User talk:Jacklee/Maintenance: 2008 archive

Re: Jan Kaplický
The blob "designed" by Kaplicky to take vengeance on Prague constitutes vandalism, but if it gets built (for ten times more than the original price as usual with Kaplicky's "buildings") it's gonna be much harder to remove than an unwanted edit of his bio on wikipedia. I do hope the Knihovno will never be built as does the majority of people who may end up having to see it daily. (For non czech speakers, knihovna means library, hovno means shit.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.100.62.215 (talk) 00:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * :-) You may well be right, but Wikipedia isn't really the right forum for this. All the best with your anti-Knihovno campaign. &mdash; Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 22:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Brian Paddick
You recently reverted an edit by User:TheGuntz at the above page. He is arguing the toss with me on the talk page of that article, and although yesterday I was willing to engage with him today I don't have the energy to read through his third long rant against me and respond accordingly. Do you mind pitching in with your own reasons for reverting the edit? -- Roleplayer (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello I have left various talk messages for you which you have not responded to and there are matters st issue on which I would like clarification on. For instance when you state that the "references" for my deleted posting were unsatisfactory can kindly clearly explain what you mean by references. Do I take it that you do NOT mean that my posting was unsourced? --TheGuntz (talk) 14:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, Guntz. I've been abroad and just got back today. I'll reply on the Brian Paddick talk page. &mdash; Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 15:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * re your above reply ??????????????????????????????????????????????

--TheGuntz (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, am rushing something at work. Will reply as soon as I can, which will probably be at the weekend at the earliest. &mdash; Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 01:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

additional to JackLee - I am not sure if you can also consider the following matter as an opmmission from the Paddick artcile - I have posted it on the discussion page but not in the precise form that I would expect that it could be included - I wanted to try to raise discussion about the matter basically at this stage. Information about the matters can be searched furtehr on the web. Thank you. see below.--TheGuntz (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

BRIAN PADDICK - MOVEMENT FOR JUSTICE - ALEX OWOLADE

At the point in time when Paddick initially contacted the URBAN75 website chatboards more significant than his very brief connversation about anarchism - which he did not initiate but simply responded to casually on the chatboards - was the question of a local Brixton campaign in connection with two other related matters. One was the then relatively recent police killing of a young Brixton black man, Derek Bennett, and the similarly recent sacking from his Lambeth Council employment of Alex Owolade for having criticised Lambeth Police at a public meeting in connection with Bennett's death. Paddick on contacting URBAN75 did so on the "MOVEMENT FOR JUSTICE" URBAN75 chatboard thread and the MFJ produced detailed reports and a great deal of other ephemeral literature some of which was highly critical of Paddick. None of this is anywhere reflected in this article - which appears to be a significant shortcoming. --TheGuntz (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

treasure trove
Translated.--Ioscius (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

John Parkinson (botanist)
I'm pretty certain that the image in the infobox is of Gaspard Bauhin. Rotational (talk) 17:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've replied on the article's talk page. &mdash; Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 18:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Nationality of people from the United Kingdom
I've been getting odd hours recently, and I've spent much of the night on the essay. Hopefully I won't be buggered for the Wales Scotland rugby game. Tell me what you think - it's different in a few respects, yet it's pretty much exactly the same too. You are very polite, and I've removed a lot of the formality - consequently it's possibly a bit shorter. I added a new smaller heading called 'Don't enforce consistency', and put in some examples too (these things always seem to have examples - you can't beat them really). I've added clarity to various corners - it's always better when someone else has a proper go to. It struck me as I was doing it, that part of it is a guide - so I have labelled that section thus.

Two main differences you will notice straight away is that I've removed the 'Issue' section, as it was covered in the intro. I actually rewrote it first, as the opening paragraph it quoted has since changed. Also I've created an Further Information section for the links on Law - they were a bit distracting at the top I felt. Maybe they can be cite-linked. WikiProjects and noticeboards get a new heading too.

In the points section, the last two dealt with birth and death etc - I felt that neither were specific to the UK, and both were more-or-less 'common sense' (or dealt with elsewhere at least - maybe BLP), so I removed them. You can easily drop them back in, though I think a shorter essay is a good thing (and I can see you do to, by the way you structured it). In place I have a paragraph on sport, and some details on consistency in UK and non-UK media. The bit on whimsical examples actually raised a lot of extra issues to me! I took it out as it made my head spin (and again it was not specifically UK). I found another 'formulation' (now 'method'?), and gave an NI example for it.

Obviously, I'd appreciate it if you could over-write any changes. Reverting to various points would be fiddly, as I've made a number of minor changes with each of my larger edits (I hope you will find at least most of it productive!). I'll look at it again with a new head, but I think its an fair bit of WP now. Maybe it can eventually go somewhere else (like one of the places I looked at last Novemeber or so - I still havent gone back and looked!).--Matt Lewis (talk) 08:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

GA review of Ben Daniels
Hello, a few days ago I left a review for the article on its talk page regarding its promotion to Good Article status. It is currently on hold, so just let me know when you've taken care of the suggestions and such and I'll give it another look. Take care, María ( habla con migo ) 02:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, great. Thanks for the message. Will have a look at the article shortly. &mdash; Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 02:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Cultural Medallion Winners
Hi Jacklee, thanks for creating categories for the cultural medallion winners. I made some suggestions in the main category page, and hope you can look into it. Thanks. Marcuslim (talk) 08:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Jeremy Paxman
Since you were wondering, the comment marks and indents were used to indicate where refs began and ended. Sardanaphalus (talk) 15:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see. Why are they needed? They just make the article longer. &mdash; Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 17:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * They're not needed; I just inserted them to aid seeing which text was article and which was ref. Sardanaphalus (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

GA review of Bucentaur
I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Laurence Fox
If you do pop in, there's a GAN here...not that much, if you have time. Good luck. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

DNB
I'm a bit nervous of some of the changes you're making at Edward Wright (mathematician) - in particular, how heavily the article may be going to be leaning on the DNB.

The DNB article is of course very very good. But if we sail too close to it, I worry there's a real danger of WP:COPYVIO. After all, the DNB is an encylopaedia of biography, so arguably it and Wikipedia are in exactly the same marketplace for users. That may seriously colour any fair use analysis of how closely we can reuse DNB material.

That's why, wonderful though the DNB is, I'm very nervous of using it when writing WP articles. If we use it as more than just a check, or at most a subsidiary source, my fear is that that may ethically be quite questionable.

Of course, this doesn't apply to any articles in the 19th century DNB, which would now be out of copyright. But I think the Edward Wright ODNB article is substantially more recent.

Would you identify with my concerns, or am I being over-cautious? Jheald (talk) 15:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, nice to meet directly. I'd been meaning to work on an article on Edward Wright at some stage, having seen his name pop up in relation to Emery Molyneux, and am glad to see that you've gone ahead to create it.
 * Your concerns are, of course, justified. To use an entirely-appropriate maritime metaphor, it's not always easy sailing between WP:COPYVIO and ensuring that the best secondary sources are consulted in the preparation of articles. Previously, when trying to get an article up to GA status, I've been advised by reviewers to consult the ODNB. What I've been trying to do is to rephrase the information obtained in ODNB in my own words, and to rearrange it in what I consider to be a more logical progression. Do feel free to rephrase what I've written so far.
 * The current imbalance in the article due to the reliance on ODNB may also be redressed if references to additional sources are made. For instance, this one that I came across might be worth consulting: http://galileo.rice.edu/Catalog/NewFiles/wright.html. There may be others. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 16:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I was just about to suggest exactly the same thing (edit conflict!) - probably better to depend, if possible, more closely on the sources of the DNB article (who aren't in quite such a rivalrous copyright position to us). Parsons and Morris (1939) looks useful, at least from the first page.


