User talk:Laserhaas

War of Edits

Thank you for experimenting with WikipediaNawlinWiki (talk) 17:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Laserhaas (talk) 13:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Currently there remains a War of Edit Worlds on Paul Traub related issues.

The protocols of Wiki - are well noted and should be adhered to (though I do find many "editors" guilty of haughtier - where there should be a Wiki SCHOOL of sorts that gives more balance minded consideration rather than simply a global framework of "I told you so/not to").

Bee that as it may - let it be known that I do not solicit people to assist here - as my click throughs on all websites show Wiki to be less than 1/20th of 1 percent; however - as it is a noble task for anyone to seek to halt manifest injustice I am open to pointing all article writers and editors in the right direction(s) for sourcing and research.

Finally, everyone that tries to help - seems to get as emotionally involved in "their" aspects - as I am - akin to righteous indignation (well founded for sure!). In order to best comply with Wiki it is Suggested that one KISS all items - allow the public to make their own conclusions from the FACTS (for if they are there reading the material it is due to their interest therein to begin with)...

eToys is a National issue with Global significance and the facts thereof are overwhelming and profuse they and their related Wiki's only need report on all the public documents that are already there!

Laserhaas (talk) 13:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found your website while researching Marc Dreier articles from the Wall Street Journal. Your links to all the court documents is a big help but some of the administrators opine that your site is a primary source since they link DIRECTLY to the Court Documents. That is confusing me. Please clarify and post here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paul_Traub

"I have established that the Petters Fraud website is a secondary source and is similar to the Court PACER record system, except it is available free of charge on the internet. PACER has only fee accessibility. IT IS AN INTERNET GOVERNMENT PUBLIC COURT DOCUMENT LIBRARY and should be considered a reliable source. It is an information site only. It is a meeting place for Government seeking information, and it it been verified that in fact, the United States Department of Justice downloads court documents due to the ease and convenience of the research. It is a warehouse/center for documented proof of court rulings. Paul Traub is of notability: He has a pattern in the Bankruptcy Court of affecting outcomes of stockholders, not simply eToys.com. His productivity is the reason Marc Dreier strategically moved Traub's boutique firm into his practice. Many other cases were retained at Dreier, LLP including Pillowtex, Inc. Bankruptcy, also of dubious note. He presently is now representing the Debtors having been referred to the Court in the NY Supreme Court Case by the former debtors' attorneys which is current, switching from creditors attorney in the lower courts' case. There is more than meets the eye here and if he is not moved back to the Marc Dreier page where he was originally born, then this page should remain as it will grow in facts. I have done a voluminous amount of research on this page, which has been broken, and the page should be retained in some format. In addition, Traub was ordered to disgorge $ 750,000 from his profits by the Judge in her 60-page opinion [1] on 10/4/05. It has been deleted twice by User:Mangojuice. The judge believed he had misrepresented the facts of his personal business. This person has legs, and should it should be reconsidered how to handle the salient facts on this page, not simply dump them; that is unfair. I say retain or move back to Dreier. Furtive admirer (talk) 22:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems appropriate to remind you of original research policy. This includes no synthesis from primary sources to create new conclusions - for example, that Traub "has a pattern" of something. Secondary source coverage is the main criterion for notability. Disembrangler (talk) 22:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you believe you've established the website is a secondary source, much less a reliable one. There's been pretty sound agreement, outside yourself, that the Petters website doesn't meet Wikipedia's criteria, especially for use on a biography. Regardless, what you're really saying is it gives you access to court documents and you want to include information located in those court documents; this means you're using not a secondary source that reported on the court documents, but a primary source, the court documents themselves. I'm not sure there's any other way to say this - stop trying to get around Wikipedia policies to serve your own agenda. If you'd like to work within the rules, then there are many editors that will be happy to help you. Have you ever read the essay WP:TIGERS? It might help explain things a bit. Shell babelfish 08:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)"

and: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Paul_Traub

"Delete While their are many sources about the cases, there appears to be a lack of sources about the actual subject. I doubt a proper article could be written and it seems that he'd be more appropriately mentioned in the articles of the companies when discussing their bankruptcy cases. There seems to be an awful lot of questing for truth going on here and its been a challenge to keep the article from becoming a coatrack for some supposed wrongs; I believe a lot of this is due to the lack of coverage for the subject outside of the courtroom. Shell babelfish 08:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep on some of his pages associations. notability The WSJ refers to him as "one of the biggest names in bankruptcy law" see: WSJ and Full WSJ article for free Basically of note it says, the Trustee said his deception was intentional; given his experience, he should have known better than withold paid personnel relationships. Ergo, he is quite notable, whether infamous in his field or not. Furtive admirer (talk) 17:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if you realize, but this is a discussion not a vote; you can add further thoughts to your original comments instead of adding several "keep" notes. You've also been asked quite a bit not to violate the BLP policy in regards to this subject and your continued need to state your opinion is becoming seriously problematic. Shell babelfish 17:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)"

Thanx 4 your assistance. Furtive admirer (talk) 18:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Ratigan

Hi, I'd like you to know why I've removed your recent addition to the Dylan Ratigan biography. For one, we don't simply post links at Wikipedia. If something is relevant to an article, we note it with appropriate weight in the article and reference it to a reliable source. Secondly, while your addition seems to be of a reliable source, your attempt to style it as reference #7 presented a formatting problem with the article. Thirdly and more importantly, it doesn't make sense, as footnotes are supposed to correspond to a particular statement in the article, a #7 ref at the bottom supporting a #7 footnoted statement in the article. If you'd like to add an appropriate statement relevant to Ratigan's bio, sourced to your reference, or if you would like to add that source to further bolster a statement already made in the article, you're welcome to do so.

Finally, these are encyclopedia articles, not blogs; don't sign your additions to article space, sign only your posts at talk pages. Guidelines on how to contribute to the encyclopedia can be accessed at Help:Contents. Abrazame (talk) 05:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Mathes

Your commentary there was interesting; though I didn't fully understand it. Did you work there? Daniel Christensen (talk) 18:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Your article submission has been declined, and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Richard.I.Fine was not created. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer, and please feel free to resubmit once the issues have been addressed. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! - Happysailor 21:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Richard.I.Fine concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Richard.I.Fine, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at AfC Richard.I.Fine (August 9)

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Richard.I.Fine.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! LionMans Account (talk) 16:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Richard.I.Fine concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Richard.I.Fine, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Richard.I.Fine

Hello Laserhaas. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Richard.I.Fine".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Richard.I.Fine}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Richard I. Fine

Hello, Laserhaas. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Richard I. Fine".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]