Talk:Marc Ostrofsky

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2 April 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] 3RR Reminder

I remind those editing this page of the 3RR. WP:3RR "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time. Any editor who breaches the rule may be blocked from editing for up to 24 hours in the first instance, and longer for repeated or aggravated violations. DGG 04:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Articles for Deletion debate

This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Splash - tk 16:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a miracle it did. Marcmpc should be banned from editing this article as he clearly has a conflict of interest. Vaniac 00:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Piece moved from AFD debate

is here:

Since everyone else seems to want to edit facts they know nothing about, I thought I'd put in my two cents worth if that is allowed? I'm not very knowledgable of this process so forgive me. This is Marc Ostrofsky. First of all, why "VANIAC" keeps taking out FACTUAL and VERIFYABLE data is odd at best. I believe he is upset that I corrected his inital edits since they were factually wrong. I am sorry if this upset you but why must you keep taking out facts in this listing?

Since then, this guy has not stopped his quest to take out all of my data, edit down 50% or more and keeps taking out facts that one would think are important....but certainly factual. Facts such as owning a firm with Howard Schultz (Starbucks Founder) and Ross Perot. Is this not able to be listed? It's not PR..it's a fact.

He and a few others have also taken out listing of companies and firms I own or are on the board of directors of such as Blinds.com and Cufflinks.com and SummerCamps.com. Is owning a firm not allowed to be listed? Is being on a board of directors not factual enought obe listed on Wikipedia? Why take that out, it's verifyable and factual - and happens to also be 3 interent based businesses.

Then the listing in the Guinness Book of World Records listing for selling Business.com for a record $7.5 Million was edited out. OK. Maybe somoene doesn't like it happened....but it would seems that it's an important part of internet history, factual and verifyable. It created an entire industry that today does over $500,000,000 a year in domain name buying and selling. These editors may not like it or don't care to see it listed, but it's not PR, it's factual and in print. (NOTE: Guiness lists records every few years....not each and evey year will each listing appear). Again, not sure why folks keep editing out factual data?

Forgive me...I like people to all have a say...but VANIAC, who has no clue about these facts and makes incorrect assertions about me is asking me to be banned. WHY ban the person that has the facts (UNLESS HE OR ANYONE CAN PROVE THAT ONE SINGLE FALSE STATEMETN WAS EVER MADE). If anyone should be banned form this page, maybe it should be the person or persons that keep taking out FACTUAL DATA for no reason other than they don't like it (so they call it PR).

I have been a well respcted magazine owner, editor and publisher for over 15 years. I founded 6 magazines - but this too was taken out. Facutal yes. PR, no. Most of them are not around anymore, were sold and there is no need to promote them so that can't be the case. The magazines were all sold but I founded them none the less. Factual yes. Taken out of WikiPedia, yes also. Is it promotional if it is a fact? Finally, for those that don't know the difference, a cybersquatter is a person that "owns someone elses intellectual property such as a trademarked name". I DO NOT AND HAVE NEVER PERSONALLY OWNED trademarked names unless I own the trademark. I told this to VANIAC, he didn't like this and now won't stop taking out all of the factual data that is on the page. The fact that a reporter once wrote "cybersquatter" in an article does NOT make it any more factual. It was a VERY big error but until this, not worth the time to be concerned with it.

If ANYONE can find a single word in this data that I put in that is wrong, not truthful or is not factual, I will agree that I (and anyone who does this) should be "banned". Until then, it seems unfair to take out the only person that really does know the facts and will glady prove such to anyone that cares to ask. Why not take out the one that keeps taking OUT the facts for no reason at all?

I hope this helps. While I don't know VANIAC, I am sure he means well....but if he would edit someone else vs. taking out factual and verifyable data, it would be most appreciated. His constant, never ending quest seem somewhat unfair.

Reply: Wikipedia is not, nor has it ever been a repository of all possible facts. Biographical articles are to contain an amount of information that is in line with the stature of the person in the article, which this one does.

It's also a fact that you were called a "Cybersquatter" in big, bold type by Inc. magazine. The term cybersquatter has many definitions for many different people. You apparently meet theirs. They're a big, notable magazine.