 * From Google Books, ch. 4 gives quite a nice summary, and might be worth giving as a whole as quite chatty, relatively introductory further reading.  Jheald (talk) 16:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The material in the article on French wikipedia isn't much, but is also worth a look -- I like the loxodrome pic; and the sentences on the 1599 book are quite interesting too. Jheald (talk) 16:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to admit I've often relied on the ODNB for facts, without of course repeating anything from it, but in doing so I've found out for myself how well-deserved its reputation is for being riddled (unlike the DNB) with minor errors. Use it with that caution, too! Xn4  22:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Great improvements to the article, very good!
 * A couple more links, that I thought were interesting
 * One page bio from an 1815 'Philosophical and Mathematical Biographical Dictionary', including a full translation of the Latin tribute written for him in the Caius College annals in 1615.
 * , pp 24-32. From a book on scientific graphics written by a visiting professor at VU Brussels and KU Leuven.  Mostly based on Parsons & Morris, but contains a nice pair of tables of the accuracy of Wright's numbers for the projection, compared to those inferred from Mercator; and a reproduction of the title page of the 1599 edition of Certaine errors.
 * You've improved the rest of the article so much, that where the article now I think needs a bit more detail is in the areas where it had a bit of content to start with -- notably Certaine errors, which probably deserves a section of its own; and more about the challenge that a successful course for the New River represented.
 * But really what I should be saying is Bravo! for what you've created. Jheald (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. When I find some time I'll have a look at the sources you've pointed out and see how they may be incorporated into the article. I hope you haven't given up working on the article! I agree that the article needs to say something more about the subject matter and importance of Certaine Errors. Also, I can't read French so you or another editor will need to see if there's anything in the French Wikipedia article that is worth adding to this article. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 00:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Hakluyt's memorial tablet in Bristol Cathedral
Thanks for letting me know - I don't think I could do better than the photos they have sent so I'll leave it - but if you need any other local ones let me know.&mdash; Rod talk 07:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much, Rod. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 17:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Rating
I disagree with your rating to the article Virginals. Please, if not too busy, see the talk page as to why. --Gwib (talk) 20:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, Gwib. Feel free to re-rate the article. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 00:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks Jacklee for your very useful comments on the virginals article. I am currently working on improving and 'wikifying' it, and now understand that there is a lot to be done. Thanks also for completing the source citation (Pepys) in the form it evidently should take - I wasn't aware of the subtleties of quoting sources! Nick Michael (talk) 19:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

NFCC question
Bear in mind, even if someone licenses an image of themselves under the GFDL and CC-by-SA, they typically retain their "personality rights", which may put some of their fears at ease. Wily D 16:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Will mention that to the copyright owner if the issue comes up. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 21:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Oscar Pistorius: Primary school
While I do not have any reference for Oscar's attending CKPS, I know for a fact that he did, because I went there with him. His recollections, alas, are not as fond as mine: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/sport/2005/04/27/sophil27.xml. Please respond back at my talk page. Cheers, Robertson-Glasgow 00:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I should be able to find something when I return home in about three weeks. For the time being, let us leave the relevant information marked with . Robertson-Glasgow (talk) 02:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

GA for Criminal Damage in English law
Hi, thanks for reviewing this article, I have been a little snowed under lately but will begin to make your suggested amendments shortly. I'll let you know when (I think) I've finished. Cheers. -- Rodhull andemu  15:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Okey doke. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 16:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Jacklee, I have now addressed all your bullet points, hopefully. I've added in a couple of relevant images and a mention of powers to award compensation. As far as textbooks and opinions go, I live miles away from a law library and have not been able to tackle that. I'm not sure how important this is, however, because all you tend to get is opinions, and I'm not sure the article would benefit much from having a discussion on that basis. On specific cases (such as R v Hill & Hall & its political nature) perhaps, but unlike Smith on Theft, there aren't any experts on Crim. Dam. If you think it won't pass without, please leave on hold and let me know, but I don't get my next benefit payment until Tuesday so can't really travel. Cheers. -- Rodhull andemu  22:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I should have some time to look at the updated article over the weekend or early next week. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 23:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've reviewed the article and also taken the liberty of doing a cleanup. My comments are on the article's talk page. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 01:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Virginals
JackLee, further to your useful comments about the Virginals article, I have made a major expansion and entire re-write now, and should be most grateful for your opinion. I think I have included all your suggestions. BTW the new edit is under my son's ID as I didn't realise he was logged in when I pressed the final button - all the glory to him, the undeserving brat!. Nick Michael (talk) 21:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, will pop by and have a look when I'm free. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 15:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Boosey & Hawkes: WikiProject Opera template
Thanks for letting me know. This case is pretty marginal. I'll probably leave it as it is. Best -- Klein zach  03:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:ExCathedralogo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:ExCathedralogo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 07:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Installation artists from Singapore
A tag has been placed on Installation artists from Singapore requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Excirial ( Talk, Contribs ) 18:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Whoops, I created an article instead of a category, which is what I was trying to do. Go ahead and delete it. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 18:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Jewish Singaporeans
Category:Jewish Singaporeans, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:People by country by status
Category:People by country by status, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Footballers from Singapore
Category:Footballers from Singapore, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 10:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering if perhaps you're not aware of the very large category tree,, owing to the lack of such a category for Singapore? As far as I can see, those sub-cats are the functional equivalent of the categories you've been creating for "People from Country Xyz". Cgingold (talk) 11:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I wasn't aware of the existence of this category. Thanks for drawing my attention to it. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 15:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of two related Categories
Category:Sportspeople from Singapore and Category:People from Singapore by occupation, which you created, have been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the categories' entry on the Categories for discussion page.

