WakelessGrub

Welcome!

Hello, WakelessGrub, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Nzolameso v City of Westminster. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! — Masum Ibn Musa  ^Conversation 03:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Consumer Rights Act 2015

I came across your article at new page patrol and got so into reading it I forgot I was supposed to be patrolling it. Good article, very informative - and watch-listed so I know my rights in future. Thanks, Bazj (talk) 08:31, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

For your sterling work on Supreme Court cases. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC).

2013, 2012 Judgments of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

I see that you removed notices from the bot identifying potential problems in these articles. You're perfectly free to remove such notices, however, when you remove them without comment it is difficult to understand why you removed them. It would be polite to add a quick note to explain your removal.

A likely reason for deletion is that you are aware the site you copied has a Creative Commons license. However, while that means you are free to reuse the material, two problems remain. The first is you haven't satisfy the conditions of the license which also happened to be conditions of Wikipedia. If you use material from another source which is appropriately licensed you must attribute it.

Second, I'm not familiar with the World Heritage Encyclopedia so I am not sure whether it qualifies as a reliable source. I did a quick check here and found nothing. If it is a reliable source we are fine except it should be appropriately referenced. If it is not you can use the text under the licensing provisions but you must then supply your own references to all of the included material.

I see that you are relatively new so please ask for help if you don't know how to address these issues.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that Rich Farmbrough is very experienced. I also know it is potentially dangerous to state with assurance what someone else was thinking, and I'll go out on a limb and speculate and asked Rich to clarify if I'm off-base.

I spend a modest amount of time at the copyright problems queue. It is very backlogged, and addressing some of the issues can be challenging. It is sometimes a relief to identify potential problem and see a simple solution. When one sees an article where the wording matches another site, and then one sees that the other site has a proper licensing statement (which the bot cannot pick up) an easy solution is to choose the templated response which is that there is a false positive due to the matching of licensed material. In a narrow sense, that's exactly correct. I picked this up at the copyright problems queue, and it appears there is no copyright problem, so I could mark it as resolved and move on.

However, I hadn't heard of that encyclopedia and that raised some red flags. I didn't look closely, but it seemed likely that they were scraping material from Wikipedia. That's perfectly fine, but we can't turn around and copy that material and make a new article. If that encyclopedia is copying from Wikipedia where is the original article?

It may be that there is some larger article with this information, and this article might be acceptable as a standalone excerpt of that article, but if that's the case, we need to build the linkage between the original Wikipedia article and this article.

At present, we seem to have an article in Wikipedia whose material came from an unidentified other article in Wikipedia (maybe) and the present article has no sourcing information and more importantly, no referencing. While that may not be a copyright problem per se, so out of the scope of the copyright problems queue, it is an issue that needs to be addressed and I'd like to see it cleaned up somehow.

(For Rich, you are pinged because your name arose on my talk page but I'm responding here to keep everything in one place.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I can understand the confusion. The pages (2012 and 2013) WG created were, presumably, blank (or rather, appropriately re-populated) copies of the 2014 page which I created. World Heritage Encyclopaedia had already scraped that, and CorenSearchBot found that page. I suppose ideally WG should have acknowledged in their first edit summary "Boilerplate text from ... " - but that's council of perfection (indeed I may have re-used the boilerplate myself). We should also tickle the false-positive page for CorenSearchBot, if I didn't at the time ( Done).

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC).

Note also I removed one notice, WG the other, hence the possible confusion there. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC).

Perhaps lessons learned for old and new Wikipedians alike! The introductory text to the 2012/13 pages are taken from the 2014 page to give a sense of consistency for the user but clearly CorenSearchBot has picked this up from the, somewhat dodgy, World Heritage Encyclopaedia that has lifted an old edit from RF. Thanks you both for your comments; an interesting discussion from the perspective of this noobie! WakelessGrub (talk) 15:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation Rich that makes sense.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited R v Jogee, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ITV. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, WakelessGrub. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:UKSC-caselist

Template:UKSC-caselist has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 15:56, 2 June 2019 (UTC)