Talk:Dan Borislow

Dan Borislow has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 7, 2010	Articles for deletion	Kept
January 23, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

Current status: Good article

This page was proposed for deletion by an editor on 22 September 2008.

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Pennsylvania Low‑importance

	Pennsylvania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

New Jersey Low‑importance

	New Jersey portal This article is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard. Please join in the discussion.New JerseyWikipedia:WikiProject New JerseyTemplate:WikiProject New JerseyNew Jersey articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philadelphia Low‑importance

	Philadelphia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philadelphia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Philadelphia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhiladelphiaWikipedia:WikiProject PhiladelphiaTemplate:WikiProject PhiladelphiaPhiladelphia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Business Low‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Puffery

"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)[reply]

Ha ha ha. What a joke. I'm glad you removed that bit of advertising. --64.180.12.159 (talk) 03:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

magicJack

i started the magicJack article sometime back as a stub intending to shortly return and flesh it out and quicker than a flash it got merged in this biography article. It kind of took away the incentive to work on the article. The device really needs to stand on its own apart from the distractions about the inventors bio.Godspeed John Glenn! Will 16:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

magicJack pricing

I moved the following from Dan Borislow to this talk page:

The device initially sells for $39 which includes the first years subscription. Subsequent years' subscriptions are $19. Service includes unlimited phone calls in the U.S. and Canada. If the MagicJack is taken overseas where broadband is available then free calls can be made back to the U.S., thus avoiding international call rates. Quality is intermediate between that of cellular and regular land lines. It can be used as a computer "softphone" or with a regular phone device or cordless phone. MagicJack has defended its targeted ads as no more obstrusive than those of gmail.

I think that this text, about Magicjack pricing and subscription details, doesn't really further the article, which is about Dan Borislow.

I don't know whether there's sufficient notability to create a separate article for MagicJack, but if there is, perhaps something like this text could be used there.

I'd like to hear what others think about the above text, and whether it should be in this article. --Zippy (talk) 07:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the whole point Zippy, The price is the message, $19 a year for unlimited phone service, let that sink in for a minute. Do you all get it yet? It is a Skype and Vonage killer!!!! Do Skype and Vonage have their own articles? I guess the bad i made when i started the article i didn't do it all at one time like i did the Teddy Shapou or Anthony Atala, Souk El Gharb articles. i just stubbed like i did the Pumphead syndrome article and i though it was important and interesting enough that others would collaborate with it instead of killing it. yes, i think, this is important!!!! let met say it again, $19 a month (strike that, PER YEAR Godspeed John Glenn! Will 12:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)) for unlimited phone. full disclosure, i have five magickjacks, i have taken them to china and called back, i gave one to a a brother-in-law in iraq, i call my sister in germany on skype all the time in germany for free, and i have had vonage which has free international calls to england. vonage is $25 per month- not per year!Godspeed John Glenn! Will 12:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like advertising. The product can be described, its Web site added, and its significance written about as much as any editor wishes. yet, the pricing information is best left to the homepage of the product. Coca-cola has a page, too, but I don't think we need to run K-marts' Bluelight special info on the Coca-cola page. Cheap long-distance packages are not worthy of an encyclopedic entry. Telephony has been around for years. Long-distance can be free. Calls to external phones vary from carrier to carrier. Honestly, I disagree with the whole notion that any long-distance package is a "Skype or Vonage killer". Not because it is or is not, but because we must stick with showing and not telling. Even on the discussion page this all smacks of advertising. Sorry, but unless someone can address these concerns (show-don't-tell and Wikipage as promotional material), I will edit out all of the numbers between April 20th and April 30th of this year. By the way, I have this product. I have used it and it works as advertised. One thing that is missing form any balanced article is the fact that nowhere on the product's packaging is the mention of recurring costs. Other people may have it on their packages. I know here, where I am, the packaging does not. It seems more like a cheap, recurring and prepaid long-distance service in the USA and Canada than a gadget. What's more, I remember when I signed up in Canada, the registration process indicates Canadians can enter a "province" but the software does not offer any provinces as choices for your number. I ended up with an Alabama number and had to deal with customer service. How sweet they were... but I don't think my saved conversation is worthy of inclusion, do you? It does not meet the notability standard at all. That is a third issue that needs addressing. You see this is all going in the wrong direction for an online encyclopedia. Again, the product can be described, its Web site added, and its significance written about as much as any editor wishes. That should be all. Editors should pop in after to check my work, but I am here giving fair warning for something that ought to be taken down TODAY. My question is: Who thinks the article (either the phone or the man) is notable, balanced, not promotional and shows rather than tells? I am all ears. COYW (talk) 04:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phone company killer? Dial M for Magicjack I would suggest that in Business plans, Price is fairly important! Of course, I have to work for a living (not making judgments about anybody else-just speaking for myself). Thinking of which, time to get back to work. Try googling Magicjack for news and judge for yourself notabitilty!Godspeed John Glenn! Will 13:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Will, thank you for taking the time to talk about this edit. I don't disagree that talking about the service plans for MagicJack would be appropriate for an article about MagicJack. The place I'm coming from is that this article is about Dan Borislow, and so getting into the different plans for MagicJack here is a bit like talking about Sprint cell phone price plans on a page about the founder of Sprint.

