Happy editing

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Information icon
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Unfair dismissal into Unfair dismissal (Australia). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted ((copied)) template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 13:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I provided attribution on the talk page Jack4576 (talk) 16:30, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the correct way to do it. See the above instructions.— Diannaa (talk) 10:35, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your efforts in articles such as Comcare v Banerji, ASIC v Kobelt and others. Like many such articles they could be improved with more secondary sources, particularly law journals etc, but these take a while to come out which always makes it difficult for recent cases. Thought I would let you know of a minor issue with your use of the Cite AustLII template - the link to AustLII is automatically generated and the link= is meant to be used for an internal wikipedia article. Using it for a url was causing the template to malfunction. But its a minor issue and easily fixed. We appear to have common interests so I look forward to seeing more of your contributions. If you have any questions I am always happy to help. --Find bruce (talk) 07:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Find bruce, I greatly appreciate your feedback. Indeed it seems we do share similar interests; I look forward to contributing together on Wikipedia with you! Thanks again Jack4576 (talk) 10:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Australian legal system

Information icon
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Australian legal system a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Legal system of Australia. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moxy (talkcontribs) 13:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I attempted to move it without performing a cut and paste move; but it returned an error. For that reason a cut and paste move was necessary Jack4576 (talk) 13:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, a cut-and-paste move was not necessary. Please ask an administrator for help. See WP:Requested moves for instructions. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 13:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Necessary, as in unable to do it due to a bug or whatever. Not saying that the move was necessary. Relax. Jack4576 (talk) 14:46, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "bug". When you are unable to do this, you ask, preferably, an administrator, who has deletion rights, and thus is able to properly move the page over a redirect, to move it for you. Or, a WP:Page mover who can do a "round-robin" move, which is a less than ideal way to do it, but accepted by the community. I'm here because I had to clean up after you; your move threw flags that I patrol for. This incident is water under the bridge; all I'm asking is that you become aware of page-moving procedures and do it right the next time you run into this issue. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 16:43, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so I'm not just taking your word for it, are you able to point me out to a page detailing that cut & paste moves are flat out banned? Haven't come across that one. Such a rule isn't mentioned in the WP:Requested moves page you linked. Jack4576 (talk) 01:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Moving a page. The last sentence of the lead paragraph: "Do not move or rename a page by copying/pasting its content, because doing so fragments the edit history. Instead, please follow the instructions given below." Also Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Fixing cut-and-paste moves. – wbm1058 (talk) 03:21, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, appreciated Jack4576 (talk) 10:28, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MIMA v Haji Ibrahim moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, MIMA v Haji Ibrahim, is much too incomplete to remain published. It needs at least some information about the result of the case, (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the case was already on the page DGG, in the casebox. Jack4576 (talk) 04:31, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox is intended as as a summary of the article, not a replacement for it. The article on a related case was well done, so fix this similarly. DGG ( talk ) 10:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Scale of justice 2.svg
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Organized labour project

Thank you for joining the Organized Labour project. I've been a participant in the project since 2006 and am helping with a revival of it. As part this we are introducing a new membership system, which will help with communications among participants. This involves creating a membership file for each participant within your user space (you can see an example of my membership card here: User:Goldsztajn/WikiProjectCards/WikiProject Organized Labour). This system is already in operation within a number of wikiprojects (such as Women in Red and Medicine). You will not have to do anything, myself or someone else from the project will create the relevant file within your userspace. However, I am conscious that it is not polite to change an editor's user space without notice. If I don't hear from you in the negative, I will go ahead with making the change after the 18th of January. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Many thanks for supporting the project, in solidarity, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Close paraphrasing at Board of Bendigo Regional Institute of Technical and Further Education v Barclay

I was reviewing your recently created article about Bendigo v Barclay and note that it appears to closely paraphrase this source (see copyvio report as well). My understanding from reviewing the hosting website's copyright page is that this content is not free to reuse, and thus the paraphrasing appears to be a violation of our policies concerning the use of non-free content. If I'm mistaken about the underlying copyright governing the document on the AGS website do let me know, but otherwise please work to rewrite the article so that it is no longer a close paraphrase. signed, Rosguill talk 22:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clayton Utz page

Hi @jack4576

I'm from the communications team at Clayton Utz. We've seen that the article on our firm is somewhat out of date, and would like to update it with new information (such as deals, awards, clients, and community activities), properly sourced from third parties where possible. The guide to editing suggests that we work with a current editor to maintain its quality ie. NPOV and proper citations, rather than just going in and editing our own section as others seem to do. We saw that you have adopted the article, and wondered if we could work with you on ensuring the article is current and comprehensive.

