User talk:Mediterraneo

Thank you for visiting my page. Welcome!

Mediterraneo
I literally turned out the lights at Myerson & Kuhn and, if I remember correctly, we hung on until early 1990. Myerson then started/joined Myerson Cooper Stahl & Zelmanovitz, which shortly thereafter became Stahl & Zelmanovitz after Myerson was indicted, with many thanks to me! And I'd do it AGAIN! What a louse he was and probably still is -- he destroyed or at least disrupted hundreds of lives because of his respulsively huge ego (along with the rest of him).

I also had the honor of working with Mr. Kuhn who will always remain an outstanding gentleman to me.

Kathy

Incorporating new names into the Wiki
Hi Mediterraneo

I see you keep on writing about law firms. I do the same, and I want to share with you some trick learnt recently. We both create new articles, introducing new names (say John Smith) and notions. A good article should be incorporated into Wiki via a number of inbound and outbound links. We establish outbound links by ourselves and can see generated inbound links via "What links here" in the left table, if somebody else -ed John Smith before us. However, we can't check the whole Wiki for the name.

Here is the trick how to do so: Use google search -- "John Smith" site:en.wikipedia.org

You will see the list of both linked and unlinked uses of John Smith. If relevant and unlinked, you can convert these uses into inbound links. Try it, and you will see how many new inbound links you can create for your favorite articles. Sometimes, the subtle difference such as "&" or "and" can create a dead link.

Sorry, if this is info you already know. My aim is to write articles that are well-incorporated into the whole body of the text.

My recent article is The Partners by James B. Stewart. I also want to write about Double Billing by Cameron Stracher and Lions in the Street by Paul Hoffman.

Best regards, Lamro (talk) 09:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

New articles
Hi,

How is life in these tough days? I trust u r OK. I have added a couple of articles. I would appreciate if you take a look and expand them if possible.


 * Mudge Rose Guthrie Alexander & Ferdon - a now defunct white shoe law firm
 * Edward B. Burling - a name partner of Covington & Burling

BR, Lamro (talk) 10:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Perecman & Fanning
An article that you have been involved in editing, Perecman & Fanning, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Perecman & Fanning. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Eastlaw (talk) 03:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Hunton.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Hunton.gif. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Law firms of Hong Kong
Thanks for your comment. I'm ambiguous about whether it should be kept solely to firms based/HQ'ed in Hong Kong, since several law firms in the list are listed under different city categories, and Category:Law firms of Singapore also mostly includes overseas firms.

A solution could be to mimic Category:Law firms of the United States and Category:Foreign law firms with offices in the United States, and add a sub-category - Foreign law firms with offices in Hong Kong, or something similar. Would that work? Misterx2000 (talk) 16:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Whew, I did it (created the sub-category)..it wasn't easy!Misterx2000 (talk) 09:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Thelen.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Thelen.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Steptoe & Johnson (West Virginia)
definitely needs to merge into regular Steptoe. The WV firm is nn on its own, but deserves a mention in the discussion of the history of Steptoe. -- Y not? 19:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am pretty sure it is not a notable law firm. -- Y not? 00:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice work on law firms
Hi Mediterraneo, I just wanted to tell you thanks for the good job on Thelen LLP and the two Steptoe & Johnson articles. I disagree with Y (above) that the Steptoe & Johnson (West Virginia) should be merged and is non-notable itself. Both firms are on the NLJ 250 list, and I would assert that this fact alone would render them notable. Perhaps you should mention this point in the article.

BTW, I have to wonder if Thelen LLP will even still exist by this time next year...?

Cheers, Eastlaw (talk) 23:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * LOL, did I call this or what? Seriously though, I hope you are doing OK, wherever you are.  I, unfortunately, am still unemployed.  --Eastlaw (talk) 03:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Garrigues (law firm)
Hello, ciao! You recently deleted all the specialties for the above firm but did not provide a reason for doing so, nor a source for your revision. Can you elucidate? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The Thelen crisis
Hi Mediterraneo, sorry to hear about your friends at Thelen. Rumors have been swirling about layoffs/dissolutions at a number of firms. Here in New Jersey, there wasn't quite as much financial work going on as in NYC or Chicago, but the real estate bubble caused a growth in the legal market that has turned into a glut. So many lawyers, from solo practitioners to large firms, are losing money in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. The Fed is supposedly going to announce a rate cut today, but at this point, I doubt that it will be of any real help.

