Talk:Marc Ecko

Untitled

This article is plagarised from Ecko's biography. Whoever wrote it had the guts to even link to that same article. Unless it was written with permission it should be changed. I don't know enough about Ecko to write it myself.

Interesting some of the edits by puddletime, such as removing all details of Ecko being Jewish, removing details about the Air Force One publicity stunt, repeating verbatim puff from his official biography, adding POV wording to existing sentences (along with a handful of more useful edits). Then on the most recent jjjjjjjjt, the user manages to find two images hosted by Ecko's PR company, Susan Blond Inc. that Google doesn't know about. The user appears to be a Single Purpose Account for Mark Ecko and his PR company. I'll try and put back some of the content that's where appropriate. --duncan 18:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

'06 NY Graffitti Lawsuit

Someone needs to include the recent lawsuit Ecko filed (on behalf of a group of high school students) appealing a ruling that would have made it illegal for anyone 18-21 yr old in New York to carry broad-tip markers or spray cans. A judge recently overturned the ruling in Ecko's favor. I'll try and find a NY Times link for the article.

Speedy Deletion?

Please see my explanation on [1]. Note that I didn't author this article, contribute in any way besides the HangOn notice, nor can vouch for the above statement. I only question the reasoning behind the Speedy Deletion as I believe the article should remain, although possibly cleaned up for Wikipedia standards. --Ataricodfish 16:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, article has been removed from Speedy Deletion, so all's good. Don't know why it was nominated. --Ataricodfish 17:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Bonds' Ball

Marc Ecko purchased Barry Bonds' 756th home run ball at auction, and is allowing the public to vote on what should happen to it. Is this relevant enough to warrant its own section? Dragonmage65 03:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that it does warrant it's own article. It was a large news story and is covered on both the Ecko and Bonds page. Maybe just a summery on these pages and an expanded page for itself. 76.251.229.216 (talk) 21:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Philanthropy

Marc Ecko has done much for Rhino-kind, but aren't "philanthropic" deeds for the benefit of humankind? I think this heading is misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.196.22.81 (talk) 17:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, what does his net worth have to do with philanthropy?75.68.178.109 (talk) 01:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Creator of vote756marcecko.com

Before it said unknown creator(s). I changed it so that it shares that the creator is Darryl Abbate. He is also the owner of RootBeerSoupLand.com. I'm not sure if that should be included or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.101.14.237 (talk) 20:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I am the owner, so that is correct... By the way, I have proof that Marc Ecko or someone who works for Marc Ecko has cabronnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn because I got a referral URL on my SiteMeter page from mail.ecko.com... Hope this can possibly contribute to the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.90.188 (talk) 20:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Bonds Quote

Anastrophe...I don't know what part of the revision article deal from Wikipedia you're referencing but both our revisions are correct. Mine is more informative than yours. You're going from journalist to journalist to Bonds (plainly) to journalist...it's boring. There is NOTHING wrong with what I wrote and I will change it tomorrow AGAIN, regardless of what you think. I'll even be so kind as to contact the seniors on Wikipedia to get their thoughts on it. Point being is that you're stonewalling and won't even look at other examples on the web of the grammar I pointed out.TabascoMan77 22:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Scratch that. I DID change it. I even consulted user, Bignole to get his opinion on how it looks and sounds. He likes it. In his words, he said that paraphrasing should be used whenever possible and quotes should be used sparingly. So, that's what I did. Everything is re-written and this should be over with.TabascoMan77 18:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

