Talk:VeriSign

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the VeriSign article.
Article policies
VeriSign was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{FailedGA|insert date in any format here}}

Contents

[edit] Citations needed

"Verisign's critics see this as disingenuous"
"There has been a storm of controversy among network operators and competing domain registrars, particularly on the influential NANOG and ICANN mailing lists...."

It would be good if we could actually name some influential people/entities that are critical of Verisign's move rather than have anonymity... would make the article more credible. Pete 13:54, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Alexa

I added an Alexa source for the increase in popularity of verisign.com. Unfortunately the parsing of this URL is broken. Wikipedia developers know about the bug and call it the URL-in-URL bug. If anyone can figure out a work-around, go for it! Pete 10:23, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

test does this work : [1] -fonzy

indeed it does - fonzy

this also may work: [2] - fonzy

that does aswell. i changed the page to the first (just graph one) if u think the 2nd oen is better then use that. -fonzy

[edit] Jamster should have its own article

I'm not sure whether it previously had its own article but it should have one, even though it is owned by VeriSign. Taylor 1 July 2005 13:20 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism is confused and muddled

The criticism section makes it appear that the los of .org was somehow related to sitefinder which it was not, the loss of .org happened over a year earlier during the bidding round. The separate bids for .org, .net and .com were always intended to create competition so it was never very likely it would be retained. Also the .net contract was renewed this year. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gorgonzilla (talk • contribs) 14:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Confused

After reading this article, I am a little confused about this bit:

In 2005, the company was responsible for the marketing of the Crazy Frog ring tone ("Axel F"), based on the heavily-played remix of "Axel F", known as the theme of Beverly Hills Cop. The advertisements for the tone, widely displayed on the media, were asserted to seriously mislead the target audience - children.

I have found an article here about it [3]. I deleted it because it is confusing and should really be in [Jamster]] and does not seem importamnt enough to be on this page.--Clawed 10:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Weblogs, Inc.

If we're talking about Jason Calacanis's blog network Weblogs, Inc., Verisign didn't buy it. AOL did. But is there another company with the same name? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.188.209.81 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Failed

This article failed the GA noms due to lack of references. Tarret 01:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:VeriSign.png

Image:VeriSign.png 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 Wikipedia: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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)