Talk:LegalMatch

message: 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)
replies: text: It's in the Forbes article (which can be read with a free account, like New York Times articles). It states '“theft and use of trade secrets,”'; my guess is that LegalMatch alleges mr. Wells took the trade secrets with him to CasePost and started recruiting their personnel. AFAIK in the US the court records containing their complaints are public, so perhaps they will pop up in google later.I was kind of tired when editing this, I guess that's why I typed CasePoint instead of CasePost a number of times. I restored the link to the joint press release on the CasePost site, that link is there is to 'prove' it was a joint press release. If it's too expansive, consider linking both versions on the same line. Tinus 20:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Stealing trade secrets"? 

message: If people are monitoring this article, they might want to keep a close eye towards , who has been removing references, adding POV, and adding (alleged) linkspam on other articles. Tinus 17:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing by 67.119.122.102 

message: This interesting press release was added, kind of a bad reference but still informational Tinus 01:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  News 

message: 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.
*It's not likely to be deleted. I proposed it for deletion and it got kept. I'd approve of a substantial rewrite, though, if you want to start on one. AndyJones 17:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is not neutral 

message: *Wikipedia is not censored:
**Someone deleted large chunks of material not flattering to LegalMatch. That's against the rules -- such changes need to be discussed on the talk page first, assuming the material is factual, which it was.
*Boalt Hall/Randy Wells:
**I temporarily deleted the following pending discussion on the talk page and editor consensus:
***”LegalMatch was started in a two-bedroom apartment in the outer Richmond section of San Francisco, California, by a legal graduate of Boalt Hall,  the (University of California, Berkeley School of Law).”
***”Randy Wells in turn has twice accepted disciplinary actions from the NASD in 2001 and 2002 where he lost his license, was prevented from having contact with other brokers and was fined a total of $30,000.”
:::I did not see the relevance of having this unnamed founder living in an apartment and having graduated from a top law school. I'm guessing it was Wells, but I don't know. 
:::Likewise, unless Wells was associated with LegalMatch at the time, I don't see how his prior problems with the NASD belong in the article if he's no longer with the company. (If he was with the company at the time, I think that information should stay and it should be spelled out that he was working at LegalMatch at the time.
*Redundant links:
**Unless they were to a specific archived news article, I removed most of the legalmatch.com links per WP:EL The typical approach is to use just one link to a company's home page.
*Other edit:
**I did some formatting and rewriting mostly to read more like Wikipedia's style. I don't think these edits should be controversial (other than maybe my grammar -- I'm no Boalt Hall graduate!) --A. B. 20:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My edits today -discussion 

message: It's against the rules to move or delete article talk page comments as has been done several times here. , , ,  See the following:
*Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines
*Wikipedia:Vandalism, especially the "Talk page vandalism" part of the "Types of vandalism" section:
::"Deleting the comments of other users from Talk pages other than your own, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc. is generally considered vandalism. Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long Talk page to a separate file and then remove the text from the main Talk page. The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where this policy does not itself prohibit the removal and archival of comments at the user's discretion." 
--A. B. 03:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do not delete or move around comments on this talk page 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Another censorship attempt; time to resurrect past deletions? 

message: I just removed these links from the LegalMatch article:
*http://www.amazon.com/LegalMatch/dp/B00006C0A2 -- Reviews of LegalMatch on Amazon.com:
**We occasionally link to reviews that have editorial supervision (such as a newspaper book review) but not to review sites where anyone can post a note and say whatever. It's the same as a forum where the information and opinions range widely in quality. There's just such a gap btween the stuff on a forum or review site and our own internal values of "No Original Research", "Veriability" and "Neutral Point of View".
*http://legalmatch.typepad.com -- LegalMatch Life - LegalMatch's Blog
**We dont't link to blogs normally. It's sort of a gray area here since the article is about Legal Match
**More importantly, LegalMatch already has links from their web site to their blog
*http://newspad.prweb.com/search.jsp?textQuery=LegalMatch&hitsPerPage=20 -- Recent LegalMatch Press Releases on PRWeb:
**LegalMatch already links to their press releases from their web site.
See the External Links Guideline for more on all of this. --A. B. (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merger w/ CasePost? 

message: Is this some ad? Well, it isn't NPOV! --MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 22:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ad?