are not civil. If you did not intend to be rude, you should have phrased your comments very differently. Instead I see you continuing to insert rude snide-remarks while on the surface pretending to be nice and neutral. Please stop it ! --Eivind Kjørstad 12:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Masalai, in addition your claim that "I have worked for the better part of 30 years with Papua New Guineans, aboriginal Canadians and aboriginal Australians as a teacher, colleague, employer, employee and friend" does not justify your stance (nor is this claim verifiable). If you thought Michellecrisp had defective English (which she clearly does not) as an Australian, one could also assume that perhaps she was a migrant from a non English speaking country (since Australia like Canada has significant immigration)...but to simply label her as an Aboriginal Australian lacking civility and need of English lessons before she can properly contribute to Wikipedia (might I add you seem not to like the international concept of Wikipedia) is racist. This conclusion is based on a number of patronising comments you have made (a number of quotes have been cited here) that comes out of WP:OWN rather than anything specific (please give examples of Michelle's "defectiveness" through diffs") problem with her edits. LibStar 01:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further engagement, after giving you a warning and 2 other users notifying you of your uncivil behaviour, you still engage in deliberately uncivil comments on other users [7]. I believe you do not want to provide diffs of supposed Michellecrisp defects because they aren't any. I am a native speaker of English and I find no evidence of being a non native English speaker in Michellecrisp (asking for citations is not what I mean). Even after my second warning you are still engaging in negative characterisation of Michellecrisp referring to her "crummy English" here [8]. nor did Michellecrisp display any rudeness and arrogance in her Regina edits. Whilst you apologise to kmsiever you don't feel compelled to apologise to michellecrisp. I must say that you are now walking a fine line to being reported for this uncivil behaviour, there is considerable evidence of this desire to attack another user. please refrain from such comments. LibStar 15:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Final Warning

This is your last warning.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. concerning your continual views on User:Michellecrisp. LibStar 12:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lieutenant governors

Three times now you've changed the sentence "typically without a hyphen" to "occastionally without a hyphen" at Lieutenant-Governor (Canada); all three times without explanation in the edit summary. As was pointed out by both User:Ibagli and myself, 9 out of 10 of the lieutenant governors don't hyphenate in English. Hence, it seems inexplicable as to why you'd insist the words are only "occasionally" not hyphenated. There is also a discussion on this matter at the article's talk page. If you have any reason why the sentence is currently incorrect, please present your reasoning there. Cheers. --G2bambino 12:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments re: actions of Michellecrisp

Masalai,

it appears to me that you previously expressed concern about Michelle here: [9] and Mumun replied to you here: [10] and displayed good faith by saying that a foreign editor might be able to offer a more objective viewpoint on what you think are obvious things that don't need citation. Mumun displays good behaviour in not owning the article like you did and saying this is a good opportunity to improve the article. Secondly. Mumun asks you to engage the editor, (in this case Michellecrisp) something you failed to do until you launched your first personal attack on her here [11] that failed to engage Michellecrisp into a civil discussion of your concerns. LibStar 15:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sports in Saskatchewan

Can you improve/edit/update this newly created article please? Sports in Saskatchewan I see you have edited the University of Regina ( could anything be added re.... sports teams Cougars and Rams) to the Sports in Saskatchewan article. TXS SriMesh | talk 06:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Thank you for your comment, if you know of anyone in your travels you may, pop off a note to them please if you wouldn't mind, the article is still at outline stage. SriMesh | talk 06:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SK Articles created ... a combined answer....

You are very modest..but the articles you have done are simply awesome, and I notice also your comments about copy editing are invaluable! It would be cool to have you amongst the SK WP members, but 'tis up to you'... Be a lurker for while if you wish... read the newsletters, which should I hope help to show growth and development of SK and wikipedia articles where it is known.... such as a new SK portal is being proposed in the August newsletter to see if there is any interest or comments about yet another SK direction to take. The WP just helps to acknowledge any contributions made about SK, and to try to give direction to articles lacking, or not quite right or needing of some TLC that type of thing. Just also noticed your listing of others who help out in your neck of the woods, and yes...I will extend an invite also to them.... user Mumun_man is already joined up...so will contact the others as soon as I finish my note here.... Sometimes I miss the nested comments for a while for some reason. I also try to sneak peeks into page history of Saskatchewan articles to try to find other folks interested in SK to give an invite to and welcome them. Regarding Regina neighborhoods, will contemplate the direction I will follow, and I see now... that the solution re Mayor Quimby has worked... that was why I popped in..my attention started here, from the comment at the WP SK talk page, but see it has been resolved ... probably before I popped along :-). Anwyways talking about Regina neighborhoods. I was working some more on the golf section of Sports in Saskatchewan page, and I found out that the first SK golf course was a 4 hole golf course was where the Crescents area is now, I found that interesting. Anyways that is all for this long convoluted note, I hope it makes some sense. :-)

Regina and southern Saskatchewan

There are a few new members who have put beside their sign up that they would like to contribute to Regina.... from Members such as... Realc Victor D and SniperSarge and Rlegaarden in south central SK ...Delzen for area in middle of two main cities...ie Craik and area... I am not sure if you have already bumped into these folks or not...in your combined edits...Just thought I would let you know of their interest...

