This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
Why would you name a company SilkRoad Inc. and have the domain name "silkroad.com"? I just got asked to adjust my spam-filter to receive something from "silkroad.com" and, having no interest in buying slaves or stuff like that, I said "No way!" Okay, I need not have been so frightened, but if you are just a human-resources company WHY USE THAT NAME?!?!? Or "CrucifyTheInfidels.com" or anything else that sends the wrong message? What about the fact that they wouldn't HAVE to ask me to adjust my spam-filter if they didn't have that name? OF COURSE my anti-spam trap is not going to let that come through! So, that's really bad business-planning, isn't it? Why not use the name "TalentAcquistion.com"?2604:2000:C682:2D00:1DC5:9EAB:B1AA:AA4B (talk) 01:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)Astonished[reply]