User talk:Sgconlaw/2011 archive

Blocked
Welcome to Wikipedia. Because we have a policy against usernames that give the impression that the account represents a group, organization or website, your account has been blocked; you are welcome to create a new account with a username that represents only you.

Additionally, it appears your account is intended to be used for the purpose of telling the world about an organization or cause that you consider worthwhile. Unfortunately, many good causes are not sufficiently notable for their own Wikipedia article, and all users are discouraged from editing in any area where they have an inherent conflict of interest, though you may wish to consider one of these alternative outlets. If your username doesn't represent a group, organization or website, you may appeal this username block by adding the text below this notice. Thank you. We do not permit group accounts, accounts used by more than one person. Thus, this account has been blocked (reluctantly). If you feel this block was in error, please notify me here on your talk page. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  15:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll talk to Orangemike on his page, brb. Syrthiss (talk) 15:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Happy Chinese New Year, Smuconlaw. Rather unfortunate way to spend the festive season. I've sent this to the incidents administrators' noticeboard. I think it's a ridiculous block and have asked for a review. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 16:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Unblocked
I'm glad to say that you have now been unblocked. Unfortunately, the admin forgot to tell you, so I thought I would. Best wishes, DuncanHill (talk) 17:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm surprised that this issue has come up again. It first arose when I ran the project for the first time in 2010, and then I confirmed that I am the only person using this account: see "User talk:Smuconlaw/2010 archive". Also, note that the project instructions at "User:Smuconlaw" require all students to register their own usernames. — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw the instructions, I think they are clear and proper. By the way, there is a new project called Ambassadors which exists to give help and support to academics and students using Wikipedia. It could be well worth having a look at the project's pages and making links with some of its members. DuncanHill (talk) 17:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia administration is very much decentralized (i.e. nobody knows what anybody else is doing - in fact, half the time I don't even know what I'm doing), so it might be a good idea to put this information up even more explicitly somewhere, and also to link to the project announcement. While it should not be necessary, it might avoid misunderstandings down the line. Oh, and please eat a Chili Crab for me! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, will look into that. Thanks! (Mmmm, chilli crab ...) — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Prof. Lee, at the time of the initial discussion, User:Draftydoor suggested "maybe you could add a note to your userpage indicating the fact that this account is run by a single person, to avoid being perceived as a group account?" and you said you had done so. The language which tripped my alarms, and led to the block, was the first sentence, which clearly states that this page is the Project's page, and that you were merely managing it. I regret the entire misunderstanding, but would earnestly plead that you change the first sentence's wording to something much less ambiguous, so that no such unfortunate incidents could take place in the future. Please be aware that we deal on a daily basis with a number of "projects", "teams" and the like whose purpose in Wikipedia is to publicize their institution, company or agenda; and that as a result we administrators can become somewhat jaundiced towards anything that looks like a possible violation of the role account prohibitions. I hope we can put this all behind us now, leaving me properly scolded, and go on about our mutual project of improving Wikipedia. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  17:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize that the sentence was unclear, but I will rephrase it. And since I wasn't involved in the discussion concerning my account at all, I don't harbour any ill-will towards you. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In case it helps, there was a message stating that this is not a role account until it was mistakenly removed by a student in March last year. - Bilby (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ha, I'd completely forgotten about that. I've restored the notice. — SMUconlaw (talk) 06:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

an idea for consideration
I think a lot of the controversy over your userpage is a misunderstanding of its purpose and usage. Although what you're doing is not blogging, social networking or using Wikipedia as a Webspace provider, some editors may (and do) interpret it that way. To reduce some of the confusion about the use of your userpage, here's an idea (not for this semester but for future semesters): Consider moving your userpage information to a WikiProject. You could name it WikiProject SMU Constitutional and Administrative Law. That I think would be a more suitable place for the work you're doing with your students. Also, the systems and procedures commonly used in WikiProjects could be of great use to the work you and your students are doing. If you want to talk more about this, let me know. Also, if you want assistance in setting a WikiProject up, let me know. And if you are not interested, that's okay too. :) Sincerely, Kingturtle = (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, this sounds like a good idea. Is there anything that needs to be done to set up a WikiProject apart from creating the page? — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sometimes people start WikiProjects that die out because they didn't have enough people dedicated to its cause. So a process was created to have WikiProjects be approved. Your case is unique, and the concern I mentioned doesn't apply to you. I think it is okay for you to go right ahead and create the Project, but read WikiProject Council/Guide first...and maybe wait until the class is over, so you can give the Project creation process your full attention. Kingturtle = (talk) 18:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What about just creating a subpage of "School and university projects"? I see that this has been done for some other projects. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

another concern
Another concern over your account is your username and the account itself. On your userpage it states "Welcome to the SMU Constitutional and Administrative Law Wikipedia Project, managed by Assistant Professor Jack Tsen-Ta Lee of the School of Law, Singapore Management University." This is against Wikipedia policy. User accounts are meant to be for one person only. The way that sentence reads, it sounds as if once you leave, another person will be managing this account. This account needs to be your account only. So, I advise you to remove this statement. Your userpage and your account cannot represent a school. It has to represent you, and only you. But that is easy to fix. First, as I said above, moving this to a proper project page would be helpful. Also, I (as a Bureaucrat on en.Wikipedia) can change your username to something more appropriate for Wikipedia such as Jack Tsen-Ta Lee. Refer to Username policy for more ideas on usernames.

I understand that your class is in progress. So changing your username now might be confusing or distracting. I am happy to wait until the class is over to make the username change for you. If you have any questions at all, please let me know.

