Talk:Verizon/Archive 2

Some infobox improvements, and a recent edit
Hello, I'm back with some suggestions for correcting information in the infobox on this article. I also have a comment about a recent edit that you'll find below. As I've mentioned before, I'm an employee of Verizon, I so won't make any of these edits myself. Instead, I'm hoping volunteer editors can look at what I've suggested, and make the changes if things look okay. For the infobox, there are several pieces of information that should be corrected:


 * “President” should be removed from Lowell McAdam’s titles. He’s “just” the Chairman and CEO (see, e.g., here).
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Done. Silver  seren C 22:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Under products, add “global Internet Protocol backbone network” (source).
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Done. Silver  seren C 03:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * GTE, MCI Inc. and NYNEX should be deleted under the subsidiaries. They are former companies that were subsumed by Verizon and not currently operating subsidiaries (see discussion in current History section).
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Done. Silver  seren C 03:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Change “Telematics” to “Hughes Telematics” (source).
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Done. Silver  seren C 03:46, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Add EdgeCast (source, source), ICSA Labs (source) and Cybertrust (source) to subsidiaries.
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Done. Silver  seren C 04:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * We should also remove Vodafone Italy under subsidiaries, as Verizon no longer owns this as of Feb. 2014 (source).
 * This was done by an IP address editor. VZBob (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Technically, Verizon only has two divisions: wireless and wirelines. I think that everything currently listed under "Divisions" should be moved included under "Subsidiaries."
 * Symbol delete vote.svg That's not really what the divisions thing is supposed to mean. It's more about pointing out each locational office. Silver  seren C 04:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, that makes sense to me. Thanks so much for all of your help on these edits! VZBob (talk) 14:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Concerns about an edit
I'm also a bit concerned about a recent edit that was made, adding in a paragraph about an FCC ruling against Verizon regarding tethering. The paragraph reads:

"In July of 2012, the FCC made a ruling against Verizon, requiring it to stop charging users an added fee for using 4G smartphones and tablets as Wi-fi hotspots (known as 'tethering'). Verizon had charged its customers $20 per month regardless of whether they had an 'unlimited' plan. A writer on ZDNET, described the policy as being 'about trying to squeeze the customer for the maximum amount of income with the minimum amount of service.' Verizon paid $1.25 million to the US Treasury."

This is a very minor thing in the history of Verizon, and I feel that devoting a whole paragraph to this topic is a case of recentism. I'd like to suggest that, if other editors agree, this paragraph be removed from the History section. If, however, editors think this should be mentioned, I'd suggest that it be shortened, perhaps:

"In July 2012, the FCC required Verizon to stop charging for tethering. As part of the settlement, Verizon made a voluntary payment of $1.25 million to the U.S. Treasury."

Regardless of which course of action editors think is best here, I do think the language included in the article should note that the money paid to the U.S. Treasury was voluntary, and not a fine.

Thanks so much, VZBob (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This one you're going to have to get/convince other editors to do, since I don't think i'd be an objective enough source to make such a change. Apologies. Silver  seren C 04:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem at all; I will reach out to some other editors. Thanks so much, VZBob (talk) 14:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I made part of the change, which you can see in this edit. That's as far as i'm willing to involve myself, however. Silver  seren C 22:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Silver seren! I really appreciate your help on this article. VZBob (talk) 15:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

New "Corporate responsibility" section
Hello, I've worked up a draft for a new section for this article, discussing Verizon's corporate responsibility efforts. A while back, I realized that this article is lacking any information on the company's charitable foundation or its other activities that would fall under the heading of corporate social responsibility.

Based what I've seen in some other well-developed company articles, it seems that including a section on this topic is encouraged, so I've created a draft to do just that. The section I've drafted is titled "Corporate responsibility" and is intended to give an overview of Verizon's philanthropy, particularly through the Verizon Foundation, as well as including information on its investment into alternative energies.

