Talk:Verizon/Archive 3

Requested move 8 June 2018

 * 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: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below; no consensus that this will not introduce undesirable ambiguity, despite the current redirect. Dekimasu よ! 06:47, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Verizon Communications → Verizon – WP:COMMONNAME. feminist (talk) 05:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dekimasu よ! 16:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per nom, WP:COMMONNAME surely applies here. I note that the company itself uses the shorter name in, for example, its logo. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Verizon Wireless is also commonly shortened to "Verizon". I think the status quo of "Verizon" redirecting here and the hatnote is best. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. While it is true Verizon Wireless is shortened to just Verizon, the wireless carrier is a wholly owned subsidiary of the parent company, just like the other subsidiary business units like Verizon Business. That wasn't always the case, which is why the disambiguation of a longer title was used for this article, but things have changed, and now doing business with Verizon Wirelss means doing business with Verizon as a whole. For an apt analogy, AT&T Mobility is often called just "AT&T", but the bare title points to the parent company. Plus, since the bare "Verizon" already redirects to here, we are already saying this article is the primary topic of the name, so per WP:CONCISE we should use the shorter title. oknazevad (talk) 15:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per COMMONNAME Chetsford (talk) 19:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per lazy one-word, WP:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG! nomination reason. No evidence, no rationale. Per above, its not clear that "Verizon" is commonly referencing the wireless service or the company. Also, Special:Whatlinkshere/Verizon can be used to fix lazy editor linking so we can correctly point those links the proper specific article. -- Netoholic @ 07:20, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article states "Bell Atlantic changed its name to Verizon Communications in June 2000 when the Federal Communications Commission approved a US$64.7 billion acquisition of telephone company GTE, nearly two years after the deal was proposed in July 1998." The article then goes on to state that "Two months before the FCC gave final approval on the formation of Verizon Communications, Bell Atlantic formed Verizon Wireless in a joint venture with the British telecommunications company Vodafone in April 2000." This seems to indicate that there is a difference between the parent and the child company. There are two different articles for the Verizons Wireless and Communications simply because they are, in essence, two different entities. Now it is my understanding that the collective term "Verizon" is used to describe them both, and that its use describes everything Verizon-related. If "Verizon" is the collective name for all its constituent parts, and you re-name one of those parts — the parent organization — you simultaneously defeat the distinction that was in place while magnifying the confusion. There is a reason why, when referring to Mr Tyler Morgan's son, who is also named Tyler, that you would call the father "Mr Morgan Sr." to differentiate him from his son. You would not rename the father simply "Mr. Morgan" or "Mr. Tyler Morgan" without differentiating which one you're talking about. The same holds for renaming this as Verizon, because then, which part of Verizon are we referring to? If this article were to be merged with Verizon Wireless and that article were to be named Verizon, I would support this. states that these distinctions were necessary in the past because "that wasn't always the case, which is why the disambiguation of a longer title was used for this article, but things have changed." If there has been a change the article does a poor job of explaining it, while the lead mentions no changes whatsoever, where one would expect this type of change to be mentioned. In the meantime, calling it Verizon Communications and specifying that this is the parent remains nomenclaturally correct, while renaming it Verizon has not been explained very well (in the article or in the requested move nomination space, which is essentially blank.)   spintendo   10:51, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * To clarify my !vote, as the article notes in the "2011–present" section: "In September 2013, Verizon purchased the 45% stake in Verizon Wireless owned by Vodafone for $130 billion. The deal closed on February 21, 2014, becoming the third largest corporate deal ever signed, giving Verizon Communications sole ownership of Verizon Wireless." That is what changed; the wireless no longer has a separate ownership from the parent company. Yes, there are people who are referring to their wireless service when they say "Verizon", and they are not wrong, because of that wholly owned status. oknazevad (talk) 23:00, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * (question) Where it states "In September 2013, Verizon purchased the 45% stake in Verizon Wireless owned by Vodafone" which part of Verizon is this mention of "Verizon" referring to? I had thought that up to that moment all the Verizons were referred to by qualifications (Wireless, Communications, etc.) Was this the first instance of the company being referred to simply as Verizon? That would be an important event which in my mind would change my !vote if that were the case.  spintendo   00:45, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * In that sentence the unadorned "Verizon" refers to the parent company. Even before the buyout of Vodafone's stake, the parent company was usually referred to in that fashion, as seen in the news articles used as sources throughout the article.oknazevad (talk) 03:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ahh I see. But can't the same be said of Verizon Wireless, where the bulk of the references there in that article also refer to it simply as Verizon (in the article titles)?  spintendo   08:55, 10 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Support. Verizon Wireless, the subsidiary of Verizon, can be comparable to that of AT&T's wireless service AT&T Mobility, likewise with that of other AT&T subsidiaries. The article here, Verizon Communications, being placed in the same manner as that of the AT&T and CenturyLink articles, as Verizon that is, would be consistent in alignment with that of the Baby Bell parent company articles. Best, --Discographer (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support move. The arguments have been made well above. For consistency, this article should be located at "Verizon" as the primary topic.  ONR  (talk)  04:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – it could be confused with Verizon Wireless.  CookieMonster755 ✉  01:34, 19 June 2018 (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.

