User:AussieLegend/Exetel

This is a Wikipedia user page. This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AussieLegend/Exetel.

[edit] Introduction

Exetel was the first page I edited on Wikipeadia and I only took an interest because it was the ISP that I use. It was just a page that I edited but unfortunately it has had to become a project because of the efforts of some pushy editors who appear to have their own agenda and won't respect other editors. The conflicts caused because of this are documented on User:AussieLegend/Exetel/Disputes, or they will be when I get around to it.

Proposed article edits are on User:AussieLegend/Exetel/Article. Discussion and other items are listed below.

[edit] What I've done so far

• Replaced infobox with the version in the template
• Repopulated the new infobox
• Corrected all wikilinks.
• Rewritten "Exetel service offerings" removing a lot of unnecessary data.
• Reduced the size of the "Exetel Gaming Network" section to just a summary of what is offered.
• Replaced the "Policies" section with "Bandwidth management".
• Separated Off-peak downloads and P2P deprioritisation section into two subsections of Bandwidth management and rewritten some of the text.
• Added information on leechers pools and the new process of charging >72GB downloaders for downloads exceeding 72GB
• Promoted the "Copyright Issues" section since it isn't part of Bandwidth management
• Expanded the copright issues section to include infomation regarding exclusions from the policy based on information already in the references.
• Removed "boing boing" and 3 of its 4 references. None of these are essential to the article and the references were from unacceptable sources (blogs)
• Added an external link that is useful to editors and people just reading the article because it adds to the history of Exetel without cluttering the article.

diffs --AussieLegend 14:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Changes look fantastic. Only one I don't agree with is not replacing items 4, 5 and 6 (now 9, 10 and 11) with the official Exetel source of http://forum.exetel.com.au/viewtopic.php?t=17721, but that is more of me not agreeing with the Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources Verifiable policy says:

I think the forum post fits all these items, but in order to counter the last item, and to also include so called third-party, reliable sources, maybe there should be a dual footnote, one to the original source forum post and another to one of The Age (probably item 9, as it's date and content is more relevant to the single issue of 50% deprioritisation)

I would also still remove "Corporate employee ADSL Service". It is no different to ADSL as an offering, just bundled and priced in a different way

Minor item: Revenue in the infobox needs a line break

Otherwise, it reads fantastically. I may come along later and pad out the History section to be a bit more formal, and maybe some other small things too. Should I directly edit the User:AussieLegend/Exetel/Article version with my suggestions?

CoreyPlover 23:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right regarding sources. The Exetel item seems to cover everything in more detail which makes it a better source to use. Item 11 only briefly mentions the policy on page 3 making it hard to find and therefore item 11 is not a good source, even though it confirms the policy. Item 10 at least puts everything on one page but all it does is confirm that Exetel has a policy making it a very weak source. Item 9 is the best of the three third-party sources and covers everything that 10 and 11 cover so there seems little point in including them. They just don't add anything to the article.

I can also see your point regarding the "Corporate employee ADSL Service" and yes, a line break is needed. All of your suggestions have been incorporated.diffs

Since you seem to agree with the proposal it seems more logical to edit my page for now rather than try to fit them into the main article so feel free to edit away. --AussieLegend 01:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I've just noticed that 203.213.56.184 removed a category. Justification for this seems to be quite valid under WP:SUBCAT so I've removed it from this version too. No other Aussie ISP has this cat in their articles. --AussieLegend 18:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)