Talk:Sprint Nextel customer service rep. harasses client; Sprint cancels his account

OR

I interviewed Mr. Brady in IRC. He has informed me that all of this is document through his lawyer, which should contact me on Monday. and local and federal authorities.

I am also going to e-mail Sprint. This is not ready for publish yet :) DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 07:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Brianmc e-mailed sprint, so far no reply. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 07:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Digg it!

This article is on Digg.com. Help to make it popular :) DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 23:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

attribute, attribute, attribute

we shouldn't be reporting without attribution, what we can't independently confirm. for eg. the headline, the lead paragraph and the synposis in the main page lead. –Doldrums(talk) 10:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe it

How can you publish this story without an ounce of verification? He could be making the whole bloody thing up to defame Sprint! →MR 02:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

(With no offense to Brady, of course; I'm speaking from a journalistic-integrity point of view.) →MR 02:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, he spoke to Brady's lawyer, didn't he? I suppose speaking to a public official would constitute some form of legitimacy, wouldn't it? Thunderhead - (talk) 03:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Lawyers are not inherently public officials. And there's no proof he spoke to any lawyer. →MR 00:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

In fact, lawyers are members of their specific State's Bar Association. They are officers of the court, therefore I suppose you can construe that to mean a public official. At least paperwork can confirm these things. -- JayH ^t-wp 23:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

All speaking to the lawyer would gain you would be confirmation that this man is making these claims. You need a) some confirmation that his service was terminated (original paperwork) b) the reason stated by Sprint (should be in said paperwork) c) a good faith effort to contact Sprint PR through any channels provided on their Web site to confirm the story. All of this really must be performed before this story shows up (as it currently is) on the front page of Wikinews! The story also needs copyediting. There are a number of assertions of opinion (such as the assertion that their conversation was, "what two people would normally discuss if just chatting.") Please, retract this story for now and continue to develop it. -Harmil 14:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)