Logos, new request
Thanks for responding to my previous request. As you suggested, I have reworded my edit request.

Please move the image named File:Verizon Logo 2000 to 2015.svg to Acquisition of GTE (2000–2002). This will help 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) 18:21, 25 June 2018 (UTC)


 * ✅  spintendo   20:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , I'm sorry but I've undone that; you may have noticed that I had already removed the old logos which were serving no encyclopaedic purpose here (please see Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 June 22). While this particular logo is so unoriginal that it isn't considered to pass the com:threshold of creativity, our general policy on this is the use of historical logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the historical logo itself is described in the context of critical commentary about that historical logo. Just as a general observation, may I suggest that we should limit our acceptance of paid-editor edit requests to those that address significant errors or omissions of fact? We have no obligation – and no possible reason – to fiddle with minor details on their behalf, or to do anything that serves only to massage their corporate image or that of their clients. Trivial requests such as this one can, I believe, just be immediately declined as such. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:15, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Hans Vestberg is now CEO
Hi page watchers, Hans Vestberg is now CEO of Verizon. While the infobox has been updated, the Corporate governance section needs updates. I recommend:
 * Under Board of Directors, updating Lowell McAdam's title to "former CEO of Verizon"
 * Under Executives, updating the text to show that Hans Vestberg is now CEO. At this point, there is no reason to start with the announcement. Also, I removed the portion about him being ousted from Ericsson. That detail is handled in Hans Vestberg. I propose: Hans Vestberg is CEO. He succeeded Lowell McAdam on August 1, 2018. McAdam is executive chairman through the end of 2018, after which he will continue in a non-executive capacity.

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) 21:22, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

This is already mentioned in the infobox. If there is an immediate need for this information, then that need is already handled by the infobox, which has been specifically designed to address the needs of readers in gaining quick access to main points of an article's information. Regards,   spintendo   05:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reviewing. Thanks also to the editors who updated the page to show that Hans Vestberg is now CEO. Thank you and sorry for the delay in response (vacationing) VZBob (talk) 18:36, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Citations needed
Hi page watchers! An editor added a citations needed tag atop this article back in June. I went through the article to identify areas that are missing citations. Where I could find third-party sources, I have included them in this request. For detail where there was not good independent sourcing, I suggest deleting the content so the article adheres to Wikipedia's rules.

History
 * Bell Atlantic (1983–2000) contains no inline citations. See below; please add the following citations, and delete the information for which proper references were not found.