- Richfife 15:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


If I may respond to your rant. Thank you for proving that you do in fact have a Conflict of interest. I have never said that you were blatantly lying as you seem to think; you could have a cyst on your left eyelid for all I care, it could also be true. That doesn't change the fact that you did not cite sources although you were asked to many times, furthermore the importance of some of the information on this page was in question by many editors. You removed an AfD notice although it clearly said not to on the notice. In having a conflict of interest you may be more inclined to write information (factual or otherwise) that shows you in a more positive light, something is lost when editors are writing with a bias, you have proven this. If I could also kindly ask you to do a little bit more research before you write an incredibly gramatically flawed rant. Quite frankly the entire post is ridiculous as you clearly have not looked at the page's history. Had you done so you would have noticed that I have made only two edits to your auto-biography; one was putting an AfD tag on the article, the other was replacing the AfD tag after you deleted it. So clearly I have not been cutting down your uncited edits, although in hind sight I probably should have. You are incredibly difficult to deal with, you do not have your facts straight at all and you have made not one valid point in your aforementioned rant. No editors are conspiring against you and trying to sabotage your article. Wikipedia has standards that have been brought to your attention about citing sources, if you were in the Guiness Book of World Records, cite it. I guarantee that if you include a citation no editor will remove that fact unless it is unimportant. I still think you should be banned, I also think that if this article is to stay, someone who is not Marc Ostrofsky should write it. Please sign your posts next time. Thank you. Vaniac 00:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I can see why this is stressing you out: [1], but you started the page. At the bottom of the editing instructions on the page you used to do that is this line: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." - Richfife 19:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • From Marc Ostrofsky.....I appreciate the fact that Richfife and Vaniac are so interested in this listing...so much so that they put in PERSONAL thoughts that are what "they" think and are nor attributable. The fact is these guys wrote in the word "controversial"...no one else did. How is it that these two gentleman can make up such statements and it's OK...but other's can't? Second, the word "cybersquatter" that ran once in Inc. Magazine was wrong, incorrect which generated a personal letter from teh former owner and publisher, Bernie Goldhirsch. I have said, I personally own GENERIC domain names and not one word that is a copyright or trademark of another person or firm. The term "Cybersquatter" means a person or firm that owns the intellectual property of another..to which I do not and never have! But the Inc. writer wrote it and that was that...the damage was done so we let it go. Now, you all are having fun running information that is wrong but has a correct attribute. Taht is ridiculous when you are being told the statement is wrong and you "hide" behind an incorrect fact just because of attribution. When you have been noticed that the attribution was wrong and you have been told it's wrong, and choose to still run it, you create liability that doesn't need to exist. The fact is that I have published magazines for many years. If I say Vaniac or Richfife are gay, that doesn't mean it is so. Furthermore, there are literally 100's - HUNDREDS - of other articles that have been written the facts correctly and defined the word "cybersquatter" correctly. Vanic and Richfife have taken out MANY, MANY factual statements (the Guinness Book mention for instance; Several internet firms I own that are major internet web sites grossing over $50 Milliion a year - but that doesn't meet the personal standsards of Richfife and Vaniac for some reason. Seems odd that the group that has been talking about this specific listing would allow these two guys to keep inserting a PERSONAL adjective so they can "win" the battle...and contine to run a quote that one magazine wrote but 100's of others got correctly...so they run that one quote - even though I sent BOTH of them a clear definition of the word "cybersquatter". Run what 100's say, not what one said - especially when you have been notified the word..the attribute from them..is wrong and incorrect.

Do you all have rules or do you not? They need to be enforced on these two guys as well. written by Marc Ostrofsky (tried to do the marco@photographer.com 04:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC) but it didn't work and I'm not a techie folks...sorry, but I tried. This process is interesting but getting old. I would hope that the integrity of Wikipedia is just that and if you don't allow PERSONAL comments...that should include these guys as well. Written by Marc Ostrofsky (tried to do the right "attribution" with the marco@photographer.com 04:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC) but it didn't work the first time. Sorry, I don't seem to understand your system to well, but I am trying so hard to learn and maintain the rules and standards set up. The first line needs to come out from a liability standpoint...I am not controversial outside of these two guys and am not nor have EVER been a "cybersquatter". marco@photographer.com 04:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The FACT that the sale of Business.com is a Guinness Book of World Records fact also doesn't seem to work for these two guys as they have repeatably taken it out. The book only lists SOME of their records as there are tens of thousands of records and most don't run each year. Furthermore, their online version, now owned by a new firm has a total of ONE internet listing but 100's in the recent books...so it's not even working. check it. The World Record ran in the Guinness Book of World Records in 2001, page 122 and ran again in the 50th Anniversary Book, in 2005 Page 152. I am happy to send one or both of these physical listings to anyone who asks....not everything is on the net and I don't think Wikipedia can only exist for facts that are on the net. Actually being in the book has been written up in the past as well.marco@photographer.com 04:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Kindly stop mentioning my name, I never edited your auto-bio. You are proving that your editing priviledges should be revoked on this article. You obviously do not want negative publicity, understandably at that, but you have a bias. The word "cybersquatter" was mentioned in reference to you, this has been cited. If you feel like citing your letter from the head of Inc. magazine feel free. It is beyond my how you still do not understand how this process works. I don't have it in for you, I am simply trying to keep this encyclopedia and page at the best they can be. Please contact me for help, I will be glad to. That being said, if you will ignore mine and other editor's advice, I will recomend a community ban on you. Thank you. Vaniac 05:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Use ~~~~ at the end of your posts to sign them.

  • Just popping for a second to point out that the article has been substantially edited by not just myself and Vaniac, but also DGG, Jehochman (who is the one who added the term "Controversial" and "Cybersquatter" to the article), UnitedStatesian and Stammer, who was the first person to add the "Inc." link. I was actually in favor of keeping Blinds.com and Cufflinks.com, but others disagreed and I went along with it. This is not just Vaniac and myself. The only person adding back to the article is you. You bent (if you misquote me and say I said "Break", I'll be very unhappy) the rules about domain names and Network Solutions was too apathetic to care. You bent the rules about Wikipedia, and you didn't get away with it. Bummer for you. - Richfife 15:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, the fact that we're even having this conversation qualifies you for the term "controversial". Grabbing up mispelled names and placing advertising on them is a controversial practice. Reselling domain names at a profit is a controversial practice. People who do these things are controversial. Some people (like myself) believe domain names should be controlled in the same way the FCC controls radio frequencies. Some don't. Controversy. - Richfife 15:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm wiling to omit "controversial" as the text of the first paragraph establishes that unmistakably without the use of the word--why repeat the obvious (not that it is necessarily an negative term). As for cybersquatter, are you denying it was in the article quoted? If they said it, we can quote it. If you think they shouldn't have said that, the remedy is to find a third party reliable publication which said that you were not. (or to demonstrate that Inc. retracted the term). Otherwise it stands as accurate reporting. I do not personally see the relevance of blinds.com and cufflinks.com, but if Richfife thinks otherwise, by all means reinsert them. DGG 07:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Here's a quote from an interview with Pinky Brand, an old partner of Ostrofsky's: "My old business partner Marc Ostrofsky used to be considered public enemy #1 when he bought and sold business.com." [2].
[3] : "Conference Keynote Speaker, Marc Ostrofsky, of business.com fame, looked to stir some controversy when he questioned the "hold" mentality of some portfolio owners who refuse to entertain even reasonable offers for their domains." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richfife (talk • contribs) 15:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC).
I'm such a NOOB today - Richfife 15:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I am a professor of legal writing. I have fixed *several* grammatical and editing errors, leaving all content. Bearian 17:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Competent grammar correction is always a welcome stranger in any article I work on. Thanks! - Richfife 19:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help - Citations

I am trying to help Mr. Ostrofsky with his citations. I have added a link into the references section that will allow you to confirm his UT degree on the UT website. I have also added the Houston Business Journal link that discusses the $35m sale. I think this will work for several other citations needed.

Please let me know if there is anything I can do to help you help me. Thank you in advance for your time and assistance.

  • Quick question: Are you here because Marc Ostrofsky asked you to come here to make changes that he wanted made? Thanks! - Richfife 15:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Answer to Richfife Question

Richfife - Yes, Mr. Ostrofsky has given me permission to help with getting the citations for his page. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.95.76 (talk) 22:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

  • OK, I removed a duplicate link. The link to prove that he graduated is overkill (all that is needed is the degree and major). FYI: Be careful of Meatpuppet rules. - Richfife 00:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HELP - Citation for Marc Ostrofsky Page

To whom it may concern -

I have updated the references section of the Marc Ostrofsky page with several links to articles that should take care of most if not all the citations needed for this article on Wikipedia. If you could please review and update the article to correct the (citation) areas and remove the block at the top of the screen "the creator of this article or someone who has sub.....".

If there is anything I can do to help you help me - please do not hesitate to let me know.

Thank you in advance for your time and assistance.

Regards,

Sondra A. --SondraLou (talk) 10:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)