Talk:Rigsby sisters
 | Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
 | The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
 | This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
POV
editJudge Senter entered an order in August 2009 which found substantial evidence of false claims activity on the part of State Farm to merit discovery and a jury trial. The sisters will finally get their (and the United State's taxpayers) their well deserved day in court.
http://slabbed.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/senter-order-qui-tam-going-to-trial.pdf
This article is an entirely one-sided ad for the Scruggs law firm, and there is no discussion of the order to show cause why the Rigsby Sisters should not be held in contempt for violating a court order regarding documents they illegally stole.[1][2] -- TedFrank 23:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- What about the illegal activity exposed by the documents? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.60.0.169 (talk • contribs)
- You have got to be joking. This is basically a parrot of the website that Dickie Scruggs put up to make his case look legitimate. I think everyone would agree that the criminal contempt charges against him speak for themselves. The above anonymous post from Mississippi does too... -- Law blogger 02:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Socking by multiple accounts
editPlease note there has been recent socking by accounts Baldassn and DwyerSP and Musicmaniac1107, both at articles Michael R. Caputo and at Rigsby sisters [4] [5] [6]. Sagecandor (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Paid editing revealed by account
edit- Note: The likely sockmaster account has now revealed their main sock account was used to make previously undisclosed paid edits with a now declared conflict of interest see [7] and [8]. This is now socking to make paid edits with a conflict of interest. None of the other likely sock accounts have made any declaration. No declarations have been made by any of the accounts on any article talk pages. None of the accounts have self-reverted any of their sock conflict of interest edits. Sagecandor (talk) 17:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- The people behind the account Baldassn made the same declaration about this article, Rigsby sisters, with: [9] [10]. Sagecandor (talk) 21:47, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Section of external links that was in the article
editThe following external links were placed in a section called "media coverage". This is not an appropriate type of section for a Wikipedia article and also violates Wikipedia:External links. I am adding this list to this page because the article was unreferenced and it seemed like some of this links could be considered references for the article if they were used as such.