User talk:Sgconlaw/2014 archive

Three questions

Your project has produced many comprehensive articles about law in Singapore. Well done! I have three questions for you:

• Are any of the students interested in becoming regular Wikipedians, writing articles on Singaporean topics other than law? Have you tried encouraging them to become regular Wikipedians?
• I noticed that some apparently complete drafts, such as Sedition Act (Singapore) and Separation of powers in Singapore, remain in your sandbox. When can these drafts be moved to the main article space, for the benefit of Wikipedia readers?
• The articles deserve consideration for GA status and I intend to nominate them. If a nomination is placed on hold, I will fix issues that are not of a technical nature. Could you help address concerns when doing so requires legal knowledge or access to sources?

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 08:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

My responses:

• No idea, and no I haven't.
• I haven't had time to edit them, so they aren't ready yet. Probably won't have time until middle of the year.
• Sure, if you want to nominate the articles that are already in the main article space, go ahead. Yes, if you don't have too many queries I can assist.

— SMUconlaw (talk) 10:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I have nominated sixteen articles and requested the reviews be throttled. Could I help you with editing of the drafts? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 17:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, but I think it's better if I personally handle the editing before making them live. — SMUconlaw (talk) 09:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Separation of powers in Singapore

Hello! Your submission of Separation of powers in Singapore 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! smithers - talk 05:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Separation of powers in Singapore

The DYK project (nominate) 20:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Constitution of Singapore/GA1

Dear professor, kindly note the above review, which suggests how the article can be improved, not just to attain GA status, but more importantly, for the benefit of Wikipedia readers. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed. Thanks. — SMUconlaw (talk) 06:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Relevant and irrelevant considerations in Singapore administrative law

Thank you Victuallers (talk) 16:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Two nominations placed on hold

Dear professor, kindly note that the nominations for Administrative law in Singapore and Chan Hiang Leng Colin v. Public Prosecutor have been placed on hold. Please read the review of the former and the review of the latter, then try to address the concerns. Thanks again for the impressive contributions of your students! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't have time to deal with this at the moment. Also, I disagree with some of the reviewer's comments and don't see why there is a problem with the current images. It will be extremely difficult to obtain freely available photographs of the parties but there are some images of Yong Pung How, the judge who heard the case, in "commons:Category:Yong Pung How". As regards "Chan Hiang Leng Colin v. Public Prosecutor", the relevant facts that led to the case being brought are in the "Facts" section. The reviewer also did not identify which parts contained "legal jargon" that is not readily understandable. It is an article about a court case; there are bound to be some reference to legal principles. — SMUconlaw (talk) 12:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I do agree with the reviewer that the images are irrelevant and am removing them. Thanks for pointing me to the free photographs of Yong Pung How. How many appellants were there? Besides Colin, are any of their names known? What is known about the circumstances of their arrest and their decision to file the court case? A few sentences about such basic background details should be enough to satisfy readers (and the reviewer). I will ask the reviewer to identify the jargon. If I try copyediting the article and replacing jargon with simpler terms, could you check the accuracy of my simpler terms? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree about the relevance of the images – I think the captions indicate how they are relevant. But I'm not going to revert any changes. No, the names of other appellants are not stated in the case report. You could see if there are any newspaper reports on the original District Court case and the subsequent appeal to the High Court at NewspaperSG. Other than that, the only to find out would be to inspect the court's file on the case at the Supreme Court, and this has to be done in person and there is a fee payable. — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Further updates on the GA nominations

