Love those ancient snack bars at Pompeii, and a good burn in an edit, such as in Menhir and the ancient snug bar, which sounds like something out of Wodehouse. Couldn't stop myself from looking this up and found an article which tells us that the building also contains an interloper menhir in the dining room. == Peter NYC (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See you there, mayhap. Maybe Obelix paid a visit. Errantios (talk) 01:08, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Errantios. Do you remember 'when/where' that RFC was held, about whether or not Australian state governors were 'heads of state'? If I remember correctly, the result of the RFC was - the governors were not heads of state. Just wondering, as an editor is seemingly trying to overturn that result at the Governor of Western Australia page. GoodDay (talk) 06:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see you found it. Have added suitably brief support. Errantios (talk) 09:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean now by the duplication, I hadn't noticed that previously. I tried something, don't know if it will land. If not we can always go back to just putting the main films tables back into a single table as it was a month ago before it was changed, and only having one Skywalker Saga heading. Canterbury Tail talk 23:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was only concerned about the duplication and don't have a particular view on how it should be avoided. We seem to be on the same wavelength. Happy New Earthyear. Errantios (talk) 03:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not understand the manual reversion of my deletion. The mass migration into Australia did not stop with the mid-20th century. If the sentence is taken to mean the poisoning stopped at some time, that requires a reference. Doug butler (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If "after" remains, "after" what? That is all I mean. Errantios (talk) 21:31, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have to know that that is what the practice was back then and until about the 1970s. Diana, Princess of Wales was tranditionally and legally Princess Charles of Wales, but of course in 1981 that was baulked at. Ivy Weber (1892-1976), the first woman to win a seat in the Victorian Legislative Assembly at a general election, when she won the electoral district of Nunawading,, defeating the sitting member., described herself as Mrs Clarence Weber in her own campaign adverts in the press: https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10228980166629822&set=pcb.10228980187150335 Such were the times. AUSPOLLIE (talk) 23:20, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So it was, but in these times we don't preserve it. Errantios (talk) 23:25, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In relation to your recent editions in Spanish-style bullfighting, I wonder if you are aware of the purpose of language templates for words and expressions not in English. At least one of the goals of those templates is marking the words for bots or other automatic processes that correct English spelling, but there are several more, as listed in Template:Lang#Rationale, which I encourage you to read. Best regards, Jotamar (talk) 22:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are not a new user, so I doubt you need to be templated with a COI template, but if I'm wrong about that, you can read the content of it at ((Uw-coi)). I've done part of the disclosure for you, adding ((connected contributor)) templates at the two Kelsen articles. If there are other related articles I don't know about, please add them there as well. Mathglot (talk) 04:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following is in your reply to your comment of 00:28, 7 May at Talk:Pure Theory of Law. I am unable to respond there, as this concerns you personally and your editing, and has nothing to do with discussing improvements to the article.

In your comment, you quoted from COI, and stated that you have no such conflictual relationship as mentioned at the policy that could trigger a conflict of interest. In my opinion, you are an expert editor in the area of the philosophy of law, Hans Kelsen's Pure Theory of Law, legal norms, and related topics. The possible COI relationship I see would be through your employer (past or present), a top Australian law school that presumably paid you for your work there. You have numerous publications such as "Kelsen, the Enlightenment and Modern Premodernists" (2012) published in the Australian Journal of Legal Philosophy, and many more. Many of these publications are related to your specialty which is at least partly related to what your remuneration is for (presumably professors with no publications in their field don't last long at top universities). So for me, you are paid at least in part in exchange for these publications. This appears to me to trigger the "employer" relationship of the COI policy with respect to articles on your specialty subjects at Wikipedia.

It's evident from your comment at the Talk page that you disagree and reject the idea that any conflict of interest is involved. Perhaps I am getting the facts of your relationship with the university wrong, or perhaps I'm reading the COI policy with respect to paid editing wrong. I think the thing to do now, is to let other editors who are more used to the ins and outs of COI have a look at this, and whatever the consensus is there, I'm fine with it. I'll let them know about this issue, and I'll post a link to it for you here. Mathglot (talk) 03:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You say: "Perhaps I am getting the facts of your relationship with the university wrong". As you can see at the beginning of the article that you mention, my current position is actually honorary.

Then you say: "perhaps I'm reading the COI policy with respect to paid editing wrong". The policy, as I understand it, refers to payment specifically for editing Wikipedia. I would be surprised to find any academic who is paid specifically for editing Wikipedia or even receives credit for doing so. Errantios (talk) 12:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your proposal regarding who attended Pell’s funeral. I like your proposal and I’m willing to say so on the Talk page. However, please return to the Talk page and sign your post with four tildes. It makes it easier for Users to respond. Thanks. Dolphin (t) 14:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Thank you. Errantios (talk) 23:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you now for that support. Errantios (talk) 11:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with your latest edit, but I question "unless perhaps what is socially posited as "law" is intolerably immoral." They considered Nazi law to be law, so what could be "intolerably immoral"? Maurice Magnus (talk) 14:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It refers to Radbruch: see section "Criticism", where I have added some citations. Errantios (talk) 22:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see, and I am glad that I deleted it from the opening paragraph, because Radbruch aside, the separation of law and morality is fundamental to legal positivism. In addition, what you quote from Radbruch is not coherent. He says that if the statute is unjust to an intolerable degree, it is "flawed law" and must yield to justice. That sounds as if he means that it should not be enforced rather than that it is not law, for flawed law is law by definition. Then he says, supposedly "more precisely," that it's not even flawed law. Or does he mean that flawed law becomes not even flawed law only when it lacks equality? And why is equality (whatever that means), rather than due process, "the core of justice"? U.S. law lacks equality in the unequal ways that it treats rich and poor (usually Black) criminal defendants, for example. Yet positivists would not deny that it is law.

I suspect that Radbruch wanted to put Nazi law in its own category, because it was uniquely reprehensible. It has been decades since I read the Hart-Fuller debates, but didn't Hart say that Nazi law was law? I think that Radbruch's comment, for what it is worth, is fine in a section called "Criticism." But, if I'm right about Hart, we might add a comment from him following Radbruch's. Maurice Magnus (talk) 01:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is possible to identify what is "fundamental to legal positivism", only what tenets are commonly placed uinder that label. (I will soon be able to cite a publication of my own to that effect.)

Radbruch has been criticised for ambiguity. However, he did not wholly reject the separation thesis, just put a limit on it.

I also don't think that Hart can be brought in to correct Radbruch about Nazism, if that is what you have in mind. Ott, in the piece that I have cited and in his book on legal positivism, has shown that Radbruch knew much more about Nazi law than Hart ever did. And let us remember Hart's "minimum content of natural law". The one who held out completely for counting things as 'law' irrespective of morality was Kelsen. Errantios (talk) 08:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]