User talk:X570

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Dratz!

I was just thinking of uploading the WeCO logo, then I see you uploaded it.. oh well. --Saint-Paddy 03:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] d/b/a

What is your objection to "doing business as", except personal vanity that you do like your wording tampered with. I assure you that "d/b/a" is as meaningless as "t/a" probably is to you. Leaving the phrase abbreviated forces a British reader to follow the wikilink. Expanding the phrase makes the meaning obvoius and there is no need to follow the link. -- RHaworth 15:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] picture on Baby Bell page

Hi,

Is there a way, you could define, these pics to even define joint ventures.. e.g. Cingular owned by AT&T and BellSouth?

[edit] RE: picture on Baby Bell page

It is simply a chart showing the progression of the top level companies. Jointly owned subsidiaries could complicate it, and finding the true roots of Cingular would be difficult becuase of the many companies doing business as Cellular One (Cingular's prececessor was SBC Cellular One, other Cellular Ones were owned by Comcast and others.)

[edit] Great diagram

Was thinking about the practical reversal of the AT&T breakup, and came across your diagram. It's great. Thanks. Massysett 23:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ACCO Brands

Do you have a reference for your assertion that "ACCO bought Swingline MUCH later in the century"[1]? I think I'm the one who put that note there, and while I don't know ACCO's history very well, their own site made this claim at the time. -Harmil 04:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emissions control

Listen, you are very rude for hijacking that redirected article. You should have converted it into a disambiguation page. Do you not have any respect? Learn some manners. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 06:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. It's disrespectful. Furthermore, just because you didn't know the term doesn't make it obscure. You are obviously new to Wikipedia, or else you wouldn't make so many assumptions. Not only that, but it's against Wikipedia SOP to do what you did. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 01:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what your bogus made-up statistics indicate. It still doesn't give you the right to hijack a redirect. You should have made it a disambiguation page and there is no excuse. Also, sign your comments in the future. Good day. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 04:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:140west.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:140west.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] New England Telephone?

Since I haven't touched that page in three months, I'm a little baffled by your sudden (unsigned, by the way - a bad habit) comment. (Also, please don't throw around the word "vandalize" when there's an edit disagreement; it ruffles feathers unnecessarily.) I believe New England Telephone is no longer a working subsidiary of Verizon; do you have evidence otherwise? Judging from your email address, you probably do - could you point to it? - DavidWBrooks 21:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

But that's Verizon New England not Verizon New England Telephone & Telegraph Co. as you have written. Where did you get that title? And why is the "NYNEX company" logo in the infobox? And it's not a Bell Operating Company, it's a subsidiary of one; actually, it's just an operating unit according to the link you sent, which is less than a subsidiary.
Even if all that is corrected, the article as you have changed it starts out talking about a different name than the title, which is highly confusing to the reader. It would be like having George Elliot start out Mary Ann Evans was a Victorian writer ... and then mention two sentences later that she used George Elliot as a pen name. At the very least it should say New England Telephone was the name of what is now Verizon New England ... or perhaps we should move the whole article to Verizon New England. -
A reminder: you can sign your posts, as should be done so confusion doesn't reign, just by typing four tildes. - DavidWBrooks 21:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I stand corrected on the BOC (I was thinking RBOC, my error), and since you certainly seem to know what you're talking about, I accept the full name.
But the NYNEX logo is still confusing - surely that's not part of the current logo, if it's ever used (perhaps internally)? - as is the terminology. We either need to move this article or rewrite the intro, so that it doesn't talk about a different company name than the article title. Since you're more involved in other articles about BOCs, which do you think makes sense?- DavidWBrooks 21:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
We should be having this conversation on the Talk page of the article, so others can follow and contribute, and understand any changes made. I will move there ... - DavidWBrooks 22:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What Wikipedia is

Wikipedia is first and foremost a freely redistributable encyclopedia. To those ends, fair use image galleries don't help us in the slightest. I know in an ideal world we would be able to have something like that, but we don't live in an ideal world, and copyright laws do exist and can only be circumvented by a very specific type of fair use. Image galleries do not fall within the boundaries of fair use. --Cyde Weys 23:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../x/5/7/User_talk%7EX570_d2a6.html"