You can find the draft in my userspace. As I've mentioned before, because I'm an employee of Verizon and won't edit the article myself, I'd like to ask editors to review this draft and move it over to the article if all looks good. Please let me know if there are any comments or questions. Thanks so much, VZBob (talk) 14:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Seems legit in general. I dropped a source or two that seemed iffy and limited the naming of dollar amounts to the single per-annum figure so its not quite so relentlessly self-promoting. Rhoark (talk) 22:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Rhoark, looks good to me! VZBob (talk) 20:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Marketing campaigns
Hello, I noticed that there was a tag on the "Marketing campaigns" section recently, asking for newer details to be added, so I've put together a few updates. I propose adding information on Verizon's "Inspire Her Mind" campaign, which launched last year, as well as cleaning up the recently added subsection on the "#NeverSettle" commercials. As I've mentioned on this page before, I am an employee of Verizon so I won't make any of the edits myself. Instead, I'm hoping volunteer editors can look at what I've suggested and make the changes if they look okay.


 * First I propose adding a subsection on Verizon's "Inspire Her Mind" ad from 2014.

#NeverSettle In February 2015, Verizon launched its #NeverSettle campaign. The premise of the campaign is "if you're settling on price, what else are you settling for?" Meant to go after T-Mobile's new low cost plans, the ad is saying that if you are paying less, you're going to get less coverage, and worse service. The ads generally have two people standing side by side, one has Verizon (either FiOS or Wireless) and the other doesn't. The one who has the Verizon service talks about how great it is, while the other person talks about how bad the unnamed competitor's service is.
 * Also, an editor recently added information on Verizon's "#NeverSettle" campaign. The entry is not sourced nor written in encyclopedic style. The paragraph reads:


 * I rewrote this based on sources I was able to find. Please review the proposed new language below.


 * On a side note, the same editor changed the headings of both the Corporate Responsibility and Sponsorships and Venues sections. If I'm not mistaken, only the first words should be capitalized. Could someone change those back?

Thanks so much, VZBob (talk) 14:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I edited the Never Settle campaign and added Inspire her mind all based on your proposals. Myriad Pro (talk) 13:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much, Myriad Pro, for your help with these edits! And I will take a look at the Verizon Wireless page now that you have suggested it. VZBob (talk) 19:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Verizon's employees to go on strike tomorrow...
Hi everyone on Wikipedia,

I just read an article from BloombergBusiness that more than 37,000 Verizon Communications Inc. workers are about to go on strike tomorrow as this company continues negotiating with employee unions over benefits... Winterwind82de (talk) 03:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, no. --jzp (talk) 02:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was merge. Jgera5 (talk) 00:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I propose that the individual operating landline companies of Verizon be merged into List of Verizon landline companies. All of the articles are rather short and would benefit from a merger. I'm not including Verizon Wireless or Verizon Fios in this proposal, as they can both easily stand on their own. Jgera5 (talk) 05:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * No comments after a week, so I went and did the merge. Jgera5 (talk) 00:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Verizon Communications. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20140425141844/http://www.verizonwirelessarena.com:80/arena_info/default.asp to http://www.verizonwirelessarena.com/arena_info/default.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20000620014401/http://www.verizon.com/ to https://www.verizon.com
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20000620014401/http://www.verizon.com/ to http://www.verizon.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

This article reads too positively
There is absolutely no discussion of notable criticisms this telecom has faced, including recent allegations that Verizon technicians are now subject to dismissal if they attempt to repair copper phone lines. ViperSnake151  Talk  17:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to add any controversies that are notable, but everything must be properly sourced. Unsubstantiated negative claims are likely to be removed as vandalism.  There's some info in here claiming that the recent Frontier switchover debacle was due in large part because of Verizon not correctly maintaining digital records.[].Timtempleton (talk) 22:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * In response to the maintenance tags and your Talk page message: Are there any specific issues that should be brought up in the article? I respectfully disagree with the assertion that there is "absolutely no discussion of notable criticisms" in the article. Within "History" you can see the 2000 and 2016 strikes; refunds and FCC penalties paid in October 2010; Verizon blocking traffic to 4chan; a lawsuit and protests after the company gave landline phone records to the NSA following the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks; and the FCC criticizing the company for an E-911 failure in Virginia and Washington, D.C., in 2012.