I want to emphasise that this is not an exercise in trying to get the Controversies section removed, or otherwise to whitewash the article; we just think that we could help by providing more current information, backed by third party citations, and overall improving its quality.

kind regards

Clayton Utz Comms (talk) 06:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Clayton Utz Comms. You are welcome to make proposals to change the Clayton Utz article through its talk page. The guideline for Conflict of interest (COI) editing states that "COI editors should not edit affected articles directly, but should propose changes on article talk pages instead".
Additionally, Editors with a COI, including paid editors, are expected to disclose it whenever they seek to change an affected article's content. Anyone editing for pay must disclose who is paying them, who the client is, and any other relevant affiliation; this is a requirement of the Wikimedia Foundation.
I recommend looking closely at Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines, as well as the guidelines provided on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest
Personally I have no axe to grind with Clayton Utz. Any proposed contributions that provide current information, backed by third party citations, and overall improving the article's quality; will be welcomed by myself and no doubt the other editors of legal Wikipedia.
Kind regards Jack4576 (talk) 12:24, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Labour hire (European Union)

Hello, Jack4576. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Labour hire".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the ((db-afc)), ((db-draft)), or ((db-g13)) code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Allens Trust Breach

Why is the breach of trust by Powles considered "non-notable". It was a large amount of money, and involved several countries, and there are many newspaper reports and a book? Olivertownshend (talk) 04:17, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Olivertownshend lets have this discussion on the relevant article's talk page. Jack4576 (talk) 22:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:MIMA v Haji Ibrahim

Information icon
Hello, Jack4576. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:MIMA v Haji Ibrahim, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

Copyright problem icon Your edit to Appellant S395/2002 v MIMA has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 10:35, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa the material was not taken from Cornell's entry, the material comes from the Appellant S395/2002 case itself. The Cornell entry merely summarises the content quite well, and the wiki entry that I wrote based on that summary did NOT quote directly from the Cornell entry. Please do not randomly delete my entries in this way, please raise a discussion first on the talk page. Thank you. Jack4576 (talk) 11:05, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please provide me with a link that shows the case itself is in the public domain or compatibly licensed? Thanks.— Diannaa (talk) 11:13, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Diannaa The decision itself is a High Court of Australia case, Apex court cases fall within the Fair Use exception under US copyright law; and also within the 'Fair Dealing' exception under Australian copyright law. Here is a link to the decision: which as you can see is freely available on a publicly accessible database for all to access and republish(http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2003/71.html) Jack4576 (talk) 11:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Diannaa it angers me that this deletion of my entry occured without a discussion on the talk page first. The entry that I had made for S395 was carefully crafted for clarity, conciseness, and accuracy; and now that work has disappeared due to your use of admin privileges. I request a rollback. Jack4576 (talk) 11:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, it isn't relevant whether or not the case itself is in the public domain or licensed. What you deleted was my summary of that decision; which has an independent copyright status from both the original High Court entry; and the Cornell summary. (Which would be inevitably similar to my summary; as both are summaries of the same thing)Jack4576 (talk) 11:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Wikipedia does not allow prose under fair use. Short properly attributed quotations are allowed, but not material copied from your sources, unless the text is compatibly licensed or in the public domain. The Government of Australia does release some of their material under a Creative Commons license. Can you determine if that is the case here?
Please note that content that violates any copyrights is subject to immediate removal. The patrolling administrator is not required to discuss first. If you can prove that we are legally permitted to host this content, I will be happy to restore it. — Diannaa (talk) 11:51, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying that Diannaa. I have resolved the issue by re-stating the facts of the case whilst completely avoiding any prose used by the Cornell entry. High Court decisions aren't included within the Government of Australia's Creative Commons license, but is covered as an exception within Australia's Fair Dealing copyright law, and the US's Fair Use copyright law; as text from a decision of an apex court. Jack4576 (talk) 11:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has a very strict copyright policy, stricter in some ways than copyright law itself, because our fair use policy does not allow us to copy material from copyright sources when there's a freely licensed alternative available. In this case the freely licensed material is prose that we write ourselves.— Diannaa (talk) 12:01, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Australian Constitutional Law

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Australian Constitutional Law has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:18, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Scale of justice 2.svg
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dietrich v The Queen

Hey there, looks like you are an aussie lawyer also. Dietrich is up for removal from featured article - I have tried to make substantial cleanup etc to prevent this from happening. Did a lot of formatting, moving things about, expanding, and looking at other good case law articles on here to see how they were structured. If you fancy, would you take a look at Dietrich if/when you have time? Would love a second pair of eyes. Cheers. Such-change47 (talk) 13:41, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]