This article was nominated for deletion on 21 October 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 22 January 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The CEO and founder of LegalMatch plead guilty in 2004 to the felony of illegally accessing into the voicemail system of a competitor. This event was reported in several new articles and blogs. The latest news article to reference this was in the San Francisco Business Times from the January 20, 2006 edition. Please see http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2006/01/23/newscolumn7.html?from_rss=1.
What is the source for the "stealing trade secrets" allegation? I've removed it temporarily. Note that I can't access the Forbes source. AndyJones 09:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
If people are monitoring this article, they might want to keep a close eye towards 67.119.122.102 ( talk · contribs), who has been removing references, adding POV, and adding (alleged) linkspam on other articles. Tinus 17:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
This interesting press release was added, kind of a bad reference but still informational Tinus 01:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
The majority of this article looks like self-promotion. Despite the newsworthiness of the company due to negative press, the article needs to be edited to comply with neutrality guidelines or deleted. Stanley, 19 June 2006.
Deleted several unsupported sentences that looked more like advertising as opposed to having an objective tone. Stanley, 24 October 2006
Somebody is deleting the news articles that made this article relevant in the first place. Reinstated articles. If the news related to this article is deleted so should the article. Stanley 11:31, 26 October 2006
This article is clearly not neutral. A user is continuously deleting any references to news that portrays the company in a negative light. If this article does not include the news that made this company notable in the first place, this article should be deleted. Stanley 13:56, 14 November 2006
As previously suggested and as partially edited recently, I suggest this article be made neutral and that the "non-neutral" article header be removed upon the completion of the rewrite. This article seems to have been originally created as a self promotion by the company. However upon researching LegalMatch online, the company seems worthy of being written about in a neutral way. Since this article's inception, there have been numerous edits that have been clearly biased for or against the company. Clearly there are people with strong opinions and interests in making this article sound good and bad. Given the history of LegalMatch, this is not surprising. I suggest that both biases be removed. A.B. has removed some biases that were written in favor of the company. I suggest removing biases against the company as well.
For example:
The section about LegalMatch vs. Pine Tree Legal should be removed. This section seems to be referring to a nominal lawsuit that never went anywhere. This settled lawsuit is not news worthy. Most companies listed have numerous such lawsuits. This section has clearly been added as a bias against LegalMatch. I propose that it be removed.
Fastdriving
07:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
—
Fastdriving (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
I agree that the topic of running Google ads triggered by competitor names is a topical legal issue. There should be an article about it. However, the Pine Tree lawsuit was immediately dismissed and so does not address the legality of this issue. I'm sure a search of other lawsuits will reveal many more relevant lawsuits on this topic. Specifically, lawsuits against the major search engines. And Pine Tree has little to do with LegalMatch as a company or what they do.
Fastdriving
21:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
—
Fastdriving (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
I agree with FastDriving - the article is not neutral. The sections on LegalMatch vs. Pine Tree Legal and LegalMatch vs Casepost should be removed / stay removed.
PlayNice 01:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC) Neutral means neutral. This page is not neutral. I know people enjoy talking trash instead of really being neutral and using excuses to justify continuing negativity. I'd rather see the negativity edited out completely and give people a truely neutral look at what the company does, instead of focused on old biases.
PlayNice
01:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
—
PlayNice (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
Thanks,
PlayNice
01:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
—
PlayNice (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
Thanks for agreeing to back off on the Pine Tree case. I really don’t understand the reasons to include that case. I think the Casepost litigation is debatable. It is an interesting side note to the company history; however I don't think it is relevant when describing LegalMatch and what they do. Negative, sure. Gossipy, you bet! Relevant... well, let's see what PlayNice and others have to say about that.
Fastdriving
08:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
—
Fastdriving (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
Hi everyone who is watching this page. I've just been catching myself up on the history of this article. It looks like it still needs someone to make it neutral and cleaning it up. And it looks like no one is stepping up, even though it seems everyone understands it needs to be revised. I don't mind giving it a shot, but only if I get some buy in from
A. B. or some other more frequent Wikipedia contributor that my changes will not be summarily reversed. I don't want to waste my time on something that will just be deleted without substantive comment or conversation. I promise to document in detail all my changes, and I don't even mind proposing revised language in the talk section. Just let me know if this is what I need to do to get buy in. Or someone else can step up and make this article more neutral. Or we can leave this article as is, notated as not neutral, but not allowing any new changes unless those changes are documented as relevant and new. Whatever you like... I just don't have the time to research deeply and end up without the satisfaction of seeing my work product having a full review. --
Fastdriving
(talk) 8 September 2008 (UTC)
—
Fastdriving (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
Hey everyone. I'm going to work on this article during the holidays as I'll have some time to do the appropriate research. I welcome any feedback if you think my language is biased one way or another. If you think a change goes too far one way or another, please move it to the discussion page so that it can be discussed and resolved instead of just removed. I hope that when I'm finished, we can use my edits as a neutral base and consider this article basically finished and remove the editor warnings.
