Talk:Arthur Alan Wolk

Arthur Alan Wolk v. Walter Olson

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)

This was removed because it is a very minor issue the case was dismissed for not being filed within the statute of limitations law in Pennsylvania, it established no precident, has nothing to do with aviation law or air safety which Arthur Wolk is an expert in and which makes him a notable person and the whole section was taken from a blog by Jacob Sullum ... I also removed the section "Author" as a self published book about his dog is not notable. LEW (talk) 22:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

If you google Arthur Alan Wolk, six of the first ten results are about his libel lawsuits. This is an encyclopedia, not a brochure. Wolk's libel lawsuits are not a "very minor issue." Boo the puppy (talk) 12:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You are bloating a minor issue in an undue way, I will look to delete the legal case article , also please allow uninvolved editors to improve the article as your involvement in the issue is like a flashing beacon. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 12:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Primary sources

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)

Firstly, you should not make WP:POINT edits, secondly, it is ok to quote, in a limited way the primary claims published by a subject about themselves, although of course it would bew better if the claims were supported in an independent reliable source. See WP:SPS - Off2riorob (talk) 12:24, 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 haven't been over the article with a fine tooth comb. Off2riorob (talk) 12:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Then why do you revert my edits that remove primary sources? Boo the puppy (talk) 12:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:SPS are fine in a limited way, as I said above. Off2riorob (talk) 12:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You reverted an edit that deleted primary sources that didn't delete any SPS. Right now almost all of this article is SPS, and major secondary sources about Wolk were deleted. Isn't notability determined by what independent reliable sources think is notable rather than what Wolk thinks is notable? Boo the puppy (talk) 12:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The coverage in an undue way of your legal case was undue here, you have a link to it and we can see what to do later with that, the content is a minor libel case and undue reporting of it has an element of undue negative reporting. Off2riorob (talk) 12:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The content is several libel cases against dozens of defendants over several years. You seem to have deleted content you didn't read. What's negative about the Philadelphia Business Journal or The Legal Intelligencer? Boo the puppy (talk) 13:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Minor libel cases that you have created an article for, and there is a see also link, so that is alright for the time being, I don't see that there is an issue, the content is disputed in this bio for is weight its notability and as such is better in its own article. Look , lets wait for more input. Off2riorob (talk) 13:08, 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)

Autobiography

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)

I have no opinion on whether this is autobiography or public relations, but I relay the following facts: Christine deGraff says she represents Arthur Wolk and makes a legal threat regarding "posting information not relevant to Mr. Wolk's area of expertise." Ms. deGraff works for "Websketching." User:Lawrencewarwick also works for Websketching, but perhaps that's a coincidence. (My COI disclosure: Wolk has sued me. Twice. I hereby request that noone write about Arthur Wolk without Arthur Wolk's permission. If you do write about Arthur Wolk without his permission, you do so against my express wishes, and Arthur Wolk should not sue me a third time for "inciting" you to write about him.) THF (talk) 18:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)