Marketing campaigns
 * Better Matters is unsourced. There is also an inaccuracy, as the Better Matters ads began in 2015. I did not find many independent sources to add inline citations to this subsection as written in the live article. But if editors prefer to keep Better Matters as a subsection, please consider replacing the Better Matters subsection with the following:

Corporate governance
 * Please add two citations to verify Hans Vestberg's and Ronan Dunne's roles in Executives.

Sponsorships and venues
 * I could not find good sources supporting the following sentence in Motorsports: "In 2012, Verizon was featured on the side of both McLaren cars at the US Grand Prix." Please delete this sentence because it fails to reference any sources.
 * I found sources to verify Verizon Hall as the name of the Philadelphia Orchestra's concert hall. Please add the following source:

I work for Verizon and have a conflict of interest so I ask others to look and make these edits on my behalf. If these changes are accepted, can the citations tag be removed? Thank you, VZBob (talk) 15:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Reply 30-AUG-2018
 spintendo   08:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you, much appreciated! VZBob (talk) 20:10, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

More Citations
Per my request above, Spintendo has added citations where needed, and deleted unsourced material. I found one more paragraph that needs citations: the second paragraph of the Venues subsection. It's also outdated, so I prepared new text to bring this up-to-date with proper citations. Please consider replacing the second paragraph of Venues with the following:

If this edit looks OK and is accepted by Wikipedia editors, every paragraph in the body of the article will carry citations. I would then ask editors to consider removing the citations needed tag atop the article calling for "additional citations for verification". 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) 20:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Please make your request for the template's removal first to the editor who placed it, if possible.  spintendo   21:31, 30 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks again! VZBob (talk) 13:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Citation tag
Hi page watchers, Justlettersandnumbers posted an additional citations needed tag atop the article in June. Following my two previous requests that were answered by Spintendo, every paragraph following the introduction carries a citation (except, of course, a few small introductory sentences). If Justlettersandnumbers and other editors feel this issue has been resolved, can you please consider removing the tag from the article. If you feel there are other areas that still need additional citations, please let me know and I can help locate sourcing.

I am an employee of Verizon so I won't make any edits myself. Instead, I'm hoping volunteer editors can look at the article and determine if the tag is still necessary. Thanks so much, VZBob (talk) 13:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Looking at the page as it existed when added that tag, the only citation needed inline template in the article at that time was for a claim under the Motorsports section. That claim has since been removed. If that were the only reason why the main template was placed, I would see no reason why it couldn't be removed. Of course I would prefer Justlettersandnumbers' input on this before removing it.   spintendo   04:21, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding to this request. I marked it answered! VZBob (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced material
Hi page watchers! An IP editor added this unsourced material in Bell_Atlantic_(1983–2000). The edit appears to be a reference to an issue involving Amdocs, which provided billing software to Bell Atlantic, in addition to other phone companies. The issue is discussed on Wikipedia at Amdocs. Since this is not a Verizon Communications issue, I ask if editors can consider deleting it from this article.

I work for Verizon and have a conflict of interest so I ask others to look and make edits on my behalf. Thank you, VZBob (talk) 17:57, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Reply 12-OCT-2018
 Spintendo   22:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks again! VZBob (talk) 19:20, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Verizon Enterprise Solutions which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Corporate governance
Corporate governance is outdated, as the board of directors and executive leadership have changed since August 2018. I work for Verizon and have a conflict of interest. Following in the footsteps of my former colleague, VZBob, I won't be making direct edits to articles where I have a conflict, so I will propose edits here. I published a draft in my user space, which deletes Lowell McAdam, Richard Carrión, Frances Keeth, Karl-Ludwig Kley, and Gregory Wasson; adds Vittorio Colao and Daniel H. Schulman; and updated the titles for Hans Vestberg, Shellye Archambeau, and Mark Bertolini. Lastly, the draft does not include the last two paragraphs from the current article, which discusses Hans Vestberg becoming CEO and Lowell McAdam staying on the board through 2018. Now that it's 2019, is that better off in History?

