Talk:Stephen M. Cohen

message: Hello Bbb23 Tonight, I reversed your reversal of my contribution to the Stephen M. Cohen article. The source I used is the most recognized source for United States Federal Court Opinions used by every valid news source worldwide. Furthermore this article is directly on point in reference to the Cohen article.
Second, it is a very important case as it gives substantial rights to a third party of which a judgment creditor has tried to take an unlawful advantage as Kremen did in this specific case by going after Cohen's cousin Michael Joseph Cohen. Once the court issued its Summary Judgment is also granted the defendant the right to file a malicious Prosecution action under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This is the first case granting third party rights against a judgment creditor who filed a fraudulent complaint without any legal merit against an innocent third party.
With all due respect, why would you remove my contribution? If Wikipedia does not want editors that provide valid information then we as editors need to know so. Vanessamx (talk) 04:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Stephen M Cohen article

message: The article and the united States Court order issued by Judge Lucy Koh is not an editor's dispute and there is no bases for an editor's consensus unless:  1) The Court is not a valid court, 2) The Judge is not an Article 3 Judge under the United States Constitution; 4) The order is false and not issued by the Article 3 Judge, or 5) the Article's website FIND A CASE has been hijack and the order has been tampered with. Please remove your reversal as it has no merit in this specific case unless you believe one of the above is true.  If so, please state so. Vanessamx (talk) 04:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two problems with your edit. The first problem is technical: You signed your name in the article. This is not allowed. The second problem regards your sources. You are using the actual court document to back up your information. Such use of sources is flawed and falls under WP:PRIMARY source regulations. You must find newspapers or other media which report this decision. And don't forget not to sign your name in the main article when you edit again. I hope this helps. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 04:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

text: You are very welcome. Thank you for your patience. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 10:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pitching in, Dr. K. Vanessa, even assuming you find a reliable secondary source, you may have problems with the edit. My recollection is the material was somewhat tangential to the subject and could be problematic. I'm sure you disagree, which is fine, but that may mean we have to discuss this further to reach a WP:CONSENSUS as to whether the material should be included in the article. You're apparently new to Wikipedia, but generally we follow a procedure here called WP:BRD, which means that if an editor (you) adds material to an article and is reverted by another editor (me), you're not supposed to restore the material without discussing the matter. I'll, of course, wait to see what you come up with, but this process is sometimes frustrating, particularly for new editors, so I wanted to give you a heads up. Thanks for your understanding.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: In response to DR.K

message: WP:BRD
Forbes wrote an article about Kremen's Failure to prove Fraudulent Transfer between Stephen Michael Cohen and his cousin Michael Joseph Cohen:  {{cite web|url=http://www.forbes.com/sites/jayadkisson/2013/01/19/kremen/|title=Kremen's Failure to prove Fraudulent Transfer |publisher=Forbes |date=2013-1-19   It is time we as editors are able to correct the Stephen Cohen article. Vanessamx (talk) 04:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that article is usable -- though not for the text that you earlier added.  The judgment doesn't absolve Cohen of anything -- it simply says that Kremen has failed to provide enough evidence to justify continuation of the case and explains the issues that make such cases difficult in circumstances like this.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

text: It's not clear to me that the Forbes source verifies all of that text.  For instance, there is no mention of the California Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act.  I'd also want to know what passage of that source supports the assertion of the case's importance.  In any event, thanks for indicating your intentions here -- this is exactly how talk pages are meant to be used in deciding how to edit the articles.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

text: Please see WP:OR.  You are asserting that it is important, for certain reasons -- but what is needed is a good secondary source that asserts its importance.  Please also see WP:RS, and also WP:BLPPRIMARY.  And, to indicate sources on the talk page here, don't use the <ref> templates -- simply enclose the web address in square brackets: [ and ].  As things stand, I can't click on the links you are providing. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

text: You've reinserted the material and it won't wash. First, the source for the first sentence (summary judgment) is from a blog. It may be a Forbes blog but it's written by an attorney and it's written like an opinion piece. We can't use it as a reliable source. The sources for the second sentence are primary sources with copies of different opinions form the court. I'm reverting what you added, and I suggest you be a bit more careful. This idea that the "public is entitled to know" may be good for newspapers, but this is an encyclopedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

text: I have no idea why that means we should prefer your version over the previous one.  Please explain.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Open for discussion on a consensus

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Stephen M. Cohen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120621114356/http://www.wired.com:80/techbiz/media/news/1999/04/19140 to http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/1999/04/19140
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Stephen M. Cohen. 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://web.archive.org/20070203053552/http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov:80/ca9/newopinions.nsf/999D1D5B0D734B6088256D6D0078CB88/$file/0115899.pdf?openelement to http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/999D1D5B0D734B6088256D6D0078CB88/$file/0115899.pdf?openelement
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion