Talk:EToys.com

Original Research
A significant portion of this article appears to violate WP:COS. This appearance is due to one of the actors quoted in the article (Laser Haas) and a Wikipedia user of the same name have made significant contributions to the article. -- Silverhand Talk 16:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Effort to Cover up the Truth
It is imperative that the Truth not be hindered.

If it makes everyone happy, there is much corroborative evidence out there. such as www.wjfa.net/bk/etoys.html and more.

Also, if it serves the purpose, I can put the a statement up, affirming the items Testifying to such "under penalty of perjury"....as I have done many times before.

There is nothing on the report here as seems to have been edited by many parties, that is not Factual..

Please stick to the initial decision and keep the recent edit that is not mine, up there

The Truth should never be silenced

Laserhaas (talk) 19:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying your edits are not truthful. What I'm saying is that as a first person to the issue, it causes a conflict of interest.  That's the whole point behind WP:COS.  Have you actually read the policy?  Do you actually understand it?  I have to wonder, because your response leads me to believe you haven't read it or you don't understand it.  It's a matter of simply avoiding conflict of interest.  Further, the original RfD was concerning notability, not conflict of interest.  It was agreed the history behind eToys.com was notable and as such, it was kept.  I'm not debating that because I agree it is notable.  Please actually read and understand something before you reply.  If you don't understand, ask probing questions.  It'll prevent you from becoming a victim of the old addage "It's better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and prove it." -- Silverhand Talk 15:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Article cleanup
I removed most of the middle of the article, which was given over to an extended and extraneous discussion of the details of various lawsuits following on the failure of the original eToys enterprise. I did so for several reasons - first, the discussion was disproportionate to the article as a whole. Second, the material appears to have been entered by a participant in those proceedings, without concern for the guidance found at WP:COI. Third, the material appeared to be contrary to the principles of both WP:NPOV and WP:SOAPBOX. There may be other reasons to object to it as well, but those are all that come immediately to mind.

These edits restore the page to its approximate state prior to August 6, 2007. JohnInDC (talk) 16:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

You fail your own protocols
If you take notice of the edits and the issues they are what is.

Other persons have posted here and have been removed also.

If the very person who provided the documentation may not comment on the story, who can?

The power to edit or censor should not become abusive, lest you step upon the realm of facism.

At the same time, the haughty remarks and "ad hominem" attacks on foolishness does not bode well for character.

We have posted comments on other items, that are not our case, they have also seen removal,

To what end? Laserhaas (talk) 07:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Are these posts actual attempts at discussion of the article, or attempts at some kind of poetry? 71.63.15.156 (talk) 01:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

split off new article
This article appears to be about eToys.com - which warrants an article. However, Wiki has lost all of the historical facts regarding the original dot com company: eToys, Inc. I'm suggesting a separate article be made, and then hopefully there won't be incorrect cross editing. In fact, these two entities are entirely different legal entities. eToys.com merely has rights to operate under the eToys name, while eToys, Inc. is the original company that raised $8 Billion from stockholders during the internet bubble. The eToys, Inc. story needs to be recorded. If people (stockholders) don't learn from history, they are doomed to repeat it. Any other opinions? --Knowsetfree (talk) 20:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Needs expansion
The material from the last two sources above should be included in this article. The first may be covered enough as is. --Ronz (talk) 20:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * http://www.post-gazette.com/business/businessnews/2005/07/25/EToys-investors-claim-conflict-at-law-firm/stories/200507250210 - may be covered enough as is
 * http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/opinion/sunday/nocera-rigging-the-ipo-game.html
 * http://nypost.com/2013/09/19/7-5m-settlement-in-etoys-suit/

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on EToys.com. 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/20090303230337/http://www.thestandard.com:80/news/2008/05/29/where-are-they-now-etoys-com to http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/05/29/where-are-they-now-etoys-com

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on EToys.com. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thestandard.com:80/news/2008/05/29/where-are-they-now-etoys-com
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010130072000/http://www.etoys.com/ to http://www.etoys.com/

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) 17:31, 18 December 2016 (UTC)