User talk:Lawbookwriter

Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to Template:Clist defamation. When you were adding content to the page, you added duplicate arguments to a template which can cause issues with how the template is rendered. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find these errors as they will display in yellow at the top of the page. Thanks. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 15:10, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Template:Clist defamation, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 14:43, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

It was a typo - meant to be the Defamation Act 2013, instead of 1996 - hope that makes sense. They're different Acts. --Lawbookwriter (talk) 15:15, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

You did it again?! What is so hard about using WP:PREVIEW?! Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 15:31, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I see what you mean - no problem. Lawbookwriter (talk) 16:09, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Lawbookwriter. Thank you for your work on Marc Rich & Co AG v Bishop Rock Marine Co Ltd. Another editor, Mariamnei, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for your work on this article. Unfortunately, it is not yet ready for main space. Please add sources - primarily secondary sources - and footnotes to back up each claim. Please also establish notability as per WP:GNG. I will be moving it to draft. Please feel free to republish once it meets the above criteria. Thanks and have a great day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Mariamnei}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Mariamnei (talk) 12:00, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Added another reference - for future the case citation is also a reference, namely [1995] UKHL 4, and [1996] AC 211 - hope that makes sense. Lawbookwriter (talk) 12:07, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Lawbookwriter. Thank you for your work on D v East Berkshire Community Health NHS Trust. Another editor, Mariamnei, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for your work on this article. Unfortunately, it is not yet ready for main space. Please show secondary coverage and establish notability as per WP:GNG. I will be moving it to draft. Please feel free to republish once it meets the above criteria. Thanks and have a wonderful day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Mariamnei}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Mariamnei (talk) 12:28, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Lawbookwriter. Thank you for your work on Rees v Darlington Memorial Hospital. Another editor, Mariamnei, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for your work on this article. Unfortunately, it is not yet ready for main space. Please show secondary coverage and establish notability as per WP:GNG. I will be moving it to draft. Please feel free to republish once it meets the above criteria. Thanks and have a wonderful day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Mariamnei}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Mariamnei (talk) 12:30, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Lawbookwriter. Thank you for your work on Allied Maples v Simmons & Simmons. Another editor, Mariamnei, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for your work on this article. Unfortunately, it is not yet ready for main space. Please show secondary coverage and establish notability as per WP:GNG. I will be moving it to draft. Please feel free to republish once it meets the above criteria. Thanks and have a wonderful day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Mariamnei}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Mariamnei (talk) 12:14, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Lawbookwriter. Thank you for your work on Ministry of Defence v AB. Another editor, Mariamnei, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for your work on this article. Please add more sources - primarily secondary sources - and establish notability as per WP:GNG. Thanks and have a great day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Mariamnei}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Mariamnei (talk) 12:16, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Lawbookwriter. Thank you for your work on Jobling v Associated Dairies Ltd. Another editor, Mariamnei, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for your work on this article. Please add more sources - primarily secondary sources - and establish notability as per WP:GNG. Thanks and have a great day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Mariamnei}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Mariamnei (talk) 12:18, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Lawbookwriter. Thank you for your work on Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw. Another editor, Mariamnei, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for your work on this article. Please add more sources - primarily secondary sources - and establish notability as per WP:GNG. Thanks and have a great day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Mariamnei}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Mariamnei (talk) 12:18, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

The page Jolley v Sutton LBC has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appeared to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appeared to be a direct copy from https://www.oxfordlawtrove.com/display/10.1093/he/9780198865117.001.0001/he-9780198865117. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition has been be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

It wasn't a copyright infringement though, was it? There was nothing cut and paste, and it was put into different words - if that's wrong, explain why. Instead of deleting the article, it's much easier to fix with a polite request. Lawbookwriter (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Pretty much everything in the article was identical to material found here. The edit was flagged by the CopyPatrol system. You can check the results from Turnitin by visiting the CopyPatrol report. In order to review the iThenticate report you will have to first log in to the CopyPatrol system. Go to https://copypatrol.wmcloud.org/en and log in, in the upper right corner. You will be asked to provide authorization at Meta for access to your account.

Next, go to your specific report by visiting this link: https://copypatrol.wmcloud.org/en?id=a1909d7e-de8c-4e4c-830f-4d22beb8d858. Click on the link to the iThenticate report, so that you can see what was found by the detection service. At this point you are asked to agree to the terms of use of the Turnitin people, who have kindly donated the use of this tool to Wikipedia. The overlapping content will be highlighted (the iThenticate report may take a while to load).— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:05, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

But I'm afraid that's simply not true. Look, I have the book in front of me, and the text I put in, which summarised (and shortens) the book. Here's the text:

Jolley v Sutton LBC [2000] 1 WLR 1082

Jolley, the plaintiff, was a 14 year old boy and with a friend was trying to repair a derelict boat that was abandoned on Sutton LBC land. The jack they were using to prop up the boat gave way. Boat collapsed onto Jolley. Sutton LBC conceded it was negligent in trying to not remove the boat. Court of Appeal held the damage was too remote. Falling through rotten planks on boat deck might be foreseeable but boat collapsing was not. House of Lords held a duty was owed.

Foreseeable that children would ‘meddle with the boat at the risk of some physical injury.’

And here is the Lunney and Oliphant text:

"A good example of the mdoern approach is Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council.... In this case the plaintiff 14-year-old boy and his friend were trying to repair a derlicit boat that had been abandoned on the defendant's land when the jack which they were using to prop up the boat gave way and the boat collapsed on the plaintiff. Although the defendant conceded that it had been negligent not to remove the boat, the Court of Appeal held that the damage was too remote. While physical injury by, say, falling through rotten plans on the boat's deck was foreseeable, the injury the boy suffered when the boat collapsed on him was not. However, the House of Lords disagreed, preferring the trial judge's broader characterisation of the risk created by the council's negligence as that children would 'meddle with the boat at the risk of some physical injury'.

So I fear your algorithm doesn't understand copyright law, or what it is to put something into one's own words. Can you please restore the page now? Lawbookwriter (talk) 23:42, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

The content in the deleted article was as follows:

Jolley, the plaintiff, was a 14 year old boy and with a friend was trying to repair a derelict boat that was abandoned on Sutton LBC land. The jack they were using to prop up the boat gave way. Boat collapsed onto Jolley. Sutton LBC conceded it was negligent in trying to not remove the boat.

The Court of Appeal held the damage was too remote. Falling through rotten planks on boat deck might be foreseeable but boat collapsing was not.

The House of Lords held a duty was owed. It was foreseeable that children would ‘meddle with the boat at the risk of some physical injury'.

The source says:

A good example of the mdoern approach is Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council.... In this case the plaintiff 14-year-old boy and his friend were trying to repair a derlicit boat that had been abandoned on the defendant's land when the jack which they were using to prop up the boat gave way and the boat collapsed on the plaintiff. Although the defendant conceded that it had been negligent not to remove the boat, the Court of Appeal held that the damage was too remote. While physical injury by, say, falling through rotten planks on the boat's deck was foreseeable, the injury the boy suffered when the boat collapsed on him was not. However, the House of Lords disagreed, preferring the trial judge's broader characterisation of the risk created by the council's negligence as that children would 'meddle with the boat at the risk of some physical injury'.

Overlapping content is shown in Bold. There's too much overlap; sorry but I can't restore it.— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:11, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

For heaven's sake. "Overlapping content" is not a copyright infringement, or remotely so. And it's not plagiarism because the source was referenced. You need to rethink this approach swiftly. And of course you can restore it. Lawbookwriter (talk) 00:28, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Your edit to Reeves v Metropolitan Police Commissioner 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 information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. 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) 15:14, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Can you please explain this? I'm sure there's no copyright problem again, Diannaa, but it seems you've reversed this? Lawbookwriter (talk) 15:46, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I didn't reverse it; I re-wrote the material in my own words. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Well thanks, that's helpful! I will take care to change the summaries, but appreciate you not deleting the pages. Lawbookwriter (talk) 21:18, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

How I handle each case varies depending on the complexity of the cleanup and the number of cases in the queue waiting to be checked, and each patroller will have a different threshold as to how much they are prepared to do to save an article. It only took a minute or two to re-word this particular violation. If an article can't be saved without a lot of work and a big time commitment on my part, I will be obligated to delete it. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:27, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Various Claimants v Barclays Bank plc. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing as a live article at this time because it has no sources and it is not clear why this subject is notable. I have converted it to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Orange sticker (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

