Talk:Savvis

message: I reverted the edits by 64.241.204.165 (a SAVVIS IP, by the way!), as the "strip club incident" is extremely relevant to the article, and no mention from the previous editor as to why this was removed. -- The Deviant 22:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The strip club incident

message: I'm not sure where User:66.159.176.147 came up with this information, however, it has absolutely nothing to do with the company, and is also provably not true.  Some ISPs that purchase bandwidth from SAVVIS *may* do what the editor claimed, but SAVVIS itself does not.  --  The Deviant 17:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by 66.159.176.147 regarding "bad data packets" 

message: Many internet sources agree that SAVVIS has been fingered (by Spamhaus) for liaising with spammers and helping them to escape prosecution by changing their names and IP addresses for a small fee . Shouldn't this be in the article? References include The Register,  and others. Just try a quick Google for 'savvis' and see what I mean. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 09:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soliciting spam 

message: This article reads like an advertisement to me.  Perhaps someone could rewrite it so it sounds less like it's extolling the virtues of SAVVIS and simply stating the facts instead?'Net 11:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Should read a bit more straight-forward now. --BHC 07:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: It feels to be like the "strip club incident" and the savvis.info information should be grouped together in a better way. Currently, the "strip club incident" comes first, even though it happened later, and there's non-relavant information between the two. I don't have time to edit it at the moment, but I thought I'd throw the idea out there. :) JellyFish72 20:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline issues? 

message: A copy that I left on the TALK page of the use in question, Kbh3rd.  Hereis a copy of what I left on his/her personal TALK page, as he/her is clearly not reading this one:  
"I made specific notes on the TALK page trying to avoid a war, and you have chosen to make changes to the page that have survived careful edits by dozens of editors for several years, all without a peep on the talk page of the article in question.  While I believe your recent reverts to be both poor judgement and to have been carried out in arrogance (ie, no attempt to join in the communication process), I am trying nevertheless to reach you directly so we can discuss this prior to asking for higher intervention.  The changes you are trying to delete are central to the paragraph (without the line you continually delete, the title endowed by the press makes no sense, and it was these two interlocking items which resulted in McCormicks [forced] resignation.  I am a personal, first party witness (who can prove this through over four hundred MSM news articles that place me there, including such notable outlets as the BBC, Washington Post, CNET, etc.: I am definitely a party with first hand personal knowledge.  I have also bent over backwards to maintain NPOV - to the point of standing by silently while entire relevent portions of this article have been butchered in the past (by IPs registered to Savvis legal,  Savvis engineering, and even Savvis executive departments.  I did this to avoid an edit war, and because it was possible to cleanly impart this information in ways that made all parties agree the article was fair, balanced, and accurate.
Now, after a LONG period of general agreement that this article was accurate, NPOV, balanced, etc., you have arrived - apparently without looking at ANY of the information on the talk page nor investigating the material itself, and made the opening overtures in an edit war.
I am asking you to please contact me.  I don't think you actually read talk pages, so I'm not sure this will work, but I'm gonna try it, as it's both the right thing to do, and WP official policy.  Next monday, if I have heard no response, I will be forced to ask for assistance and possible intervention by an editor with The Powers.   Please help us to avoid this becoming a bloody and thereby useless excersize of mere bile: contact me so we can try and get this resolved.  Thanks!"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Measl (talk • contribs)
:To which I replied:
::Get a grip. This little edit was a simple prose-tightening copyedit to remove excess verbiage that to me is very obvious from preceeding content and therefore unnecessary on purely stylistic principles of English composition.  If you think the article somehow falls apart without it, you can always add it back.  Then try to grok this.
:My most recent edit to the article prior to the one linked above was nine months ago.  I'll assume you haven't gone so far off the deep end as to be ranting about anything that old. --Kbh3rdtalk 18:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trying to contact the editor who is making these alarming reverts.  

message: I have nothing to do with the company and yet they're constantly trying to access my computer, anyone have met the same problem?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.222.28 (talk) 15:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Data Mining 

message: "SAVVIS is still considered by many to be a haven for spammers, and they refuse to accept "munged" reports, requiring any reports of spam sent to them to require the full email address of the spam recipient.[11]"
I don't feel comfortable editing this from a Savvis IP, but i'd like someone who can't be accused of bias to review that statement. The "source" is simply a link to spamcop. On top of that, the statement itself is out of place, not to mention vague. What is a munged report?Evillawngnome (talk) 19:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please review last statement in the spam paragraph: 

message: I have reverted these, as the edits made were sweeping, non-specific, and unwarranted.  There was a single "Savvis Employee Satisfaction Survey" between 1999 and 2005, and the #1 issue complained about (we were all given a copy of the report to see) was the nepotism issue.  The issue even made it to an investors call shortly after the survey was leaked.  The 4 first degree relatives of the CEO:
(1) Rob McCormick: The Lap Dunce Himself.  CEO.;
(2) Jonathan McCormick.  J/M was given a "hard" employment contract (the only one in our history, and an act which caused massive  
    upheaval at the top-tier executive levels).  Unlike Rob, Jonathan was at least a competent worker (SVP).
(3) "Missy" McCormick.  The Wife of one of our not so esteemed McCormicks (SVP);
(4) Can't recall the name.  Im certain someone here CAN though, so i'll wait for it.  If nobody comes up with it, Ill move it down to "three first tiers executives were first degree McCormicks.
A trip through the 10ks and form 4s would be VERY instructional.  Thery hired all these idiot McCormicks into positions they were *absolutely* unable to handle, and then went out of their way to keep their positions OFF the company "management" website.  Gee... I wonder why they would feel reluctant to name four McCormicks on the list of top executives? talk  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.243.137.136 (talk) 05:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Disgruntled employye" edits