User talk:Lawrencewarwick

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for submitting an article to Wikipedia. Your submission has been reviewed and has been put on hold pending clarification or improvements from you or other editors. Please take a look and respond if possible. You can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Arthur Alan Wolk. If there is no response within twenty-four hours the request may be declined; if this happens feel free to continue to work on the article. You can resubmit it (by adding the text {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} to the top of the article) when you believe the concerns have been addressed. Thank you.  Chzz  ►  06:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips Chzz I believe all the concerns have been addressed and have resubmitted the article as suggested LEW (talk) 13:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Acceptance

Arthur Alan Wolk, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

• Please continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider

Thank you for helping Wikipedia! — Waterfox  22:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

11.03.2010 I am reverting or undoing the contribution by "Boo the puppy" from the Arthur Alan Wolk article because it has violated several Wikipedia policies about living persons: poorly sourced – self published sources (references from blogs), misuse of primary sources and disparaging (biased) content. The content added by “Boo the puppy” is contentious and reports a conflict Wolk is having with bloggers. Not appropriate for information about living persons. LEW (talk) 10:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• - Hi Lawrence, there is some discussion at the BLP noticeboard here that you may want to read/comment on regarding the Wolk BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 18:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Pic

Regarding this pic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ArthurWolksmile-2.jpg and the claim that Mr Wolk said you could use it . that is a weak claim of copyright. Issue one is to be sure of who owns the copyright, often this is the photographer but sometimes I have seen the political people do have pics taken and keep the copyright, so that is one and then the best is if the person that owns the picture uploads it them selves, but they can also contact WP:OTRS via email and state who they are and that they own the pic and that they release it under such and such a commons licence. Hope that helps, I see the pic in question is on Mr Wolks website with a copyright claim there. http://arthuralanwolk.com if you have a question, feel free to ask and if I can help I will or I will point you in the direction of someone that can. Off2riorob (talk) 18:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Arthur Wolk

I see that you have made several edits to articles about Arthur Alan Wolk. You should be aware of this recent lawsuit, where Wolk has requested IP addresses. As a defendant in the case you are writing about, and as a defendant in another case where Arthur Wolk has accused me of "inciting" people to write about the case, I request that you please do not write about this case without Arthur Wolk's permission. (For example, in this edit, you say that "it has been long established that internet content is a form of mass media". This contradicts what Arthur Wolk has said, and he could possibly sue you for calling him a liar and filing a frivolous lawsuit.) I make this request so that Arthur Wolk knows that if you write about this case, you do so against my wishes, and that I cannot be held legally responsible for anything you write. My apologies for this message. THF (talk) 15:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)