This is an archive of past discussions with 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?
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)
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
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)
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)
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
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)
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. -buffbills7701
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! ☯ BonkersThe Clown\(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
