Talk:Identity fraud

Untitled comment

JULIA ANGWIN makes a strong argument here.

Avoid Redundancy

We definitely don't want two articles on the same thing, just because there are two widely used names for it. Please Avoid Redundancy.

Can we agree on what goes in which article? Perhaps one Wikipedia article, such as Identity Fraud and Identity Theft (with redirects to it) would be best. Perhaps IFraud can be the main article, with ITheft being about the prevention? Anyone have any good ideas? If we have a scheme, moving content from one article to the other would be a good idea. --Elvey (talk) 17:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Conflict resolution/re:Yvonne Townsend, UK expert

There is an on-going attempt to manuveur statements by the above named person into the article without the benefit of any references or a reliable source. I have informed Editor:Rjtownsend of the situation but he/she continues to insert Yvonne Townsend as a UK Identity Fraud expert. I goggled Yvonne the other day and again today; no results. This is an obvious WP:SPA situation (12 SP edits) as well as WP:V. The next step is Conflict Resolution. Buster Seven Talk 15:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I did not restore the previous version (without the expert). I think we should discuss them here first, and assist the new editor to understand the reason for exclusion. It is always better not to revert, but to propose a new change which is a compromise. Of course, as always, the burden of evidence lies with the editor that wishes to include. Buster Seven Talk 16:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Due to no response, I have made what I feel are appropriate changes to the article.Buster Seven Talk 20:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Identity fraud. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090627220408/http://www.business.mcmaster.ca/IDTDefinition/defining/idfraudTCF.htm to http://www.business.mcmaster.ca/IDTDefinition/defining/idfraudTCF.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Lead section has extra information

I have tagged the lead section as needing clean-up because it has extra information that is not in the body of the article. See MOS:LEAD for purpose of the lead. It provides an accessible overview of the whole article. Information in the lead should be in the body of the article too. See WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Much of the information after the first sentence only appears in the lead section. It is as if the first four paragraphs of the article have been written first, as part of the article itself, and then somebody has decided to insert the first heading after them to create a lead section, rather than summarizes the article in a lead section. In many respects, the lead is too long for the size of the article, and should be shorter. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 20:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)