You're probably beginning to feel like you're under assault, with all of these CFDs. But I'm sure you are making worthy contributions to Wikipedia, and we don't want you to feel discouraged -- so please don't take any of this personally, Jacklee. You're not the first editor to run into problems with Categories -- and I'm sure you won't be the last! Regards, Cgingold (talk) 13:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't worry – I've been around for a while and am used to how these things work. However, I haven't done a lot of work with categories before. (My experience with categories is over at the Commons, and they seem to do things differently there!) All this happened because I was trying to bring some order to "", which is in a bit of a mess. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 15:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Being a regular particpant at WP:CFD, I realize that you're new to that particular Wikipedia domain. So FYI: When it comes to making decisions about Categories, pretty much everything is handled right there at CFD -- not at the Village Pump. That's precisely what CFD was established to deal with. Quite a lot goes on there, rarely noticed by the larger Wiki community. That's why I like to refer to CFD as the "basement" -- or even the "sub-basement"! LOL Cgingold (talk) 22:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Question re Category:Singaporean people by period
Hello, Jacklee -- I was also wondering if you have any plans to add other sub-cats to Category:Singaporean people by period, which at the moment only has a single sub-cat? If you don't have any other sub-cats planned, there wouldn't be any real need for Category:Singaporean people by period, but if you do have plans for other sub-cats, I will hold off taking it to CFD. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 10:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I wasn't planning to do so in the immediate future, but rather than making "" a direct subcategory of "", it seemed to make sense to follow the structure that had been used at "" to provide for further growth. Shouldn't this be the practice? — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 15:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your explanation, Jacklee. I understand that your motivation was to create a full-blown logical category structure for Singapore, but bear in mind that there are other considerations. The general rule when it comes to categories is that they should only be created when there's a clear need in terms of existing articles and sub-cats, not on the mere possibility that they might fill a need at some future time.


 * I would suggest taking a look at the sub-cats of to get a good feel for what might justify having this particular category. As you will see, there are only 10 countries that have such categories, and they all have very substantial numbers of bio articles which were available to be apportioned among the various period sub-cats. I rather doubt there are enough articles -- and enough distinctive periods -- to justify such a category for Singapore (although I could be wrong about that). In any event, as things stand, there's no real need for this category. And there's also no problem with putting  directly into  -- that's exactly how Category:Hong Kongers of World War II and most of the other similar sub-cats are handled. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 22:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

RE : Swapping of "Balaji Sadasivan" and "Sadasivan Balaji"
Done! - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 05:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much! — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 07:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

FAC/Odex
...currently is on FAC facing copyediting issues that require urgent repairs (last FAC failed on same grounds). If you have an hour or so it would be greatly appreciated if you can glance through it for spelling, grammar and punctuation errors. Thanks in advance, Mailer Diablo 08:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, will have a look when I have time. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 08:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I replied on the talkpage. I changed back accessdate= because they ended up being redlinks (date= worked fine); Unless there is another alternative solution that I'm not aware of or the template actually gets fixed directly. Thanks for your help again. - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 18:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll clean out the rest of the refs so that you have more time to concentrate on the prose. Thanks again! - Mailer Diablo 13:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * OK! — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 14:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Just ran through a before/after comparison. Only one section "Odex v. Pacific Internet" remaining. Great job by everyone so far! - Mailer Diablo 13:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

pedra branca singapore edit
brother... you obviously havent been keeping in touch with the issue at hand... i refer to you this little news clipping from malaysia.

http://mt.m2day.org/2008/content/view/8196/1/

PEDRA BRANCA RULING: Rough seas or calm ahead? PDF  	  Print   	  E-mail

Saturday, 31 May 2008 09:53

After a 30-year tussle, the world court last week awarded the island of Pedra Branca to Singapore and nearby Middle Rocks to Malaysia. How has the judgment changed the state of play in the Singapore Strait, and ties between the two neighbours? Senior Political Correspondent Lydia Lim reports.

A WEEK after the world court's judgment that Pedra Branca belongs to Singapore, the strategising over competing maritime claims in the area has shifted gear.

With the issue of ownership settled, the issue that now seems in contention is the meaning of the terms island and rock.