Dear professor, as you probably know, Chan Hiang Leng Colin v. Public Prosecutor and Exclusion of judicial review in Singapore law have attained GA status (congrats), while the nominations for Administrative law in Singapore and Constitution of Singapore have failed. I am handling the issues raised at Talk:Internal Security Act (Singapore)/GA1‎, but your input is needed at Talk:Threshold issues in Singapore administrative law/GA1, where the reviewer has suggested that the #Position in the United Kingdom section contains excessive unrelated detail, to the extent of a coatrack. --Hildanknight (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear professor, I am pleased to inform you that Internal Security Act (Singapore), Representative democracy in Singapore and Threshold issues in Singapore administrative law have attained GA status. Once again, thanks to you for conducting the project and thanks to your students for their outstanding work. --Hildanknight (talk) 10:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear professor, kindly note that the nominations for Fettering of discretion in Singapore administrative law, Illegality in Singapore administrative law and Precedent fact errors in Singapore law have been placed on hold. Kindly address the concerns (mostly minor clarifications of legal details) raised at Talk:Fettering of discretion in Singapore administrative law/GA1, Talk:Illegality in Singapore administrative law/GA1 and Talk:Precedent fact errors in Singapore law/GA1. Once again, thanks to you and your students for these contributions. Have a nice day! --Hildanknight (talk) 11:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Representative democracy in Singapore

Is this still a current project? It is in mainspace, so I assume the project is over, and the article can be edited by anyone, but thought I'd check with you first. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Although I am not involved in the project itself, I can confirm that the project is over and anyone is welcome to help improve the article, so please do so! --Hildanknight (talk) 15:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the particular cycle of the project in which "Representative democracy in Singapore" was edited is over. — SMUconlaw (talk) 20:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

GA reviews of Singapore law articles

I see there are another five Singapore law articles up for GA. I'd be happy to pick them up for review over the next week or two, if nobody else takes them on first, but I thought I would check with you to be sure you're OK with having the same reviewer for all nine articles. If you'd like to wait for someone else to review them, I'm happy to leave them and go on to something else. Let me know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Remaining issues in the three nominations

Dear professor, here is a summary of the remaining issues in the three open nominations:

• Fettering of discretion in Singapore administrative law: Could you explain or give an example of a "contractual fetter on discretion"?
• Illegality in Singapore administrative law: Could you clarify the influence of English law on Singapore law, even after independence?
• Precedent fact errors in Singapore law: Could you clarify whether Zamir still holds under certain circumstances or is no longer a useful reference point?

The articles are very nearly there and I hope this summary helps facilitate your prompt and accurate response to the remaining issues. --Hildanknight (talk) 03:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Remedies in Singapore administrative law/GA1

Dear professor, please deal with the issues (all about clarification of legal details) raised at this GA review. Once again, thank you for the excellent work that your students have produced. Kindly note that I will be without my computer for the next few days. --Hildanknight (talk) 05:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, looking into it. Thanks. — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The WikiProject you started

So the contents are written by your students while you move them to the article namespace? Have you ever written your own articles? And when did you get to know and familiarise with Wikipedia? HYH.124 (talk) 09:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Also do inform your students to edit with an account because I am seeing IP addresses as creators and you can never be sure that those are your students. HYH.124 (talk) 09:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I've been working on Wikipedia since about 2010. My students work on articles as part of a school project (for which they are graded), and then I edit the articles before moving them to the article namespace. I don't think I've actually written many articles of my own before – the project articles keep me busy enough – but I do some minor editing here and there, work on templates sometimes, and also upload files to the Commons. Yes, I always remind students to register accounts and log in before editing, but sometimes they forget and there isn't much I can do. — SMUconlaw (talk) 10:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Could the assignments possibly be promoted to featured article status? HYH.124 (talk) 12:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

First, the articles need to be promoted to "good article" status. Hildanknight has been working on this – see "Wikipedia:SGpedians' notice board#Good Article drive".

Also, where is there are section with question mark, "A procedural or substantive concept?" in Article 9 of the Constitution of Singapore? HYH.124 (talk) 12:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

If you mean "why is there a section with a question mark", why not? The heading indicates that there is some doubt over whether fundamental rules of natural justice are a procedural or substantive concept.

