Talk:United States v. Scheinberg

Criminal Complaint; Civil Complaint
The article as currently written is inaccurate and fails to properly distinguish between the criminal indictment from the companion civil case (11 cv 2564). Furthermore, the indicment was handed up on March 10, 2011 not on April 15, 2011 as has been stated in the article and widely reported. Obviously a number of the people reporting on this matter didn't bother to actually read the indictment or the civil complaint. The indictment was simply unsealed on April 15th. Finally, despite what is being reported in some places, there are not currently criminal charges pending against Full Tilt, Absolute or PokerStars pursuant to the indictment. The criminal charges (at least for now) are limited to the named principals while various civil claims are being pursued against a number of companies (including Absolute, Full Tilt and PokerStars). As too often seems to happen on Wikipedia, there appears to be rush to be first rather than correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.84.57.45 (talk) 03:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing this out. I've fixed it somewhat I hope. -- Kendrick7talk 18:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Good work. I have got the regular people (Black Friday) redirects pointing here. Can you take care of the various possible US v Pokerstars redirects.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's not too serious as the number of mentions of PokerStars means both Google and Wikipedia search rank this article very high. I only made United States v. Scheinberg et al because some parser of the chat I was in assumed that the ending period wasn't a part of the link. -- Kendrick7talk 07:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Synthetic Infobox
Scandals don't yet have infoboxes. However, I attempted to model this one on the Rod Blagojevich corruption charges infobox detail. I was a bit surprised when all the infobox summary detail was deleted. Feedback would be appreciated.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You just repeated lists in the article, that were almost literally next to each other. That's not what infoboxes are for.  Also, this article is not about a "scandal". 2005 (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree that it's not a scandal. There's probably a law suit / criminal case template? -- Kendrick7talk 00:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I know that there is a Infobox SCOTUS case template. Maybe we can use something in here: Category:Court box templates.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have added Infobox United States District Court case because this case is pending before a U.S. District Court. The case citations are a little off at the moment since it hasn't been scheduled for trial yet.  Typically, the infobox is designed for cases that are scheduled for trial (so there is a docket number) or have been decided (so there is a case citation).  Due to the extraordinary pre-trial publicity for this case (giving it appropriate notability for Wikipedia), the indictment number is currently listed.  Once this is assigned a docket number, that number should be used in place of the "10 Cr. 336 (2011)" text. OCNative (talk) 20:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * , I see you have tinkered with the WP:LEAD. In some WP:FA reviews, I have been encouraged to have three paragraphs that summarize the article and a first paragraph that summarizes theses three paragraphs in a sense.  If we go with that style we can return to the more conventional format of all bold alternate names in the first paragraph.  What do you think?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm not one to sacrifice readability for style, but I've done a rewrite that's a little less dense which meets your suggestions. -- Kendrick7talk 19:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We are headed in the right direction.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

compare with Prohibition ?
how about adding a section or at least some links, that compare this action with the deplorable history of Prohibition? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.40.12.195 (talk) 00:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

prejudice!?
What prejudice? It is a good thing that online gaming sites accused of cooking their books know nothing about cooking wikipedia. (Stated with sarcasm.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.76.165 (talk) 19:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Where in the entire article does it say anything about prejudice?JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * My guess is this is referring to the "Basis for the Case" section, which pretty clearly violates NPOV by repeating the characterizations and spin of the defenders of online poker on such issues as whether the games were conducted in New York and whether the bank fraud allegations either required a person to be defrauded or sufficiently alleged one. 64.134.224.123 (talk) 20:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)