User talk:Topoli-onpoli-canpoli

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Topoli-onpoli-canpoli! While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:

Limited quotation: You may only copy or translate a small portion of a source. Any direct quotations must be enclosed in double quotation marks (") and properly cited using an inline citation. More information is available on the non-free content page. To learn how to cite a source, see Help:Referencing for beginners.
Paraphrasing: Beyond limited quotations, you are required to put all information in your own words. Following the source's wording too closely can lead to copyright issues and is not permitted; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when paraphrasing, you must still cite your sources as appropriate.
Image use guidelines: In most scenarios, only freely licensed or public domain images may be used and these should be uploaded to our sister project, Wikimedia Commons. In some scenarios, non-freely copyrighted content can be used if they meet all ten of our non-free content criteria; Wikipedia:Plain and simple non-free content guide may help with determining a file's eligibility.
Copyrighted material donation: If you hold the copyright to the content you want to copy, or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license the text for publication here. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Copying and translation within Wikipedia: Wikipedia articles can be copied or translated, however they must have proper attribution in accordance with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. For translation, see Help:Translation § Licensing.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:26, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the guidance - Genuinely appreciated.. I've received conflicting wikipedia advice on the use of quotation marks. To be frank, from a legal standpoint a summary provided by multiple justices (which a supreme court a summary is) would not under normal circumstances call for pull quotes... The previous Wikipedia advice made less sense to me.. What you are saying seems more logical.

The block I am working on now is exclusively in the area of Canadian Supreme court decisions. All the information is in the public domain as they are the Chief Justice's published decisions in the Superior Court.

The challenge, of course is that "paraphrasing a judge" (especially a supreme court judge) skirts on the boundary of offering a legal opinion which is even more problematic... and something I would personally and professionally never do.

That said, I'm confident that (from a legal standpoint) what I'm doing falls well within the fair use as described by the Supreme Court of Canada

"Terms of use for sources cited in Supreme Court of Canada reasons for judgments (1998‐2016) "https://www.scc-csc.ca/judgments-jugements/archive-sources/1998-2016/terms-modalites/

If you still think the recent modifciations are offside from a wikipedia point, please let me know and I'll revert or delete them.

Cheers Topoli-onpoli-canpoli (talk) 21:04, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm bumping into your edits and messing things up... and making unnecessary work for both of us... my apologies

time to for me to take the rest of the day off

I've only done a few edits with summaries... and will opt for whatever you recommend...

Personally... I think it best to leave the summaries without quotations, or blockqotes or preambles like... the summary reads...or Justice Smith Observed... Its all a bit too lyrical for a legal citation.

That was a legacy bad advice I got earlier from an editor with even less experience than I... and no longer going to do that.

I think putting the summary in as-is but using an inline citation is probably the best route.

Either way, I think putting an actual summary in there is genuinely important for accuracy... some of the other pages I looked at were very unclear as to what the final decisions made were.

Many were clearly biased or "judgmental of the judgements" ... While I may also personally disagree with some of the judgements... that doesn't alter what they actually are... and so I opted to drop in the official summary as it is (by definition) the findings of fact without prejudice.

Thank you for your patience Topoli-onpoli-canpoli (talk) 21:38, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Topoli-onpoli-canpoli. The summaries are copyright. The Government of Canada content, including Supreme Court material, is protected by copyright. Short quotations are allowed, but they need to be properly indicated as such. If you are going to copy the material unaltered, you will have to add either quotation marks or a block quote template. Otherwise you are in violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy and copyright law. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:52, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the guidance. Topoli-onpoli-canpoli (talk) 13:33, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Topoli-onpoli-canpoli. Thank you for your work on Kerr v Danier Leather Inc. 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 independent, secondary sources, and please establish WP:Note. I will be moving it to draft space. Please feel free to re-publish it 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) 14:27, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's been some improvement of the article since you moved it to draftspace - I'm reluctant to republish without you looking it over.

