Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:03, 5 November 2010

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for submitting an article to Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping Misplaced Pages! — 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 Misplaced Pages 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/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)

Shameless conflict of interest

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Arthur Alan Wolk, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
3. linking to the Misplaced Pages article or website of your organization in other articles (see Misplaced Pages:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Misplaced Pages when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't call knowing Arthur Wolk and asking for his permission to write an article a shameless conflict of interest but i will refrain from future edits now that experienced Misplaced Pages editors have taken an interest in this. LEW (talk) 18:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

With your most recent edit on that AfD, I would suggest that you refrain from posting further to the AfD itself, as required by WP:COI. If you would like to continue contributing to Misplaced Pages, there is no shortage of other articles to work on. best wishes, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind and polite tip I will follow your advice. 108.25.143.122 (talk) 20:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You allege that you merely know Mr. Wolk. You are aware, of course, that you announced that you have been hired by his firm to "redesign their corporate website and provide Internet marketing services," right? Are you being honest, here? Hipocrite (talk) 23:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Arthur Alan Wolk for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Arthur Alan Wolk, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Arthur Alan Wolk until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. SmartSE (talk) 14:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you're not invited to participate in that AfD, per WP:COI -- so please ignore this message from Smartse. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I would disagree with this last message and apply good faith and unless you are told by an administrator then please feel free to discuss and comment there. Off2riorob (talk) 14:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

This is way out of line -- the COI is acknowledged and obvious and the instructions given at WP:COI are quite clear on this matter. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Well I disagree, I suggest if you want to restrict this user from contributing that you get an uninvolved administrator to tell him . Off2riorob (talk) 14:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

You disagree with the requirements of WP:COI? Then take it up there and stop misleading people here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I still disagree that you are correct to attempt to restrict this contributor from posting at the AFD of an article he created. Off2riorob (talk) 14:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

All you need to do is to look at Hipocrite's post in the preceding section to understand why this is the right advice. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I still do not see a reason for you to restrict the user from posting in the AFD discussion of an article he created, as I said if you want to restrict him please get Administration to enact the restriction. Off2riorob (talk) 14:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe there is a better than average chance that the user is involved in some sort of agenda-driven editing which conflicts with Misplaced Pages's purpose of being a high-quality, online encyclopedia. The editor has focused exclusively on this article, and has not upheld WP:NPOV very well. This could be because they are a newbie, but I get the feeling that there is more to it than that. Most newbies will become active in a variety of articles and topics, given time. I hope Lawrencewarwick will do that. Consider this a gentle suggestion to diversify interests, and to let more experienced editors deal with this controversial article which involves sensitive WP:BLP and WP:COI concerns. You might have come here for the wrong reasons, as I did, but after being informed how things work, I hope you will see that there is a right way and a wrong way for a business to approach Misplaced Pages. As long as you heed this advice, you are welcome to edit. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Thank you. Jehochman 14:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I have disclosed my COI and have explained how I came to know Arthur Frank. I called him and asked if I could create a Misplaced Pages article and yes, on Oct 15 he hired my firm to work on his corporate website. I began the article on Oct 14 as an article for submission and after several rounds of edits it was accepted. I am new at Misplaced Pages and sorry if I did not adhere to every guideline, there are many and hard to find until you violate one then everyone surely tells you about it. I’ve been accused of not being honest but I plainly disclosed my relationship with Wolk. I never said “I merely know him” and of course I’m aware we are re-designing his website because I sold it to him. So the COI arose (shortly) after work began on the article and I disclosed that in good faith, how is that a “shameless conflict of interest” not disclosing the truth would have been? I wasn’t outed by the editors, I revealed who I am including my real name, but I feel I have taken a lot of abuse in the last few days and I have not edited anything in the mean time.I did become very aggressive when Boo the puppy got involved…that was a blatant attempt to discredit Wolk and I notified my partner Christine DeGraff who also got involved against my wishes. I have been concerned that some editors have an undisclosed COI and Boo was an obvious sockpuppet, also THF made some edits and later disclosed he has and/or is being sued by Wolk and everyone knows why. I did not want to defend myself but enough is enough; it is obvious some editors do not want Arthur Wolk on Misplaced Pages for what ever their reasons even though he is an obvious notable figure, more notable than many lawyers and authors on Misplaced Pages including Ted Frank and Walter Olson who have almost made a career out of trying to discredit him. Ted Frank has at least 2 blogs with articles about Wolk, Overlawyered and Pointoflaw.com and is an editor of Misplaced Pages. Finally Arthur Wolk does not object to unbiased and fair articles about him, but does object to people trying to smear his reputation as anyone would. This is the last I have to say. I will not participate in the discussion to remove the article but I hope some objective and fair minded editors stay involved.LEW (talk) 18:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)