User talk:Sgconlaw/2012 archive

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WP:ENDASH

WP:ENDASH states: "*Wrong: Franco–British rivalry; "Franco" is a combining form, not independent; use a hyphen: Franco-British rivalry". "Russo-" and "Franco-" are prefixes, not complete words like "Polish" in "Polish–Lithuanian". Therefore, this move, which is about to affect Did You Know on the Main Page, should go back to a hyphen. Art LaPella (talk) 01:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, I see. In that case, you'll need to move the article back, change a number of en dashes in the article back to hyphens, and also move "Anglo–Prussian alliance (1756)", "Anglo–Prussian alliance (1788)", and "Austro–Russian alliance" referred to in the article which I also moved. — SMUconlaw (talk) 02:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 Done Art LaPella (talk) 03:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Administrative law in Singapore

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Singaporean politics Good article candidates

Hi. As you might be aware an editor, Kaypoh (talk · contribs), has nominated a large number of Singaporean politics articles for GA status. I was wondering if he was one of your students or if these articles were part of a project you were undertaking. I bring this up because concern has been expressed about whether this user is going to respond to reviews, which in turn will put a lot of reviewers off. If they are part of some assignment then it could be beneficial to add a note to them saying so. AIRcorn (talk) 02:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have no idea who Kaypoh is. He or she is not one of my students. I did think it was a very bad idea to nominate so many articles at once, and judging from that editor's non-participation in improving "Group Representation Constituency" (in the end, the GA reviewer's comments were addressed by one of my students and by me), it is not clear that the editor intends to help bring the articles to GA status. I note from Kaypoh's talk page that someone else has already queried the large number of GA nominations, but unfortunately there has been no response. It is quite ironic that Kaypoh was congratulated for "all the work you did in making Group Representation Constituency a certified 'Good Article'" when no work at all was put in by the nominator. If other articles nominated by Kaypoh are reviewed I will see what I can do, but certainly cannot promise that I will be able to work on all or any of them within the brief time frame allowed for GA reviews. — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
The congratulations is just a standard templated message Quaddell sends out to editors who nominate a successful article[1]. The idea is right, to try and get successful nominators to review articles, but it is unlikely that he read the review. I and anyone else who looks at the review will know who did the work. I was thinking of proposing the removal of Kaypohs articles using his non-response as a further justification (imposing limits on nominations has already been discussed and there is a response from Kaypoh there). If you and some of your students are willing to respond to reviewers comments then this is a much better solution. To be fair all the articles I clicked on appear to be in good shape. On further investigation I see you are the major contributor to these articles. With your permission I would like to take this conversation to the nominations talk page, it would be good to let other editors know someone is willing to respond to those articles and maybe we can think of a way to accommodate you better. AIRcorn (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
The articles were initially prepared in sandboxes by my students as part of their coursework, and I edited them before moving them into the article namespace. Perhaps the way to proceed now is for someone to scan quickly through the articles produced by the Singapore Management University Constitutional and Administrative Law Wikipedia Project and identify the ones that will require minimal changes, and remove the rest of the nominations. Although I managed to invite one of my students to help deal with the GA reviewer's comments for "Group Representation Constituency", we are in the middle of a semester right now so it will probably be difficult to get students involved in GA reviews. Also, frankly, I don't know how many will be interested enough to continue working on these articles now that the course is over and they get no additional credit for doing so. — SMUconlaw (talk) 08:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I went through all of them and none stood out as being especially difficult to pass. They are well referenced, well formatted and to be quite honest look better than a lot of other articles that make their way through GA. I will review one completely myself to get a better idea of prose, tone, broadness, verifiability and other potential issues (let me know if you think one would be good to start with). I left a note at the talk page to let other reviewers know to also contact you if they conduct reviews and I will add a note to each article to the same affect. I don't think you will get too swamped with reviews as I expect the reviews will come in dribs and drabs. AIRcorn (talk) 07:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, then, let's see if (my students and) I can cope with the reviews. Looking through the list, I think the following are probably good to go:

"Offence of scandalizing the court in Singapore" and "Powers of the President of Singapore" should be removed from the list. The former article is out of date due to a new 2011 case, while I have asked students to update the latter but have not yet tidied up the revised version of the article: see "User:Smuconlaw/Powers of the President of Singapore". The rest of the articles nominated by Kaypoh at "Wikipedia:Good article candidates#Law" were not part of our project. — SMUconlaw (talk) 09:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Operation Follow Singapore Law!

Professor Lee, as a veteran Wikipedia editor and fellow Singaporean, I would like to thank you and your students for contributing many high-quality articles to Wikipedia. That Kaypoh nominated them for GA review, one has already obtained GA status and Aircorn said none were difficult to pass, is a strong endorsement of your project. Currently only the top 0.5% of Wikipedia articles have been awarded GA (or FA or FL) status.