Topoli-onpoli-canpoli (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A cookie for you!

I see you're still working hard on that case page. Thanks! monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 16:30, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding references/citations to Supreme Court of Canada Cases

Hi Topoli-onpoli-canpoli. I noticed you have been adding references linking to the decision for Supreme Court of Canada decisions pages. This is useful and good work, thank you. However, in some pages you have removed references that use the Template:Cite CanLII (see: your edits on Peoples Department Stores Inc (Trustee of) v Wise). Generally, cite Canlii or other similar citations that incorporate the case citation are proper. First because there can be several cases with the same style of cause (name, e.g., RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) can refer to either a 1994 or 1995 SCC decision, or even lower court decisions). Secondly, the cite CanLII template links to decisions hosted on CanLII which is Canada's non-profit entity with a mandate to provide efficient and open online access to judicial decisions and legislative documents. Third, CanLII uses a method of resolving cases that creates permanent links, or at least links that can be adjusted if CanLII ever changes it's URL format. Fourth, CanLII hosts all Supreme Court of Canada reported decisions, where the Supreme Court website only hosts decisions published after 1970 (see the Official Languages Act decision). I encourage you to continue providing references to cases, but please do not remove or displace references using the cite CanLII template. Thanks - Caddyshack01 (talk) 20:36, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the guidance... I've seen your name crop up in many of the pages and know you to be very knowledgeable and greatly value your insight. To get my feet wet, I've been focusing on a very narrow area where I have some professional comfort (if not yet wikipedia comfort)

Your points are well taken... and my narrow area has been almost exclusively on Superior Court decisions and then only 2000 forward.

The two source points I've been using to double check for accuracy are the inset box (where citations can sometimes be found) as in the People's V case... which in this case shows " Citations 2004 SCC 68; [2004] 3 SCR 461"

And a secondary source https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Supreme_Court_of_Canada_cases_%28McLachlin_Court%29&wvprov=sticky-header

This source shows a similar citation [2004] 3 S.C.R. 461, 2004 SCC 68 ... although on this page some of the linkage was through a lexum intermediary process most of which worked... but some of which seemed to go through an archive.org/xyz123 protocol

So I felt I was on solid ground as far as nomenclature... My apologies for the over enthusiastic pulls.

That said, point taken

I can see that there seems to be some form of metacoding that allows for bulk changes... So Ill treat CanLi references as sacrosanct moving forward Topoli-onpoli-canpoli (talk) 21:17, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar for you!

		The Original Barnstar
		I wanted to leave a note - and a Barnstar - recognizing the work you have done on the Toronto City Council wards articles. I created many of these years ago and have all but given up trying to clean them up and writing consistent content across 25 pages. It is nice to see someone else has taken it up! —WildComet ^talk 04:41, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This really made my day - Thank you so much. You know more than anyone what a mess the 2018 Toronto Municipals were... the fact that so much was preserved is a testament to respected editors like yourself. I feel like I am making some incremental progress - I'm open to suggestions or recommendations - Although its a bit daunting, I was thinkng that a standardised municipal infobox would be worth working on ...both to future-proof it a bit, and also to help all the other municipalities in 2026.

Many thanks again Topoli-onpoli-canpoli (talk) 16:39, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Candidates in Toronto municipal elections has been nominated for deletion

Category:Candidates in Toronto municipal elections has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Bearcat (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note and the thoughts TBH, its an edge case and while it may come in handy, its not something I feel super strongly about. I'll drop in my thoughts, but will defer to the consensus Topoli-onpoli-canpoli (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for discussion of Template:Can con

Template:Can con has been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Dgp4004 (talk) 19:30, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

I created this as a user-space helper with a broader Canadian content and cultural-sensitivity intent. It doesn’t belong in Template space, and I’m fine with deletion. Topoli-onpoli-canpoli (talk) 20:17, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]