Talk:SaskTel/Archives/2016

Untitled

 * There is no question that the article reads like an ad. I cleaned up one sentence; a rewrite is needed IMHO to remove the obvious non-neutrality. The issue is not generally with the info, but with its manner of presentation. Fremte 18:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The copy in the article looks suspiciously like ad copy to me. So that I avoid raising issues as I did in DVDEmpire.com, could some other users please get back to me on how you feel about this? jglc | t | c 17:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Not quite sure I know what you're talking about. This information is from the companies website. I'm new to editing on wikipedia so let me know if something should be changed. Note: I live in Regina saskatchewan so i know that this article is not biased, its factual. wagnj1 11:20, 17 Jun 2005 (CST)
 * Ah. I see, now. Thanks for being polite: I understand. I'm not disputing that the article is about a real company. Moreover, I think that the company is notable enough to be included in WP.
 * I'm still thinking that we ought to change this, though, because it is very likely a Copyright Problem. If you still think that SaskTel is worth including in Wikipedia, you might want to take the information that they give and re-write it - having the text copied, word for word, is frowned upon (As far as I know.). Thanks for replying quickly and reasonably. jglc | t | c 17:27, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I sent an email to SaskTel at the same time I created the article, asking if it was ok to use the information from one of their pages. I haven't heard anything back as of yet. I'll let you know when I hear from them. In the email I also included a link to the "About Wikipedia" page so they can see that it is non-profit. I also mentioned that if they have a problem with the page to let me know and I'll fix it up so that they are happy. Normally, I would wait until after getting their permission to make the page, but I thought it would be better to let them see what the page would look like and what info would be on it. We can put this article on hold until I hear back from them if need be. wagnj1 13:32, 17 Jun 2005 (CST)
 * Sounds good to me. I have no issues with that (nor ought anyone else to). Let me know what they say about the entry. jglc | t | c 19:42, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I went through and cleaned up this article...hopefully now you'll find it to be more simlified, neutral, and most importantly no longer a potential copyright problem.

Cheers

--Eric.s 21:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)