Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 02:38, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a look at the guide & done some editing as I could see it at this point. I've tried to follow roughly another article on a seminal Canadian legal case R v Dyment for heading/subheading clues--but it is a "stub" in need of expansion. I've tried to fully develop the case info & use OPOV language--though had some question re. the implications regarding "friction" in the court documents. There are only 3 primary sources for the R v Cole case. I made sure to include content from each of them as they led to the 2011 Court of Appeals case. --jhengstler(talk) 05:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have been confused by some early edits AnUnnamedUser^{(open talk page)} placed on the page I created R v Cole (2011). In particular, changing a "background" heading to "context" when Canadian legal articles such as R v Dyment use the heading "Background" and not "Context". In addition, phrases/words such as "high school" and "grade 9" were hyperlinked. I could not understand the necessity for those edits given the content of the article or the context of those phrases. When I visited AnUnnamedUser's contribution page, the contributions seemed more focused on Wikipedia editing vs other content specific page edits related to Canadian legal cases or privacy/technology law.

Later I saw the October 2019 message posted by AnUnnamedUser about following the style guide and went back into the existing content at R v Cole (2011) to try and bring it into better alignment with the guide.

As a note, I had a deadline to post for our Arts +Feminism event today so the content could be counted in our dashboard. I released R v Cole (2011) before I was completely prepared--but committed to quick revision. I needed to ask AnUnnamedUser to refrain from edits for about a day. Unfortunately, that did not seem to happen immediately and I experienced losing a series of edits when I went back in to the article due to concurrent editing by AnUnnamedUser --as well as my lack of knowledge in how to retain substantive edits in such a situation. As a result, I ended up posting rapid fire smaller edits in succession as a work around--so as not to lose content in further possible concurrent editing sessions --jhengstler(talk) 06:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tonight 10/22/19 I have invited a number of Canadian privacy/technology law experts from across Canada from retired police, to consultants, to academics and researchers to review R v Cole (2011) for content related to the legal case & invited them to edit and/or contribute. jhengstler(talk) 06:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:R v Cole (2011). Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 18:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I saw (and responded to) your comments on the Teahouse about the page now at Draft:R v Cole (2011). I am a rather experienced Wikipedia editor, as you cna see from my user page. While oi am not a lawyer, I have a continuing interest in legal topics and constitutional law, and have edited such articles as Near v. Minnesota, Fred W. Friendly, Clear and convincing evidence, Freedom of speech in the United States, Accessory (legal term), Actual malice, FCC fairness doctrine, First Amendment to the United States Constitution and quite qa few others. I would like to work with you on this draft, and try to get it back to mainspace promptly. Would you be interested in my assistance? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:10, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely would! This is a learning experience for me-- moving content from my "academic" type of writing of original content into a more "Wikified" version & leveling up from an editor of others' Wikipedia articles. I am intending to blog about the experience--would give you a preview & discuss subsequent posts (you could coauthor if you want) on my blog. Just posting the first blog post on the experience now. Not sure how this may affect the initial materials I posted--but am clearly noting on my blog that any content there--was posted in a Wikipedia page draft first and any of the content is entirely authorized by me for Wikipedia use. jhengstler(talk) 20:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there are significant differences. I come out of a somewhat academic background myself -- my father was a college professor and researcher (as is my brother), and I co-authored a couple of papers with him. My maternal grandfather was also a college professor, and my mother was an officer and journal editor for an undergrad honor society in Biology. I was chair of an ACM special interest group and proceedings editor at two specialized conferences in computer science.

The biggest difference is that an academic expects statements of conclusions (not facts0 to be taken based on his or her reputation as an academic, while Wikipedia demands sources and forbids any opinion in Wikipedia's own voice, requiring that all opinions be attributed and cited to a reliable source.

I saw your note about consulting people with expert knowledge of the topic. That is good, but remember that experts tend to have and express opinions, while here you need them to provide you with secondary sources that express opnions which can be cited, not their own unless they are published.

I would love to review your blog entry. Note that authorized for Wikipedia use is almost meanignless. Unless text is released under a free license such that it is authorized for anyone to reuse anywhere for any purpose without fee, it is not acceptable for Wikipedia use. The preferred license is CC-BY or CC-BY-SA. Please do post here or email me the address/url of your blog if you would like me to look at it. Of course the blog should not be linked or cited in an article unless you are a known expert. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

__________ Great! & thanks for the heads up re. content licensing. I think I've corrected that in the blog--thanks to you. Blog post is currently live at https://jhengstler.wordpress.com/2019/10/23/r-v-cole-2011-creating-a-wikipedia-page/ Wasn't intending to link to blog in Wikipedia page at all--though may link blog posts to Wikipedia page if it get's "live" again--Thinking that the name should be changed as well to R v Cole as there is an additional case to add R v Cole (2012, SCC) http://canlii.ca/t/ft969. That case upheld the exclusionary order of the ON Court of Appeal for essentially the same reasoning as ONCJ, ONSC & ONCA deicisions. jhengstler(talk) 21:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I just read your blog entry and found it interesting. Personally I would be even more interested in more details of your rection to the Wikipedia process and Wikipedians. FYI I have participated in a number of edit-a-thons in the Washington DC are, most recently Wikipedia:Ada Lovelace Day Edit-a-thon at Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum (AWHI)

Were you aware that you can link directly to any version of any page on wikipedia, or to the changes made by any edit? For exaple, the first version of the R v Cole (2011) page is here the version after a number of edits by "AnUnnamedUser" is here and a recent version is [1] These are permanent links: unless the page is deleted totally they will always go to the correct version of the page, no matter where it may be "moved" (renamed) in future. This could save some space in your blog entries if you want to link to differing versions rather than copy them in full. You can also show the difference between any two versions of a page. For example the changes made by "AnUnnamedUser" with his or her first group of edits are here such links to "Diffs" are also permanent. To get a perm-link to a version, use View history on the article, select the version of interst and click it, and simply copy the url from the browser's address bar. To get a diff, again use veiw history, click the radio button next to the first version you want to compare, then the right-hand radio btn next to the 2nd version, and click "compare selected revisions" at the bottom or top of the page. Help:Diff can show you more about this. i hope this is helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that it is perfectly acceptable to link to Wikipedia pages in Draft space, or to old versions of pages. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:06, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jhengstler#Draft%3AR_v_Cole_%282011%29 Hello, David! Thank you for helping me out. I heartily approve the edits--can you publish when ready! Appreciatively, Julia jhengstler(talk) 20:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jhengstler. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "R v Cole".

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 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! JMHamo (talk) 10:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]