 * I also want to note that Verizon responded to the CWA allegations in the Oct. 4, 2016, Ars Technica article about copper lines. Verizon's response is in the Ars Technica article, but not reflected in here on Wikipedia. I think it should be.


 * If there is anything missing from this Wikipedia entry, I would like to work with the community to ensure that anything added is properly sourced, as wrote above, and that it is done with a neutral point of view. I work for Verizon and have a conflict of interest, so I do not edit this article directly and work with Wikipedians on Talk pages to work toward consensus. Thanks so much, VZBob (talk) 19:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for adding Verizon's response. Being that no other specific issues have been brought up, I would ask for the removal of the  and   maintenance tags. Thanks so much, VZBob (talk) 19:14, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Footnote reference is invalid
I attempted to visit footnote 36 on the Verizon Communications page of Wikipedia.org, bloomberg reports a 404, I am not familiar on how to edit to show dead link. 184.6.66.174 (talk) 02:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Verizon's response to NYC lawsuit
Hi page watchers. On March 14, ViperSnake151 wrote a paragraph under 2011–present on New York City's lawsuit against Verizon for its Fios deployment. The Ars Technica story referenced and cited also contains a response from Verizon, but that response does not appear in the Wikipedia article. Verizon's response was also covered in other publications, such as The Wall Street Journal. Seems only appropriate to me that if the encyclopedia includes the accusations from the lawsuit, it should also include a response.

Perhaps this works: Verizon denied the allegations, saying that every residence in New York City is within reach of Verizon Fios' fiber optic network, and not all landlords in the city have given Verizon permission to connect properties to Fios. Verizon proposed continuing Fios expansion in the city to remaining homes by investing $1 billion over the following four years.