@User:Orange sticker - Please read, and stop deleting if you're not prepared to do so. There is a leading casebook cited, and a report. These are referenced. This is a UK Supreme Court case. Lawbookwriter (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello Lawbookwriter! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Various Claimants v Wm Morrison Supermarkets plc, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted material from other websites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2020/12.html, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate your contributions, copying content from other websites is unlawful and against Wikipedia's copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are likely to lose their editing privileges.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

• Have the author release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License (CC BY-SA 4.0) by leaving a message explaining the details at Talk:Various Claimants v Wm Morrison Supermarkets plc and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-enwikimedia.org". Make sure they quote the exact page name, Various Claimants v Wm Morrison Supermarkets plc, in their email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If you hold the copyright to the work: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Various Claimants v Wm Morrison Supermarkets plc. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA), version 4.0", or that the work is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:Various Claimants v Wm Morrison Supermarkets plc with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.

It may also be necessary for the text to be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a template of the permissions letter the copyright holder is expected to send.

Otherwise, you may rewrite this article from scratch. If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Various Claimants v Wm Morrison Supermarkets plc saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Orange sticker (talk) 16:16, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Orange sticker (talk) 17:43, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi Lawbookwriter,

I was meaning to get in touch a few weeks ago regarding your edits, but only saw the other day that it's all ended up at ANI. ANI threads are known for being notoriously stressful, but I hope you aren't put off from contributing. In the ANI thread, I've pointed out that most (if not all) a few of the articles you've created pass the notability guidelines but do need better sourcing (and I'm happy to dig out some of that sourcing).

In terms of steps to improve sourcing, one potentially useful tip: once you reach 500 edits, you will be able to access The Wikipedia Library. This gives you access to a variety of academic databases. For the articles you are editing, there are lots of materials available on JSTOR (which has archives of the Cambridge Law Journal, the Modern Law Review and various other academic legal journals), HeinOnline, and the Cambridge University Press database (which has various law-related journals and monographs)—they're all accessible through TWL.

I'm happy to help with sourcing and improving the articles you've worked on, and have done a few bits and pieces. To avoid both sourcing and notability disputes, it's worth making sure you include multiple sources (and take a read of the general notability guidelines). Journal articles, non-trivial discussions in academic monographs are all worth including, as is significant judicial treatment later (a 'Significance' section is quite common for that). Lots of people use Wikipedia as a place to find that academic material too, so it's helpful for readers. If the case was reported on in the popular press, it's worth including those as citations too. I've added a couple of references to Various Claimants v Barclays Bank plc. Obviously, they're not going to be legally as interesting as, say, a proper legal source, but they're often useful for both establishing notability (i.e. the outcome of the case was interesting to the general public, not just some nerdy lawyers and academics). I'd also fully endorse the advice given on Jheald's talk page regarding sourcing and notability. It's worth noting that someone familiar with an area may grasp from context or prior knowledge why a page is notable, but other Wikipedians often don't know much about the subject area in question.

There's a bunch of other little things I'd suggest doing: it's really helpful to other editors to add edit summaries (takes a bit of getting used to), and to use a few more categories (particularly Category:High Court of Justice cases, Category:House of Lords cases, Category:Supreme Court of the United Kingdom cases, Category:Court of Appeal (England and Wales) cases). On categorisation, if there's a more specific category available, it's worth putting it there. For instance, Category:English vicarious liability case law is a subcategory of Category:English tort case law—it's better to put vicarious liability cases in the subcategory than the parent category. There's some prose style issues, but that's all fairly easy to fix.

As I said in the ANI thread, we need as many hands on deck to help, and if you are still keen on doing so, there are plenty of people willing to give you a helping hand. All the best. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:46, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, that's really appreciated. I'm just waiting for this ANI to be over. There are two issues, it seems:

• putting more references in - that's easy of course, if I'd been asked politely. But something editors don't understand is that a case citation is indeed a reference, and a secondary source. Yet unless it's put under a "reference" heading, it appears to be discounted.
• whether extracts of UK judgments violate copyright - and of course, we all know they don't, but some editors are unfamiliar, and from what I've seen, stubborn and refusing to listen.

So I hope it's over soon. Your suggestions are very welcome of course. Lawbookwriter (talk) 09:37, 16 April 2026 (UTC)