You know it was indeed suggested at the WP SK meetup to have some sort of SK geographical areas or divisions or something for the wikiproject.. perhaps that would even help for combining folks, like you'se have for Regina.... maybe if there were other WP SK geographical areas...they could be modelled upon you'se ... like your editing group which unites information to help Regina etc come grow to B, A feature...etc... :-)SriMesh | talk 04:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invite To WikiProject Saskatchewan Commnunities & Neighbourhoods

I hereby invite you to WikiProject Saskatchewan Communities & Neighbourhoods. I see you have shown interest in Regina. That interest is what we would like to see over at the project. So don't hesitate to join. We welcome you to the project if you decide to join. If you are not wanting to join right, than please pop on by and sign the guestbook. Thanks! Mr. C.C. 04:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, join up or sign the guestbook. Mr. C.C. 05:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August Newsletter

I have put it forward in the August newsletter to see if it is plausible to organize the Sask wikiproject in such a direction. It was proposed at the meet up. There is also someone now trying to call forth also support for the northern areas. I am not exactly sure how to proceed, so hopefully there is some discussion arise from the newsletter. The newsletter should be delivered this weekend, just waiting to hear from one person who may contribute. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 17:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Aishwarya Rai, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Yamla 13:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use disputed for Image:VikramSeth.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:VikramSeth.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use disputed for Image:Vikram Seth, The Golden Gate.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Vikram Seth, The Golden Gate.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Mcclure2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Mcclure2.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anglican collaboration of the month

The current Anglicanism collaboration effort is St. Luke's Church (Smithfield, Virginia)

Voting for the next collaboration is going on now. (Vote here)

Wassupwestcoast 03:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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! Wassupwestcoast 03:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regina neighbourhoods

Thanks for reverting those changes. I was tired of playing games, so I made a compromise in an attempt to stop the silly, childish behaviour. I was beginning to think I was the only one watching the article. :) --Kmsiever 15:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Coulter vandalism

Please stop. You comments to the article of a BLP are not appropriate or appreciated. You are an experienced editor who knows what vandalism is, and what the penalty for vandalism is. Knock it off, or face the repercussions. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I hadn't actualy considered the fact that the Outback might consider a Grand Pretender, like Stephen Colbert. She isn't. She apparently means what she says, and there is very little comedy about it. Perhaps you might have gleaned this from the fact that you changed the lead from political commentator or whatever to comedian/comedianne.

I'm rather hoping you are demonstrating a rather bone-dry sense of wit instead of being clueless as to Coulter's actual gig. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please. Our political commentary in jurisdictions (Australia? Canada? Ireland? Israel? India?) where we have "responsible government" and the head of government must daily submit to Question Time in the lower house of Parliament is assuredly more lively than it now is in the USA where the Third Estate is so abjectly supine. But Ms Coulter brings to the currently pathetic American debate an element of absurdity which all Americans must surely welcome: she is indeed not a serious commentator but a comedienne: do you not see that? Masalai 09:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I think of Coulter is immaterial. What I know is that misrepresenting her occupation as a method of disparaging her is not what we do here, and certainly not what we do in the biography of a living person. Take a look at that section. Any commentary which isn't cited and is disparaging is to be removed immediately - those are WP's rules, not mine. Surely you can see that the clever distinctions as to Coulter's behavior as comedy is better left to a forum or political chat list - neither of which Wikipedia is. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Stanley Knowles.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Stanley Knowles.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 20:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:MyChildhoodinNewGuinea.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:MyChildhoodinNewGuinea.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:More Voices.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:More Voices.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Mountbatten installation as Viceroy.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Mountbatten installation as Viceroy.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:All You Who Sleep Tonight.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:All You Who Sleep Tonight.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:BAS.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BAS.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Ted Scott biography.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ted Scott biography.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 07:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:The Essential Galbraith.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:The Essential Galbraith.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somare