Malaysia's Foreign Ministry apparently wants a subtle name change.

It has asked the media on its side of the Causeway to drop the word

'Pulau' and stick to 'Batu Puteh' or 'Pedra Branca' - white rock in Malay and Portuguese respectively.

Alternative news website The Malaysian Insider reported on Monday that checks with two national dailies confirmed such a request.

Singapore, on its part, maintains that Pedra Branca is an island.

Why make a mountain out of what seems a molehill?

One possible reason: the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos) says that islands generate exclusive economic zones but rocks do not.

And right now, both sides are gearing up for talks to delimit their maritime boundary in the Singapore Strait.

So, did last Friday's judgment by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) bring closure to the issue of sovereignty over Pedra Branca, only to set the stage for a fresh tussle over maritime boundaries?

Did the judgment clarify matters or complicate them?

And what lessons can be drawn from this episode about turning to international courts to settle bilateral disputes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.15.173.203 (talk) 06:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It would have been helpful if you had included this reference when making your edit. When I last reviewed the article, you had supported your edits with references that were already in the article, all of which were dated August 2008. OK, let me see how I can restore some of your edits. However, some comments like "In an apparent counter against the Malaysia's Foreign Ministry attempt to unilaterally 'downgrade' the island status of pedra branca to that of a rock" and "thereby reinstated the island status of Pedra Branca" are not backed up by references and seem speculative, so I don't think they should be in the article. I've copied this discussion over to "Talk:Pedra Branca, Singapore"; let's continue talking over there, if necessary. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 06:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Criminal law of Wales
Category:Criminal law of Wales, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Renaming of "S. Jayakumar"
As requested.

It's okay, getting an article to FA isn't that easy anyway. - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 04:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Pedra Branca graphic
Thank you for pointing out the error in the name. I have corrected it. Jappalang (talk) 04:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Cool, thanks very much. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 04:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

RE : Renaming of "Middle Rocks, Johor"
Barely making it, thanks. Anyway, I think it's better to list on WP:RM so as to play safe, just in case. - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 23:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've done so. Do weigh in with your views at the article's talk page. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 09:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Ga transclusion
Hi. Are you sure you are supposed to delete the transclusion of the GA review after it is completed? I am not saying you are wrong, but I haven't seen it be done anywhere else, and I can't find any instructions either way. Arsenikk (talk)  18:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I figured it could be accessed by clicking on the link in the ArticleHistory box, so it wasn't necessary to have it transcluded. It's sort of like archiving the discussion, I guess. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 18:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Ossur-logo.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Ossur-logo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:GardarThorCortes-Cortesalbum-Iceland.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading Image:GardarThorCortes-Cortesalbum-Iceland.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Aspects (talk) 18:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:GardarThorCortes-Cortesalbum.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading Image:GardarThorCortes-Cortesalbum.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Aspects (talk) 18:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:GardarThorCortes-Carusosingle.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading Image:GardarThorCortes-Carusosingle.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Aspects (talk) 18:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:GardarThorCortes-Lunasingle.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading Image:GardarThorCortes-Lunasingle.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Aspects (talk) 18:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Denise Phua on peer review
Thanks for sending me the newspaper articles about Yip Pin Xiu! After my PW and Chinese exams (on 30 Oct and 4-6 Nov respectively), I will start working on an article about her. Unfortunately, I have yet another favour to ask of you. Having finished writing an article about Denise Phua, I will spend the following two weeks preparing the article for a GA nomination (during my breaks from studying). I have filed a peer review and nominated the article for the GA drive; perhaps you could give a thorough review (or even adopt the article)? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. I'll try to have a look at the article soon. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 04:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I've reviewed the article at "Peer review/Denise Phua/archive1". Hope my comments are helpful. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 17:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review; it was very helpful. I have addressed most of your concerns. Some were not addressed, for various reasons. You may wish to check back to strike out concerns that I have addressed and follow up on (e.g. clarify) those which I have not, especially those about singular/collective nouns in British English. (By the way, I have gone through the newspaper articles about Yip and started extracting relevant information. I may request you do the search again on 6 November, due to a shortage of post-Paralympic commentary.) --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 10:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Jacklee, I have started a discussion regarding the Personal life section and use of British English; your input would be most appreciated. You may also wish to know that Zscout370 has filed another GA nomination for Flag of Singapore. By the way, sorry for bothering you so often! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 06:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries. Have responded. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 07:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on Flag of Singapore attaining GA status! Are you planning to make it the National Day FA?
 * With my PW and Chinese finally over, I can finally put the finishing touches on Denise Phua, which I will nominate on 9 Nov, and then start writing Yip Pin Xiu. Unfortunately, I think I need to ask another favour from you. The Paralympics were in mid-September and you sent me the newspaper articles on 12 October, so there were few articles providing post-Paralympic commentary. Could you please search for newspaper articles about Yip Pin Xiu, dated 12 October 2008 or later, and send them to me? I would also like newspaper articles about Xiaxue, as I am considering writing a GA about her. Thanks. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The kudos for "Flag of Singapore" go to Zscout370, not me. OK, will do a Factiva search for you shortly. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 14:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Denise Phua is now on GAN. I can hardly wait to receive the articles for you so I can get started on Yip Pin Xiu. The holidays have started and I plan to use the free time to write a few GAs (and study, of course). --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 08:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, done! — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 15:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have received the articles. Thanks for everything! There were plenty of useful articles about Xiaxue and I plan to e-mail her for more. Unfortunately, the newspapers seem to have lost interest in Yip, so I will need to work with what I have, starting tomorrow. Expect me to bombard your talk page a few weeks later, asking for more peer reviews! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Eureka! My first draft of Yip Pin Xiu is complete! Now I need a copy-editor (and a BLP checker). Thanks for recommending Peanut4! I will approach him and Chensiyuan (who has written many sports-related FAs and GAs, though none on Singaporean sports). You will see Yip Pin Xiu on PR and GAN in a few weeks. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 09:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool, I look forward to seeing it when it goes live. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 12:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to update you:
 * Yip Pin Xiu is now live! I nominated it for DYK.
 * I have also finished writing I Not Stupid Too. Both articles will go on peer review on Sunday.
 * Xiaxue has Gmailed back with a promise to dig up the newspaper articles. Hopefully she will keep it.
 * For the National Day project, I am planning to write a GA about Pathlight School. So could you please help me with Factiva? (I am also planning to write a GA about Jack Neo), but I already have newspaper articles about him, thanks to another Wikifriend who, unfortunately, no longer has access to Factiva.
 * Thanks a million!
 * --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 10:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello, Jacklee! I have filed peer reviews for both I Not Stupid and Yip Pin Xiu. You are invited to give feedback at I Not Stupid Too's peer review and Yip Pin Xiu's peer review. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

