Talk:Stephen Law

message: Something tells me that's not Stephen Law in the picture. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.87.52.61 (talk) 16:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The picture is a silhouette, lit from behind. This is typical of photos taken with cell phones.173.72.115.21 (talk) 14:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: Im sorry, but this article doesn't meet the standards of WP:WIAGA. There appear to be either no references, they only mention vaugly areas where Stephan might reside near, or they are in the external links section, which doesn't tell me or any other reader whether information is being used from those links in the article. The article also either does not seem to be broad or it is misfocused, I do not understand why those two books alone were chosen to summarize, or why the detailed explanations are not more approrpiate for separate articles; the list of chapters in the first one seems superfluous and I don't think i've ever seen articles list book chapters before. I also think that there must surely be more on Stephan's personal life than 2 sentences, and the introduction does not summarize the article since it does not mention the books, (which seem to make up most of the article's content), thusly failing the MoS and WP:LEAD. I also think a case could be made overall that the article doesn't even assert this person's notability; publishing books is all well and good for notability in some ways, but the article doesn't seem to show whether or not any of these books were ever popular or widely recognized for anything or by anyone. While that doesn't have to do with GA criteria, I think it's something important to note nonetheless. The article also seems to have several bits of odd POV insertion, most obviously in the book summary sections, with sentences like "The aim of the book is to expose the flawes in arguments calling for a return to authoritarian moral education, as well as to show that not all moral viewpoints are equal. A defense of the philosophically liberal life." It somewhat reads like an advertisement, and the statement that the book somehow exposes flaws in arguments either needs a citation or I don't see why it isn't just random POV insertion. I'm afraid I just can't see a case for this to be a good article in its present state. Homestarmy 07:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA status

message: Just a request that someone whould mention the incident when he was 17 when he fell 60 feet onto his head. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.92.67.74 (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Falling 60 feet 

message: :Image:Philosophygym.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 14:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Philosophygym.jpg

message: See http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/02/10/help_im_a_british_philosophy_professor_with_the_same_name_as_a_burmese_heroin_ki -- AnonMoos (talk) 16:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Burmese sanctions watchlist problem