Since Kaypoh did not contribute to the articles he nominated, some editors may consider his nominations disruptive, but I beg to differ. The nominations offer us an opportunity to improve the articles and help them gain recognition (countering systemic bias in the process). How about inviting other editors to help you and your students handle the reviews?

I helped address some concerns in the Group Representation Constituency review and would be happy to help with future reviews. Members of WikiProject Law and Wikipedia:WikiProject Singapore may also be willing and able to help. In particular, Chensiyuan is a Singaporean with an honours degree in law, who has written multiple GAs, so we could approach him.

Do you mind if this section of your talk page is used for Operation Follow Law, a collaboration to help these articles attain GA status?

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think it would have been much better if Kaypoh had contacted me to find out if my students and I had time to work on GA nominations if he or she was not intending to do so personally after nominating the articles. I'm not sure what you want to put on this talk page. Can you explain? — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
When an article is reviewed, the reviewer would inform you on your talk page. Suppose at least two other editors (including me) collaborate with you and your students, to handle the reviews. Could we use this section of your talk page to discuss matters pertaining to the collaboration? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 16:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
All right. Why don't you create a subpage of my talk page instead, such as "User talk:Smuconlaw/Operation Follow Law"? — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Remedies in Singapore administrative law

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Nominated Member of Parliament

Hi Professor, I have started a discussion on Talk:Nominated Member of Parliament. Thank you! — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 21:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I replied there. — SMUconlaw (talk) 21:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
And I responded as well. :-) — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 09:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Errors as to precedent facts in Singapore law

The DYK project (nominate) 09:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Illegality in Singapore administrative law

Hello! Your submission of Illegality in Singapore administrative law at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that 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! LauraHale (talk) 00:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, let me have a look at the issues. — SMUconlaw (talk) 08:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Right to vote in Singapore law

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Illegality in Singapore administrative law at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 09:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

GA reviews

I have put my name down to undertake GA reviews of your students' work. I am starting at the top of the list on the GA nominations page and hope to work my way through it. The first two articles on the list are Article 9 of the Constitution of Singapore and Article 12 of the Constitution of Singapore. I will make some initial comments on the GA review page for each article when I have read through them in the next few days. I hope you or your students will be able to respond. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks. — SMUconlaw (talk) 07:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The articles written by your students are of a very high standard and I propose to review 2 more after the weekend.

Note: of the two articles above, the first is now a GA, and the second was reviewed on March 16 and needs some response.
In addition, there is a new review by Grandiose: Talk:Wednesbury unreasonableness in Singapore law/GA1. It was put on hold for seven days as of yesterday. Thank you for being willing to respond to these reviews. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Yup, I've been informed of that. Let me see what my students and I can do. Thanks. — SMUconlaw (talk) 07:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I've finished a review at Talk:Speakers' Corner, Singapore/GA1; hopefully the concerns there can be addressed. The rest of the articles should start getting reviews a bit more quickly now as they're at the top of the queue. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Talk:Eng Foong Ho v. Attorney-General/GA1 is next. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

V. K. Rajah

Great work with the image, Professor! Would you happen to have his contact details? Perhaps that may enable us to ask him for a free image. Best, — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 19:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately not. I think you'll have to write to the Registrar of the Supreme Court if you want to try and obtain a better photograph. (Contact details should be at Singapore Government Directory Interactive or the Supreme Court website.) — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I just sent an email to his secretary. I will send a message to the Registrar or their support staff if I do not get a response. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 19:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Illegality in Singapore administrative law

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

April 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that the username you have chosen (Smuconlaw) seems to imply that you are editing on behalf of a group, company or website.

There are two issues with this:

  1. It is possible that you have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, you must exercise great caution when editing on topics related to your organization or adding links to its website.
  2. Your account cannot represent a group of people. You may wish to create a new account with a username that represents only you. Alternatively, you may consider changing your username to avoid giving the impression that your personal account is being used for promotional purposes.

Regardless of whether you change your name or create a new account, you are not exempted from the guidelines concerning editing where you have a conflict of interest. For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 15:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

As is indicated in a note at the bottom of my user page, I am the only person using this account. It is not a group account. — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Two GA nominations.