inches
Sure. Also, on a side note, nothing from the NHB yet. I am not sure if they will write a physical letter or not. And, I am still working on the letter to MICA regarding the changes I like to see in the booklet. One thing I notice that that crescent is thinner in the government documents. I also notice that in the sizes A and C, they are not a perfect 2:3 ratio. Only size B is a perfect 2:3 ratio. I really think MICA should scrap the recommended sizes and they should list what sizes are common in Singapore. I know there is a lot of plastic flags or small flags given out/sold during the NDP period. I wonder what sizes are those. If I ever get a new flag from MICA/NHB, I will try and see what sizes it comes in. Plus, there are various flag makers in Singapore, so I am certain they can tell us what sizes they make. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I suspect the size of flags in Singapore is not something that is highly regulated. ;-) — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 04:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Red ensign
The reason why I called this flag the red ensign was due to the following text: "The detailed dimension and stipulated colour of the flag is as attached. Owners and Masters are also reminded that the Singapore national flag does not substituted the Red (civil) Ensign." User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, right. How did I miss that? — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 05:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, I really need articles, books and other things with the military flags of Singapore. Honestly, a list should be made of SG flags. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There must be legislation somewhere governing the use of the Presidential Standard and military flags. Will have a look for that and other articles, books, etc., when I have time (probably not till the latter part of December at the earliest, unfortunately). — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 05:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Take your time, NDP isn't until August. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I asked Mailer Diablo and the webmaster of the Herman Mainframe to see if there are books about the SG military colors and flags I could use. I think with the addition of the list I created at List of Singaporean flags, we can make the other SG flags section short and with information I can actually cite. I still need some citations for the blue ensign. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

