Talk:T-Mobile (brand)

Data breach text
Hello. Could you please explain how this text meets WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS? I am happy to reconsider, but at the moment it does not seem to IMHO. In response you mentioned Data breach, however this is an article, not Wiki policy. In addition, your claim "I don't have the time to correct them" is not justification for including text that needs improvement. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:27, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, I come at peace! I appreciate your corrections, but if you read the article Data breach, at the bottom you will find many Data Breach incidents and some of them have their own pages. I am listing a few companies where the Data Breach is mentioned. Please have a look at them. As far as I am concerned, every lawsuit with references has a place on Wikipedia. We can ask the admins to share their opinions in Teahouse if you still disagree with me.


 * Wattpad
 * SolarWinds
 * Canva
 * Quora

These are major ones like T-Mobile (100 Million customers were affected). On the Data breach page, there are minor ones as well that affected less than 100,000 people. If they can have a place, then why not this? And secondly, I have seen many pages where even a normal lawsuit has a place, let alone a major Data Breach. Let me know what you think. SAMsohot (talk) 13:55, 23 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the detailed reply, great to hear that you come in peace! Please be aware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS- I agree that there are breaches which are notable but am concerned about WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS with the way it was included in this article. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:47, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn't say anything out of certainity but only what was factual. I used words like "alleged." I am quite sure it is fine. Do you wanna ask the community? Thanks! SAMsohot (talk) 15:37, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I have made some changes to the text, feel free to tweak further if you see fit. It's also fine to ask for help at the Teahouse if you like. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:27, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Removal of content
Can anyone work out what's going on with ? It looks like reversion to a c.2016 version but I can't find one that matches: the article has been bigger than that since 2010. Should we restore the version before that edit and repeat any subsequent edits that aren't just partially restoring the removed text? Certes (talk) 13:13, 29 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Agreed: it's some sort of vandalism (or a very, very misguided edit) that we've accidentally institutionalised by building on rather than reverting. I've been bold and gone back to the edit before. Now, of course, we have to pick through the subsequent (good) edits that have been lost and see if there's any new sourced info we can add back in. Well spotted, Certes. — Trey Maturin™ 14:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see any major changes except a possible inconsistency as to whether the regional setup started in 2009 (lead) or 2005 (#History). They may refer to different changes. Certes (talk) 14:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC)