Talk:Greenberg & Lieberman

Entry

Every sentence is written to state relevant facts that are supported by reliable and impartial third party media sources. The fact that CNN and other reliable legal, tech and mainstream media is recognizing this firm as tops in the world in these diverse subject areas are, again, supported and devoid of fluff and puffery. I went through but most sentences are based of of the references in regard to merits of the firm and its people.

Every sentence goes on to cite a referenced fact in encyclopedic format, which was modeled after other notable law firms. Difference is that this entry actually takes great lengths to ad a citation for every paragraph which I believe makes this a better entry and informative on the subject. It is brief, gets to the basic notability and is done.

Finally, the people referenced are all notable to include a longtime US Representative and known top attorneys. As such, I respectfully find no compelling reason to maintain the tags unless something specific is pointed out to review. I have no doubt that the tags were placed in good faith, and hope this clears the matter up.Aardvark31 (talk) 20:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Only thing I see that probably might want to consider removing is the "pioneer" word in the intro. Other than that, article is good and references all check out and support the statements.Danprice19 (talk) 20:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Danprice19... Thanks for the comment. I took your suggestion and removed the fluff you cited. As original tag person failed to cite anything additional, the tags are removed and any new changes will be to make the article better as necessary. Thanks for the input! Aardvark31 (talk) 21:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Greenberg & Lieberman. 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/web/20111105043151/http://www.aplegal.com/civil_lit-papers/evan_k_aidman_plaintiff_vs_mark_s_nelson_d-b-a_lawoffices_of_mark_s_nelson.pdf to http://www.aplegal.com/civil_lit-papers/evan_k_aidman_plaintiff_vs_mark_s_nelson_d-b-a_lawoffices_of_mark_s_nelson.pdf
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120908093314/http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/california-northern-district-court/68539/amaretto-ranch-breedables-llc-v-ozimals-inc/summary/ to http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/california-northern-district-court/68539/amaretto-ranch-breedables-llc-v-ozimals-inc/summary/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:37, 23 October 2017 (UTC)