Both sentences can also cite the Ars Technica story referenced

I work for Verizon and have a conflict of interest, so I do not edit this article directly and work with Wikipedians on Talk pages to work toward consensus. It is worth noting that I have left an identical request on the Verizon Fios Talk page. Thanks so much, VZBob (talk) 22:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for updating this, in addition to the Verizon Fios article. VZBob (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Lengthy list of templates
There are templates on this page which do not specifically include Verizon Communications, but instead they are for Verizon FiOS. One was just added. Are there guidelines about which templates should be added? Specifically, should the template have to include the entity whose article it sits in? Otherwise the value they add to the article is unclear. Has this been discussed anywhere? Conversely, should Verizon Communications be added to the template? Timtempleton (talk) 17:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Predecessor field in infobox
The instructions for the infobox company template says that if a company is the result of a merger between two or more companies, you list both of them as predecessors. The fourth paragraph of the Verizon Communications article makes it clear that it was a merger, and not a standard acquisition "In 2000, Bell Atlantic merged with GTE". Also, the Bell Atlantic infobox in the article lists Verizon as its successor, suggesting that Bell Atlantic and GTE should both be listed as Verizon's predecessors. AT&T should then also be listed in the Bell Atlantic infobox as their predecessor. I noticed this because of a recent reversion [] done by Oknazevad. Not pinging him since he said not to bother as he is actively monitoring his watch lists. Thoughts? Full disclosure - I'm a former MCIer, but left just as Worldcom started to ruin it, so no connection with Verizon. Just know a bit of telecom history. Timtempleton (talk) 20:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Themproblem was that there should not have been a second infobox, in large part because it gives the false impression that Bell Atlantic is a defunct company. It is not. Verizon is the same company (same articles of incorporation and all), it just changed its name in 2000 upon its acquisition of GTE, as the regional name no longer acurately described the scope of its operations. The passage above is actually in error and will be adjusted, and the second infobox (which was against WP:CORP guidelines) has been removed. Thanks for bringing to light the weaknesses in the article. oknazevad (talk) 22:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If it was a merger, which of course is debatable depending on which company you worked for, I would keep the Bell Atlantic and GTE articles, with infoboxes, similar to how MCI Inc. and MCI Communications are written with respect to Verizon. That would also suggest that GTE and Bell Atlantic should be in the Verizon infobox as predecessors, and Bell Atlantic's infobox predecessor would be AT&T.  I think there's so much history for Bell Atlantic and GTE that it gets too clunky to try to stuff both company articles into a singular Verizon history section. Timtempleton (talk) 22:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * GTE does have a lengthy separate article, covering the separate history of that company before it was acquired. Bell Atlantic, on the other hand, doesn't need one, as A) it is legally the same company as Verizon (or vice versa, as a better description) and B) it's pre-name-change history was a scant 17 years (1983–2000) not really enough to require a separate article, especially considering point A. There's lots of precendent for one article for a company even if there's a name change around Wikipedia. Airbus doesn't have a separate article for its former name (EADS), nor, perhaps more to the area of business, is there a separate article for for Sprint Corporation's old name of Brown Telephone Company.
 * And before anyone mentions AT&T, remember that the current company of that name was the former SBC Communications, which doesn't have a separate article, while the "old" AT&T, the former parent to both the modern AT&T and Verizon, is now AT&T Corporation, and a subsidiary of the modern AT&T, which is why there are two separate articles. In both cases the acquiring company has a single article under its current name, while the acquired company has a separate article detailing its history. (Though the difference is old AT&T still exists as a part of the parent company, while GTE is truly defunct; Verizon barely even has any of the former GTE local operations left, having sold most of them to Frontier a couple of years ago.) oknazevad (talk) 22:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's tricky, but you make a good point that this should hinge on how much info there is for the old company - i.e. how much can be saved without making the article too clunky. There are some inconsistencies on the site - would be great to get more specific guidance in the template notes.  Another example to look at is Covad, which was merged with Speakeasy and MegaPath to form a new entity called Megapath Corporation.  Megapath sold off some assets that used to be Covad to Global Capacity, but the Covad article remains to save the historical record, and Speakeasy remains as well.  I just added Megapath as a successor to Covad and Speakeasy in those articles' infoboxes. On the other hand, the old MegaPath pre-merger history is in the new MegaPath company article - the old article is no more, as the new company is also called MegaPath. Two original articles survived, but the third didn't, because the names were similar.  That would be akin to treating the current AT&T (which is just really SBC after a name change) the same as the pre-breakup/pre-SBC acquisition AT&T. And I suppose similar issues exist for Norwest Corporation, which acquired Wells Fargo and took its name.  Wikipedia calls it a merger, but I think it was an acquisition by Norwest. That means the current Wells Fargo article history should be heavy with Norwest info, and the old Wells Fargo article could arguable be preserved as of the Norwest acquisition. But that's a lot of work to fix and keep from being confusing. Timtempleton (talk) 03:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it can get tricky. Especially if at any point there's a bankruptcy involved. A lot of times those actually involve the formation of a new legal corporate entity to take over the name and viable assets of the bankrupt company, while the old company, operating under an different name, continues to exist on paper to settle old debts and other financial issues. General Motors's pre-structured bankruptcy was handled just that way, yet in the discussions at the time it was decided that we only needed one article. So even then it's not always 100% clear. oknazevad (talk) 08:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Matthew Weigman
I'm trying to understand this article about a "Matthew Weigman." Apparently he drove to a Verizon security employees' house? Twillisjr (talk) 00:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Marni Walden
Maybe it's time to make an articla about Marni M. Walden --Manorainjan (talk) 18:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2017
Remove Predecessors	AT&T Corporation as AT&T still exists and competes with Verizon 020ford020 (talk) 14:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ❌. The second paragraph of the article, the one that starts "When the Justice Department of the United States mandated", explains this. When AT&T gave up control of the Bell Companies in 1984, one of the new organizations that was formed was Bell Atlantic, which today is Verizon.  City O f  Silver  15:24, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