As I work for Verizon and have a conflict of interest, I ask others to look at my draft and make edits on my behalf. Thank you, VZEric (talk) 13:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Reply 22-JUL-2019
Regards, Spintendo  13:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Items which were put forth in the proposed draft were implemented.
 * ❌ Items which were posited to be altered or deleted elsewhere but not described in the above proposed draft were not implemented.


 * Thank you! VZEric (talk) 16:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Fake logo
Verizon's logo in the infobox was replaced with a fake logo. Can editors please revert this edit?

I work for Verizon and have a conflict of interest. Following in the footsteps of my former colleague, VZBob, I ask others to make this edit on my behalf. Thank you, VZEric (talk) 18:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Reply 31-OCT-2019
Regards, Spintendo  05:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks to for fixing this.
 * Thank you for fixing and resolving this request! VZEric (talk) 12:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Number of employees
The infobox contains an outdated number of employees. I work for Verizon and have a conflict of interest. Following in the footsteps of my former colleague, VZBob, I won't be making direct edits to articles where I have a conflict, so I will propose edits here. Is it possible to update the figure based on Verizon's own fact sheet with figures as of September 2019? If so, please update Number of employees in the infobox to 135,400 (September 2019)

As I work for Verizon and have a conflict of interest, I ask others to look at my request and make editors on my behalf. Thank you, VZEric (talk) 22:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Reply 15-JAN-2020
Spintendo 23:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you! VZEric (talk) 21:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

5G update
I am proposing an addition to History; I've drafted a brief explanation of Verizon's 5G efforts to show Verizon's year-end 2019 figures. As 5G is a major topic in the industry, I felt it germane to this article. I modeled my draft so it is of similar size to the existing content about the launch of 4G LTE. I included what people say are the pros and cons of the spectrum Verizon uses to keep this neutral. My proposed addition is shown below:

As I work for Verizon and have a conflict of interest, I ask others to look at my draft material and make edits on my behalf. Thank you, VZEric (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ I chose to write this passage a bit differently from how it was done on Verizon Wireless, rather than using the same text. I think I much prefer how I did it on this article, and am tempted to use it on Verizon Wireless as well. – Erakura (talk) 22:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this edit, too! It looks great. Thank you, VZEric (talk) 16:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Financial information
Verizon's Form 10-K with 2019 financial information was released in February with the latest financials. I work for Verizon and have a conflict of interest. Following in the footsteps of my former colleague, VZBob, I won't be making direct edits to articles where I have a conflict, so I will propose edits here. The financials in the infobox and the Finances section are updated. I suggest these updates (the page numbers cited represent the PDF page numbers).

In the infobox:
 * Change "Revenue" to "US$131.86 billion (2019)"
 * Change "Operating income" to "$30.37 billion (2019)"
 * Change "Net income" to "$19.78 billion (2019)"
 * Change "Total assets" to "$291.72 billion (2019)"
 * Change "Total equity" to "$62.83 billion (2019)"
 * Change "Number of employees" to "135,000 (2019)"

With these new figures available, the Finances section is now outdated, as the introductory paragraph discusses 2017 financials. I have provided an updated paragraph and citations here for consideration:
 * For the fiscal year 2019, Verizon reported earnings of US$19.78 billion, with an annual revenue of US$131.86 billion, an increase of 0.77% over the previous fiscal cycle. Verizon's market capitalization was valued at over US$$224 billion in March 2020. Verizon is ranked #19 on the Fortune 500 rankings of the largest United States corporations by total revenue, as of 2019.

Lastly, the table in "Finances" would need to be updated with the figures I have shared here.

