Talk:Sex.com

Pornography Mid‑importance

	Erotica and pornography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics 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.PornographyWikipedia:WikiProject PornographyTemplate:WikiProject PornographyPornography articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Notability of Stephen M. Cohen[edit]

Stephen M. Cohen is not notable enough to be the center of an independent biographical article. Unlike Gary Kremen, Cohen is publicly known only incidentally in connection with his (extremely significant, granted) involvement with the sex.com affair. The focus of all the references currently provided in the Cohen article is the sex.com affair rather than Cohen. None of the titles even mentions Cohen's name:

The Sordid Saga of Sex.com
Sex.com, drugs and a rocky road: Tracking down the millions owed after the theft of a tangled web domain
The Brutal Battle for Sex.com.
Sex.com thief faces justice after hiding out in Mexico for four years
Sex.com Takes Aim at Registrar
Sex.com thief released from prison: And his Mexican lawyer shot the same day
Appeals court upholds Sex.com ruling
Sex.com: A URL -- All Crime And No Sex

According to Wikipedia's Notability policy "All topics should meet a minimum threshold of notability for an article on that topic to be included in Wikipedia." The policy goes on to state: "A topic can fail to satisfy the criteria because, though it may be found in published works that are not simple directories and that are from sources that are independent of the subject, it is mentioned trivially rather than being an in-depth subject of the works. Information which is given only superficial treatment or which is tangentially mentioned in discussions surrounding the actual focus of a work, is not sufficient to build a full, sourced encyclopedia article that stands independent of the main subject." WP:N#Merging

Wikipedia's people's notability guideline states: "Trivial, or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." WP:Notability (people)#Primary criterion for Notability of people. Itayb 14:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just performed the merger. Itayb 21:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really think this should be split back. I want to add information about Stephen M. Cohen's involvement of EarthStation 5 (he is reputed to have run that website). It seems ridiculous to have to link to the Sex.Com article to do this or to edit the Sex.Com article to add information about his involvement. The Sex.Com saga is simply not trivial or incidental coverage. mako (talk•contribs) 21:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been most of a week with no response. With the new EarthStation 5, the reasons for doing this merge seem to have been unseated. I'm splitting the Stephen M. Cohen information back into its own article and adding addition information there about his role in EarthStation 5. mako (talk•contribs) 15:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Factual accuracy[edit]

There was a {{disputed}} tag on this page. I'm not sure if it referred to the discussion of Stephen M. Cohen above (which, IMHO, is now entirely resolved) but I could not find any information on what, in fact, was disputed. So I removed it. If you know what was disputed, please explain it on this page before adding the tag back. Thanks! —mako ๛ 12:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

I changed the name of the section "External references" to "External links", as those do not seem to be reliable sources as references, and Wikipedia:External links seems to be the standard section name for such information. Sexdotcom.info is a very informative website, but it is a commercial website promoting the book sex.com, and I would not consider it a reliable source in and of itself. And even if one does consider it a reliable source, I don't think the information in this wikipedia article can be substantially attributed to that site.

Given my opinion above, I've added an unreferenced tag at the top of the article, indicating that this article contains no references or sources. -Agyle 09:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of the book sex.com[edit]

I removed the amazon.co.uk hyperlink from the mention of the book "sex.com." I haven't looked up Wikipedia's exact policies on that, but it just seems like that can't be appropriate. Even mentioning the book without a hyperlink in the first paragraph sentence seems more promotional than informative about the topic. -Agyle 09:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Site is down[edit]

It seems the website itself is no longer operating <:| —An Sealgair (talk) 07:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's up, but a new updated screenshot is desired for the infobox. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 20:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change of Information via Fake Fax is incorrect[edit]

I just downloaded the Sex.com ebook from Amazon.com and according to it, the part of this page that says "He eventually persuaded an employee of Network Solutions to change the ownership details by submitting a fake fax." is not true. The book says that he actually used a method to trick the Network Solutions administration site into changing the domain registration information and that he had to call Network Solutions to confirm the change. The fax was actually sent many years later to Network Solutions when the case was being debated in Court. What would be the best way to correct this apparent error? Should I just remove that part from the article or include quotes from the book? And can I even cite the book as a source when I read the ebook version instead of the regular book version? Justin (talk) 16:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Sex-com-crd.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why[edit]

Why is there a link to "Domain hijacking" on this page? --User123o987name (talk) 08:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It may have something to do with the History section. Anyway, the link was added by 209.240.37.173, which is probably one of the many IP addresses used by the IP hopper who is frequently introducing references to domain hijacking into articles. See the Long-term abuse page for more details. The link was restored by 219.101.236.86, which is the same person (the IP address is listed on the long-term abuse page). So I'm undoing the edit again, as it's obvious sock puppetry.—J. M. (talk) 11:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]