Revision as of 07:08, 23 November 2006

Permission has been granted

We have been granted permission to use this post http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=443458#r4 in the article. If anyone interested would go through it to sound NPOV and add it in, it would be great. If not I'll just add it in with the NPOV notice. 220.233.48.200 16:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Objection: The above forum post reads like a total advertisement. It is not suitable for[REDACTED] whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.214.18.130 (talk • contribs)

WHY?? It is basically what is found on the Exetel website in the "News Section" http://www.exetel.com.au/previous_news.php

Vandalism

Please stop vandalising this page. Artorius 13:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Who was vandalising it? What were they doing?

Someone edited it to say Bob The Builder was the CEO. -_- 220.233.48.200 14:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

An ISP does not really deserve a space on Misplaced Pages...I would find this as being an advertising place (Edit by User:Hail)

You mean, like say, Internode or iiNet or Westnet or aaNet or TPG or Netspace? As long as articles are NPOV, they won't really be "advertising" anything other than their existence, and the facts of the organisation. Someone42 04:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

This sounds like a complete advert.

Citations / NPOV

Where are the citations that prove the companys financial worth, its Internet Connectivity, and the uptime. BrianSkelly 11:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Im also disputing the neutrality of this article, and am interested in how it can be cleaned up. I am looking for credible information in order to clean this article up to a standard that can be used for all ISP Articles. the iiNet article as an example of one which has had citations as well as its NPOV well checked. I would like to see all ISP articles look like that one. BrianSkelly 11:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Expanded reason for deletion of data added by 220.233.172.74

AussieLegend: The announcement by Exetel on 13 October 2006 relates to an internal bandwidth management process and therefore would seem to have no place in a wiki entry any more than a decision to increase the number of free email accounts or customer webspace would, despite any controversy that 220.233.172.74 believes occurred. Some of the data is in fact wrong. For example, Exetel did not announce that it "would only occur during the off peak "uncounted hours" and during times of high network utilization". It stated quite clearly that deprioritisation would occur between 12PM and 12AM, ie the peak period. The "uncounted period" is now called off-peak and covers the 12AM to 12PM period.

The announcement by Exetel on 20 October 2006 was simply a restatement of an existing policy and one that is common amongst Australian ISPs. This was clarified by Exetel in an email to members on 23 October 2006. Any controversy caused by this was the result of members misinterpreting the email. As such, this information also would seem to have no place in a wiki entry.

Edit by Macktheknifeau: There is a difference between an ISP adding more email accounts, and an ISP shaping peer to peer protocols. One is a regular occurance, and the other is newsworthy, as shown by the references in the bottom part of the article. p2p shaping is hardly "Common" in Australia, let alone for all of the planet. It made news on international websites and newspapers, and is very much a legitimate addition to the exetel article. Please do not remove these sections.

Response by AussieLegend: Adding email accounts is not a regular occurence. It is simply a change in policy, as is a decision to implement any bandwidth management practices and just because something is reported in the newspapers does not automatically mean it is worthy of addition to the wiki entry. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper. Entries should be factual and emotive content really has no place here.

Regarding the announcement on 20 October 2006, as stated above this was simply a restatement of existing policy and reinclusion of information on that matter is pointless. If every statement by an ISP was included the wiki entry would be overflowing.

Comments regarding alleged removal of posts on the Exetel forums are not verifiable and should not be included.

Yet another response by Macktheknifeau I have reverted the previous edit. It shows complete and total NPOV (changing controversy to "minor" among other things, is inherently NPOV). The "alleged" removal of posts did occur, and are mentioned in the articles shown at the end of the thread. Do not remove any references to them, as they have been verified and are included in those notable articles. Exetels Big_Brotheresque actions in heavy duty removal and editing posts in their own forum to "tow the party line" should not be rewarded with being accepted as the only legitimate source of information on these issues, and especially should not be allowed to be brought to wikipedia. It was established by the notable articles that these did in fact occur, and should not be edited by "AussieLegend". Whom many people belive to be an employee of Exetel, and whose minor amount of edits mostly concerned his "alleged" employer. Macktheknifeau 07:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Rebuttal by AussieLegend

"It shows complete and total NPOV (changing controversy to "minor" among other things, is inherently NPOV)."

That's exactly why I changed it to minor. The simple fact is, any controversy was limited to a few people posting on Whirlpool and a few complaints at the Exetel help forums. Many of the posts were by people who weren't even Exetel customers and who were simply trolling. Yes, it did make the newspapers but, as already pointed out, just because something makes the newspapers doesn't make it worthy of inclusion in Misplaced Pages.

"The "alleged" removal of posts did occur, and are mentioned in the articles shown at the end of the thread."

Yes they were mentioned but that doesn't actually prove that they were deleted. What was mentioned was simply heresay and unverifiable. Even if posts were removed it is the right of forum owners to moderate their forums as they see fit. Stories of deleted posts on message boards are a trivial matter and are not worth including in[REDACTED] content.

This rebuttal is continued under a more approriate sub-heading since we have headed away from the subject of this section.

Continued vandalism by Macktheknifeau

"should not be edited by "AussieLegend". Whom many people belive to be an employee of Exetel, and whose minor amount of edits mostly concerned his "alleged" employer."

This sort of statement is absolutely rididculous. Macktheknifeau knows full well that AussieLegend is not an employee of Exetel and merely seeks to discredit him by stating that. His intention in editing this page in the way that he has is a ridiculously childish attempt to supposedly punish an ISP that he has some issues with. (Amongst others his account at the Exetel forums was deleted for trolling there) These issues are personal and are not relevant to the entry. He is no longer a customer of Exetel. Macktheknifeau's Whirlpool profile He has no desire to make the article accurate. His sole purpose is to "get back" at Exetel for some perceived wrong. He has had several posts at Whirlpool deleted for trolling and making personal attacks (examples - 1, 2, 3) and has now moved to Misplaced Pages to continue his "anti-Exetel" campaign. His edits are emotive and one-sided.

The edits that I made improved readability and removed irrelevant data. Macktheknifeau's reversion of those edits has reduced the readability and again introduced data that is irreleveant as explained elsewhere. This vandalism must stop.

Another response

Why talk about yourself in the third person "aussielegend". You do realise the history of this talk page shows exactly who edits it? And that the only person who has is "aussielegend". I am a customer of exetel. Whirlpool's "profile" data has no bearing on if I am or am not a user of exetel, and has no meaning here. His continual bias. My user account at the exetel forums was banned for making a, normal, but critical post on the very subject that is discussed in those various articles.

As usual, "aussielegend" who presumably goes by the nickname "legend" on the aformentioned whirlpool article, has also had posts removed for "trolling and personal attacks", usually in his capacity as a hidden exetel employee, is constantly "defending" exetel, belittling those who are having problems. He is a very experienced troll, and is now trying to extend Exetels big brother standover editing tactics to wikipedia.

I have reverted HIS vandalisim, and will be requesting a block on his account if his vandalisim continues.Macktheknifeau 06:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC

I agree with the edits that have been made by "AussieLegend", in order to remove emotional and debatable content from this entry.

I think that it behooves anyone posting to this resource, to ensure that their contribution is 100% accurate, and devoid of any augmented emotional input. ''DarkGaucho''

^ Obvious sock puppet. Only 4 posts, only made here. Why am I not suprised aussielegend would stoop this low already. Macktheknifeau 07:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)