net neutrality
hmmm, should we have information about net neutrality and verizon's role under the controversy section? thanks,,,
 * ❤❁❤* b l u e w h i m s i c o t t *❤❁❤* 05:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueWhimsicott (talk • contribs)
 * I'm sure there's material that can be added, but adding an unsourced claim to the lede is not a good idea. Claims such as "financing the dismantling of Net Neutrality and internet freedom for their own economic gain" would need to be meticulously sourced and neutrally worded. Kuru   (talk)  13:57, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I'll make sure to add more cited information in the future. Thanks~ *❤❁❤* b l u e w h i m s i c o t t *❤❁❤* 21:10, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Updating article
Hello, I've put together a few updates for this page that I hope volunteer editors can look at and make changes if they look okay. There are no major edits here. Instead, a few items that can help clean up the article.

Infobox
 * Earlier this week, Revenue, Operating income, Net income, Total assets, Total equity, and Number of employees referenced the wrong source. The infobox contained 2016 figures, yet the 2014 Form 10-K was cited. Mytelecom added a new reference for the 2016 figures. If editors want to also reference Verizon's financials, I have provided a citation to the 2016 annual report:

Acquisition of GTE (2000–2002)
 * This portion of History details more than just the acquisition of GTE, including the formation of Verizon Wireless. I propose it be renamed Formation of Verizon, or Verizon's early years.

2011–present
 * There is a tag here that asked why Ivan Seidenberg stepped down as Verizon's CEO on August 1, 2011. Mr. Seidenberg retired. Perhaps that sentence could be rewritten: Ivan Seidenberg stepped down as CEO and retired as chairman in 2011 as part of the company's succession process.
 * The "registered trademark" symbols should be deleted from A+E Networks®. The Manual of Style says: Do not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, in either article text or citations, unless unavoidably necessary for context.

Because I'm an employee of Verizon and won't edit the article myself, I'd like to ask editors to review these changes and make them if all looks good. Please let me know if there are any comments or questions. Thanks so much, VZBob (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Reply quotebox with inserted reviewer decisions and feedback 03-FEB-2018
Below you will see where text from your request has been quoted and individual decisions, either accepting or declining the proposals, along with feedback related comments, have been inserted underneath each major proposal.  Earlier this week, Revenue, Operating income, Net income, Total assets, Total equity, and Number of employees referenced the wrong source. The infobox contained 2016 figures, yet the 2014 Form 10-K was cited. Mytelecom added a new reference for the 2016 figures. ❌ Your request was not specific enough. COI edit requests must include complete and specific descriptions of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected. The request must be of the form "Please change X to Y". ___________ This portion of History details more than just the acquisition of GTE, including the formation of Verizon Wireless. I propose it be renamed Formation of Verizon, or Verizon's early years. ✅ The subsection's title is Acquisition of GTE (20002002). The co-appearance of 20002002 indicates that information covering the years 2000 to 2002 is also to be found within that subsection. ___________ Ivan Seidenberg stepped down as CEO and retired as chairman in 2011 as part of the company's succession process. ❌ The company's succession process is vague. Please elaborate on what this process entails. ___________ The "registered trademark" symbols should be deleted from A+E Networks®. The Manual of Style says: Do not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, in either article text or citations, unless unavoidably necessary for context.

— No actionable request: The editor is invited to propose specific, actionable edit requests and submit them at their earliest convenience. Regards,  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   08:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Edits to "2011-present"
Following up on the feedback my previous edit request.

2011–present
 * I'm trying to address the  tag in this sentence: Ivan Seidenberg stepped down as Verizon's CEO on August 1, 2011.[why?]


 * ZeppoShemp: You added this tag on August 4. The answer: He retired. If mentioning the succession planning is too vague, I propose we leave that out and simply change that sentence to:


 * Ivan Seidenberg retired in 2011.


 * I previously asked editors to delete the "registered trademark" symbol as per Manual of Style. While I normally do not edit articles directly, I have deleted the symbol after Spintendo responded that "editors with a COI may make unambiguously uncontroversial edits including the fixing of spelling and grammatical errors".

