Talk:Richard C. Davis

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.

Untitled

Richard-isms is pointless, and why cite property-flipping.info as any valid source when it obviously exists only for the tons of ads it hosts? It does not link out to, only cycles around to itself to increase page hits. It is run by Matthew Smith who also runs legalforms.com which is also all about ads and sales.

Can you provide any proof that Richard coined any of these terms?

At least cite the discussion board at TLC which has a compilation of Richard Speak. Ginger says a lot of the same stuff too.

Why not also include that Richard's buddy Larry was responsible for him wearing visors? And Richard is known for wearing visors.

Of all he's accomplished and done with his life, the best thing to note in his bio is particular phases he often uses?

Why not link to flipthislawsuit which is pretty much the longest running and most reputable source on Richard Davis, Flip this House and Trademark Properties? It even hosts many court documents which provide much more valid information than some site built for ads. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.121.145.154 (talk • contribs)

Or you could just stop making the same edit sixty-seven times in a row. I feel another page protection coming on. - Dudesleeper · Talk 10:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and what makes YOUR opinion more worthy of remaining? And doesn't that mean you've edited 68 times in a row? Shall I claim to be who I am not like other esteemed Wikijokia editors? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.121.145.154 (talk • contribs)

And the article doesn't state he coined the phrases. - Dudesleeper · Talk 10:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If not coined, then all the more not worth mentioning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.121.145.154 (talk • contribs)

Since he is identifiable through it, it's mentionable. While I'm not still completely sold on the inclusion I'm even less sold on the exclusion. If you can base a drinking game off it and get buzzed, which I believe you can, then the use of the catch phrases certainly becomes part of the show and the personality of host which might make it encyclopedic. Same reason if he uses them to excess, the act of overuse merits some sort of mention when dealing with television personalities. It becomes a trademark, if you will, of the person using it even if they didn't invent the words. Leftus 13:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "Richard-isms" does have the implication that he invented them or at least made them popular and there really is no evidence of that. These are not "Richard-isms" but catchphrases, homilies or cliches that he uses. I'm really not sold that they should be included beyond some sort of trivial data but they should at least be correctly identified Leftus 18:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you guys even censor your alleged "discussion" page? Maybe you should look up the word "collaboration" from a reputable source. Far as I can tell, anything that is not in perfect agreement with whichever unqualified person is LORDING over a page, is completely silenced. Wisdom of the ONE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.67.211.225 (talk • contribs)

It was actually reverted by an admin, the same one who blocked your other IP address. - Dudesleeper · Talk 15:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"(He allegedly "created" the program, but this matter has not been resolved by the court system yet.) " actually, the case is not about who created it, but the matter of payment and agreements for compensation between Trademark and A&E. The idea for the show - "Davis registered with the Writer's Guild in 2003" - in court document available at Flip this lawsuit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.121.145.154 (talk • contribs)

Going out on a limb here, but why not correct the article? I know it will go against your removing-text policy, but it would be probably be a short-term thing. - Dudesleeper · Talk 09:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

propertyflipping.info is not a reputable source - it is a ad site. So a google search on "Richard c. davis" and it comes up as a sponsored link.

trademark properties does not "specialize" in "flipping". It is but one of many elements in their system of business that Richard created. He refers to his unique system frequently, and will be speaking about this month as well as releasing a book. This information is available at Trademark's site.

Marriage

The link to marriage license is incorrect, its actually for someone married in the 60's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.83.26.135 (talk) 21:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can link directly to the search results, but if you go to http://www3.charlestoncounty.org/surfer/group2?ref=Marriage and enter "2009000937" in the "Search by License Number" you'll see they were married on 10 April 2010. 74.223.186.51 (talk) 11:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]