Talk:TalkTalk (telecommunications company)

message: I'd like to edit some of the structure of this page as it has become quite unwieldly. I am doing this on behalf of TalkTalk, so putting my cards on the table, but won't be adding press releases or puff to treat this as a promotional exercise, but will be correcting factual errors about things like turnover. 
Some of the areas do, however, seem to require editing down as although they were highly relevant at the time, don't warrant this amount of attention now. For example, the "free broadband" area is over 500 words long. I agree that it is in the public interest to include it and was a big story at the time, but being almost three years ago, would suggest that it is edited down a bit. Since I would be deemed to be biased in this, I would request that someone else looks at this while I check the other areas. theredrocket (talk) 16:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Structure of this page

message: The data pimping section seems a little long and is more about Phorm than TalkTalk's reported interest in signing up for the service (this has not been publicly verified by TalkTalk). Suggest that this is edited down. theredrocket (talk) 12:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources for that sentence report more than Talktalk's "interest".  The paragraph in question is not long in my view.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Thanks for disclosing your connection.  I see no problem with the use of the word spywhere in this context.  As you say, the technology involves "monitoring users' surfing habits" so that ads can be targeted. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and I'm assuming that others contributing to the Phorm elements similarly either are looking impartially or are prepared to state any connection. I understand the controversial aspects of the Phorm trial, but do believe that most people would regard "spyware" as a derogatory term rather than a descriptive one. I think, on the Phorm page, there's an argument to discuss whether or not Phorm is or isn't spyware, but perhaps not here. However, it's easy to get hot under the collar about this issue, so will concentrate my efforts on the accuracy of the TalkTalk page. theredrocket (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Data Pimping 2009

message: As per the discussion on the Phorm page, the references to Phorm are edited closely by the anti-Phorm protestors, who campaign for the removal of Phorm and regularly describe Phorm as a "spyware" company. The terms spyware is used here in a derogatory way and not to describe that the technology monitoring users surfing habits and serving ads that relate to the sites they visit. "Behavioural advertising" is a more accurate description. 
For the record, I do not currently work for Phorm, although I do work at the agency that still handles elements of the PR work. With this in mind, perhaps other users have a view? theredrocket (talk) 16:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for disclosing your connection.  I see no problem with the use of the word spywhere in this context.  As you say, the technology involves "monitoring users' surfing habits" so that ads can be targeted. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and I'm assuming that others contributing to the Phorm elements similarly either are looking impartially or are prepared to state any connection. I understand the controversial aspects of the Phorm trial, but do believe that most people would regard "spyware" as a derogatory term rather than a descriptive one. I think, on the Phorm page, there's an argument to discuss whether or not Phorm is or isn't spyware, but perhaps not here. However, it's easy to get hot under the collar about this issue, so will concentrate my efforts on the accuracy of the TalkTalk page. theredrocket (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of term "spyware"

message: I am updating a few inaccuracies on this page, such as updating the management team, financial results, clarifying the inaccuracies about where the company does business and the timeline. Please let me know if you have any feedback or comments. 
theredrocket (talk) 16:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: All changes should come with references/sources.  Also, please use an edit summary.  thanks,  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, all changes have new references, but I will use the edit summary from here on. theredrocket (talk) 11:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

text: What is it that you don't understand about the requirement to use edit summaries (as explained on your own talk page)?  And can you please explain why you undid my fix of the "wikification" of Dunstone's name in the lead?  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I made a few amendments before I saw your point about the edit summaries aspect - I will continue doing this henceforth (my Talk page was produced afterwards). I don't know what you mean about the Wikification..? I don't recall undoing anyone's amend - if I did it it by accident, apologies. theredrocket (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: To "wikify" something is to create a link to another Wikipedia article, using double square brackets:  .  Dunstone's name had single brackets (which has no effect); I changed them to double so that clicking on his name would lead to the article on him, and in one of your edits (here) you reverted that change -- apparently inadvertently.  No worries, it's small... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Updating inaccuracies - January 2009

message: :Image:TalkTalk logo old.gif 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 ensure 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 (talk) 20:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:TalkTalk logo old.gif

message: :Image:TalkTalk Free Broadband logo.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 06:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:TalkTalk Free Broadband logo.png

message: :Image:Talktalk.gif 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 07:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Talktalk.gif

message: There is a "neutrality disputed" tag on the Free broadband section of the article, but no discussion here about what is disputed.  Unless someone can point me to what is disputed about this section I shall remove the tag on 2008-03-17.--  JediLofty User ¦ Talk 10:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: doesn't seem to be biased really - its all referenced OK. Maybe a bit too detailed which could make it seem too impassioned. Shorten it a bit and it'll come across as more encyclopedic. Cnbrb (talk) 22:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I forgot to remove the tag!  Thanks for reminding me.  I have now done so, and removed all the uncited statements in that section. --  JediLofty User ¦ Talk 08:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't it great having a page called Talk:TalkTalk?  :o) Cnbrb (talk) 00:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: There are references to market position in relation to acquisition of Tiscali UK, but conflicting in numbers and update points (dates), in three places: 
* 2nd paragraph of introduction, referencing January 2009 announcement, stating company has "an overall customer base of 4.25 million customers ..." [which is tautological --- why use "customer" twice?] "... claiming to be the UK's largest single provider of broadband services". 
* last paragraph of History section, referencing news as of June 2009 and 6 July 2009 but saying "a deal" as though we had never heard of the January reference earlier on the page.
* sole paragraph of Market position section, referencing May 2009 for the Tiscali deal and saying it will make TalkTalk "the UK's second largest broadband provider with around 4.8 million customers".
Except in the section headed History, mentioning a date of some announcement in Wikipedia tends to imply to a typical reader that that date is when the latest available information on the subject came in. 
After a takeover or acquisition deal has happened (here, in July 2009,) mentioning that it had been announced in January 2009 is irrelevant except in a very detailed history of the events leading up to that deal. Once completion of that deal is history, reference to previous announcements about it are superfluous and thus should be deleted --- or moved to History. 
On top of that problem, the January 2009 claim about being the UK's largest broadband provider (regardless of whether it is the aticle's claim or TalkTalk's claim)  needs to be removed from the intro if the true market position (in the subsequent section with that heading) is right, that it has actually the second largest. Iph (talk) 10:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Market position /Tiscali deal statements