User talk:3rdEast
Citations[edit]
I have added one. Perhaps you could use the same format to add the others? Incidentally the link you gave didn't work, perhaps you can find a better one than the one I used. Rich Farmbrough, 13:10 10 October 2007 (GMT).
- I have added more citations. The "other user" removed only non-working links. Incidentally the citations I added are all web links, which is why they have [http://www.... - if you are citing a book or newspaper, you don't need the square brackets or, of course the "http://" . I'm sure the other editors of the page will help you if you have difficulties, they have not stopped you adding citations, in fact they have asked for them. Rich Farmbrough, 21:53 9 December 2007 (GMT).
Two points:
1. I am not sure why you would think that the Martindale listing is more up-to-date than the firm's own web site in listing the name and numbers of attorneys. I would think that the law firm's own web site would be the more current information. If you have some verifiable reason think differently let me know. You say the firm's web site is "obviously" under construction. What do you base that on?
2. Your accusation that my notation of the number of practitioners at the law firm (six according to its own web site) reflects "bias" is incorrect. Such an unfounded assertion may also violate wikipedia's civility standards. The comments are particularly inappropriate given the substantial efforts this editor has taken in the past year to eliminate blatant point-of-view (bordering on advertising) from this article and to ensure more balanced, encyclopedic content.Cbl62 (talk) 17:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
A) The site was not there until the last week or so. B) A law firm submits its information to said site upon any changes in its statis if they belong to the ABA. C) There was no reference that #'s was your bias. Your point of view centers on negativity and there's no use in pretending otherwise. Your most recent item makes it ever clearer your true agenda. If all the sites you "edit" are done in this same manner, shame on you. D) There was never advertising or intended advertising on this site. There was no PR of any type. E) Why you think your view of an article is the correct view is anyone's guess. If you think your ideas are balanced then I feel sorry for you. F) Don't bother to respond. There's no need to continue with this nonsense. User:3rdEast
PS There was no scandal!!!