Talk:CT Corporation

History

Any chance one of you CT guys could post some citable history ie: Sven started CT out of the family kitchen, etc. - lol... just anything interesting or notable in the company history. Notable litigation?

CT Employees

I am an employee in the marketing department of Wolters Kluwer. Our subsidiary, CT is now known simply as "CT" and should no longer be referred to as CT Corporation. Since I am an employee of the company, I did not want to edit the article in keeping with your "no autobiography" rule. By the way, our thanks to the author! 208.203.201.46 21:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome ;-) If you have any other pertinent company information or insights and you do not feel it is appropriate for you to post them yourself, please put in the talk page with citations and I will do my best ;-) Dougieb 03:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I am the public relations manager for CT and have made a couple of minor changes. Of course, like my colleague above, I don't want to go against any of your policies, so please feel free to edit any of the content I've provided as you see fit. Thank you again for adding us!! And, to address the comment below, we realize it can be very confusing to keep up with all the recent changes. As part of Wolters Kluwer, we've recently undergone some organizational changes, which have also led to re-branding and new messaging. Many companies have faced these challenges (GE went from General Electric to GE successfully and also expanded into other markets), but we certainly understand it can be confusing.

To help try to explain things, our currect company name is CT, which includes CT Compliance & Governance, CT's UCC Solutions, CT Litigation Support (CT TyMetrix and CT Summation) CT's Trademark Solutions (CT Corsearch). All of this is part of a division of Wolters Kluwer called Wolters Kluwer Corporate Legal Services. This division includes CT, UCC Direct and BizFilings. I hope this helps some! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.203.201.46 (talk) 13 December 2006

Confusingly-named company

CT Legal Solutions, CT Advantage: so many names, so many product lines. The customer might wonder who they are really dealing with. When you drill down through the company's web site, they assert that an entity called 'CT Corporation System' is located at 111 8th Avenue in New York City. You can also come up with various flavors of the CT company name with a Google search. A company known as 'CT Corporation Systems, Inc.' is said to have rented space at 155 Federal Street in Boston. I don't think companies should be allowed to have infinitely many names in Wikipedia. Since the present article is called 'CT Corporation' that seems to be a usable compromise. EdJohnston 04:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, they are HUGE - like way huge... like unbelievably huge. It is scary. Dougieb 00:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Please create an account

Hello 208.203.201.46. I see no reason to object to most of your edits, but you did remove the line that CT is the most expensive registered agent service company, which is hardly a minor edit. Since the idea of companies editing their own articles is watched very carefully on Wikipedia, it is preferable if you create an account so that you can establish a reputation as a reliable editor. Even if you don't create an account, you should still sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~) so that people know who made the comment. EdJohnston 17:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the fact is, that out of the big four, they are the most expensive in my experience. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, so they shouldn't hide from it. Rolex is an expensive watch, you know? Anyway, the editor even states that he is the Public Relations manager for CT - and this makes sense since the current edit looks like a corporate PR statement with all negative content removed. Not good. Dougieb 19:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for removing the paragraph about our pricing--I did so before realizing your policy and agree that it should be added back in. I will create a user account before making any additional edits (which I shouldn't since the info is now accurate--anything else related to opinions and other comments are completely understandable). My name is Stacy Nobles since I haven't created the account yet so you can see who I am. Thank you again for all of your help!

Hey, that's totally cool. - also its not "my" policy, but Wiki. Yeah the self-autobiography thing is understandable though - and if you find out that CSC, NRAI or ISI is more expensive than you (lol), then post it here and someone will take that line out. You guys are definitely the biggest though, have the most employees, scope, etc. - no doubt (LOL). Also, articles shouldn't be opinionated one way or another. If you see a slant against (or for) CT in there, definitely bring it up. Unfortunately, there are a ton of agents out there trolling on Wiki to slant articles against other companies so do expect a competitor to come slam you on your own article - it will happen. Dougieb 00:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

This article needs additional references or sources to facilitate its verification

I think the CT history page is an accruate enough depiction of the company's history. Most of this is commnon knowledge anyway.Dougieb 15:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It also needs Wikification and proper Categorization, which I will attempt. 22:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

"Big Four" Myth

Their is no such thing as a "Big Four" resident agent anymore than there is a "Big Four" Wikipedia editor. It is a self-designation for marketing purposes. Many companies are adopting the "Big" something moniker because it helps business (I adopt the "Big Johnson" one myself), but the phrase is meaningless and is a promotional gimmick.

