![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 5 November 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest and neutral point of view. |
I disagree with the edit that removed all discussion of Arthur Alan Wolk v. Walter Olson. This is a notable case that has been covered by many publications and is of a lot of importance to the Internet (including Wikipedia).[1] I have cited only notable ones, Reason (magazine), The Legal Intelligencer, and Philadelphia Business Journal.[2][3][4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boo the puppy (talk • contribs) 16:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand the primary sources rule. Why is it a "primary source" to cite to a court opinion that talks about Wolk but not a "primary source" to cite to a court decision that talks about Wolk? Off2riorob deleted my cited addition because it cited primary sources. When I applied consistency and deleted primary sources that were identical in kind to the primary sources rob deleted, he restored them. Boo the puppy (talk) 12:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
You said I can't quote a court case talking about Wolk because it's a primary source. The article currently quotes a court case that doesn't even mention Wolk. What's the difference? Boo the puppy (talk) 12:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I disagree that there is a "weight" problem with inclusion of material on this issue here. Perhaps it would need to be pared down a bit relative to "Boo the puppy's" preferred version, but it is plainly unreasonable to delete it altogether given the available coverage in reliable/secondary sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
This article is unencyclopedic. It reads like an autobiography. I recommend either deletion or extensive rewriting. At the moment all facts portray the subject in a very positive light, as if the presentation were designed for public relations. Of course we do not know who has been editing the article, but we can judge the results. Jehochman Talk 15:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Per the request here, which may or may not be authorized by the subject of the article, I would like to provide the following advice:
If you have problems with an article about you, Wikipedia is ready to help. Please see WP:OTRS for information about how to get help. Jehochman Talk 19:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Actually, Wolk has received substantial coverage on the front page of the January 5, 2000, USA Today. The article points out that he crashed his Grumman Panther warplane by hitting a fence and that the aviation lawyers discussed in the article typically collect 23% of defendant payments as contingency fees. An article on Wolk certainly meets Wikipedia notability standards, but requires a rewrite. Racepacket (talk) 07:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
The article reads like an info-mercial. I so no useful information in it whatever. The writer needs to buy commercial ad space! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.203.77 (talk) 15:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
There is an ongoing, newsworthy disputes that need to be addressed on the page. There appears to be an effort to sanitize the entry. Lets have a discusson on how to fairly to acknowledge the issue and link to the sources. This page has been used as attorney advertising and needs to be more encylopedic. comment added by user:sqrjn —Preceding undated comment added 20:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC).
What discussion? The discussion was whether the page should be deleted because its basically an advertisement for this attorney. I do not think Wikipedia should allow itself to be used as a marketing tool. Lawrencewarwick is a paid flack. The history and timestamps of edits for the creation of this page strongly suggests that Lawrencewarwick, Boothepuppy, and Off2roirob are a single person. There is no balance in the page, currently it is entirely positive without any mention of controversy. I believe a third-party review will likely be necessary. Please tell me why critical additions are not appropriate. Please tell me why links to primary court docs and blogs are to be avoided. user:sqrjn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.67.233.3 (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Added summary of reports from Courthousenews, Public Citizen, and Techdirt that Wolk's filed a new suit. Teaforthetillerman (talk) 01:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Seems like same IP address that previously tried to scrub this section of information about appellate case is now making additional noncompliant edits. Reverted. Teaforthetillerman (talk) 23:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Added: FWIW, IP address making these edits appears to be located around subject's office. Teaforthetillerman (talk) 23:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I am not trying to hide who I am. I represent Mr. Wolk and each time I visit this page I see that your editor's add more and more references to the lawsuit yet not one regarding the outcome. I added it, now you reversed it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.92.143 (talk) 23:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#http:.2F.2Fen.wikipedia.org.2Fwiki.2FArthur_Alan_Wolk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdegraff (talk • contribs) 01:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Arthur Alan Wolk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ((Sourcecheck))
).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Arthur Alan Wolk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
((dead link))
tag to http://mi.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.%5CFDCT%5CEMI%5C1998%5C19980915_0000106.EMI.htm/qxWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)