I notice that there have been a number of revisions done in the last few months that are not supported and arguably biased. I'll do my best to clean them up. I'm going to be editing in the article since it looks like it's been changed significantly since the last time I reviewed it, and not all for the best. --
Fastdriving
(talk) 26 December 2008 (UTC)
—
Fastdriving (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
Well, it took me longer to get to this then I had hoped. However, I think I've cleaned up and provided citations for most of the article. Please let me know if I'm doing this correctly, and provide any relevant feedback. There are some more things to be done, but I want to see if anyone has any feedback on my latest revisions / citations before I do more.
Fastdriving
(talk) 19 April 2009 (UTC)
—
Fastdriving (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
I'm commenting on my removal of the LegalMatch v. Casepost section. This section was originally posted by Casepost during the heat of the litigation, and is intended to slander LegalMatch (which I think it does successfully).
However, the lawsuit was eventually settled amicably by both sides almost 4 years ago, and Casepost has since gone out of business. I'm confused why this post is still relevant in any way to what LegalMatch does as a business. That's why I removed it. K.L July 1 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenlamance ( talk • contribs) 23:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC) — Kenlamance ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
It's against the rules to move or delete article talk page comments as has been done several times here. [1], [2], [3], [4] See the following:
-- A. B. 03:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
67.119.122.102 ( talk • contribs) removed a link to the Dept. of Justice press relase announcing Shubov's indictment.
I see there have been extensive unilateral deletions made by pro-LegalMatch editors in the past; this reminds me that we need to go back through the article history (as was done with the talk page here) and resurrect undiscussed deletions. I had put this off, then the latest deletion reminded me this was needed.
I will try to get to this after Christmas (if I don't forget again -- fortunately today's deletion on my watchlist reminded me). -- A. B. (talk) 22:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I just removed these links from the LegalMatch article:
See the External Links Guideline for more on all of this. -- A. B. (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Much of the discussion here seems to focus on LegalMatch's relationship with CasePost. If you go to CasePost.com now, though, it seems to be a sockpuppet for LegalMatch -- you are directed to fill out some of the same forms as you would be on LM, and then you are actually forwarded to the LM website. Not sure what to make of that. Invisible Flying Mangoes ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC).
Is this some ad? Well, it isn't NPOV! -- MurderByDeadcopy "bang!" 22:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 21 October 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 22 January 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The CEO and founder of LegalMatch plead guilty in 2004 to the felony of illegally accessing into the voicemail system of a competitor. This event was reported in several new articles and blogs. The latest news article to reference this was in the San Francisco Business Times from the January 20, 2006 edition. Please see http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2006/01/23/newscolumn7.html?from_rss=1.
What is the source for the "stealing trade secrets" allegation? I've removed it temporarily. Note that I can't access the Forbes source. AndyJones 09:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
If people are monitoring this article, they might want to keep a close eye towards 67.119.122.102 ( talk · contribs), who has been removing references, adding POV, and adding (alleged) linkspam on other articles. Tinus 17:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
This interesting press release was added, kind of a bad reference but still informational Tinus 01:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
The majority of this article looks like self-promotion. Despite the newsworthiness of the company due to negative press, the article needs to be edited to comply with neutrality guidelines or deleted. Stanley, 19 June 2006.
Deleted several unsupported sentences that looked more like advertising as opposed to having an objective tone. Stanley, 24 October 2006
Somebody is deleting the news articles that made this article relevant in the first place. Reinstated articles. If the news related to this article is deleted so should the article. Stanley 11:31, 26 October 2006
This article is clearly not neutral. A user is continuously deleting any references to news that portrays the company in a negative light. If this article does not include the news that made this company notable in the first place, this article should be deleted. Stanley 13:56, 14 November 2006
As previously suggested and as partially edited recently, I suggest this article be made neutral and that the "non-neutral" article header be removed upon the completion of the rewrite. This article seems to have been originally created as a self promotion by the company. However upon researching LegalMatch online, the company seems worthy of being written about in a neutral way. Since this article's inception, there have been numerous edits that have been clearly biased for or against the company. Clearly there are people with strong opinions and interests in making this article sound good and bad. Given the history of LegalMatch, this is not surprising. I suggest that both biases be removed. A.B. has removed some biases that were written in favor of the company. I suggest removing biases against the company as well.
For example:
The section about LegalMatch vs. Pine Tree Legal should be removed. This section seems to be referring to a nominal lawsuit that never went anywhere. This settled lawsuit is not news worthy. Most companies listed have numerous such lawsuits. This section has clearly been added as a bias against LegalMatch. I propose that it be removed.