What do you think? --Zippy (talk) 08:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum - I just created a stub article for MagicJack based on Will's original version. Before I got there, magicJack redirected to Dan Borislow. My hope is that by setting up a separate entry for magicJack, there will be a place for information on that topic. --Zippy (talk) 10:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

check for news articles &/~ any friendly / unbiased ""not worthy of an encyclopedic entry. "" about the PERSON(s) responsible for phone freeking / free long distance / at&t rip-off / bet you can find this info in any BIO about the PERSON(s) responsible "" This sounds like advertising... ...Cheap long-distance packages are not worthy of an encyclopedic entry... ... I am all ears. COYW (talk) 04:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)""§-- ==LiFLaLed --§ JSo9-10 == just saying== not advertising more like "fact" to working stiffs like me... I'm a fan too[reply]

===== ;) Life is FUN, LIVE a little each day:) =====JSo9-10 (talk) 09:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion

This page still needs clean-up...not much has been done since July/August. I am deleting. BigJoshOMatic (talk) 00:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subject seems to satisfy notability criteria, so I'm not sure what the grounds would be for deletion. What issues would you like to see addressed? --Zippy (talk) 04:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is also that this is not notable. Full Decen t (talk) 14:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rolls Royce cars are notable. Joe and Frank and Terry and Nigel who make the car are not notable. I do not see a page for Mr or Ms Rolls. I do not see a page for Mr or Ms Royce. In the same way, Mr Borislow is not notable. Putting emotions and contentiousness aside, he does not fit the bill. COYW (talk) 11:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I found Mr Rolls and Mr Royce! The point of picking such a famous product was to express "Hey! even these guys don't have a page." A similar service/product with a similar income should be found that has an owner/founder/inventor with a Wikipage. I believe that I can find two or three that don't for each one that does and that will seal the deal. COYW (talk) 11:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The device seems to warrant an encyclopaedic entry, but the person who made it and brought it to market should not have his own page. IMHO, he is not notable enough. What's more, MagicJack is a telephony service much like SKYPE is. Are the software writers of SKYPE "inventors"? If they put SKYPE on a USB key drive, would they be "inventors"? This page is a bit of a stretch, but I will not split hairs about it... because he simply is not notable enough when compared to almost anyone else. End of. A few lines on the WikiPage of the product should suffice. COYW (talk) 03:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Especially since his "invention" is nothing more than spyware/adware. Also what's with the douchebag photo? DELETE THIS FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT FOREVER X \' Z Z \' (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, emotions aside, this page has had tags on it for a long enough-- years. I will delete the whole page on August 1st (2010) and slipstream some of the information onto the device's Wikipage. Before I do this, I will write here, on this talk page, what I will add on the device page. In this way, BEFORE I delete this page, we can all sign off on what will be saved. Cheers. COYW (talk) 11:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, again. This article has been marked for deletion for quite some time. Today is the day. I want to add the following to the MagicJack device Wikipage, under the header "Dan Borislow, founder": From May 1989 through January 1999, Borislow was the CEO and Director of Tel-Save Holdings [3] (now owned by Cavalier Telephone). Tel-Save resold access to AT&T lines. Borislow took the company public in 1995 and built his own long distance network by deploying five Lucent 5E switches in the United States.[4] In 1997, Tel-Save negotiated exclusive marketing rights with America Online to sell long-distance service to AOL users[5][1]. At its peak Tel-Save (later Talk America) had over four million customers, was signing new customers at the rate of 100,000 per month, and had a market capitalization of nearly $2 Billion[1]. But the company's fortunes turned, and Borislow departed following an annual loss of over $200M in 1998.[1] In 2005, Talk America was acquired by privately-held Cavalier Telephone & TV for $251 million. Prior to founding Tel-Save, Borislow was "a former cable TV installer"[1] in Philadelphia. This does the job of saving the important historical information, doesn't it? So now please take a look at the header and text and give feedback. Of course, you can edit anything you wish to on the MagicJack page. On August 15th, I will do the actual moving and delete this page. COYW (talk) 20:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Done. I do not know how to get rid of the actual page <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Borislow>, so if one of you Wikitypes would be so kind... Thanks!COYW (talk) 16:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