As I work for Verizon and have a conflict of interest, I ask others to look at my request and make edits on my behalf. Thank you, VZEric (talk) 21:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Reply 4-MAR-2020
Regards, Spintendo  21:51, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) ✅ The infobox financials were updated.
 * 2) ❌ The employee numbers were not updated for two reasons:
 * 3) Another source with a similar figure was already established in the infobox.
 * 4) The source provided with the request states approximately 135,000 employees. The already established number of 135,400 is a reasonable approximate of 135,000.
 * 5) ❌ The financial information in the prose was not updated. The stated reason for the substitution was that the Finances section is now outdated. A check of the information shows that it refers to 2017, and that the data for 2017 has not changed, and is still relevant for 2017. Therefore, the information is not outdated. To substitute the information, another reason why the information is inaccurate and should be removed needs to be provided. As an alternative, the 2019 information could be added on top of the 2017 information.


 * Thank you for updating the infobox! I also appreciate your notes about the employee figure and the "Finances" section.


 * As you created the "Finances" section, what do you think is the best way to incorporate newly released information on Verizon's 2019 financials in that section? VZEric (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for adding the most recent financial information. VZEric (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem. How do you think will the COVID-19 pandemic affect your current business year?--Afus199620 (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * We can't comment or speculate about that, but we're monitoring the situation while we support our employees and serve our customers. VZEric (talk) 22:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

History.
The stated history does not sound right.

In 1984, the Baby Bells sprang into being. C&P beget Bell Atlantic [DC, MD, VA, DE, Bell of PA, NJ] & NYTel+NETel = NYNEX

NyNEX+BA merged in 1997, renamed VZ in 2000.

108.51.163.10 (talk) 19:49, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Reduce detail in "Marketing Campaigns" section?
Seeking comments from other editors - the Verizon_Communications section seems a bit excessive with regard to the level of detail. Do each of these campaigns truly rise to the level of notability to be included in an encyclopedic article? In scanning through other articles for similar companies, I do see "Marketing" sections, but not with this level of detail. I think it would make more sense to reduce this to a few paragraphs that perhaps mentions some of the more major campaigns. Thoughts? Comments? - Dyork (talk) 21:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Fortune 500 ranking
In "Finances", this article says, "As of 2020, Verizon is ranked 20th on the Fortune 500 rankings of the largest corporations in the United States by total revenue." This year, Verizon continues to rank 20th. Will editors consider updating that sentence to:
 * , Verizon is ranked 20th on the Fortune 500 rankings of the largest corporations in the United States by total revenue.

I work for Verizon and have a conflict of interest. I won't be making direct edits to articles where I have a conflict, so I will propose edits here and ask others to make edits on my behalf. Thank you, VZEric (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The whole sentence is problematic as it introduces WP:RECENTISM. I have removed it.  Mel ma nn   12:22, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing this request. I'm not sure I understand your argument about WP:RECENTISM. Are you saying that in, say, 10 years time, the 2021 Fortune ranking will not be more noteworthy than the ranking from 2020, or any other year for that matter? If so, I wonder if there is a way to make it more evergreen. I looked at the Wikipedia articles of the other 19 companies atop of the Fortune 500, and every article makes mention of the company being listed toward the top of the Fortune 500 list. Some are more outdated than others. Would you reconsider a sentence that discusses this in a way that doesn't become outdated each year? Something along the lines of, "Verizon ranks on the Fortune 500 among the largest corporations in the United States by total revenue. "


 * Thank you, VZEric (talk) 17:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Let me address second part of your response first. WP:OTHERCONTENT arguments are generally not looked upon favourably on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is work in progress (WP:WIP) and will never achieve any particular level of accuracy and completenesses. At any time you can find other recentist statements and many other much more clear cut issues such as clear factual inaccuracies; that does not make your particular statement any more acceptable or less recentist. Wikipedia is also not a quasi-judicial body (WP:NOTBURO); we are not bound by any particular precedent. Making the statement more evergreen is the way to go. It is generally advised against making statements that are likely to become outdated quickly. So, you'd have better chance of your request being implemented if you said something like: 'For twenty years, Verizon has been in the top 20 in the Fortune 500 listings.' (this is just an example, change the actual facts to what they are, and provide a WP:RS). Such statement will remain relevant even if Verizon falls out of Fortune 500 or even ceases to exist. Mel ma nn
 * Thanks for explaining, and for your guidance on a more evergreen approach. I do not have sources to verify a sentence exactly as the example you provided. However, I did put something together that I hope you could look at and consider adding to the article.
 * "For more than 20 years, Verizon has ranked on the Fortune 500 among the largest corporations in the United States by total revenue. "
 * I included two citations there. The 2016 source verifies that Verizon has been on the Fortune 500 for more than 20 years, and the 2021 source verifies that Verizon still ranks on it. Is this an acceptable way to make this content more evergreen?