re Boosey & Hawkes
It's all in-house gossip, which would I suppose be confirmable by other people who worked there at the time. Reading about Boosey now, I am dumbfounded by its growth and transformation into a global moneymaker or supposedly so. The New York office was so small back then. I could give you names of other employees from that time, but I'm sure there's nothing published. It's all stuff I witnessed or heard first-hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.197.60.187 (talk) 21:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you're referring to in the Boosey & Hawkes article specifically, but generally only information that is referenced by published sources can be included in articles. That would exclude information that is personally known to editors, as such information is very difficult to verify. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 03:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pedra Branca dispute
The article Pedra Branca dispute you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Pedra Branca dispute for things needed to be addressed. RJH (talk) 23:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review 3 (Odexed)
Thanks for assisting in the improvement for the article Odex's actions against file-sharing, and please accept my apologies for the previous lack of response and edits due to dealing with real-life issues. I'm pleased to let you know that the third PR for the article is now up, and looking forward to hearing feedback from you so that it can be brought over to FAC soon. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 22:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Additional opinion
The modern definition of codpiece seems to be different from the historical meaning, a change which isn't reflected in dictionaries. While we don't need to draft a new definition for the article, a working definition would help focus the article, decide what categories it belongs in, etc. Talk:Codpiece Additional input would be appreciated. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Erm, interesting ... although I've never worked on that article before! — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 04:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like we are heading towards a final compromise
With agreement on the first three points, it looks like we are heading towards a final compromise. All we need is consensus on the last point, about medal tables. Could we continue discussion on the last point? I hope to quickly settle these disputes so I can work on the "unfinished business", especially the slight expansion.

By the way, I Not Stupid Too is nearly ready for GAN. It just needs a couple more reviews, especially a prose review. Perhaps you could spare some time to review the article? I would be happy to participate in the ongoing review of Flag of Singapore in return.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 10:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello again, Jacklee. Please note:
 * Your GA nomination of Edwin Thumboo was mistakenly marked as "on hold" when Taxman passed another nomination. After I noticed and alerted the GA project about this, the article has received a proper review by ErikTheBikeMan - and is now on a (proper) hold.
 * Although you are actively editing, it has been five days since you last commented on the dispute at Yip Pin Xiu. Kindly continue to work with me towards consensus about the medal table and hence a final compromise. If you do not comment on the dispute by 26 December, I will claim a "walkover", which will decide all points of the dispute in my favour.
 * --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 08:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting the GA review of "Edwin Thumboo". Didn't know about it as the reviewer forgot to transclude the review on to the talk page. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 08:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Coat of arms of Singapore
You know what to do. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I do? — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 07:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Expand, expand, expand. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah! — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 08:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Edwin Thumboo
Hi, I have reviewed your Good Article Nominee and would like you to take a look at some of my concerns and address them. Thank you, ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 15:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Infobox
Thanks Jack - and I see you know quite a bit about all this! Do you think that the Law Portal link is really necessary though? I was actually responsible for the portal as it now looks - but it's in bad shape, and it needs people to maintain it (I doubt there are enough eager people yet). And do I gather that the Old Bailey picture will show up as a default? Is that necessary too do you think? Remember, it is a criminal court: and a bit of trivia is that she isn't wearing the blindfold! Also, I noticed the Criminal Damage page, which is good stuff - when I wrote the English criminal law page I wasn't following a very good citation method, which I'm being more careful with now. Perhaps you'd benefit from this (in Wikipedia or your own work) - look up OSCOLA, which is the method that is standard now (the House of Lords switched last year). Best,  Wik idea  21:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Other editors might want to comment on the issues you've raised, so I've copied your message to the Infobox Court Case talk page and replied there. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 06:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The OSCOLA was just for you - though I'd be glad if everyone was on the same page. Not sure what's happening around the Commonwealth though (or the US). But some things are smart - just thing how many periods we save by not going "v." all the time, and just "v"!  Wik idea  13:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Tang Da Wu
Hi, I am reviewing your article Tang Da Wu for GA and have entered some initial comments at Talk:Tang Da Wu/GA1. The article looks very good and I have not reviewed the article completely yet but made some suggestions anyway. If you don't mind, I might make some little copy editing changes myself, rather than listing them all, unless you prefer that I do not. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments. Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 23:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, Mattisse, thanks for taking the time to review the article. Please feel free to continue copyediting the article! Will have a look at the article and address the issues you've flagged up soon. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 08:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi there. I have added a couple of questions to Talk:Tang Da Wu/GA1 regarding the headings and references. The article looks very good and is really for GA. Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 19:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I changed the headings to remove the dates (hope you don't mind) and had one more question regarding the references, but I think you are right on that. So I passed the article as GA. A very nice article! Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 01:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)