Anybody can be in the "Big Four" or "Big Ten" (or whatever) if they simply declare themselves to be.—Preceding unsigned comment added by CoolDiscoDan (talk • contribs)

The indeed unsourced and probably unsourcable mentioning of 'Big Four', has already in the past been discussed and removed at Registered Agent. But that is not a deletion reason, and in any case deletion per WP:PROD can be proposed only once.)--Tikiwont (talk) 14:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

"Big Four" was not a deletion reason, merely an addendum to the talk page. If Wikipedia is allowed to be utilized as a Yellow Pages for businesses, then so be it. I was under the impression that it was not.

CT Corporation has many competitors, and I am sure they will be pleased to hear that Wiki is "open for advertising". FWIW.—Preceding unsigned comment added by CoolDiscoDan (talk • contribs)

We're trying here to include also article on notable companies while trying to keep out the spam. That isn't easy, because most volunteers prefer other topics and company articles are of interest mostly to themselves and competitors or critics, which often results in edit wearing and little improvement. Now we have made some steps forward here. If you want to help further to improve the encyclopedic coverage of corporations, you're welcome. Just use meaningful edit summaries and sign your messages using four ~~~~.

With respect tot he 'Big Four', that is and has been in the past a rather controversial subject since such a concept obviously of interest mostly to the numbers three and for and a thorn in the eyes of all that come beyond. Logically, there are of course the largest two, three, four, five and so on, but that doesn't mean that there are the 'Big Four'. At that time no reliable sources have been found anyways, just some websites some of which close to Incorp. The compromise found in the past at Registered agent was avoiding the mentioning of 'Big four' and just listing those who have an article. Tikiwont (talk) 08:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Understood. However, I would hazard a guess that absolutely EVERY business-owner considers their company "notable". If they did not, then they probably shouldn't by in business. Everything is "notable" for one reason or another. Would CT Corporation be in an encyclopedia? Even a very large one? It is doubtful. The NBC network has been around for far longer than has the FOX network, and has produced thousands of more shows over it's lifetime, but the FOX network has a page. Longevity and size does not matter. There are small bars and clubs with Wiki pages that are only notable because a niche' group cares about them, or because of the quality of acts they have hosted, even though much, much large venues exist. Similarly, if a Resident Agent business is considered to be of higher quality than one of these two "largest" ones, should they have a Wiki page? The "encyclopedic" nature of all of these points is debatable, and advertising pages because a company is larger than another is a slipper slope. If you ask 10,000 random people on the street what "CT Corporation" is, you would be doing incredibly well to get one correct answer. Is that "notable"? Probably not, but it's subjective. CoolDiscoDan (talk) 17:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)CoolDiscoDan

If we only had articles about what random people on the street knew then there wouldn't be much point in having an encyclopedia. How many of such a sample would know about the Path integral formulation or the Haptopoda? But we still have articles about them. What would be the point of an encyclopedia that only contained information that you already know? It is pretty obvious from the number of books and newspaper articles that have written about CT that this is a notable subject. Having a Wikipedia article is nothing to do with the quality of the subject, but simply with it's notability, which is defined here in general terms and here in specific terms for companies. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Path integral formulation is not a business, and therefore does not need to meet the same "notable" standards that Wiki sets for companies.

