User talk:Mjp1976

An apology.

If you saw my earlier post at Talk:Racism, [1] apologies for the tone, which was at least partly down to lack of sleep. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump I'm not about to get bent out of shape over everything. I just want the discussion to be productive. I understand we have our bad days... Cheers Mjp1976 (talk) 04:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding disputed content. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Statute Law Revision Act 1893".The discussion is about the topic Statute Law Revision Act 1893.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

--Arkenstrone (talk) 23:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I just saw this, I stopped responding because James is a serial editor of wikipedia. if you take a look at his history, all he does is edit articles on here incessantly. Mjp1976 (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Further to Add, he's not done any research into how laws are written, as well as the standards of the common practices of how laws are written and their requirements of the said laws to have an enacting clause. Mjp1976 (talk) 03:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

If you manage to find any references in legislation as to the effects of repealing enactment clauses that would be helpful. I found something in the Interpretation Act 1889, section 38, paragraph 2, for how repeals affect future acts. But it's unclear when enactment clauses themselves are repealed. There is some additional clarity in the Interpretation Act 1978 section 17, but that's much later. Arkenstrone (talk) 01:54, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I figured out why James500's behavior. He has created or spent most of the edits on this page being his. He's playing territorial games here. Mjp1976 (talk) 05:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the notes. Quite understandable. There is a page Statute Law Revision Act 1893 (Canada) which addresses Canada-specific issues regarding SLRA 1893 including the effects of the repeal of the enactment clause. If you want to contribute to the talk page there, feel free.

Also, the content dispute was closed due to a mish-mash of both content and conduct issues. No further edits are allowed, except on the talk page. So I responded to comments on the dispute resolution talk page, at the very least to establish a public record. Arkenstrone (talk) 01:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

as did I.

I'm moving forward with a new section on the talk page. Mjp1976 (talk) 14:25, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

added a new section, and I'm calling for a complete rewrite of this article. Mjp1976 (talk) 16:44, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, well, reflecting on what you said, I think your idea of having separate sections in the main SLRA 1893 article for each of the colonies, and their effects (in layman's terms) would be preferable. But the problem is James seems content to just dumping a whole lot of random factual information, without weaving it into an intelligible storyline that can be understood by laypeople. If people want random facts, they can go to the original legislation. That, coupled to his territoriality in regards to any edits to the article, makes this endeavour of expanding the article with colony-specific information and explanations difficult. I thought for the time being to just separate Canada-specific info into another page. But I agree it would be better to have it all in one place and separated by sections for each colony. Arkenstrone (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

He can continue to be a problem or part of the solution because if I have to file a dispute over his territorialism it could cause him problems for him because as I pointed out on the other dispute talk page

"Wikipedia is supposed to be an exercise in creating the best curated and documented library of information."

Being an obstructionist to that does not show good faith.

Much of the "factual information" that he has dumped has been deliberately to obfuscate information and facts. I have spent a better part of 5 years reading and researching the meanings of words and what these words mean using official documentation, not coming up with my own theories.

I read articles from lawyers, and scholars of the BNA Act and Constitution Act. I read all information that I might find cringe worthy and consider it's probative value if that if it's been further mentioned by others of note worthiness, such as echoed by other lawyers of note, or Constitutional experts, otherwise I discard it as an opinion.

I read the laws such as the interpretation act 1889 where 18.3 is clear about the use of the word colony and dominion interchangeably.

18.3 "The expression "colony" shall mean any part of Her Majesty's dominions exclusive of the British Islands, and of British India, and where parts of such dominions are under both a central and a local legislature, all parts under the central legislature shall, for the purposes of this definition, be deemed to be one colony."

What this means is James contentions are nonsense and without merit.

With regards to the sentence:

"and this Act shall not extend to repeal any enactment so far as the same may be in force in any part of His Majesty's dominions out of the United Kingdom, except where otherwise expressed in the said schedule."

This being exactly the same in two SLVA's means there is a point and purpose to their consistency.

https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1893/act/54/enacted/en/print.html https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1908/act/49/enacted/en/print.html

This is different from the Dominion of Canada as defined under the Statute of Westminster 1931.

The problem with most people that don't understand the law, and they don't understand the difference between an a title case word vs a lower case word being two separate words in law.

So in rewriting this article I think that best policy moving forward is to rewrite the entire article on the Talk page and propose consensus on the talk page for the rewrite. Mjp1976 (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Effects of repeal of BNA Act enacting clause in SLRA 1893

Curious what you thought about the comments made on Talk:Statute Law Revision Act 1893 (Canada) regarding some effects of the repeal of the enacting clause on BNA Act 1867-1886 specified in SLRA 1893. James left a note on my talk page pointing to a source which actually is quite helpful, which I mention and reference in the discussion on the article talk page above (in addition to another reference I found in the same source document). It seems to indicate that the effect of the repeal of the enacting clause does not have any effect on binding force for this legislation. Which, on the face of it, seems strange. If this is indeed the case, why bother repealing the enacting clause in the first place? Arkenstrone (talk) 19:31, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

What about these two specifically:

Statute Law Revision (No. 1) 1893 p. 1 no. 20 states:

The repeal of any words or expressions of enactment described in the said schedule shall not affect the binding force, operation, or construction of any statute, or of any part of a statute, whether as respects the past or the future;

and

Statute Law Revision (No. 1) 1893 p. 3 no. 35 states:

III.—The ground for the proposed repeals of enacting words and omission of preambles and recitals is, in every case, that those words, preambles, and recitals, are not necessary for the effect or construction of any enactment; accordingly no special mention is made in the third columns of the Schedule whenever this is the reason for any proposal. Arkenstrone (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what those mean.

STATUTE LAW REVISION ACT 1893: https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1893/act/14/enacted/en/print.html Statute Law Revision (No. 2) Act, 1893: https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1893/act/54/enacted/en/print.html

two different acts.. so which ones are we talking about specifically on this talk page because according to what I see Canada is mentioned in both of this separate acts, one for 1867 and one for 1871. When you search british north america act you will see the differences. Mjp1976 (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2023 (UTC)