Fastdriving
07:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
—
Fastdriving (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
I agree that the topic of running Google ads triggered by competitor names is a topical legal issue. There should be an article about it. However, the Pine Tree lawsuit was immediately dismissed and so does not address the legality of this issue. I'm sure a search of other lawsuits will reveal many more relevant lawsuits on this topic. Specifically, lawsuits against the major search engines. And Pine Tree has little to do with LegalMatch as a company or what they do.
Fastdriving
21:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
—
Fastdriving (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
I agree with FastDriving - the article is not neutral. The sections on LegalMatch vs. Pine Tree Legal and LegalMatch vs Casepost should be removed / stay removed.
PlayNice 01:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC) Neutral means neutral. This page is not neutral. I know people enjoy talking trash instead of really being neutral and using excuses to justify continuing negativity. I'd rather see the negativity edited out completely and give people a truely neutral look at what the company does, instead of focused on old biases.
PlayNice
01:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
—
PlayNice (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
Thanks,
PlayNice
01:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
—
PlayNice (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
Thanks for agreeing to back off on the Pine Tree case. I really don’t understand the reasons to include that case. I think the Casepost litigation is debatable. It is an interesting side note to the company history; however I don't think it is relevant when describing LegalMatch and what they do. Negative, sure. Gossipy, you bet! Relevant... well, let's see what PlayNice and others have to say about that.
Fastdriving
08:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
—
Fastdriving (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
Hi everyone who is watching this page. I've just been catching myself up on the history of this article. It looks like it still needs someone to make it neutral and cleaning it up. And it looks like no one is stepping up, even though it seems everyone understands it needs to be revised. I don't mind giving it a shot, but only if I get some buy in from
A. B. or some other more frequent Wikipedia contributor that my changes will not be summarily reversed. I don't want to waste my time on something that will just be deleted without substantive comment or conversation. I promise to document in detail all my changes, and I don't even mind proposing revised language in the talk section. Just let me know if this is what I need to do to get buy in. Or someone else can step up and make this article more neutral. Or we can leave this article as is, notated as not neutral, but not allowing any new changes unless those changes are documented as relevant and new. Whatever you like... I just don't have the time to research deeply and end up without the satisfaction of seeing my work product having a full review. --
Fastdriving
(talk) 8 September 2008 (UTC)
—
Fastdriving (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
Hey everyone. I'm going to work on this article during the holidays as I'll have some time to do the appropriate research. I welcome any feedback if you think my language is biased one way or another. If you think a change goes too far one way or another, please move it to the discussion page so that it can be discussed and resolved instead of just removed. I hope that when I'm finished, we can use my edits as a neutral base and consider this article basically finished and remove the editor warnings.
I notice that there have been a number of revisions done in the last few months that are not supported and arguably biased. I'll do my best to clean them up. I'm going to be editing in the article since it looks like it's been changed significantly since the last time I reviewed it, and not all for the best. --
Fastdriving
(talk) 26 December 2008 (UTC)
—
Fastdriving (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
Well, it took me longer to get to this then I had hoped. However, I think I've cleaned up and provided citations for most of the article. Please let me know if I'm doing this correctly, and provide any relevant feedback. There are some more things to be done, but I want to see if anyone has any feedback on my latest revisions / citations before I do more.
Fastdriving
(talk) 19 April 2009 (UTC)
—
Fastdriving (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
I'm commenting on my removal of the LegalMatch v. Casepost section. This section was originally posted by Casepost during the heat of the litigation, and is intended to slander LegalMatch (which I think it does successfully).
However, the lawsuit was eventually settled amicably by both sides almost 4 years ago, and Casepost has since gone out of business. I'm confused why this post is still relevant in any way to what LegalMatch does as a business. That's why I removed it. K.L July 1 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenlamance ( talk • contribs) 23:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC) — Kenlamance ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
It's against the rules to move or delete article talk page comments as has been done several times here. [1], [2], [3], [4] See the following:
-- A. B. 03:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
67.119.122.102 ( talk • contribs) removed a link to the Dept. of Justice press relase announcing Shubov's indictment.
I see there have been extensive unilateral deletions made by pro-LegalMatch editors in the past; this reminds me that we need to go back through the article history (as was done with the talk page here) and resurrect undiscussed deletions. I had put this off, then the latest deletion reminded me this was needed.
I will try to get to this after Christmas (if I don't forget again -- fortunately today's deletion on my watchlist reminded me). -- A. B. (talk) 22:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I just removed these links from the LegalMatch article:
See the External Links Guideline for more on all of this. -- A. B. (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Much of the discussion here seems to focus on LegalMatch's relationship with CasePost. If you go to CasePost.com now, though, it seems to be a sockpuppet for LegalMatch -- you are directed to fill out some of the same forms as you would be on LM, and then you are actually forwarded to the LM website. Not sure what to make of that. Invisible Flying Mangoes ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC).
Is this some ad? Well, it isn't NPOV! -- MurderByDeadcopy "bang!" 22:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)