Talk:Paul Ceglia

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Comments[edit]

I know some will object, but I am going to be bold and create this page. This person is notable as defined by wikipedia in that he has been part of two separate newsworthy events. I need others to help improve it. I am sure it will go to AfD, so let's see what happens. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From what I understand I think that this is a notable person already and will only be more notable, since the big news a few days ago. Gary King (talk · scripts) 18:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV issue?[edit]

Currently the only commentary on the Facebook lawsuit is "Internet analyst Henry Blodget on April 12, 2011 called the evidence in the case 'breathtaking.'" That's not an accurate summary, esp. given Facebook's thorough point-by-point debunking of each piece of purported evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.136.127 (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you expect Facebook to say the evidence is good or bad? Of course they are going ot do as much as possible to dismiss or counter it. 173.171.122.78 (talk) 15:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the word 'breathtaking' as quoted here is a masterclass in ambiguity.82.69.54.207 (talk) 15:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't bring myself to remove the Blodget comment, but it was used in his headline, and the article itself seems less enthusiastic than the headline, which of course is common for headline comments, so i modified it to reflect its use in the headline. I added a brief comment about his switching legal teams, which seems notable. other recent court dealings seem to my eye routine court matters and not necessary to report here.(Mercurywoodrose)75.61.132.46 (talk) 16:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The same source is cited three times as if it were a different source/reference. Strange indeed.137.111.13.200 (talk) 03:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that the information that this original post is based - is from the Facebook paid team and not from court records. Looking past the media blitz intended to scare Mr. Ceglia away, the actual document and supporting emails strongly suggest that there is a real agreement for business sharing based on an investment. I believe, but do not have the document in hand, that the Mr. Zukerberg cannot change his ownership until the case is decided (in or out of court). Thus, I do not see ANY reason for the introduction of Mr. Ceglia as a felon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmay6811 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Thus, I do not see ANY reason for the introduction of Mr. Ceglia as a felon." -- allow me to explain. Your clearly pro-Ceglia bias has evidently blinded you to the fact that until his case is proved in court it remains nothing more than an allegation. Ceglia's prime claim to fame, aside from his claims re Facebook ownership, from which several lawyers/firms have walked away from -- quite surprising considering the billions of dollars they would presumably be in line to receive as Ceglia's counsel if Ceglia's claims pan out -- is his criminal record, which he himself credits as having been responsible indirectly for his "finding" the Facebook paperwork seven years after it was apparently signed off on. Quis separabit? 01:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Google bio blurb when searching his name, Paul Ceglia was educated at Harvard University. Is that true? 72.77.40.199 (talk) 14:25, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook[edit]

Hi all 103.135.88.109 (talk) 02:42, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ancestream[edit]

A new "Leader In Generational Storage" Family Tree SASS has appeared on ancestream.com, an domain name registered to a Paul Ceglia (excerpt below).

According to their website, security of the data "... includes 4 redundant backups of your digital memories, the last being an off-line storage underground, within a Faraday cage at 9,000 feet above sea level on the equator."

The only place I can find that is 9000 ft asl is in Ecuador. A genealogy researcher, Ron Arons, has warned that this service may not be reputable.

I do not have any independent knowledge or experience, except that I received a spam solicitation LinkedIn message that violates LinkedIn's terms of service on behalf of this company. Ancestream's terms of service do not include guarantees stated elsewhere on the website, instead the company "...reserves the right to suspend or terminate your access to the platform at its discretion... or for any other reason."

Excerpt from the Whois record:

Registrant Name: Paul  Ceglia
Registrant Organization: None
Registrant Street: 6366 brandy wine dr n   
Registrant City: margate
Registrant State/Province: FL
Registrant Postal Code: 33063

Samatva (talk) 00:52, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]