 * Thank you, VZEric (talk) 16:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 'Among the largest' is MOS:PUFFERY; making grandiose statements without communicating verifiable facts. I'm sorry if this feels like I'm nitpicking, but when an editor accepts your edit request, they're expected to defend it as if it was their own against reasonable criticism, and I could not defend that sentence. Another editor may accept that revision (I've reopened your edit request) but for me to implement it MOS:PUFFERY must go. Let the facts speak for themselves. Also, putting together two sources to say something either one doesn't say alone is WP:ORIGINALSYNTHESIS (I'm being told). CC Am I doing it right? :)   Mel ma nn   19:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I found this link that gives us the answer we're looking for. In fact, I'm able to offer proposed content that matches your example above. How's this?
 * "For more than 20 years, Verizon has been in the top 20 in the Fortune 500 listings of corporations in the United States by total revenue. "


 * The source verifies that Verizon has been in the top 20 for the last 21 years, but I used the wording "more than 20 years" to make it more evergreen. One less thing to update every year. Thank you, VZEric (talk) 12:11, 25 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Pictogram voting keep.svg Go ahead: I have reviewed these proposed changes and suggest that you go ahead and make the proposed changes to the page.    Mel ma nn   12:37, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you giving me permission to go ahead and make the update myself, but I strongly prefer not to do so given my conflict of interest. I have always kept my contributions to Talk pages and I would like to continue that for as long as possible so there is never confusion about my editing. But I also understand that carrying out these requests takes time and I respect your time, so I am going to ping another editor who has reviewed requests of mine to see if they are able to implement this change on my behalf. Given our recent work together at Verizon (mobile network), is there a chance you would be interested in this request? As you'll see above, Melmann and I came to a good compromise, but I simply prefer to stick to Talk pages instead of directly editing articles. Thank you, VZEric (talk) 15:39, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @VZEric - Possibly... but not this week with my schedule. - Dyork (talk) 01:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Implemented. While I appreciate your commitment to COI/PAID policy, there is not prohibition from editing the mainspace if there is sufficient consensus or review. Wikipedia's volunteer resources are limited, and we are staring down a long queue so implementing your own edit request would be helpful.   Mel ma nn   13:12, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for updating the article on my behalf. I certainly understand that Wikipedia's volunteer resources are limited and I respect your time. And thank you Dyork for considering reviewing this request, although as you can see, that's no longer necessary. VZEric (talk) 17:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Board of directors
The board of directors in Corporate governance is outdated, as there have been changes to the board since 2019. I have prepared a draft of that subsection for editors to consider implementing, which adds Roxanne Austin and Laxman Narasimhan, and removes Vittorio Colao and Kathryn Tesija.

The current board of directors is comprised as follows as of July 2021:


 * Hans Vestberg, chairman and CEO
 * Shellye Archambeau
 * Roxanne S. Austin, president and chief executive officer of Austin Investment Advisors
 * Mark Bertolini
 * Melanie Healey, former president of Procter & Gamble
 * Laxman Narasimhan
 * Clarence Otis, Jr.
 * Daniel H. Schulman
 * Rodney E. Slater
 * Gregory Weaver, former CEO of Deloitte's audit and enterprise risk division

I work for Verizon and have a conflict of interest. I won't be making direct edits to articles where I have a conflict, so I will propose edits here and ask others to make edits on my behalf. Thank you, VZEric (talk) 13:42, 15 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: I removed the Board of Directors from the article, since that list will require constant updating and they are not involved in day-to-day operations of the company. This makes this request moot. Z1720 (talk) 15:18, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Executives
The executives in Corporate governance is outdated, as Guru Gowrappan is no longer part of Verizon following Apollo's acquisition of Verizon Media. Will editors consider removing Gowrappan from the list, and change "As of 2019" to "As of 2021"?