Of course, I welcome input from all editors. I work for Verizon and have a conflict of interest so I ask others to look and make the edit regarding Ivan Seidenberg on my behalf. Thanks so much, 18:46, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I removed the section in question entirely. It was sourced to PR only and felt like a routine programming agreement. It didn't really have any distinguishing factors. ViperSnake151   Talk  21:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Reply
✅ The sentence in question has been altered. The Why template has been removed as answered.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   00:29, 8 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for updating. VZBob (talk) 21:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Humanability campaign
Hello, There is a new campaign underway that has garnered independent coverage in The Wall Street Journal, Ad Age and others, so I've put together a proposal to update Marketing campaigns.

I am an employee of Verizon so I won't make any edits myself. Instead, I'm hoping volunteer editors can look at what I've suggested and make the changes if they look neutral and properly sourced. Thanks so much, VZBob (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Reply
Verifiable and sourced statements like the ones from your request are treated with appropriate weight. The two references provided each contain their own theses governing those particular article's main points. For example, the WSJ thesis was Verizon's desire to grow revenue, such as in online advertising and adding chips to everyday objects so they can be tracked online. Likewise, the Ad Age thesis was Verizon's desire to capture vastly greater amounts of data. The text proposed to be added by the edit request takes no notice of these two main argumentative thrusts made by the two references. Instead, the edit request's text posits bland affirmations which ultimately attest to nothing in particular ("The campaign focuses on the diversity of Verizon's technology and brands..") The weight of this proposed text, if added, would unbalance the article's neutral point of view. Therefore the appropriate weight requirement is unmet. Regards,      Spintendo       22:17, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Humanability campaign II
Hello, Based on Spintendo's feedback above regarding appropriate weight, I've revised my proposal to update Marketing campaigns. I do not see an NPOV problem with what I had offered, however reading between the lines I can see that the suggestion would benefit from additional context to explain the campaign, which can be found in the articles cited:

Pinging just in case you're interested in reviewing as well.

I am an employee of Verizon so I won't make any edits myself. Instead, I'm hoping volunteer editors can look at what I've suggested and make the changes if they look neutral and properly sourced. Thanks so much, VZBob (talk) 19:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Reply
✅ The added context is much appreciated. I find the appropriate weight requirement to be met. Regards,      Spintendo       20:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for updating. VZBob (talk) 22:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Verizon Connect
Verizon Connect does not seem independently notable; the sources offered do not meet the guidelines listed at WP:ORG as they consist of announcements of routine business transactions. This division of Verizon could be mentioned in its article. 331dot (talk) 18:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

A decision on this should take into account other Verizon acquisitions (e.g. Oath_Inc.). Verizon Connect products and services are significantly different from Verizon and should exist on their own page - just as the acquired companies (Telogis & Fleetmatics) had their own pages. More independent sources of notability are desirable, however being a recently formed company it is understandable these are not plentiful. Jasonleedodd (talk) 20:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Verizon Connect
Hello, Since Verizon Telematics and Verizon Connect redirect to this article, I've drafted a few details about Verizon Connect for editors to consider including here. What do you think of adding to History, at the end of 2011–present? You noted on this Talk page that Verizon Connect could be mentioned in this article. Are you interested in reviewing?

I am an employee of Verizon so I won't make any edits myself. Instead, I'm hoping volunteer editors can look at what I've suggested and make the changes if they look neutral and properly sourced. Thanks so much, VZBob (talk) 19:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I would like some other eyes on it, but I currently see no major problem with this brief addition. 331dot (talk) 08:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ As these companies are no longer independent entities, it makes sense to question where new information about them would be placed, and when. By definition, actively new information seems to only be placed into articles featuring active companies. When Fleetmatics and Telogis were purchased, their Wikipedia articles stopped being the repository of anything involving them, with their Wikipedia articles being transitioned into standby mode so to speak. Verizon Connect has only just recently begun as a company, so the information needing to be placed into its environs would be understandably sparse. Only after the company is more established and producing work product should there be reason to expect notable events, accompanied by notable references, to be available for placement in the article. For now, it seems the only significant information one would expect to see about these companies would be mentions of their being purchased in Verizon's article. Indeed, two of these purchases, Telematics and Fleetmatics, already are mentioned. As far as the information in the edit request is concerned, even though it seems as if its being mentioned here only for mention-sake, as the information will undoubtedly grow as this new combination of companies will grow, the mentioning of their assemblage here and now shouldn't be alone (as a mention) for too long. .   spintendo ⋅ ⋅ )  12:46, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Edits to "History"
Hi page watchers, I found a few items to update in this article's History section. The edits I propose below will correct some grammatical, citation, and formatting issues I see with the article.