Hello! I've begun to review Legitimate expectation in Singapore law. I've posted my review at Talk:Legitimate expectation in Singapore law/GA1 and have marked Presidential Council for Minority Rights for review as well. My concern is the source material, is there any which in which an online or accessible version is possible. As I cannot personally view the information myself, while I do not doubt their existence, for the purposes of reviewing I just want to exercise good practices. For too long these articles have been avoided, they are intimidating, but very detailed. Three months is too long to sit 'un-graded' in my eyes. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, let me have a look at them. — SMUconlaw (talk) 02:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Reviewed the Presidential Council for Minority Rights. Has some issues with neutrality, but it otherwise close to passing. Your input on the page would be good as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

SMU Digital Library

Hi Prof, do you have access to the digital archives of the Straits Times through SMU Library? This could be achieved either directly or vide services like ProQuest, Factiva or LexisNexis etc. – [2] — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 03:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I do. Why do you ask? — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Great! This was just to know if the links to the news stories which were removed from this article can be restored – [3] — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 17:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
The links can't be restored because the Parliament Library has apparently stopped making its website searchable, and Straits Times articles are not available in a linkable form anywhere else on the Internet. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I see. So in order to access Straits Times archives one has to either (i) buy the online subscription or (ii) go to the NLB where the print edition is available on film rolls. Thanks for the response. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 20:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
You can also do a search at NewspaperSG, but the full text of newer articles can only be accessed at terminals in libraries. Although older articles can be found online in full-text format, they cannot be linked to in Wikipedia articles because the NewspaperSG website's terms and conditions state: "The copyright in this website is owned by NLB DIGITAL LIBRARY or its licensors. No part or parts hereof may be ... hyperlinked ... without the prior written permission of NLB DIGITAL LIBRARY." Thus, linking to such articles would be in breach of WP:ELNEVER. — SMUconlaw (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I can see how linking to newspapers.nl.sg would violate NLB's terms of service, but now sure how that would be in violation of WP:ELNEVER. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 07:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I was thinking of the part which states: "Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work, or uses the work in a way compliant with fair use." In this case, NewspaperSG has not licensed the work to users to link to freely. — SMUconlaw (talk) 08:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Reading the content guideline in context leads me to believe that #1 is a reference to whether the third party website has acquired all the legitimate rights (license) required to reproduce the content through its service. NLB possesses the rights to reproduce the content, which means that hyperlinking to it would not be against Wikipedia Copyright policy and/or US law. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 11:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

NewspaperSG (or, rather, the National Library Board) has obtained rights from the copyright holders to reproduce the material on their website, but has specifically reserved the right not to permit other people to reproduce it or to hyperlink to it unless permission to do so is specifically obtained from NLB. Thus, doing one of the latter acts would technically be a breach of the copyrights held by the copyright holders and the NLB. It may be, though, that no copyright subsists in old material (e.g., dating to the 19th century) that has entered the public domain. In any case, I don't know whether links to content on NewspaperSG are stable or not as I've never tried creating such links. — SMUconlaw (talk) 12:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sgconlaw. You have new messages at Talk:Presidential Council for Minority Rights/GA1.
Message added 13:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A better response to what I feel is missing from the article, complete with source and argument based in the laws limited the PCMR. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Rule of law doctrine in Singapore

Shubinator (talk) 19:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Singapore meetup invitation


Singapore Meetup

Meetup 6

  • Status: Planning
  • Date: 4 September 2012

Please indicate your interest on the meetup page.

v • d •  e

Hi there! You are cordially invited to a meetup next Tuesday evening (4 September). Details and an attendee list are at Wikipedia:Meetup/Singapore 6. Hope to see you there! John Vandenberg 00:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

(this automated message was delivered using replace.py to all users in Singapore)

DYK for Shadrake v. Attorney-General

Yngvadottir (talk) 00:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

October 2012 Singapore meetup invitation


Singapore Meetup

Meetup 7

Please indicate your interest on the meetup page.

v • d •  e

Hi there! You are cordially invited to a meetup on Wednesday the 31st of October. Details and an attendee list are at Wikipedia:Meetup/Singapore 7. Hope you can make it. JVbot (talk) 04:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

(this automated message was delivered using replace.py to all users in Singapore)

Freedom of speech = New WikiProject

Hi there, I'm notifying you as I noticed your impressive work on the GA Quality article, Article 14 of the Constitution of Singapore. I've recently gone ahead and created WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:

  1. List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech#Participants.
  2. Add userbox {{User Freedom of speech}} to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
  3. Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using {{WikiProject Freedom of speech}}.
  4. Join in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
  5. Notify others you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.

Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, — Cirt (talk) 22:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for joining WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech! :) — Cirt (talk) 18:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Non-constituency Member of Parliament

Hello! Your submission of Non-constituency Member of Parliament 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! LauraHale (talk) 22:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Ong Ah Chuan v. Public Prosecutor

Hello! Your submission of Ong Ah Chuan v. Public Prosecutor 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! LauraHale (talk) 20:52, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Chan Hiang Leng Colin v. Public Prosecutor

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Ong Ah Chuan v. Public Prosecutor

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Non-constituency Member of Parliament

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Furcifer polleni, Furcifer willsii

I gave my opinion on the issues that have been raised, but as I haven't (and don't intend to) fully examine both articles, I shouldn't be the one to do a final approval (or disapproval). I think that's best done by you. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll do that. — SMUconlaw (talk) 06:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Representative democracy in Singapore

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sgconlaw/2012_archive&oldid=1090602789"