Talk:Bad check restitution program

Comment

Recently, someone edited this page to state that "District attorneys claim a Bad Check Restitution Program is . . ." rather than what it actually is. The paragraphs that have been added in this edit seem to be a personal attack against BCRPs rather than a factual description written at a neutral point of view. Perhaps the user who made these changes has had to deal with a BCRP him/herself, and is feeling the anger and frustration of being intimidated by one.

Though many of the statements during this recent edit were not cited, I do not doubt their accuracy, and I am sure sources can be found. But in order to meet Wikipedia guidelines, the article should be rewritten in a way that does not exclude these cases, but that contrasts these views in an encyclopedic fashion. For example, there could be a section called "criticism."

I recommend it be best if the person who originally wrote these statements make the appropriate changes. Hellno2 18:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I made the changes. I am a lawyer intensley involved in litigation against check restitution companies. The article as I found it was nothing but industry propoganda. I attempted to add some of the very well-founded information we have gathered through several years of litigation. I though I was being neutral by not saying that this is a scam designed to extract high fees by scaring innocent people to death. I don't have much experience with Wikipedia, but I can provide any documentation you think is appropriate.

I trust that you do have a lot of knowledge about BCRPs. You could make some minor changes to this article to fix the problem. For example, it could say:

A Bad Check Restitution Program is a service that obtains monies owed to the recipient of a bad check from the writer of that check. District attorneys claim . . . But advocates and attorneys . . .

Just rearranging the words as such can do the trick. As I mentioned before, I think the person who originally contributed the information could do the best job. Hellno2 14:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

What countries does this apply to?

The article gives no indication whether it is solely applicable to the US. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bad check restitution program. 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/20070927005055/http://da.co.la.ca.us/pdf/badcheckform.pdf to http://da.co.la.ca.us/pdf/badcheckform.pdf

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) 15:38, 13 July 2017 (UTC)