check for news articles &/~ any friendly / unbiased ""not worthy of an encyclopedic entry. "" about the PERSON(s) responsible for phone freeking / free long distance / at&t rip-off / bet you can find this info in any BIO about the PERSON(s) responsible FOR THE RIP-OFF OF at&t &/~ little guy "kills" BIG guy §-- ==LiFLaLed --§ JSo9-10 == AGAIN= just saying =AGAIN== not advertising more like "fact" to working stiffs like me... I'm a fan too

===== ;) Life is FUN, LIVE a little each day:) =====JSo9-10 (talk) 09:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October, 2010, merger with the Dan Borislow page

The article Dan Borislow can be maintained, I suppose, but it is better to keep things according to Wikipedia rules. The new article will be called Magic Jack. Information about its founder and his contributions to Magic Jack can be added to the header bearing his name. Benefits: Simpler and without notability or COI issues. I hope you support this edit. COYW (talk) 22:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bad idea. Just because we have had COI issues in the past doesn't mean we cannot create a better article on Borislow the man. I have begun an extensive renovation of this article to hopefully bring it to GA status. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping things according to Wikipedia rules, in this case, involves much more than COI. For example, what about notability? His significant contributions and business dealings related to the MagicJack are duly noted on its Wiki-page. On the other hand, how many flat screen TVs does he have? Who cares? There is nothing remotely notable in the "Personal Life" section. Look, I am sure we will not see eye to eye on this notability matter (and that's OK!). My request to you is to develop the "Philanthropy" section because it is delightfully shady. I hope your work won't be for nothing after everyone weighs in. COYW (talk) 22:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The personal life and philanthropy sections are not intended to demonstrate his notability, as that is already proven in the "Tel-Save" and "Magic-Jack" sections. They are simply there to provide information on the man. For example, Abraham Lincoln's sons do not make him notable, but they are important aspects of his life and are mentioned on the article. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the sections you mentioned, how is it "proven"? The Personal life and Philanthropy (Tax Mitigation?) sections do not flesh out the article. These sections do not rise higher than the mundane. So, this subject's notability is all down to his business dealings. Wikipedia does have an American cultural bias, but I am willing to accept big dollar figures as notable-- in some cases. These business dealings are already written up on the Wikipage that deals with the business. COYW (talk) 12:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's like saying Warren Buffett's article should be merged because much of it is business dealings with Berkshire Hathaway. Look, the article survived afd and saisfies all the business guidelines. It doesn't matter whether you think he is notable or not, because the community thinks he is. Also, I deleted the section on him in the magicJack article because it had nothing to do with the magic jack itself. Don't forget, Borislow is also a noted horse racer -- where would you merge that information? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is NOT like saying anything at all about Warren Buffett. It is not saying anything about Carlos Helú, the Walton family, the Queen of England or anyone else at the top of the wealth pyramid. There are well over 1000 billionaires in the world and many more ultra-rich. Some quick clicking showed me a list of the 1000 richest Americans in 2005: <http://www.anyinput.com/item/list/d/richest-americans-list-2005/field/811/dir/1>. Kindly, check out the bottom ten names. On Wikipedia, there is no personal page for three of them: William Bowes, Grover Connell and Gary Magness. Each of these people had a net worth of 900 million dollars in 2005, but that fact alone did not warrant a personal Wikipedia page. And it shouldn't necessarily do so! Maybe one or all of them ought to have a page but I am not interested in writing one up. I am not even interested in them now. The point is that there are tens of thousands of people in the world with a net worth below 900 million but above the 70 or 80 million that Dan Borislow has. Go ahead and champion Borislow's case but know that you are making a case for one of the lowest bricks