Carry on... --Eastlaw (talk) 16:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Steptoe & Johnson (West Virginia)
A tag has been placed on Steptoe & Johnson (West Virginia) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Bongomatic (talk) 08:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Mound Cotton Wollan & Greengrass
A tag has been placed on Mound Cotton Wollan & Greengrass requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. Alphageekpa (talk) 02:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

question...
Your edit summary here seems to indicate you started a new article by cutting and pasting material from an existing article. Have I got that right?

If so I am concerned that the name of the existing article isn't given -- so the revision history can't be checked. This is important for several reasons. For instance, if someone detects a copyright violation, and it turns out to be in material you cut and pasted, you could have innocently cut and pasted copyvio material someone else pinched. It is desirable to be able to determine who is violating copyrights, so they can be told to stop, and so their other contributions can be checked to see if they violated copyrights elsewhere.

Further, there is the issue of gfdl. We give up various rights under the gfdl. But one we keep is attribution. When material is cut and pasted, without saying where it comes from, the original contributors attribution is lost. Geo Swan (talk) 21:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I see you cut and pasted the material from the Shearman & Sterling article. Geo Swan (talk) 21:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Hunton.gif
File:Hunton.gif is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Hunton.gif. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:Hornbook -- a new WP:Law task force for the J.D. curriculum
Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 05:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Rogers & Wells question
As a legal journalist I'm grateful for all your hard work creating and improving law firm pages. I note the statement on the Rogers & Wells page that it had the second largest litigation team in New York after Simpson Thacher. Can you provide a source for that? Thanks, ravcasleygera

UPDATE: Hi, I've had a pootle about on The Lawyer's website and I can't find it, but if you could have a quick look after Thanksgiving it'd be great. Don't let it get in the way of the turkey sandwiches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravcasleygera (talk • contribs) 16:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Nomination of Shearman & Sterling pro bono work on behalf of Guantanamo detainees for deletion
A discussion has begun about whether the article Shearman & Sterling pro bono work on behalf of Guantanamo detainees, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Shearman & Sterling pro bono work on behalf of Guantanamo detainees until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.  brew crewer  (yada, yada) 17:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Otterbourg, Steindler, Houston & Rosen


The article Otterbourg, Steindler, Houston & Rosen has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Company fails WP:CORP

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mt king  (edits)  08:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Gleiss Lutz


A tag has been placed on Gleiss Lutz, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Mt king  (edits)  03:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Cuatrecasas


The article Cuatrecasas has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (companies) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back. Thank you,

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 00:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Gleiss Lutz


The article Gleiss Lutz has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (companies) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back. Thank you,

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mound Cotton Wollan & Greengrass


The article Mound Cotton Wollan & Greengrass has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (companies) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back. Thank you,

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Steptoe & Johnson PLLC


The article Steptoe & Johnson PLLC has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (companies) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back. Thank you,

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Bonelli Erede Pappalardo


The article Bonelli Erede Pappalardo has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (companies) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back. Thank you,

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 15:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Bonelli Erede Pappalardo for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bonelli Erede Pappalardo is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Bonelli Erede Pappalardo until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Page Sponsor
Good morning,

I hope you are doing well. I am looking for a sponsor to create a Wikipedia page for an Atlanta based law firm, Morgan & DiSalvo LLC. Based on your editing history, you seemed like a good candidate to inquire about this task. If you are willing to help me, I have a draft text I can send your way.

Please let me know.

Thanks,

Jennifer Jkoon.mmc (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Chiomenti Studio Legale


The article Chiomenti Studio Legale has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "nothing here to indicate how this might meet WP:NCORP – references are all routine coverage of its routine business."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:05, 6 December 2022 (UTC)