Again, how many people know about my corner store? Not many, but the owners find it "notable". So do I. Someone finds everything "notable". But is it encyclopedic? Probably not. McDonald's, yes, because of the sheer number of stores and it's definitive product. Same with NBC. But a Registered Agent Service? I doubt you would find that in any encyclopedia, even a large one. If you want Corporate Information, a Corporation's website or finance page is normally where you would go. Not Wikipedia. If your opinion that every "notable" company (defined as someone, somewhere having an interest) should have an entry, than perhaps I should do a page on Fred's Garage down the street from me. He's a swell guy, does quality work, and is proud of his business. He is also pretty well-known locally, and can rebuild and engine in no time flat. According to his sign out front, he has "Fast service and friendly prices". The only reason I don't do an article about his great repair shop, is because it would probably be deleted as db-spam. You'd probably be the first one to flag it. When it comes to "Yellow Pages" listings like this, it is all completely subjective. I maintain that "CT Corporation" does not fall under the general definition as "notable" whereby it would be included in an encyclopedia. I think you know this as well, but have an interest in the existence of the article. CoolDiscoDan (talk) 00:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

'Having an interest' is not our definition of notability, nor is that necessarily the same as 'the general' one whatever that may be. Please check the links given above by Phil. It has mostly to do with having sufficient independent coverage by reliable sources. I can also assure you that neither Phil nor me has a vested interest in this. He was checking the proposed deletions and I have this still on my watch list after intervened last summer on request at the RA article, but this is not something I want to discuss further here.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

- Many of the referenced "newspaper articles" were press releases, which we all know are put out as advertising vehicles. I could issue any number of press releases to my local newspaper for my website or local businesses tomorrow. Some will get picked up, some won't, but neither even makes them "notable". In my personal opinion, the "notability" of CT Corporation is a quite a reach. It is not encyclopedic even by liberal interpretations of the word. Again, the term is completely subjective, and open to interpretation. If a poll were taken, I would wager that most people would find it not notable, but Wiki is not a democracy. I do have confidence that you are on top of potential abuse, and will simply agree to disagree on this particular matter. I would just like to see an equal standard applies across the board to all companies and competitors. CoolDiscoDan (talk) 18:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

A few observations reading this... 1, With 1.5 Million shares traded daily and an over 5 BILLION $ market capitalization, obviously CT is notable to someone somewhere. 2, No offense, but anyone who doesn't acknowledge CT's dominance as the largest agent would just have to be completely brain dead. My employer uses both CT and Incorp depending on the partner. I know who both are. Everyone in our firm knows who they are along with CSC just as they did at the last firm I worked at and the one before that, so I guess I am the 'one in 10,000' along with everyone I work with. If you work in a law firm or rather a good law firm, you have to know who these companies are along with Lexis and Westlaw. 3, I've heard of and am familiar with the 'Big 4' registered agents, the 'Lost Dutchman', and the 'Candyman', and interestingly both of the later have an article (not to say that the 'Big 4' should get one). 4, I love the line about 'what's the use of an encyclopedia containing only things that people already know' or something to that effect. That was hillarious. And finally.... 5, WHO CARES?!!! I did read most of it, but this is the most pointless discussion I've ever read. I'm looking forward to the 'Fred's Garage' article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.27.245.123 (talk • contribs)

Doug, is business THAT bad that you have to SPAM the living shit out of Wiki? You are desperately trying to justify the relevance. If you don't care (as you claim), then leave it alone and stop adding promotional links. Problem solved. I'm sure the economy is tough, and Adwords is getting expensive, but the only reason that you claim "Big Four" agents exist is because you claim to be one. That in and of itself, doesn't make it encyclopedic. My claiming to have a 14 inch dick doesn't make it so. Buy some advertising. If your position is WHO CARES?!!!, then stop telling us, and show us. If you say and do two different things, then how can you expect people to give credibility to any point you make. So to answer your question. Quite obviously, YOU CARE!!! CoolDiscoDan (talk) 15:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you 1) please comment on content and not on contributors, 2) cut out the profanities and 3) avoid deleting legitimate content such as categories or references.--Tikiwont (talk) 15:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

1) When the "contributer" is a frequent SPAM vandal of the page, and you won't do it, no. 2) Since there is no such thing as "profanity", the question is patently unanswerable. 3) I have not at any point deleted "legitimate content". You are friendly with the spammer. We get it. That in and of itself doesn't mean that overt SPAM should be left in.

