Talk:Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman

message: Is there a reason why the Misconduct section keeps getting removed? -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 17:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes: WP:indiscriminate, WP:weight, WP:soap. Also out of date and not encyclopedia worthy Antisoapbox (talk) 16:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

text: The sourcing is bad, too.  The entire article is a mess. THF (talk) 04:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Misconduct

message: Is there a reason that the additional information to this section is being removed? It comes directly from pillsburylaw.com.  Pillsbury Law Firm (talk) 16:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear other editor(s): can you please explain to us why the information we've added keeps on getting removed? It is factually correct, neutral, and simply adds more current information to the existing sections. The source of the information is  the firm's website. You can email any of the PR people at Pillsbury to discuss further, if you wish. We'd love to get your point of view, and reasons for these deletions. Thanks very much.  Pillsbury Law Firm (talk) 14:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for leaving the above message. Is the article now accurately reflecting what you consider to be the facts about your firm? If not then can I suggest that you leave detailed on this talk page detailing what you believe should be done and hope that someone not in the PR business will pick it up and edit the article. You may find this article on Wikipedia guidance for public relations professionals helpful. PeterEastern (talk) 08:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable work

message: Updating number of attorneys. Org's website as reference. Btnummers (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Factual update

message: I have just done a quick cleanup pass on this article. In particular, I have removed the obvious wp:peacock phrases, reworked the history section to read better and reordered the sections to give a more reasonable balance between their work and the layoffs/misconduct sections. I have also removed the 'advertising' banner. If anyone thinks that it was premature to removed the banner, then please put it back and add a note to the talk page saying what is required. PeterEastern (talk) 07:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup and removal of 'advertising' banner 

message: Added citations in the notable works and awards section and removed the "citations needed" box. Added links to relevant Wikipedia pages. Updated notable works and awards with recent content. 16:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Factual update

message: These two sections have been removed multiple times.  They are well cited and belong in this article.  Please refrain from editing these sections out.  24.254.141.241 (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Improper removal of Layoffs and Misconduct

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman. 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://archive.is/20130117130207/http://www.bankruptcymisconduct.com/site/content/view/65/89/ to http://www.bankruptcymisconduct.com/site/content/view/65/89/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Why is there nothing here about McDougal related work? Some of their work exonerated Bill Clinton. I hope someone with some knowledge around this can add some things in here. Kingturtle = (talk) 00:46, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  McDougal