Talk:John Zuccarini

message: The following edit from 68.46.12.210 cleary violates NPOV and will be removed (reverted):
He is a good artist who had a lot of bad breaks in his life. He was a good employee. Unfortunately, when the employer he was working for went out of business, he was thrust into the world of unemployment and credit card debt. Seeing how easy it was to create domain names, he turned this into his only source of income. He delved into the multi billion dollar industry of online pornography, just looking for his little slice of the pie. Now, after persecution for being just merely a middle man. We can all rest comfortably that the true criminals in this whole scheme are still out there driving this online world that we live in.
Much of what is said is opinion — though not described as such — and no citations are included. Could be considered vandalism. Toddmatic 03:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "He is a good artist..." 

message: I just reverted some unverifiable content that cast the subject in a relatively positive light, almost as a victim of an obsessive government. If someone familiar with the case could have a look at the article as it stands, I would appreciate it. The article is in general poorly sourced and fairly negative and since it is a BLP, we should be careful.
In the same general topic, my reverts were because the added material was inadequately sourced; if this viewpoint has been published in a source that meets WP:V and WP:RS, then it may be appropriate for this article once it has the references. VQuakr (talk) 00:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV check 

message: As an interested wiki User, I came here from the "Joe Cartoon" wiki, and wanted to find out about the idea of "Domain Name Squatting", and still feel as ignorant as when I first showed up.  Obviously it has to do with owning a domain name that resembles and already established business, and apparantly the business somehow has the right to bring legal action against someone that owns a domain name that is somehow similar, to the extent that the domanin name owner might incur serious legal consequences, and somehow a how bunch of legal statutes are involved, but exactly what it all means is completely missing.
How similar does the domain name have to be?  What's the legal standard?  What case law indicates where the line(s) between the right to own & use your property and speech vs. the rights of the "real" business?  None of this article actually educates anybody about anything.Jonny Quick (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not "User Friendly", even if the Article is "Legally" correct 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on John Zuccarini. 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/20050406005809/http://www.theorator.com/bills108/hr939.html to http://www.theorator.com/bills108/hr939.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified