Talk:Kendrick Moxon/Archive 1

Really well written article
Really well written article. I probably didn't head this up right. Just wanted to say it reads like a well-researched and -written piece of investigate journalism. Congratulations to all contributors in good faith! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.31.196 (talk) 05:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 04:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

My edits
My edits were reverted last night by cirt, without justification. The minor changes made were to unreferenced text and corrected inaccurate statements in the article. What rules were violated? Margaret&#39;s son (talk) 20:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * All info is cited, later in the article body text, per WP:LEADCITE. The rules that were violated were WP:NOR and WP:V. -- Cirt (talk) 20:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The references cited do you not support the claim of bankruptcy arising out of the "50 suits." CAN declared bankruptcy when it had a large judgment against it over $1,000,000 for the kidnaping and attempted deprogramming of Jason Scott. Margaret&#39;s son (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Wrong. The cited WP:RS secondary sources actually do confirm the stated info. See for example, the Pulitzer Prize-winning St. Petersburg Times, which reported, "There are also times when the Church of Scientology tries to distance itself from litigation that deeply involves the church's interests. A series of lawsuits -- 21 filed during a 17-month period from New York to California and a total of 50 suits in all -- eventually led to the bankruptcy of one of the church's harshest critics: the Cult Awareness Network." Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Update: Checkuser has ✅ the account as a sock of User:Shutterbug, and has blocked it accordingly. -- Cirt (talk) 20:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Promoted to GA Quality status
This article was reviewed and successfully promoted to WP:GA quality status. Review is at Talk:Kendrick Moxon/GA1. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Profoundly Obsolete
The entry here is badly out of date, it really needs to be updated with some of the more salient aspects of Moxon's biographical information divulged over the past 5 years, more so with the testimony of fellow crime bosses Marty Rathbun and Mike Rinder which can be tested and verified and meet encyclopedic citation standards.

Anyone watching the page, would you like to collaborate on an updating effort here? Damotclese (talk) 17:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Sure - it's on my watchlist, so as it gets edited, I'll automatically get reminded of it. What sources should we be looking at, and what's new? --Slashme (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I help. Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 21:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)