User talk:Tirana

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, Tirana, 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!  Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 09:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for fixing my AWB AutoWikiStuffups on Treaty of Waitangi. Hopefully that's the only page I broke. --Scott Davis Talk 02:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits of Treaty of Waitangi. Good to see some more objective editing of such articles. --Lholden 00:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Treaty of Waitangi Grievance Industry deletion[edit]

See:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Treaty of Waitangi Grievance Industry. --Midnighttonight 01:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Cat:Race relations in NZ[edit]

I have set it up and included some articles. See Category:Race relations in New Zealand, and of course to add articles to it is the usual [[Category:Race relations in New Zealand]] at the end of articles. To set up a category (for future reference), simply add it to a page then follow the red link and add some text to it (e.g. "the main article for this category is____" or categorise the category). --Midnighttonight 04:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - wasn't really sure how to go about that myself Tirana 05:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Belated welcome[edit]

Gidday! Tēnā koe! I'm sorry I hadn't noticed your arrival before tonight. Been doing more on the Te Reo version; but that's much less of a chore now that User:Kahuroa has adopted it, and his pen-name seems to have been prophetically chosen.

Too busy to do a User page - or just not seen all the advantages?

Ka kite -- Robin Patterson 06:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Treaty of Waitangi page - SOE case[edit]

Hi Tirana,

Thanks for the edit of my addition to the ToW page; I should have mentioned that the SOE case was the one that first set out the principles of the Treaty. However I think that it should still be mentioned that the judgement found the Treaty relevant only because it was specifically mentioned in the SOE legislation. As the entry stands now it implies that the govt always had to be consistent with the principles of the Treaty. As I understand it the ruling only found that they had to do this if the relevant legislation mentioned the Treaty. It wasn't until the second NZ Maori Council case (the radio frequencies one) that a ruling was made that the Crown had to pay attention to the Treaty even concerning laws which don't specifically mention it.

Rather than instantly re-editing your edit, I thought I should contact you and say why I think a further change needs to be made. Get it touch if you think I've got it wrong, otherwise I will make the change in the next few days or so.

I'm glad that there is interest around this page. It would be pretty sad if the major additions I've been making lately went completely unnoticed, given the importance of the topic. In the talk page for the ToW page I posted a list of suggestions for improvement. Since you seem to be a major contributor to the page I would appreciate your feedback, other suggestions etc. --Helenalex 00:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sociology vs Law[edit]

Hi Tirana "Treaty is about international law and property rights even if it's unenforceable, not sociology".

Your edit is fine with me, but just wanted to respond to your edit summary and note (for the record) that "legal" and property rights which aren't enforceable aren't, as a matter of reality, legal rights. They can therefore only really be understood as sociological phenomena - a reflection of how people tend to behave in the community (a bit like "morals"). This is not to say the Treaty is about sociology; just that its effect on New Zealand society can only be understood in terms of sociology. In the limit, the same is true of postive law in any case.

ElectricRay 08:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. But at the end of the day, even law is a sociological phenomenon (why do we obey laws? we don't do it because they're laws, but because the government has the factual power to enforce them). And given there is no government enforcement of the principles, the very credibility of the treaty (as, indeed, with any law) is a sociological phenomenon. It's only paid any attention because public discourse in New Zealand (which is a greassroots thing) generally accepts that it should be paid attention. That has changed over time (the Treaty was not nearly as big a deal for the every day New Zealander in 1981), and could change again over time (who knows?). I would say that is a sociological phenomenon.

ElectricRay 10:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for your work (with others I know) on the Treaty of Waitangi. Nice to see! Kia kaha koe Kahuroa 23:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

"New Zealand" culture[edit]

I've been working on the Culture of New Zealand page and have come to the conclusion that one of the reasons why it is not very good is that whoever originally wrote it doesn't know the difference between Pakeha culture and New Zealand culture in general. Since I don't think there is a single NZ culture, I've proposed renaming the page Cultures of New Zealand (plural), moving all the specifically Pakeha stuff to Pakeha culture and limiting the NZ culture page to brief overviews of Maori, Pakeha and other NZ cultures and how they interact, as well as the arts. I'd appreciate you having a look (there is a fuller proposal and explanation on the talk page) and commenting if you have an opinion one way or the other. --Helenalex 05:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


Current events globe On 1 July, 2008, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article(s) Treaty of Waitangi claims and settlements, which you created or substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

--BanyanTree 02:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Ian Wishart[edit]

Excellent work on overhauling a very scrappy article. BlackCab (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Maori culture[edit]

Re this: There's only one way to address this, and that's to start removing material. Give well-grounded reasons; when the IP reverts (as he/she surely will) stick to your guns and raise the specific issues on the talk page and demand a reasoned response. The article is a dreadful mess and has become the personal playground of one editor. I am working my way through a number of Land Wars articles undoing the nightmares this editor has wrought. It's a lot of work, but the battle is actually winnable. Be prepared for a lot of effort and frustration and also seek help when needed from the NZ noticeboard. Disappointingly, there seem to be few NZ Wiki editors willing to put in the hard yards. Best wishes. BlackCab (talk) 00:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Kia ora Tirana[edit]

Thanks for your positive contribution in treatment of children section-it is starting to look kapai now.BUT- Can I get you to put the info re whangai and modern /contemporary data on children in a separate section at the end after Marae?. The reason is that all the other subsections refer to cultural practice in the 1800s. The article really needs a major heading such as "Contemporary Maori culture" of something similar(Post WW2 Maori culture"? or "Cultural Renaissance"?)as all that last section is current cultural concepts and practice . Also,if you can find a source it would be interesting to have a bit more info on whangai as clearly Maori ideas of "adoption" have influenced Pakeha thinking in this area since about 1980ish. Also if you can find refs for: -"whangai was outlawed under NZ law but carried on by Maori anyway and then officially reinstated " or some thing along those lines that would show how cultural practice and laws associated with it, changes over time.Tu meke.Claudia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Let's stick this korero in the talk page for the article, eh, so anyone else helping out can contribute.Tirana (talk) 04:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)