Talk:MCI Inc./Archives/2013

Untitled
Should "UUNet" have its own article? -User:kwertii

Proposed move WorldCom &rarr; MCI
Attempt to have article reflect name change of the corporation that occured on November 1, 2003. Information on the corporation the operated as MCI from 1963-1998 has been moved to MCI Communications. Links to MCI have been looked at, and those that applied only to the old company have been changed. --Allen3 13:45, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 19:31, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The two articles MCI Communications and MCI should be combined, emphasizing MCI Communications. It would require some dual histories/dual timelines, but it would be less misleading. The current MCI article has a pre-bankruptcy (WorldCom) slant, reflecting the temporary fact that WorldCom purchased MCI. Since the scandal, the MCI heritage has overshadowed the WorldCom heritage, almost as if MCI purchased WorldCom. A more accurate, practical timeline would be: MCI began in 1963. Then WorldCom bought it. Then WorldCom went bankrupt. Then the company changed its name back to MCI. Two articles aren't necessary. (I'm a former LDDS WorldCom employee who was laid off after the bankruptcy). Mdmcginn 13:29, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Generally the view is that wikipedia articles should follow the corporate history of the most recent surviving entity as defined by the SEC. So this article can be about both companies, or it can be about primarily the LDDS worldcom with a seperate article about the legacy MCI, but it shouldnt be about the legacy MCI with a seperate article on the legacy worldcom.

In that case, the article should be merged into Verizon, thereby risking losing MCI's significant history entirely. Because of MCI, telecommunications competition in the US became possible. Mdmcginn 00:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Bankruptcy, Ebbers timing issue
"Its CEO and founder, Bernard Ebbers, came under fire for his failure to prevent the bankruptcy."

This is innacurate. Ebbers was not still at the company when the cooked books were discovered. And the Bankruptcy was announced after that, so how would Ebbers prevent this? He has been convicted to have caused it.


 * The wording has been fixed. In the future if you feel a change is needed, please go ahead and make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the  link. You don't even need to log in, although there are several reasons why you might want to.  Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes.  If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome.  --Allen3 talk June 29, 2005 17:12 (UTC)

Deal With VCustomer
The IP-Relay department (among others) has been purchased from MCI by a company called VCustomer, which will be effective on August 26. Perhaps that's encyclopedic.
 * According to a VCustomer press release, the deal is worth about $45 million. As this represents less that 0.25% of MCI's 2004 annual revenue, it does not seem like a very significant change to MCI.  This may be more appropriate for an article on VCustomer. --Allen3 talk 21:11, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Proposed merge into Verizon Communications
I believe this article should not be merged with Verizon Communications, instead the article should remain to document the soon to be defunct MCI/Worldcom corporate entity. The list of Worldcom's achievements includes what was then the largest merger in history (Worldcom's purchase of MCI Communications) and what was then the largest corporate fraud and bankruptcy in history (exceeded the next year by Parmalat). These are events that deserve their own separate article, and keeping the articles separate will help prevent further confusion between which company is which. Depending on what Verizon does with the MCI name, this article may need to be renamed but that is an issue that can be addressed at a latter date. --Allen3 talk 11:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree: Verizon Business' legal name is MCI after all. Besides, the Verizon Business article is indeed puny. Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 02:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

MCI / Verizon Article Merger
I believe that the article MCI should not be merged into Verizon when their corporate merger is completed. I say this because MCI and its past companies (MCI Worldcom and WorldCom) have played a key role in the history of telecommunications. As stated in the previous posting, the merger of MCI and WorldCom was the largest in history at the time. It was the first major merger since the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was passed. MCI WorldCom was a big player of the boom market of the late 1990's into early 2000. History was made again when it quickly collapsed to become the largest corporate bankruptcy in United States history. —This unsigned comment is by Mxchamp05 (talk • contribs) January 4, 2006.

MCI Communication info should be merged here
I think we should pull the good data from MCI Communications into this article. It's not a lot, and doesn't seem really enought to warrant it's own article since MCI kept its name after the WorldCom merger, and we brought WorldCom into this article. —Fitch 20:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem with a merge is that with the exception of information on the WorldCom purchase of MCI, none of the information contained in the MCI Communications article is applicable for the corporation that was known as LDDS, WorldCom, MCI WorldCom, and finally MCI.  The corporate entity described in the MCI article was founded in 1983, grew primarily through a series of rapid mergers, and then imploded with the largest corporate bankruptcy in US history.  The MCI Communications article describes the corporation that played an instrumental role in the breakup of AT&T and then developed a number of innovative marketing campaigns that helped propel the company into being the second largest long distance company in the US.  If it was not for the naming confusion caused by WorldCom resurecting the MCI name after soiling its own name to the point of uselessness, I doubt that this proposal would have been made.