In the "Right to die" subsection of Application section, it says, "In Singapore, attempted suicide, and abetment of suicide and attempted suicide are criminal acts" Why is "attempted suicide" repeated? Sorry for bothering. HYH.124 (talk) 12:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

That's because the word abetment applies to both suicide and attempted suicide. However, I agree that this is not very clear, so I've rephrased the text to "attempted suicide, abetment of suicide, and abetment of attempted suicide". — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:MOSQUOTE

I see you replaced the brackets in Right to vote in Singapore law; I've no objection to leaving them there, but I thought I might explain the reason for my edit. The usual interpretation of WP:MOSQUOTE, in my experience at least, is that "formatting and other purely typographical elements of quoted text should be adapted to English Wikipedia's conventions without comment" would apply in this case -- there's no change in meaning, so the reader is not being misled by silently changing the lower case to upper case here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I note that that section of MOSQUOTE which you referred to states: "Changing capitalization so that sentences begin with capital letters and do not have unnecessary capitals in the middle (the oft-repeated maxim "a penny saved is a penny earned")", but to be honest I don't see how the example given ("a penny saved is a penny earned") illuminates the point because it's not clear that it is a quotation from a source rather than just a well-known proverb. If it is indeed true that publishers go around changing capitalization in quotations silently all the time, then I am very surprised by that. It is certainly not the practice in legal writing. In the quotation in question, I think indicating the change in capitalization is desirable, otherwise it gives the false impression that that was a complete sentence in the original. — SMUconlaw (talk) 12:08, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

My experience with professional copyediting is fairly limited, but I believe it is indeed common for publishers to change capitalization in quotes where the meaning is unaffected. However, if this is typically not done in legal writing, then we shouldn't do it in this case, so I agree with your revert. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:20, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

A few questions regarding Singapore law

Apologies for my ignorance. I have a few questions regarding law to ask you. What does "v." in cases, e.g. Chan Hiang Leng Colin v. Public Prosecutor mean? Full case name: Chan Hiang Leng Colin and others v. Public Prosecutor? What does "and others" mean? Also, does Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act qualify for GA? HYH.124 (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The v. stands for the Latin word versus, which means "against". It indicates that the legal action was brought by the first-named party (in the above example, Chan Hiang Leng Colin) against the second-named party (the Public Prosecutor). The phrase "and others" means that the legal action was brought not just by or against the named party but other persons as well. However, to keep case names short, the names of these other persons are usually not indicated in case names.

It's not really for me to say whether "Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act" qualifies for GA. The only way to know for sure is for it to be nominated for GA and to see if an independent reviewer thinks it is. Why don't you get in touch with Hildanknight and ask his opinion, since as I mentioned previously he is working on a project to get various Singapore-related articles (including some of those worked on by the SMU project) awarded GA status. — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

You just tagged him, so I believe he had seen or will see this reply. HYH.124 (talk) 15:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act deserves a shot at GA status and it will probably be included in the next round of nominations (along with others that should be out of Smuconlaw's sandbox by then). --Hildanknight (talk) 13:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

COI?

Is listing your work in the Further reading and References section of Constitution of Singapore a conflict of interest? Also, your students referred to your work when writing the article ("Other works" of References section), so did they paraphrase your work? If not it would be copyright violation. HYH.124 (talk) 09:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe WP:SELFPROMOTION has been infringed. Feel free to seek a second opinion. As for your other question, paraphrasing per se is not a problem; close paraphrasing is. You are welcome to look up the source and check for yourself. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Also is "Teo Soh Lung v. Minister for Home Affairs [1989] 1 S.L.R.(R.) 461, H.C. (Singapore) ("Teo Soh Lung (H.C.)")." a source? Self-referencing to Wikipedia is not allowed, and is referring to a case allowed? HYH.124 (talk) 09:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why a reference to the case is a self-reference to Wikipedia. Cases are primary sources, and can be used "to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge". — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Right to vote in Singapore law/GA1

All this needs from you is a clarification of the "notwithstanding clause" and the article can pass! Happy Vesak in advance (if you celebrate it)! --Hildanknight (talk) 07:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, am in the middle of marking. Will have a look at it in a couple of days. — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, I added some explanatory text. — SMUconlaw (talk) 12:17, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Remedies in Singapore administrative law