The author of many of the debates above are from the President of a Registered Agent company that frequently promotes itself on Wikipedia. The fact that most of his references are from domains that he owns, or is affiliated with is absolutely germane to the discussion, and conflicts of interests are absolutely pertinent to the discussion about any article. CoolDiscoDan (talk) 19:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, above is an IP edit. Conflict of interest are indeed be of relevance, but I am fmore reluctant to jump to conclusions. Nevertheless, this is the talk page for an article on CT, an article that you have already proposed for deletion, and if you want to discuss whether or not something e.g Nevada Resident Agents is a valuable source being more concrete might be more useful in convincing others (1). And for that it sometimes helps not falling for vulgarities (did I get it right this time? (2)). Actually I have no issue with your removal of the mentioned link and only reinserted the reference section, the categories and the home page that you removed as well (3). Moreover, I've already removed dubious external links and unsupported claims from the Registered agent article, and commented some days back there on some sources close to one company, so i don't accept that I am not interested in removing spam or being 'friendly' with spammers. --Tikiwont (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi CoolDiscoDan! Guess who? Generally when I'm told to check out a webpage I am dissapointed 99% of the time, but not this time. This is entertainment incarnate. I am so flattered and this was completely worth taking a break from GTA4 for. There is so much here to wrap around that I don't even know what I would address first, but this chaos is pretty awesome and rings of desperation in places. I love it! Doug A. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.234.147.170 (talk) 02:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Guess who? Who needs to "guess". We've always known. (except for Tiki apparently). Hi Doug Ansell a/k/a dougb of Incorp. I am pleased to hear that you are enjoying Grand Theft Auto 4. Perhaps said game will keep the Registered Agent pages SPAM-free for three days. Kudos for showing up and at least proving who it is that has, indeed, been spamming the pages. Due credit should be given for that. But, seriously, who are you trying to kid? People don't send Wikipedia "talk" page URL's to each other. You weren't "told" to check out a webpage. Far from a "break", you live on Wikipedia. It's free advertising. Insult the reader's intelligence if you must, but do you really think the readers are going to buy the "someone sent me the link" story? Really, Doug? Someone said it was you, and you quickly showed up with an insult. You can argue their points, but not certainly their accuracy. Tikiwont, you still reluctant to jump to conclusions?

BTW, Doug. Are you aware that the IP address you are using is currently in an IP exclusion list for Google Adsene for rampant click fraud of competitor ads?

Seems like you "take a lot of breaks", Doug. Click fraud is time consuming. No?

Desperate times call for desperate measures I suppose. But now, not even Google is not counting your clicks. I'm sure someone "sent" all those links for you to click, though.

It probably makes sense to stick with that story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.27.195.250 (talk) 18:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm truly flattered that you think me so omnipresent. I am everywhere at all times! I have lots of free time to troll when I'm not committing click fraud. While you're in full-paranoia mode, have you considered that maybe I AM Tikiwot AND PhilBridger? (That should keep you busy for a while.) Free advertising? You're showing your naivete. If you're referring to SEO, Wikipedia is negligible for SEO and everyone (except you apparently) is aware of that. MAYBE if you have an article, Wikipedia is good for something, but InCorp doesn't have one; perhaps you or I should write one! It is also interesting that you think I spend my spare time promoting and defending CT Corporation. That is a REALLY interesting strategy you've proposed. Clear this up for me. What is the logic behind that exactly? If you think that business is horrible, I won't correct you. So bad in-fact, that I spend all of my free time clicking adsense ads - ha! I don't know about my IP, but you on the other hand have an interesting Wikipedia edit history as "CoolDiscoDan" apparently consisting only of defacing CT, CSC, NRAI, "Nevada Corporations", and "Registered Agent" articles. Who is the one with a lot of spare time? Is business THAT bad? Also, do you think it is such a stretch that if you're being talked about that someone might bring your attention to it? You obviously have some problem with me. You know where to find me, so why not address it personally rather than this? What's next? www.juicycampus.com? I hope your life gets more fulfilling soon and business improves for you. If you need any help, let me know! I will be happy to help you. PS: "said game" is awesome! Doug A. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.234.147.170 (talk) 20:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Safire would have loved this

Does the Corporation Trust Corporation have a Redundancy Committee on Redundancy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.198.188.110 (talk) 07:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)