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)

From what I have gleaned from reading Arthur Alan Wolk v. Walter Olson, this lawsuit is very significant, has received media coverage and should be included in the biography. This is an article about Mr. Wolk and not about aviation law, so it is relevant to the article; just as Michael Vick's expertise is football, but his biography included his conviction for dog fighting. I would not consider any employee of Websketching.com to be an "uninvolved editor." Racepacket (talk) 18:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be adequately covered at the moment. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:02, 6 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)

A fair bit of this is also going over my head but I do have spidey sense and we can easy delete this, I would happily support deletion. Limited notability - subject previously objected to his portrayal on the internet - Off2riorob (talk) 18:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree deletion is the way to go. We don't need controversial articles about borderline notable people where litigants may potentially use the article as a battleground. See section below. The subject may wish for the article to be deleted -- if so, they are wise. Jehochman ^Talk 19:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Note to the subject or their lawyer

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)

Hmmm. I don't think he does. See Notability...only one event. -Digiphi (Talk) 03:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Info-mercial

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)

Internet Controversies

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).

The article was well discussed last year and pretty well balanced already thanks. Your additions all of them negative and critical of the living subject, were from people that have been involved in legal disputes with the subject and primary court docs and blogs - all to be avoided - feel free to present your desired additions here for discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 21:35, 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)

I assure you I am a singe person with no COI in any legal matters. My involvement in this article is only to defend the living subject in regards to wikipedia policy, primarily WP:BLP. One of your additions was very attacking, and completely against wikipedia policies and guidelines - you also appear to be editing from a legal company Laughlin, Fabio, Levy and Morespi - A force in workers compensation defense and clearly would easily be assumed to have a conflict of interest against this person. I am tempted to do a checkuser on you and BOO the puppy to check if the article creation and previous disruption originated from the same source. Reading the article and understanding Mr Wolks ability and desire to defend himself from attacks I imagine he would likely be unimpressed with such attacking additions from such a location, such as this one you added. Off2riorob (talk) 23:30, 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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304055941/http://federal-circuits.vlex.com/vid/wolk-v-ntsb-18137503 to http://federal-circuits.vlex.com/vid/wolk-v-ntsb-18137503

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724010859/http://www.padisciplinaryboard.org/pa_attorney_info.php?id=2091&pdcount=0 to http://www.padisciplinaryboard.org/pa_attorney_info.php?id=2091&pdcount=0
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101204141900/http://www.airlaw.com/verdicts.htm to http://www.airlaw.com/verdicts.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://mi.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.%5CFDCT%5CEMI%5C1998%5C19980915_0000106.EMI.htm/qx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110117180512/http://overlawyered.com/2007/04/arthur-alan-wolk-v-teledyne-industries-inc/ to http://overlawyered.com/2007/04/arthur-alan-wolk-v-teledyne-industries-inc
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101024010041/http://www.airlaw.com/bio_wolk.htm to http://www.airlaw.com/bio_wolk.htm

When 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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)