User talk:Sgconlaw/2013 archive

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Sgconlaw. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

navbox title

the title of a navbox is automatically bold, no matter if you specify bold or not. do you see any bolding differences in the following?

this is why your edits are pointless. Frietjes (talk) 16:19, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Funny, I actually do see differences. The titles of the two lower navboxes are extra bold on my computer, compared to the top one which isn't. Don't you see that? If you don't see a difference, then having the extra wikitext would make no difference to you, whereas it makes for a better viewing experience for users with computer setups similar to mine. Can we agree to leave the wikitext markup in? — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

there are hundreds of thousands of templates which would need to be changed, so it is better to address the issue at the source. which web browser are you using? we can make a request at MediaWiki talk:Common.css to fix the problem if you are using a common browser. Frietjes (talk) 14:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure, maybe you can help me make a request. I'm using Mozilla Firefox 17.0.1 with Windows 7. — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

see this thread. Frietjes (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Constitution of Singapore

On 14 January 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Constitution of Singapore, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that the Singapore Constitution that came into force on 9 August 1965 was not drafted as a single document but was made up of provisions from three separate statutes? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Constitution of Singapore. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Re Fong Thin Choo

On 19 February 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Re Fong Thin Choo, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that in the 1991 case Re Fong Thin Choo the Singapore High Court held that a public authority's decision can be invalidated if based on a misconception or ignorance of a fact? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Re Fong Thin Choo. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Nyttend (talk · contribs) 16:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Fettering of discretion in Singapore administrative law

Hello! Your submission of Fettering of discretion in Singapore administrative law at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Fettering of discretion in Singapore administrative law

On 23 February 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fettering of discretion in Singapore administrative law, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that in Singapore administrative law, it is illegal for a public authority to fetter its discretion by sticking rigidly to a policy? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Fettering of discretion in Singapore administrative law. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Remedies in Singapore constitutional law

Hello! Your submission of Remedies in Singapore constitutional law at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Remedies in Singapore constitutional law

On 10 March 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Remedies in Singapore constitutional law, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that the Singapore High Court (pictured) can grant the remedy of declaring void a law inconsistent with the Constitution enacted before its commencement, even though Article 4 seems to say otherwise? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Remedies in Singapore constitutional law. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment

Hey Smuconlaw; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

SMU Constitutional and Administrative Law Wikipedia Project

Hi. When I saw your username, it initially set alarm bells ringing. However, I've now read the following previous discussions, which shed a little more light on things:

However, I still wonder how many others might happen across your userpage (as a result of your seeing your worthwhile editing) and become concerned. Therefore, how would you feel about considering the following, please?

Stating more prominently at User:Smuconlaw that you are a running a sole account, and pointing to previous discussions
Relocating the project page to Wikipedia namespace, e.g. Wikipedia:School and university projects/SMU Constitutional and Administrative Law (with redirects at WP:SMUCONLAW and WP:SUP/SMUCONLAW)
Your user page could then briefly summarise the situation and include a link to the project

I feel that such action would result in greater clarity, and would bring the project into line with well established practices. What do you think? Thanks for reading. -- Trevj (talk) 13:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, there is a message box at the bottom of my user page stating: "Smuconlaw is an account run by one person, Assistant Professor Jack Tsen-Ta Lee, for the purpose of this project, and is not a group account. For clarifications, please e-mail the user by clicking on the 'Email this user' link on the left." But this issue seems to keep coming up again and again, so I think it is a good idea for me to move the project-related content to a subpage of "Wikipedia:School and university projects" as you suggested. I won't be running the course I teach till January 2014, so I'll get around to doing this some time before then. Hope that's OK. — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

That's great, thanks. I also placed a note at WT:COUNCIL, so don't be surprised if anyone else drops by to comment here. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 14:21, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Question; when you say 'sole account' run by you - are the submitted articles created exclusively by you, or by your students, or a mixture of the two? Ironholds (talk) 01:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

My students prepare the draft articles using their own user names, and I grade that article for the purpose of the course I run. Later on, I go through the article and wikify and edit it (sometimes adding information that is relevant to article topics but not in the draft as it was not part of the course), before making the articles "live". — SMUconlaw (talk) 02:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Internal Security Act (Singapore)

On 11 May 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Internal Security Act (Singapore), which you recently nominated. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Internal Security Act (Singapore). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Allen3 ^talk 00:30, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Ouster clause

On 9 June 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ouster clause, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that in the UK a total ouster clause in a statute generally does not prevent a person from applying for judicial review of a public authority's decision, but a partial ouster clause does? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ouster clause. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass 00:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Exclusion of judicial review in Singapore law

On 11 June 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Exclusion of judicial review in Singapore law, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that in 1989 the Singapore Parliament reversed the effect of a 1988 Court of Appeal case holding that the Internal Security Act did not exclude judicial review of decisions to detain without trial? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Exclusion of judicial review in Singapore law. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

2013 Southeast Asian haze

Hi, you're most likely feeling the force of the haze. Would you mind pitching in at Talk:2013 Southeast Asian haze#To merge or not to merge?? This is just a friendly invitation, feel free to ignore it. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks like the discussion is over. — SMUconlaw (talk) 04:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Threshold issues in Singapore administrative law

On 24 June 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Threshold issues in Singapore administrative law, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that justiciability is a threshold issue in Singapore administrative law, and the Court of Appeal has held that exercises of prosecutorial discretion and the clemency power are justiciable? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Threshold issues in Singapore administrative law. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Undoing your revert

I'm undoing your revert on Article 12 of the Constitution of Singapore per WP:MOSHEAD and the template update for compliance with DMY has been verified. The single extra whitespace also doesn't count for anything. If you still have a problem with it, just left the template change, but nothing is controversial or wrong with the changes. By the way, long time no see, are your students still going to be doing articles this year? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Why is it necessary at all to change the date for {{use dmy dates}} or move it to the top of the article? That was the main reason for my revert. I have a bunch of articles to edit and push out, but I won't be teaching the course again till January 2014. Will decide some time later this year whether to continue the project. — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The purpose is to routinely check for compliance to DMY, keeping in mind article growth and expansion. Many of the articles use two, three or four different variations in dates. The purpose of the pass was to check and verify that the dates were consistent with DMY and not MDY. I've had thousands of articles use both; others shorten January to Jan. when other dates like December are not shortened. That's a problem. Dates like "the 20th of July" should just be "20 July" with only a few exceptions. While it appears that I did not do much; I'm ensuring that another editor won't waste their time checking for compliance - the next pass for this could be 2-3 years. Also a bunch of MOS checks were also done; and only the MOSHEAD issue was raised. Its not a lot, but this article is better cared for then most GA or FA articles. Hence why the changes were minimal despite its length. Oh and I liked reviewing the GA last time round, but I do understand the frustration with the sluggish peer review system. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Right, thanks for clarifying. — SMUconlaw (talk) 07:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Report

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Freedom of Speech for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -buff bills 7701

In recognition of your awesomeness...

		All-Seeing Eye Award
		I, Bonkers The Clown hereby award Smuconlaw the All-Seeing Eye Award for having actually read the full Terms and Conditions of a particular website! An extremely rare and taxing feat 99% of this wired world would not be able to pull off. You, Smuconlaw, have exhibited patience and righteousness in upholding the rules set forth by this particular website. Enjoy this remarkable and much-coveted prize. Be sure to boast about it and make your friends and family alike so jealous! ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Ha, ha! Thanks. — SMUconlaw (talk) 10:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)