Are you planning to return to Talk:Remedies in Singapore administrative law/GA1? There are still a handful of outstanding issues, and if you are able to return to it soon I'm happy to leave the review open. If not, I should really go ahead and fail it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:12, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I've been out of the country this past week and will be returning home this evening. Let me deal with the remaining issues this week. Thanks. — SMUconlaw (talk) 02:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, Mike, I wasn't able to get on to this article last week due to preparations for a trip this week. I'll try to get to it this week once I have settled into my hotel. — SMUconlaw (talk) 09:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

No problem; I just moved into my house a week ago and would have been too busy to deal with it anyway. I'll keep an eye on the page and you can leave a note there once you're done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Any updates? If you're still busy, perhaps it would be best if I went ahead and failed the article for now; when you address the remaining issues it can be renominated, and if I'm available I'd be happy to pick up the review then. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Smuconlaw has not edited since 11 June. I have no objection to you failing the nomination, if you also review Rule of law doctrine in Singapore. --Hildanknight (talk) 16:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Let me see if I can get to it tonight. — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I've passed Remedies in Singapore administrative law as a GA; thanks for your patience with my questions, which I'm sure betrayed my ignorance of the topic. I've been very impressed by all the articles I've reviewed from your classes, and I hope to see much more work from you and your students. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Great! Thanks very much. — SMUconlaw (talk) 06:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

About Article 15 of the Constitution of Singapore

Hi, since the article mention about Muslim girls not allowed to wear tudungs to MOE schools as it is not part of the school uniform, in the contrary, should we include the fact that traditional Sikhs are allowed to wear turbans? 175.156.242.240 (talk) 12:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The controversy is mentioned in the article as an illustration of "the Singapore Government's steadfastness in insisting on secularism and the difficulties in reconciling secularism and freedom of religion in Singapore". How would referring to the wearing of turbans by Sikhs add to the point? — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

That Sikhs are allowed to wear turbans contradicts the "steadfastness in insisting on secularism". --Hildanknight (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

That will need a reference. — SMUconlaw (talk) 20:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Four more nominations?

Before I nominate Doctrine of bias in Singapore law, Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, Relevant and irrelevant considerations in Singapore administrative law and Remedies in Singapore constitutional law, I would like to check with you:

• Would you be willing and able to handle concerns that reviewers raised? Of course, I would help with issues that do not require legal knowledge to fix. Based on the backlog, I expect reviews to come around Deepavali.
• Are all four articles ready for a shot at GA status? I am asking this due to my past mistake of nominating Offence of scandalizing the court in Singapore, not realising that it was significantly outdated.

By the way, I am really looking forward to seeing your draft article about the Sedition Act in mainspace. Unlike most constitutional law topics that you write about, this legislation is of interest to ordinary Singaporeans (and the current mainspace article is in very poor shape). Once again, thanks again for the excellent contributions of your students. --Hildanknight (talk) 10:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response – am travelling at the moment. No problem if you want to nominate the articles you mentioned except for "Remedies in Singapore constitutional law" as there will be updates to that article resulting from the most recent time the SMU Wikipedia Project was run. However, I will be quite busy till the end of the month so I may not be able to respond to requests for edits or information quickly. — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Noted. As I intend to nominate four articles, what do you think about Separation of powers in Singapore in lieu of Remedies in Singapore constitutional law? There is no actual NPOV dispute, only spurious claims from an unregistered editor. Alternatively, how about Vandalism Act (Singapore) or, if you move your draft to mainspace, Sedition Act (Singapore)? You could take your pick from this list. --Hildanknight (talk) 07:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I think you may have difficulties with "Separation of powers in Singapore" as the unregistered editor may object – see the talk page comments. You're welcome to try though. "Vandalism Act (Singapore)" should be fine as it is quite stable at the moment. I don't think I have time to work on "Sedition Act (Singapore)" at the moment. — SMUconlaw (talk) 08:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Request for file rename

