Talk:Robert L. FitzPatrick/Archives/2012

Untitled
I'm currently re-writing the article, adding list of books, pamphlets that this individual has written. I will also be reading the how to improve the article and removing any bias (if any) that currently exists. In addition, please feel free to contact me on how to improve the article. Do I need to link to outside companies that reference this individual? I'm still working on the article at this time, so please provide me with extra time. - Marty2Hotty (7:23PM PST)
 * It is possible to place an tag at the top of the page to alert other users to the fact that the page is still being developed. Also, please sign your posts by adding   to the end of your posts (only on talk pages). — This, that, and the other (talk)  03:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I will add the underconstruction tag right now Marty2Hotty (talk) 03:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC) please let me know if there are any other additions needed. I am still working on editing the page.
 * Yes, this article needs a lot done to it. Primarily:
 * 1. Why is this person notable.
 * 2. Other references. You can't say yourself that he's notable, it needs some other reference that says that.
 * Hope this helps. peterl (talk) 03:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I am looking for more information and references. This is helpful. There have been many news stories that have featured this person as an "expert" in this field. I'm trying to find a way to incorporate this into the article. I noted that he has been featured on many of those shows. Would it be notable to link directly to a channel's website that had video interviews with this person? Let me know what part of the wording and what parts specifically needs work. Again, I'm currently working on the article and have updated it quite a bit so far. Marty2Hotty (talk) 03:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, not sufficient to link to (for example) CNN. You need the exact link that has his interview on it, so an independednt person can verify what the article says. That's the point of this - indepenedent verification of original source reference. peterl (talk) 04:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I can provide an exact link that has the interviews on them right after it is mentioned on the article. It is actually on the individual's website (falseprofits.com). Marty2Hotty (talk) 04:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

- peterl, how am I doing with the references now? Marty2Hotty (talk) 04:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

- I feel the 15+ legitimate external references are sufficient. However, I want to note that I am creating a section for media appearances this individual has made and wherever I can, there will be external links to these references. I am still working on this page and will be adding much more content throughout today (and this week). Marty2Hotty (talk) 18:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

- I have almost completed updating this article and will probably remove the under construction tag in a day or two. If there is anything that you feel needs to be added/edited/removed, please let me know and I will make the appropriate changes. If you do not mind me asking, do you work for wikipedia? Marty2Hotty (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Formatting and content
Ground Zero | t 04:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:HEAD: section titles are capitalized like ordinary sentences - only the first word and proper nouns are capitalized, not every word.
 * WP:MOSUNLINKDATES: dates are not normally linked
 * WP:NOT - the lists are way too long. The lists of media appearances and articles are simply not appropriate for an encyclopedia article.

- I'm making changes to the lists - including tables to hide all the media appearances. Thanks for the update. Marty2Hotty (talk) 04:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Stop reverting the edits that I have made that are consistent with Wikipedia style as I've explained above.

I do not think that the list belong here, even if they are hidden. This is not material that is appropriate for an for an encyclopedia. Ground Zero | t 13:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

- I apologize for making an edit over your wikipedia style. I was in the middle of an edit when it was conflicted with yours when this was done. I'm not sure what edits were made. As for the hidden links, I think they are appropriate because when this article was initially written, it was marked for speedy deletion due to lack of references. This provides users with indepedent verification and good sources for those that are interested in learning more about the subject matter. Marty2Hotty (talk) 18:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

It isn't "my Wikipedia style", it is the Wikipedia style. The Manual of Style and Wikipedia policies apply to all Wikipedia articles. I recommend that you familiarize yourself with the manual and with the policies so that your contributions are more consistent with how Wikipedia works and require less clean up work from other editors. I'll leave some links on your talk page to get you started. You can compare different versions of an article by clicking on the "History" tab at the top of the page, so if you inadvertently overwrite another editor's changes, you can check to see what they are and make them again. I understand that you want to add references, and that is good, but I disagree that the full list of media appearances and articles is appropriate because Wikipedia is not an indiscrimate collection of information. I will wait for other editors to comment, however. Ground Zero | t 16:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems to me this article has way more information and detail than is warranted. peterl (talk) 04:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Issues with the "Legal Trouble" section
The Legal Trouble section does not appear to be put together well. For example, it says "See external links", but it doesn't specify which external links it's referring to. So I found them anyway (they were the ones with no names) and clicked on them. They link to a long legal document in two different forms. However, the legal document doesn't seem to clearly back up the claim that Robert L. FitzPatrick took part in a short sell partnership with Barry Minkow.

The linked legal document does cite both FitzPatrick and Barry Minkow as defendants, yes. But the case is one of defamation. And this is a common tactic where, if a whistle-blower is actually making some progress against a particular company that looks to be a scam or a fraud, then that company will sue the whistle-blower for defamation.

So the poor technical quality of the "Legal Trouble" section and the fact that the claims it makes do not seem to actually be supported by the document it links to causes me to doubt that the section is accurate and fair. PragmaticallyWyrd (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)