My edits have nothing to do with the PNG honours system, but rather with WP policy on the use of styles in articles. I suggest you familiarise yourself with the relevant policies (and urgently seek professional help with your continued delusions about me). Proteus (Talk) 11:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment

given your previous history of trying to be aggressive with me (which other editors warned you about) I suggest you don't contact me again. Michellecrisp (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment

given your previous history of trying to be aggressive with me (which other editors warned you about as shown here [12]) I suggest you don't contact me again. Michellecrisp (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

==well==

well you left a snotty remark on my one. by the way, I'm a native English speaker. check any of my edits. Michellecrisp (talk) 07:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well

can't hack that I'm a native English speaker. you have zero evidence to the contrary. your aggressive remarks are noted. you messaged me recently. what comes around, goes around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michellecrisp (talk • contribs) 06:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks or insults

removing this will be acceptance of this policy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michellecrisp (talk • contribs) 07:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Would you please cease your personal attacks on me. Otherwise I will take it up with an adminstrator. Michellecrisp (talk) 12:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

I refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LAYOUT#Standard_appendices_and_descriptions

"Notes" is only for footnotes (explanations or comments on any part of the main text). "References" is only for referenced materials (books, websites etc. cited in the main text). Otherwise "Notes and references" should be combined.

This is official policy therefore non-negotiable. Michellecrisp (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Unfortunately you have now engaged in deliberate changes to various Saskatchewan articles and not adhering to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LAYOUT#Standard_appendices_and_descriptions despite being told to. Next time I will report you to an administrator. Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Michellecrisp (talk) 23:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somare

My edits have nothing to do with the PNG honours system, but rather with WP policy on the use of styles in articles. I suggest you familiarise yourself with the relevant policies (and urgently seek professional help with your continued delusions about me). Proteus (Talk) 11:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

michellecrisp

Thanks for your message. I definitely agree with you about michellecrisp. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osloinsummertime (talk • contribs) 10:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really a lawyer living in Brisbane? Your edits seems to reflect that you are living in Saskatchewan. might I add the real motive for your message is your previous behaviour towards me. Michellecrisp (talk) 13:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This edit is an unnecessary personal attack and if you continue in this vein, your next block will be longer, and I don't rule out it being your last. Please comment on content, not editors. --Rodhull andemu 14:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"...she managed to get an administrator to block me temporarily at one stage..."

Masalai, you managed to get yourself blocked by me. She only brought it to my attention. This clearly indicates you earned your block.

Silly creature: get a life, why don't you?

revert maniacal intervention by lunatic

Revert silliness by insane Australian stalker

revert perverse intervention by maniacal and insane non-anglophone troll

Revert interventions by psychotic stalker

Archive further maniacal ravings by obsessive stalker

These are not acceptable edit summaries. You were warned, you ignored them, you were blocked.

Your block took place on February 13. Just as soon as you came off your block, you were right back at her. Including this, which was completely unacceptable and earned you another final warning. You've managed to leave her alone for a few months, but the warning is still valid. Refrain from speaking about her or otherwise harassing her. If this continues, as Rodhullandemu noted, you will be reblocked, and there will be no guarantee of the next block being lifted.

If you have concerns about her editing, take it to WP:RFC. LaraLove|Talk 15:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Masalai, I agree with LaraLove up to a point. Where we disagree, is that I don't think that this is entirely one-sided, as I feel that Michellecrisp needs to improve some of her own communications and behaviors as well. But this comment of yours, on the talkpage of a new editor, was not helpful.[13] It's one thing to bring up concerns to an administrator, and it's another to bad mouth one editor, to another editor. It is actions like those which lean more into WP:HARASS territory. As a gesture of good faith, would you be willing to review your recent comments, and refactor/remove anything which might be considered a personal attack on Michellecrisp? I think it would help a great deal in terms of de-escalating the situation. Thanks, El on ka 15:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:St Paul's Regina.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. J Milburn (talk) 18:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

Unspecified source for Image:Warehouse District, 2008.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Warehouse District, 2008.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 21:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Sacred Heart Academy.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Sacred Heart Academy.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 21:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Connaught Library.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Connaught Library.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 21:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Main Street, Qu'Appelle, 2008.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Main Street, Qu'Appelle, 2008.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 21:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Qu'Appelle United Church 2008.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Qu'Appelle United Church 2008.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 05:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Messages From Mifter

Hello, Masalai. You have new messages at Mifter's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Mifter (talk) 16:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey request

Hi, Masalai I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions. Thank You, BCproject (talk) 17:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NowCommons: Image:Hotel Saskatchewan, c. 1930.jpg

Image:Hotel Saskatchewan, c. 1930.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Hotel Saskatchewan, circa 1930.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all MediaWiki wiki's. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:Hotel Saskatchewan, circa 1930.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 12:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]