Talk:Dan Borislow

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

Stub

This article has been rated as stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

"Sometimes controversial for his “tell it like it is” style, Dan has always been an advocate for low-cost telecommunications, a high quality network, and superior customer satisfaction." That reads like an advertisement for Mr. Borislow. What's the source of this information? --Colinbartlett (talk) 19:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Why must we explain what each of Mr. Borislow's siblings do for a living? Does not seem relevant, so I removed. --Colinbartlett (talk) 19:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] near-total cleanup completed

I just did a major WP:NPOV cleanup and added cites to the remaining strong claims. I'm being bold and removing the advert, conflict of interest, and fact-dispute tags from the article. Feel free to discuss here. --Zippy (talk) 09:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] reinstating conflict of interest tag

Following my removal of the conflict of interest tag, User_talk:68.83.167.43 made a series of edits. This user's history up to this point (28 April 2008) is one of exclusively editing this article. Because this edit history suggests a possible conflict of interest, I am reinstating this tag. --Zippy (talk) 01:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Appropriateness of citation of Boingboing review of magicJack

I included a cite to BoingBoing's review of magicJack, and I noticed that the review title was somewhat extreme. I wanted to open a discussion as to whether the review is an appropriate cite for this article. My reasoning for including the review is that there was already one other reference for magicJack, and I felt the review had something to add regarding the device (namely, that there is a range of viewpoints from reviewers). In any case, I would be happy to hear what other editors think. --Zippy (talk) 22:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)