I work for Verizon and have a conflict of interest, so I ask others to make edits on my behalf. Thank you, VZEric (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Pictogram voting keep.svg Go ahead: I have reviewed these proposed changes and suggest that you go ahead and make the proposed changes to the page. Tag: Signed, I Am Chaos (talk) 04:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I appreciate you giving me permission to go ahead and make the update myself, but I strongly prefer not to do so given my conflict of interest. I have always kept my contributions to Talk pages and I would like to continue that for as long as possible so there is never confusion about my editing. Would you be willing to reconsider implementing this request on my behalf? Thank you, VZEric (talk) 12:23, 22 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done Signed, I Am Chaos (talk) 21:23, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for updating the article on my behalf! VZEric (talk) 00:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Manon Brouillette
Key people in the infobox is outdated. Manon Brouillette succeeded Ronan Dunne as executive vice president and chief executive officer of Verizon Consumer beginning on January 1, 2022. Would editors please consider updating this?

I work for Verizon and have a conflict of interest, so I ask others to make edits on my behalf. Thank you, VZEric (talk) 18:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅  Spencer T• C 02:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for updating the article on my behalf. I appreciate it! VZEric (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Bell Atlantic History
So there's a 17 year period of this company that just gets shafted by a single sentence? Where is the history of Bell Atlantic between 1983 and 2000, arguably one of the most dynamic periods of telecommunications and technology? 107.11.6.4 (talk) 14:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Verizon's broadband statement
The net neutrality section of this article includes the line, "Verizon has admitted to throttling content of its competitors including Netflix and YouTube", citing news articles from 2017. Since then, Verizon has developed an open Internet policy, which editors can see here on Verizon's website. Based on this source, I am wondering if editors will consider adding a line about this policy? I have provided the following wording as a suggestion.


 * Verizon has since adopted an open Internet policy that states, among other things, that the company will not block legal Internet content or throttle traffic based on their source or content.

I understand primary sources are not preferred on Wikipedia, but WP:PRIMARY does say they can be used with care "to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts."

I work for Verizon and have a conflict of interest, so I ask others to make edits on my behalf. Thank you, VZEric (talk) 19:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

❌ To my mind, this is just the sort of thing that we should not rely on company sources for. Companies write many things into their policies, but we rarely report on them in Wikipedia. When we have a reliable, independent, source that says Verizon has actually stopped throttling competitors, or makes some other comment on the matter, then we can say something. SpinningSpark 15:50, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That's fair, I understand. Perhaps a more appropriate thing to do is use additional context from the articles already cited to indicate Verizon's position on the matter with regards to this "throttling" issue. The third sentence of the Fierce Wireless article states: "Verizon admitted to doing so, saying on Friday that it had been tinkering with data speeds to 'optimize' the content, although the carrier said it wasn't specifically capping speeds for Netflix users". The second sentence of the Ars Technica article states: "When contacted by Ars this morning, Verizon acknowledged using a new video optimization system but said it is part of a temporary test and that it did not affect the actual quality of video". Since Verizon's position plays a prominent role in the sources cited, it seems appropriate to include the additional context. It could be a simple sentence to explain this, citing the same Fierce Wireless and Ars Technica sources:
 * Verizon said it capped network speeds as part of the company's testing to optimize content, and that Verizon was not specifically targeting certain websites.
 * Would you be willing to consider adding that sentence, or something similar? Thank you, VZEric (talk) 00:44, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The Net neutrality section has been updated with this edit, so this request is completed for now. Thanks, all! VZEric (talk) 16:37, 31 October 2022 (UTC)