Hi Smuconlaw. According to an edit description on my watchlist, you have the permission to rename files. In that case, would you please rename File:Male Bull-dog Ant.jpg to File:Winged bulldog ant in Kialla, Australia.jpg, or something similar to that. The file should be renamed because it's not very descriptive, and the sex of the ant is uncertain. JKDw (talk) 08:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure. In future, you can tag files that require renaming with {{rename}}. — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. JKDw (talk) 14:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

About Non-constituency Member of Parliament

Hi Smuconlaw, I am Spring Roll Conan, a Chinese Wikipedian who now started to translate the article above. In the article, one of the sentence suggested that many voters actually want to have a PAP-led government and a "luxury" to vote for opposition politicians. But according to the source of this sentence (though I am actually reading the Lianhe Zaobao version), this is just the attitude of the voters from constituencies which elected a opposition MP (at that time). And it seems that the attitude is not linked to the NCMP scheme. Can you read the article again and told me that am I wrong or not? Also, I would like to ask if there have been a Chinese translation of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, as I'm going to follow up several other articles concerning Singaporean politics. Much thanks, --Spring Roll Conan ( Talk · Contributions ) 14:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Spring Roll Conan. I had a look at the source article, and this is what it said:

Defending the NCMP scheme against criticisms that it did not constitute 'real opposition', he pointed out that NCMPs had full debating rights in Parliament, and the scheme gave opposition politicians the chance to establish themselves and strengthen their positions in subsequent general elections.

The People's Action Party (PAP), he added, instituted and then expanded the scheme because it acknowledged both the desire among Singaporeans for alternative voices and the need for an opposition to represent the diverse views in society.

...

Besides the NCMP scheme, another hot topic was whether it was right for opposition wards Potong Pasir and Hougang to be disadvantaged in upgrading programmes that were funded using taxpayers' money.

Polytechnic student Matthew Zachary Liu asked: 'Shouldn't a good government be fair to all citizens, regardless of their political vote?'

Mr Lee replied that the programmes were national ones that applied to everyone, including those in opposition wards.

However, when a choice had to be made on who would go first, and two estates were of equal merit, then the one that supported the Government at the polls would be chosen.

Mr Lee argued that people in Potong Pasir and Hougang, in fact, wanted a PAP government, but would rather vote in an opposition MP.

In other words, he said, 'they are depending on somebody else to vote for the PAP so that they can have the luxury of voting for Mr Chiam (See Tong) or Mr Low (Thia Khiang)'.

'Now, if everybody in Singapore does that, we are in trouble. So there has to be an incentive to vote for the Government. And going first or second, well, that is just that little bit of difference.'

So you are right – the Prime Minister's comment about residents of Potong Pasir and Hougang wanting to have a PAP government but to elect opposition MPs for their own constituencies was not related to the NCMP scheme. The student who worked on this part of the Wikipedia article must have read the newspaper article wrongly. I will update the sentence. Thanks for pointing out the error, and all the best for your translation! — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed articles written as assignments would somehow result in some inaccuracy. By the way, I have raised a topic on clarification of one of the sentences at Talk:Non-constituency Member of Parliament. Please take a look and make the necessary changes. Thank you and wishing your students all the best in their Wikipedia assignments! HYH.124 (talk) 08:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello SMUconlaw, as I have finished translation work for several paragraphs in the article, I would like to raise several points as below:

• The first general election after the introduction of NCMP scheme was held in 1984, not 1988. Though, in that election no defeated opposition candidates accepted an NCMP seat, thus no such seats are allocated to anyone. So, for the last paragraph of the section "Becoming an NCMP", I think that the 1984 case is a better example. Also, there is a need to explain it in the subsequent list of NCMPs.
• That paragraph concerning notable points illustrated by Sylvia Lim and Steve Chia during their tenure as NCMPs may be considered as off-topic - in Chinese Wikipedia it may hamper an article's chance to get promoted as a GA, so I intend to omit this part in my translation.

