Talk:Text messaging

This article was formed from parts of the Short message service article, as per the consensus at Talk:Short message service#Split suggestion. There is still some commonality between the 2 articles, but all the social aspects have been (or are about to be) removed from that article. Carre 13:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Mobile Campus

I am a UF student and our campus got this service 2 years ago. you smell like a dirty pirate hooker. but I think it deserves a bullet on the "Academic" impact list. Press releases here: http://www.mobilecampus.com/FAQs/tabid/Press/tabid/59/Default.aspx, main website here: http://www.mobilecampus.com/Default.aspx?base The press releases start in 2005 but the service existed at other campuses before then, however I can't trace down an exact date. Thanks, 66.253.134.235 06:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

if u deleted ur mobile messages .. is there a way for people to read them .. for example the police? plz respond —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.149.187 (talk) 17:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

With a court order (warrant) it is possible for law enforcement to get a copy of messages sent and received as this is all passed through phone companies communication systems. --ČσъяạβҜ ^†Talk† 22:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Loose sentencing

At the bottom of the introduction it says:

"Canadian Cellular Carriers (Bell, Rogers, Telus, Fido, Solo Mobile, Virgin Mobile, SaskTel, MTS, Aliant)"

There is no period, and no reference to anything else. Are these names services that do not charge for received messages, as discussed above? Or are they something else? Someone please fix this, as I have no idea what these companies have in common with the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazy coyote (talk • contribs) 04:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

143

I've never seen 143. But isn't it "one for free", instead of "I love you"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.161.4.111 (talk) 14:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about 'one for free', but I can understand that 143 is the number of letters in each word for the phrase 'I love you'. Does this help your concern at all?Heytaytay99 (talk) 10:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

143 was used for 'I Love You' in pager times http://www.angelfire.com/ky/bussgobeep/beepercodes.html 71.134.242.186 (talk) 05:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Language

I was just wondering if there is any way to warn readers that there is explicit language in an article. Children often surf Wikipedia and this really isn't the sort of language we want them to repeat. I know there are worse articles but is this language really nescessary in this case? Please post comments/ideas/answers etc.Heytaytay99 (talk) 10:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the Text speak section needs to be looked at. Do we need so many examples? And do we really need to include ones with swearing in? -- Cowplopmorris^Talk_Contribs 14:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I took the plunge and deleted all the ones with Fu* in. Discuss here if you disagree. I still think there's too many though. -- Cowplopmorris^Talk_Contribs 14:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be something tasteless about censorship in wikipedia. Omission is only misinformation. --Kariudo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.212.115.24 (talk) 17:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Crime impact

What worries me about this is that many States are now allowing anonymous texting to places that pass it on to local law enforcement. The problem is that without being able to get to talk to someone who law enforcement can get a feel for, how do they know where the person making the tip is coming from. I had a friend who worked at a call center many years ago and many of the anonymous calls were just bogus and mostly came from ex's, people who weren't taking their medication right, people who were racist or people who simply didn't like someone else for any number of reasons and they usually didn't stop at one coplaint. The person(s) making this/these report(s) will still get a report number back but they can't be checked out dispite this. For exampe, say someone in your apartment building doesn't like you because he thinks that you've been flirting with his girlfriend so he and his friends decide to get even by texting that you're doing something illegal, they'll get a number which they can then give to your landlord, boss, the place you like to eat and so on. The old way when a complaint was made, officers would talk to the one(s) making the complaint and if need be, the one that the complaint was about. I think all this text messaging is going to take time away from real cases, slow down our already slow legal system and maybe even lead to more lawsuits. This is going to take text bullying to the next level.Grateful Jerry (talk) 07:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signaturescomment added by Grateful Jerry (talk • contribs) 07:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Social Impact

Can the line "Texting can also bring people together and create a sense of community through ‘Smart Mobs’ or ‘Net Wars’, which create ‘people power’ [23] " really be accepted as a fact? It's reference points to an author that suggests people can organize through different wireless technologies. Text messaging does not produce community, not true community anyways. --Matt872000 (talk) 18:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

what is a text message?

This article doesn't say what a tm is. Is it only letters and such or does it include spoken messages? You can't assume every-one knows. I don't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.225.37.54 (talk) 09:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Its a message composed of text, so no spoken messages since they're not text... Seems self explanatory to me. Do you want a definition of the word text? The word message? Perhaps we should explain what a phone is. Or a letter. At some point you have to assume people know what a word means, this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. BrucePodger (Lets have a beer) 02:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

could someone fix this reference near the bottom of the article?

I don't know what part of the article this is supposed to be connected to. could someone fix this reference near the bottom of the article?

• 68.(http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/22/earlyshow/contributors/susankoeppen/main2205559.shtml) "Driving While Texting: A Clear Danger"

anon 03:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

removed content

Took out "Also, it has been a known risk that cell phone users will spend their money on their cell phone rather than the basic nesecities." because it's uncited, written badly and is generally really stupid. 98.221.123.121 (talk) 18:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Safety Section

Does anyone else think there should be a safety section? Perhaps in place of distraction. Right now the distraction section seems to simply focus on the affect of texting while operating a vehicle. However I think this might be a better title for a section on distraction from work, or a decrease in productivity. Also a safety section would be a good place to cite this story on a woman sentenced to six years in prison for texting while involved in an accident. [1] --76.166.235.166 (talk) 19:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)