on the wealth pyramid. Please tell me HOW you have reached your conclusion that Borislow is notable enough to warrant his own page (given the great number of wealthier people you bypassed to get to Borislow). By way of response to your last message, that AfD was for a deletion. This current Merger Tag is still pending. We are discussing it together. The community has yet to weigh in. Will they? You are here now, so I have to address you. I ask you again, how is his notability "already proven"? What "business guidelines" has he satisfied? Show me where I can read those guidelines you referred to, so I can learn about them. And about the horse breeding? There must be a dozen horses running in each of fifty top races worldwide. These horses represent hundreds of breeders. Dan Borislow has owned Beautiful Bid, Talk Is Money and Toccet. Not many wins, shows or places with those three and that is pretty much like the hundreds of other breeders in the sport. They do not have personal Wikipedia pages, either. To answer your question, I would not merge Borislow's breeding information-- not anywhere! Why? Because I'm just not that into Dan Borislow or also-rans. I really do question Borislow's notability as a stand-alone Wikipedia subject on many fronts. What's more, please undo that MagicJack edit you mentioned above, until this page's merger question has been settled. It was all about that product's founder's actions and not Mr. Borislow himself. It was business and nothing personal, so change it back. Please. COYW (talk) 06:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I removed it because I replied to your post and no one responded in the next couple of days, so I assumed the discussion was closed. You could have added the merge tag back yourself, but I saved you the trouble. I could have sworn there was a notability guideline for businesspeople, but check out WP:N. Basically what it says is that, as a rule of thumb, if a person has received significant coverage by secondary sources, they are generally assumed to be notable. Borislow meets this criteria on many fronts. I imagine many of the billionaires of the world deserve articles too. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Also, regarding his horse racing career: while he was not the most successful horse breeder in the world, he did put Talk is Money in the Kentucky Derby. That is a pretty tough thing to do. Just curious, you say that you don't care much for Mr. Borislow, but most of your edits are to topics related to him. Why is this? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I will re-check those pages soon. WP:N was also my starting point, sure, but I also like to think through my Wikipedia editing on a case-by-case basis. All precedent articles and Wiki-principles aside, I honestly BELIEVE this subject is too low level and not notable enough to warrant a personal page. In answer to your last question, I don't really have any strong opinions about self-promoting businessmen like Dan Borsilow. It is this idea of mine, his being a self-promoter, that you likely do not share. This idea makes ALL the difference! You see, what I really care a lot about are COI and the corruption of Wikipedia for self-promotion and propaganda purposes. I hope that is clearer for you and other curious editors. [I won't be responding to that type of question again. How would you like to be asked if you were an agent of Borislow's MLM telephony business?]. In the meantime, let the merger tag play out longer than the time it took to "survive" AfD. A tag is for editors to SEE. On a minor page like this, it will be many weeks before enough editors drop by to build consensus. After that, you can do just whatever you like. COYW (talk) 02:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All in good taste, all in good taste. My question was not meant to offend, I was just curious. For the record I have no connection to Mr. Borislow, only saw his magicJack articles on TV. I believe that all the self promotion and COI have been weeded out by now. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 21:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say it: You have done a good cleanup job so far. It looks like a legit page now. COYW (talk) 03:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC) Yet, not exactly GAN material, is it? COYW (talk) 01:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why what do you think could be added? More on his horse racing career? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 22:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