Then, again, I would like to ask whether there are any Chinese translation for the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore - the problem is not being resolved last time. Hope this will not bother you, and feel free to reply about my doubt here. BTW, thanks for your previous advice and have a great 2015!--Spring Roll Conan ( Talk · Contributions ) 09:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks again for pointing out another mistake. I've updated the article. It's entirely up to you to decide what you think should or should not be in the Chinese Wikipedia article. Unfortunately, I am not aware of any official Chinese translation of the Constitution. Maybe you could ask the National Library if one has ever been produced (I doubt it). There seems to be an unofficial one on Baidu Baike at [1] but I don't know how complete or accurate it is. — SMUconlaw (talk) 12:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Baynham

Hello, Thanks for the photo of the Baynham Crest and other Baynham related links. I am researching the Baynham family history. Do have a specific interest in Baynham family history? Cheers, Alan Baynham — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baynhama (talk • contribs) 09:00, 16 November 2014

Hi, Alan (@Baynhama:). Actually, I can't remember working on anything Baynham-related. What specific articles or files are you referring to? It may be that I incidentally dealt with some files in the course of doing some administrative work at the Wikimedia Commons. In any case, I'm afraid I don't have a particular interest in the Baynham family. All the best for your research! — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I think you were referring to the fact that I renamed the file "File:Baynham arms, Saint Michael and All Angels, Mitcheldean, Gloucestershire, UK - 20100712.jpg". Yes, this was part of routine maintenance work at the Wikimedia Commons. You should get in touch with Lobsterthermidor, who created the article "Thomas Baynham" and who seems to have an interest in English genealogy and heraldry. — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the namecheck and thanks for your work on the file. That photo was taken before I invested in a tripod! Yes, Alan, I am interested in the Baynham family, chiefly for its associations with the Denys family of Gloucestershire. The 4th wife of Sir Walter Denys, son and heir of Maurice Denys (c. 1410–1466) of Gloucestershire was Alice Walwyn, who is depicted as one of the two wives of Thomas Baynham (died 1499/1500) on his monument in Micheldean Church. See File:BrassWivesOfThomasBaynhamMicheldean.jpg. Hope that helps. For any further discussion, contact me on my own talk page. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 18:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC))

User:Smuconlaw/By-elections in Singapore

Hello, Dr Jack Lee, I'm just bringing to your attention to the abovementioned draft. I would like to ask, are presidential by-elections (in the case a President cease to be one before the end of his term of office) provided by the law? If so, the subject of the draft should be "parliamentary/MP by-elections" instead of just "by-elections". If not, why? Thanks! HYH.124 (talk) 09:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The term by-election is generally used to refer only to elections held to fill vacancies arising in Parliament. For example, the Oxford English Dictionary defines the term as "[t]he choice of a parliamentary representative at a time other than that of a General Election" (emphasis added). But thanks for raising the issue. If it's appropriate, I may include some information about what happens when the President's term of office ends before an election is normally due. — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to improve list

Sorry for disturbing. If you have the time, you are hereby invited to improve the list of current Singapore MPs. The list is a "by-product" of the list of current Indian chief ministers. Feel free to decline the invitation if you are busy. Thank you! HYH.124 (talk) 16:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Vanguard building

I declined your speedy deletion request on the redirect Vanguard building on procedural grounds. However, I have nominated it for WP:Redirects for discussion, using the reason you gave in your request for deletion. There is a Redirects for Discussion tag on Vanguard building, which will take you to the site of the discussion, should you wish to elaborate further in the discussion. Thank you. Safiel (talk) 20:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks! — SMUconlaw (talk) 09:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Bailii template

Transferred discussion to "Template talk:Cite BAILII#Bailii template" and responded to it there. — SMUconlaw (talk) 09:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Tractatus de legibus et consuetudinibus regni Angliæ

Hello SMUconlaw! I just wanted to apologize for drudging up an old feud in the middle of your Reference Desk question. Hopefully the answers were nevertheless helpful, if you ignore the rest of it :) Adam Bishop (talk) 20:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, was that what it was all about? Yes, the answers were most helpful. Thanks! — SMUconlaw (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)