 * Instead of a merger, it may be better to reverse the rename above and return MCI to Worldcom.  The rename was performed to keep up with the corporate name changes as WorldCom emerged from bankruptcy, but now that Verizon has purchased the surviving company a rename based on "most common name" may be a viable option. --Allen3 talk 21:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This one is tricky. In general, every company which existed independently before a merger should have a separate article, since it existed as a separate entity, and the article should talk ONLY about that time period, under that company name. The introduction can say something "XYZ was a so-and-so company from 1910 to 1943. In 1943 it merged with ABC to become 123", then it goes on to give the history, etc. of the separate firm. This is the case with many banks.
 * Merging this article with Verizon would be misleading because there was a point where both were separate, independent companies - somebody looking for information about that time period would be flummoxed if it's all mashed into one monster article. The Verizon article say have a link saying For the history of MCI before its merger, see MCI to emphasize the situation.
 * The real problem here is the way WorldCom went back to the MCI name, so the same company name refers to two distinct, yet simlar, entities with a whole different name in between. I think MCI before the merger deserves its own article, just as WorldCom before the merger deserves discussion, although probably in an article that also includes Worldcom/MCI merged. The question is what to do with WorldCom/MCI *after* it returned to the MCI name. - DavidWBrooks 11:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * My whole thing is that there's so very little to merge, and it includes an old logo. Why have an article called MCI Communications just about these couple things. It would add relevance to the article called MCI. I think if this article clearly distinguishes what the old and new MCI are like, it will not be confusing and, again, very relevant. —Fitch 06:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed move MCI &rarr; WorldCom
It is proposed that this article be moved back to Worldcom. The reasons for this move are: As part of this move, it is also proposed the the disambiguation page located at MCI (disambiguation) be moved to MCI. --Allen3 talk 14:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) The original move was based on the fact that the corporation known as WorldCom had changed its name to MCI.  As this corporation has subsequently been purchased and the name MCI is no longer being actively used the reason for the prior move no longer applies.
 * 2) The corporation described by this article is primarily refered to in the media by the Worldcom name (ie WorldCom accounting scandal, former WorldCom executives, ...).  Thus as per Naming conventions (common names) Worldcom appears to be the prefered name.
 * 3) This name change could help fight confusion between MCI Communications and Worldcom due to the similiarity of the names.


 * OPPOSE if you want to use the common name, call it MCI WorldCom 132.205.45.110 19:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a good compromise. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) Seen this already? 07:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * MCI WorldCom looks good to me.--Henrygb 14:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Now that Worldcom > MCI > Verizon, combining the articles doesn't make sense. They all have separate histories. This article is currently misleading when the first date is LDDS's founding, when MCI's founding predated it. Pretend the mergers never happened. Have three separate articles. Mdmcginn 00:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There should be one article for the current company, and its name is clearly MCI. There needs to be another article called WorldCom which has information for wiki readers about the largest ever corporate fraud in U.S. History.  The amazing story of WorldCom includes the bankruptcy filing, which was also the largest ever in U.S. History.  Many notable events happened involving the buildup of WorldCom and the settlements, immunity, actions, and non-actions related to the demise of WorldCom.  It is not completely accurate to say that WorldCom "changed its name" to MCI.  After the WorldCom bankruptcy, certain assets and liabilities were transfered to a distinct legal entity which took MCI as its name.  Thus, as we currently have the article the significant history of the fraud and related criminality is getting lost.  It is as if historians of the American Civil War won't right anything about the Confederacy because they are now called "The United States Of America", and all accounts of the battles are told "The American forces under General Lee advanced following Picket's orders taking fire from the American forces under General Grant".  The most significant story of corporate greed, malfeasance, and failure to hold criminals accountable in U.S. History is similarly getting mushed together here on Wiki.  I'm certainly not saying other editors are intentionally trying to downplay or obfuscate the truth behind WorldCom, but it would be nice if wiki readers of the future had a valid reference to U.S. Corporate & professional legal / accounting evildoing.  -- Knowsetfree (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

i need help.
i have been asked to explain the above statements with reference to accountancy scandals cases involving: a. Enron and b. WorldCom.

Please if anyone can be of help, the person should do so and God will reward that person. thank you in advance. my e-mail address is dr_prukus@yahoo.com.

The wrong David Myers?
The David Myers link in this article goes to a professor of psychology, who is presumably not the guy who pleaded guilty to securities fraud - can someone correct this?
 * Good catch, wrong David Myers. I removed the link.   Keeper  |  76  21:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Worldcom-logo.gif
Image:Worldcom-logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 09:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent Sidgemore/Ebbers change re accounting scandal
Needs cite or should be reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TcomptonMA (talk • contribs) 06:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Recent Sidgemore/Ebbers change re accounting scandal
Needs cite or should be reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TcomptonMA (talk • contribs) 06:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Recent Sidgemore/Ebbers change re accounting scandal
Needs cite or should be reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TcomptonMA (talk • contribs) 06:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)