i just read your comment on my talk page. you seem to construe someone being away from their computer as meaning they don't want to discuss something on the talk page. um. right. sorry to disappoint you, but i haven't been sitting at my computer 24x7 just waiting to hear from you. in any event, i have no idea who Bignole is, and i'm curious why i should, or why i should care what his opinion is. your revision is pointlessly wordy, and redundant. it's poor grammar. you like it; that's grand. you want this article to maintain its poor quality - that's grand too (it's riddled elsewhere with colloquialisms, shorthand, poor construction, and yes, more bad grammar - perhaps that's fitting for the subject of the article, i guess). so, sure - i'm content to have a poor quality article about a vaguely notable person maintain its poor quality at this point. no sense banging my head against the wall trying to impart the fundamentals of succinct grammar into a wanna-be encyclopedia. rock on, dude. you won! Anastrophe 18:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Whatever you say, brother. I'm not here to "win" so much as I'm here to work with you. I've tried a few times to do so and, yes, I did figure that you were away from your computer. The entry I wrote is not wordy, it's just summing up what Bonds said. You posted nearly everything Bonds said in one huge quote. I summed it all up in two sentences. That's hardly poor construction nor does it carry bad grammar to my knowledge. If you'd like to point out where the "bad grammar" is, I'm willing to listen. But the sentence is no longer full of, "he's stupid, he's an idiot, I think the idea is stupid, he purchased it for blah, blah and what he's doing with it is stupid." The sentence is now well-written and paraphrases a quote where Bonds repeated himself over and over. I'm looking at how it's worded right now. Being that I'm an English major and have studied journalism and have several encyclopedic volumes where I'm at, I would say that's a fairly good reworking. Word of advice: try to find some middle ground with people instead of saying, "no, my way is the best". Open up your talk page, freely discuss this stuff. You'll find that several of your edits will have been changed or altered in the future anyhow...but you'll know that you started them or that you were the original author and that your ghost still lingers on the page. I've had to do that, too. Peace. TabascoMan77 19:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)this is comedy, right? you're joking, i hope. my version:

• Bonds responded "He's stupid. He's an idiot. He spent $750,000 on the ball and that's what he's doing with it? What he's doing is stupid."

your version:

• Barry Bonds responded, calling Ecko "stupid" and an "idiot". He also remarked that Ecko's idea was "stupid" as well, rhetorically asking, "He spent $750,000 on the ball and that's what he's doing with it?"

the direct quote with the simple and accurate "Bonds responded" is 139 characters. yours, with needless paraphrasing of the simpler direct quote, is 206 characters. yet you're claiming that the direct quote is a "huge quote" and full of 'blah blah'. interesting perspective. but that said, your new version is nothing like the version that was in dispute, so you're raising a red herring. the version you were insistent upon using was what i had an issue with. this new version is different, but not much better.

• "Barry" is completely unnecessary.
• 'calling Ecko "stupid" and an "idiot"' is precisely one character shorter than 'responded "he's stupid. he's an idiot"'. i see no improvement over the direct quote.
• the second sentence is pointlessly wordy. "as well" is a needless bridge, and 'rhetorically asking" is pointless, since the construction of bond's sentence is implicitly rhetorical.

'open up your talk page, freely discuss this stuff'. huh? what are we doing here, playing canasta? you prove the point of my talk-page caveat. but anyway, we have one place of common ground: "Whatever you say, brother". i'm done with this silliness. enjoy your edit. Anastrophe 20:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope. It's not comedy. You know what confuses me about you? I read the paper everyday of my life. I read AP, NY Times, SF Chronicle, etc. I have seen almost every journalist, every encyclopedia archiver write in the same manner. They do this because they're attempting to make the wording interesting enough to read. They dress the wording up and make it dance.

• You've got, "Barry said (Four sentence redundancy: He's stupid, He's an idiot, he spent money on the ball, idea is stupid)" which feels redundant and boring.
• I've got, "Barry responded calling Ecko these names. He also said the idea was stupid and (quote)." Interesting, more colorful, avoids a four-sentence name-calling rant by summing it all up in two sentences.

I simply said what you said without using the entire quote. About the only thing of worth (besides the repeated name-calling) is where Bonds insinuates Ecko wasting his money. That's quotable. I wouldn't call it a red herring at all. I'm merely paraphrasing.

• "Barry" is Bonds' first name. Since everyone else has their first and last names mentioned, I figured it would be nice to say, "THE Barry Bonds responded". Not because I think the majority of visitors to the sight are clueless as to who Bonds is, rather I'm trying to be complete and thorough with what I wrote. Saying, "Bonds, himself" would have worked better but you took issue with that. If you read an encyclopedia (Britannica, Columbia, etc.), you'll see sentences that begin with "he/she, himself, said/did/remarked, etc." all the time. I should know. I've used it, many times, in many a publication. My teachers, advisors, and professors didn't have a problem with the wording I used. It shouldn't be a problem here, either.
• You know what? I agree. I'll change it back to the original quotes of "He's stupid, He's an idiot", which just smacks of redundancy but I'm game, man. Let's do it. Let's word it differently. How about this?

"Bonds responded, calling Ecko an "idiot" and deemed both Ecko and the vote "stupid". He added, "He spent $750,000 on the ball and that's what he's doing with it?"

Thoughts? TabascoMan77 21:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

This debate is stupid and you're both idiots. You have a simple quote and this is what you're doing with it? What you're doing is stupid. 128.59.23.47 19:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

THE BALL

what ever happened to the ball? and what is cooperstown? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.8.222 (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yellow rat bastard

So there is no mention of Ecko in conection with Yellow rat bastard and very little about his business history. His publicity stunts are interesting, but his actual career is covered in 3 sentences; "He started selling T-shirts in the mid 1980s, and founded his clothing brand eckō in 1993.Marc Ecko Enterprises has grown to include many separate apparel and accessories lines... In 2004, Marc Ecko Enterprises reported international sales of approximately $1 billion." Seems a little thin.--Knulclunk (talk) 05:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

FoodTV

Some mention should be made about how he is a repeat guest judge on Food Network's Iron Chef America.64.131.237.34 (talk) 05:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

POV tag

The lead and "biography" section is very POV. It reads like a biography written by Ecko's own publicist. It contains a lot of POV language (all of it complimentary, none of it referenced), e.g. "top performing", "His journey", "his true passion", "cultural icon(s)", "the leading young men’s brand", "hit series", "various efforts to disrupt the status quo", "dedicates himself", "socially conscious", "a dedicated role", "enigmatic". Adpete (talk) 09:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Change header for biography to

Marc Ecko is totally awesomaphy.

It's nothing but praise, i wouldnt be surprised if he turned out to have written it himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.64.106.232 (talk) 14:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2014

Content of the article pasted on the talk page has been removed due to unnecessary clutter and other reasons. Ethically^Yours! 16:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
184.90.178.195 (talk) 18:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Please suggest a specific change to be made instead of copy-pasting the entire article that creates more work for other editors to clean up. Also, you may wish to suggest a reference(s) that may support the fact. Providing a reference will increase the chance of the change being made in the article. Ethically^Yours! 16:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 22 November 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: withdrawn. Lordtobi (✉) 11:12, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

---

Marc Ecko → Marc Eckō – Please place your rationale for the proposed move here. Lordtobi (✉) 11:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

(@Lordtobi: Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• Procedural oppose The nominator has not supplied a rationale despite being active on Wikipedia since the first objection. Timrollpickering 10:26, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Marc Eckō is not a name in English. But Marc Ecko is. We regularly get rid of diacritics for English version of non-English language names. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:03, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Eckō is his tag, not his name in English or any other language. Sources rarely apply the diacritic to him or his company. Do any of the sources currently used in this article bother with this branding nonsense? Grayfell (talk) 08:11, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
• I am withdrawing my request based on personal research and the accidental lacking of rationale on the technical moves page. Lordtobi (✉) 11:12, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marc Ecko. 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/20111006083628/http://nymag.com/fashion/fashionshows/designers/bios/marcecko/ to http://nymag.com/fashion/fashionshows/designers/bios/marcecko/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 15:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)