== AGAIN= just saying COYW =AGAIN== that your big guy "kills" little guy rant &/~ chase of this article is amazin' looking at all your comments it is amazin' it survived BUT I GUESS THAT IT SOMETIMES TAKES AN ADVASIORIAL &/~ COMPETIVE SETTING to get defenders of stubs motivated to SAVE an article ( on "a self promoter &/~ 'tax avoider' " to use a charitable trust in such a way ) is part of the reason that I come to Wikipedia AND THE talk pages when "checking out" a person I have chosen to do business with, not the only stop on that trail, I am looking into restarting / renewing my home phone service with MJ and was wondering why it was getting more expensive lately. It seems ( from my perspective ) that his leaving &/~ selling the company &/~ dying... == AGAIN= just saying COYW =AGAIN== PLEASE DON'T SUCCED in the deletion efforts, continue WINNING GA STATUS FOR ARTICLES LIKE THESE §-- ==LiFLaLed --§ JSo9-10 == AGAIN= just saying =AGAIN== not advertising more like "fact" to working stiffs like me... I'm a STILL fan of magicJack, too!!!

===== ;) Life is FUN, LIVE a little each day:) =====JSo9-10 (talk) 11:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dan Borislow/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: Three found and fixed.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 21:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linkrot: One found and tagged. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before I commence the main review the merge discussion needs to be resolved. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion ended. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
meaning that YMAX went on Nasdaq following to merger. Bad grammar, what is this supposed to mean?
Reworded. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

so he requested Scanlan to be the conditioner for his horses. "conditioner"? Is this a US horse racing term?
Yes. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~The lead makes no mention of his philanthropy. WP:LEAD states that the lead should be a summary of the whole article.~~
Added. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 06:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
~~One dead link [2] found.~~
Removed link from ref. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 06:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other references check out OK
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
He was arrested in 1992 for illegally possessing a firearm in New Jersey. In an interview with Alex Berenson of TheStreet.com, when Berenson questioned whether this affected Borislow's ability to run a company, he replied, "Possession of a registered firearm in the wrong state -- big whoopee. Is this necessary?
Removed. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 06:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The company's fortunes turned, and following an annual loss of $221 million in 1998 Needs explanation of what caused the turn in fortune
Clarified. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 06:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
OK, on hold for seven days for above issues to be addressed
OK, thanks for the fixes, I think this sufficently meets the criteria to be listed. Passing as GA> Jezhotwells (talk) 02:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inventor?

I can't find any evidence that Dan Borslow ever invented anything. An item like the magicJack is a fairly complex piece of equipment, supported by complex software. Something of that nature is not likely to be a person's first-ever invention, yet I cannot find a single United States patent awarded to Dan Borislow alone or as co-inventor. Moreover, the record of complaints against his company for lack of technical support smacks of an outfit that acquired the technology elsewhere, but doesn't have the in-house expertise to solve problems. The article doesn't indicate that Borislow had any special education or experience in electronics that one would expect of someone producing inventions in the field. It may well be that this bit of puffery was added to the article by someone with a conflict of interest. Unless someone can come up with solid evidence that Borislow invented the magicJack, or anything else of significance that was actually produced and marketed, the term "inventor" should be stricken from the article. — Quicksilver^{T @} 04:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is your opinion and it is full of original research, but the sources [3] say "invented" and we follow the sources, we don't connect our own dots. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 09:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not my opinion, nor original research; there are no "dots" to connect, as far as I can tell. If he had "invented" magicJack and applied for a patent, there would be a paper trail. The source you cite doesn't offer anything to back up the claim that he "invented" anything, other than the late Mr. Borislaw's statement to a reporter. There are plenty of businesses that were started during the 20th century by people who borrowed, bought or stole ideas from others and happily let others believe — mistakenly — that they were the inventive mind behind them. I've even worked for a few of them. Looking for references to support statements made in articles isn't "original research"; your assertion to that effect is laughable. Wikipedia requires reliable sources for content, and any content that can't be backed by reliable sources is subject to challenge and removal. — Quicksilver^{T @} 15:45, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MagicJack Inventor Dan Borislow Dies at 52 [4] and also picked up [5] and hundreds of not thousaands more picked up this same AP article, including every single major news outlet, bar none.
Palm Beach Post [6]
HispanicBusiness.com [7]

So yes, the sources call him an inventor, and we follow the sources. If you looked, you would see this. Also, if you looked around for patents, you would have found them, and their aquisitions.[8] to combine patents. Your claim IS original research because you haven't even attempted to look for these or you would have found them. Do any point to Dan? Not sure, not all inventions are patented nor patentable. You could check the list of patents of the companies [9]. Or better yet, you could use the SOURCES, which credit him as inventor, which is what WP:BLP says we do. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

==== AGAIN= just saying =AGAIN== sometimes the "INVENTER" is just the"IDEA" MAN and has someone else "BUILD" it from his description if they are under contract to "THE COMPANY" the company "OWNS", the "IDEA". §-- ==LiFLaLed --§ JSo9-10 == AGAIN= just saying =AGAIN== not advertising more like "fact" to working stiffs like me... I'm a STILL fan of magicJack, too!!!===== ;)

===== ;) Life is FUN, LIVE a little each day:) =====JSo9-10 (talk) 11:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dan Borislow. 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/20101214084116/http://breederscup.com/bio.aspx?id=7079 to http://www.breederscup.com/bio.aspx?id=7079
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120719143909/http://www.womensprosoccer.com/news/press_releases/111027-magicJack-termination to http://www.womensprosoccer.com/news/press_releases/111027-magicJack-termination
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.nationalsoccerwire.com/news/460/14219
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.concacaf.com/page/AssociationNewsDetail/0%2C%2C12813~2594202%2C00.html

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) 18:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Dan Borislow. 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:

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) 14:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]