User talk:CoreyPlover


Home	Talk	Contributions	Projects	Email

Exetel further article cleanup

I'm trying not to edit the Exetel talk page or the Exetel article for a while because of the edit wars but I wanted to comment on some of the things you said.

Essentially there's a lot of merit in what you've suggested and I've taken it on board. I've completely revised the Exetel article correcting links, rewriting text etc and I've incorporated a lot of what you've suggested. You can see my proposal at User:AussieLegend/Exetel/Article. (Ignore the header icons etc. They only exist on my user pages.)

The following are some specific comments.

"The entire "Residential Services" and "Small/Large Business" seem superfluous and I would have thought that the quality of the article would be improved by removing them."

I agree but I felt there should be something about EGN and with the two sections removed the article didn't look right so I combined the two and just listed all of the options in bullet point format. I've also left out a couple of items as you suggested.

"Corporate Employee ADSL Service includes mention of "lower cost" which may border on advertising / promotion of Exetel"

Since it is a service that's offered I think it's valid to leave it in but I've shortened what was there so it's just listing the service and describing what the purpose of the service is since it may not be clear to some (a lot of?) people.

"Online Gaming Services seems to devote too large of a contribution."

That's an understatement. I've reduced it considerably.

"Traffic shaping 50% of P2P traffic and 40->48Gb offpeak limit seem to be separate policies and could be separated"

Agreed. Unfortunately our Texan friend seems to believe they're related so I've added some citations that prove they aren't and separated them into two sections under "Bandwidth Management" rather than "Policies".

"In fact, "off-peak" download limits don't seem to be an "atypical policy of Australian ISPs" at all and could be removed"

I've reworded the section as an introduction to bandwidth management practices.

"The atypical policy relating to off-peak is the unique shaping protocols in place (i.e. 48Gb to 72Gb = restricted pool, 72Gb and over - charged). So this may require a new subheading under Policies"

Agreed. Also done.

"Items 4, 5 and 6 (dealing with Traffic Shaping) to be replaced with the original and official Exetel source of http://forum.exetel.com.au/viewtopic.php?t=17721. 2 of the 3 cited sources in question each reference the official Exetel source anyway, so why not replace with the original?"

Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires that sources be from "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Exetel's original post is a primary source so it's not acceptable. It seems weird but the idea is that it prevents somebody creating a website for the sole purpose of creating a source used to support their own view. What I've done is used the sources provided and included the Exetel post so you can compare all evidence in order to verify the claim.

"Removal of items 10, 11 and 13 as they cite blogs"

I agree. Policy says they're not acceptable sources so they're out. Interestingly, I posted a request for some information about reliable sources at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Exetel and have yet to receive a reply of any sort.

"In fact, complete removal of the sentence linking to these footnotes: "In June 2007, this policy was reported on after a post was made on Boing Boing.[10] [11] [12] [13]"

Definitely. That sentence is unnecessary. All that is needed is to mention the policy. Whether it was reported anywhere is really irrelevant and adds nothing to the article. The Age article (item 12) is all that is needed to verify the claim. It also verifies that Exetel has a policy of exempting files from the scan so I've relied on just that and the original notice.

"Item 12 is entered as a footnote to "Boing Boing" and should be relocated to be next to [9]"

That's exactly what I've done.

Let me know what you think.--AussieLegend 13:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thinks it's probably better if we keep the conversation in the one area so I'll post any future responses to you on the User:AussieLegend/Exetel page. That way, if and when we incorporate the changes into the Exetel article I can just cut and past the entire conversation from my project page to the Exetel talk page. That way, we don't have to explain our reasoning all over again. --AussieLegend 00:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incorporating changes

I've incoprporated the changes from my (our) proposed version into the main Exetel article. Cheers. --AussieLegend 10:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]