First, I recommend editing the first sentence of the third paragraph under 2003–2005. The live article does not say when Verizon launched Fios in Keller, Texas, and the citation makes no reference to Keller, Texas. Also, the parenthetical note is unnecessary here. The article mentions Verizon's sale of landline operations in Texas to Frontier later in the article. My updated paragraph is below, with changes in green. The changes include the addition of "In 2004", a comma after "fiber optic cables" to make the sentence grammatically correct, and a second citation to verify Keller, Texas. I also deleted "(Since divested Frontier)".

I also saw a need to copy edit and update Acquisition of AOL and Yahoo (Oath). This section was created prior to certain events coming to fruition, therefore it is written in the wrong verb tense. For example, the acquisitions of AOL and Yahoo are completed, and Oath already exists. The last sentence of this section contains 5 inline citations. The first three are forward-looking, saying the acquisition was set to close on June 13. The last two (CNBC and CNN Money) say the deal officially closed. I deleted the first three citations in my draft below. The article does not need 5 citations to verify a very basic fact. I also added a link to the main Oath Inc. article to the top of the subsection.

I am an employee of Verizon so I won't make any edits myself. Instead, I'm hoping volunteer editors can look at what I've suggested and make the changes if they look neutral and properly sourced. Thanks so much, VZBob (talk) 18:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Reply quote box with inserted reviewer decisions and feedback 09-JUN-2018
Below you will see where text from your request has been quoted with individual advisory messages placed underneath, either accepting, declining or otherwise commenting upon your proposal(s). Please see the enclosed notes for additional information about each request.  spintendo   11:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I will start a new edit request to address the excessive citations. VZBob (talk) 20:25, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Citation fix
Hi page watchers, the last paragraph of Acquisition of AOL and Yahoo (Oath) lumps all of the paragraph's citations at the very end, creating an excessive list of five inline citations.

Please move the Business Insider, Variety, and menafn.com sources to the end of the first sentence. The sources with ref names "Acquisition" and "Merger" should remain at the end of the second sentence.

I work for Verizon and have a conflict of interest so I ask others to look and make these edits on my behalf. Thank you, VZBob (talk) 13:39, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Reply 12-JUN-2018
✅ The information in that sentence was sourced to one reference, that of CNN Money, instead of five, per WP:TOOMANYREFS.  spintendo   05:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you, much appreciated! VZBob (talk) 17:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Logos
Hi page watchers, I want to make editors aware that I requested at Wikimedia Commons renaming the files of two logos used in this article. The existing file names are confusing since the old logo is named File:Verizon Logo.svg, while the current logo is File:Verizon 2015 logo -vector.svg. To avoid any confusion, I requested these files be renamed File:Verizon_Logo_2000_to_2015.svg and File:Verizon_2015_to_present_logo-vector.svg.

Which brings me to this edit request:

Would editors consider moving the image of the former logo from the 2011–present section to Acquisition of GTE (2000–2002) to show the company's original logo when Verizon was created?

I work for Verizon and have a conflict of interest so I ask others to look and make these edits on my behalf. Thank you, VZBob (talk) 16:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Logos - Reply 22-JUN-2018
Would editors consider moving the image of the former logo from the 2011–present section to Acquisition of GTE (2000–2002) "The image of the former logo from the 2011–present section" is not a valid file name. When requesting that an image file be moved, please refer to the image file's name, rather than a generic term such as "the file located here". When requesting that an image replace another image, please refer to this other image in the same manner as the one to be moved, in that its full file name be given. Thank you!  spintendo   19:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)