And by the way, your project with your students is a great idea. Very well thought out. Very well explained and described. I see you put a lot of work into this. Kingturtle = (talk) 18:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I had no idea that the username itself was problematic. OK, let me think about an alternative name and get back to you after this iteration of the project is complete. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay great. Just make sure only you use this account. Thanks, Kingturtle = (talk) 18:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

more food for thought
Here's something else that came to mind while thinking about your work here with your students. On Wikipedia anyone can edit an article. The articles that your students work on and collaborate on cannot be edited exclusively by your students. Other editors must be allowed to edit and write these articles too. Maybe you've thought about this already. How do you prepare your students for interactions with editors from outside your class who decide to edit these articles? How will their ability to work with outside editors be assessed in your grading? What if the outside editors has a very different, but very valid interpretation? I don't know what the answers are here for you. But it is something to think about. Your students articles must not be theirs. See Ownership of articles for more. These are tough questions. Cheers, Kingturtle = (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This is the second year that I'm running the project. Students work on the articles (or parts of articles) in sandboxes. The sandboxed articles are graded, and if they achieve a certain minimum grade they are edited by me and released into the main namespace. Of course, once this has been done, then they are just like any other Wikipedia articles and anyone can edit them. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Moving of sandboxed articles away from talk pages of articles
Hi, Bearcat and Debresser. I notice that you moved some draft articles created by students working on a school project co-ordinated by me from sandboxes created on the talk pages of existing articles to sandboxes which are subpages of my user page. I don't really have any problem with this, but what I was intending to do was to create special pages such as "Talk:Group Representation Constituency/Smuconlaw version" and "Talk:Nominated Member of Parliament/Smuconlaw version" and use them in conjunction with the copied template to preserve the edit histories of the draft articles after they have been moved to the article space. I was previously advised that was the correct way to preserve the edit histories. Is this the wrong procedure? — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Edit history will be preserved in any move, I think. My thing here was more of a technical nature. There are templates used in articles that behave differently when they are on talkpages, or do things like categorising talkpages in categories that are meant for articles. That is why it would be best IMHO to create a draft in Articlename/Draft e.g. It is also very common to create them in userspace (Username/Articledraft), see So you made a userspace draft. Debresser (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If there is no existing article, then moving a sandbox to the new article name will preserve the edit history. However, if there is already an existing article, then the only way to update the article is to "paste" the new version of the article on to the existing article. This only requires a single edit, and the edits made to the new version of the article in the sandbox will not show up in the edit history of the existing article. But are you suggesting that I should just leave the sandboxes as subpages of my user page rather than move them to the talk pages of the relevant existing articles? — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Speakers' Corner, Singapore
This is just a note of congratulation on your (?team's) excellent article on Speakers Corner in Singapore. I wish somebody with your (?team's) expertise and patience would tackle the London Speakers' Corner article and bring it up to such a well documented, NPOV standard in what must be for you complex and difficult circumstances. I am sorry to learn that use of the 'Corner' has declined, mirroring to some extend events in London's SC, where tourists now constitute the bulk of the audience.

With best wishes for this and other WP projects. Sleuth21 (talk) 10:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late response, and thanks very much for the nice comments! — SMUconlaw (talk) 10:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space
Hey there Smuconlaw, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Smuconlaw/Non-constituency Member of Parliament.


 * See a log of files removed today here.
 * Shut off the bot here.
 * Report errors here.
 * If you have any questions, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Your DYK nom for Presidential Council for Minority Rights
Hi Smuconlaw, I've reviewed your nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Presidential Council for Minority Rights and there are some issues with synthesis and original research. Could you see my comments at the nomination page and reply there? Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Natural justice
Thanks from me and the wikiVictuallers (talk) 12:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act
Hello! Your submission of Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act 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! Lionratz (talk) 07:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Presidential Council for Minority Rights
Materialscientist (talk) 00:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Query
I saw your closing of the Template:Did you know nominations/Ballet Manila nomination. It states there that the DYK is cited, there were some issues on citations but it wouldn't affect the DYK. There are currently 40+ citations for the article, which part did you need additional cites? That could've easily been done. I was on a short wiki break, why did you have to bring up items at the last minute, when I could've still done something for it? --TitanOne (talk) 14:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm sorry to hear that the nomination was closed without the article being promoted to DYK. My responses are below:
 * I didn't raise these "at the last moment". I reviewed the article on 11 October.
 * I didn't close the nomination, as I'm not a DYK volunteer editor. That was done by Cunard on 15 October. You should ask him or her why the nomination was closed, or why it was closed only after five days. I have no control over this. All I did was review the article.
 * I indicated the passages that needed citations in the paragraph which starts "A number of portions of the text lack references ...".
 * I commented: "Archive URLs should be added to avoid link rot. However, I don't think this affects whether the article should appear on DYK." In other words, while adding archive URLs is desirable, an article that lacks them can still appear on DYK. I did not mention that an article that lacks some citations can also appear on DYK: see "Did you know/Supplementary guidelines", which states: "D2: The article in general should use inline, cited sources. A rule of thumb is one inline citation per paragraph, excluding the intro, plot summaries, and paragraphs which summarize other cited content."
 * — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space
Hey there Smuconlaw, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Smuconlaw/Powers of the President of Singapore.


 * See a log of files removed today here.
 * Shut off the bot here.
 * Report errors here.
 * If you have any questions, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act
The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Public Prosecutor v. Taw Cheng Kong
--v/r - TP 01:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC) 08:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Mohamad Anas Haitham Soueid
Hi Smuconlaw. Would you revisit Template:Did you know nominations/Mohamad Anas Haitham Soueid? As a reviewer of the article, please state whether your comments at 17:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC) and 14:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC) have been adequately addressed. Cunard (talk) 05:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like the nomination has been withdrawn. — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Eng Foong Ho v. Attorney-General
Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Article 14 of the Constitution of Singapore
Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)