forum exetel

Expanded reason for deletion of data added by announcement was also received with backlash from Exetel's customers and the general public who believed that this was a form of censorship. [10] [11] [12] [13]" there's a lot of merit in what you've suggested and I've taken it on board. We seem to have reached consensus. To do this, avoiding "weasel words" such as 'many people think' 'some experts agree that' 'some have claimed', etc... To solve this situation, especially with criticisms, if notabable, verifiable allegations have been made against the company, they should clearly say who is making the allegations, example: "In Nov 2005 The BBC reported that..." By citing specific critics, the reader clearly sees who is making allegations, which allows them to judge the situation more accurately, and allows us to keep a As usual, "aussielegend" who presumably goes by the nickname "legend" on the aforementioned 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. This rebuttal is continued under a more approriate sub-heading since we have headed away from the subject of this section. I also have some additional comments regarding Macktheknifeau's response to DarkGaucho which have not been addressed above: You see it as major but that's only because of your demonstrated bias against Exetel and your desire to see Exetel punished because you were banned from the Exetel forums.

The page is currently as it should be. Webmail Forums. You can do loads of things like monitor your usage and costs, view your invoices, pay your bill or change plan. I submit that the version I had most recently edited into the article remain in the article. --Since the citations seem to be the hot topic I'll concentrate on those at this point. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Exetel"Removal of items 10, 11 and 13 as they cite blogs"I've just noticed that removed a category. My opinion is that specific company policies (of ANY private company) have no place in a Wiki, which should be short and include basic company information only. AussieLegend had agreed to it being included in the article, and I made numerous edits to my version based on his comments and requests, after this AussieLegend only edited the article further to improve any spelling or grammar mistakes (which, as the article was edited by another user, not just me, were probably introduced by them).

Regarding your earlier claim that "both sources I cited are licensed under Creative Commons permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution", you'll need to provide a citation for that. At the very least, have enough respect for the Australian language to try and get it right.

Exetel is based in Sydney, as are all of its employees. He is a very experienced troll, and is now trying to extend Exetels big brother standover editing tactics to wikipedia. in On October 13th 2006 Exetel announced that from mid November, Exetel will restrict the amount of bandwidth it provides to P2P traffic to approximately 50% of what all aggregated users of P2P protocols could, theoretically, use during the period 12 noon to 12 midnight each day. I disagreed with most of what you wrote and even if you were to incorporate every change I suggested *you* still need to provide citations. As far as the links are concerned, I think that many of the links which are currently at the bottom of the Exetel wiki are inappropriate and should be removed, specifically those that point to "news" stories and "blogs", as these have been proven to be full of inaccuracies, misconceptions, and outright lies, and fuelled for the most part by a "mob" mentality. It's a process that is notable because other ISPs do not practice it. The same thing applies here.

Delete entirely. However, as shown above and below, it is quite possible those 2 accounts together were created by the same person, and they maliciously edited the article to be filled with bias, violating NPOV among other things.

the Proposed Edits to Disputed Section To Make NPOVIn that way, those of us who have an interest in the subject may be able to come up with a version that is accurate, verifiable by citations, and acceptable to all parties. The section, if it is to be reinstated, needs to be rebuilt from the ground up, with appropriate citations. They have repeatedly stated their goal is the entire removal of the article, and will stall and disagree with everything. They just dont want to deal with raging customers on this forum since they avoid giving the darn answer. The same can be said of unjustly accusing people of being sock-puppets, puppetmasters, vandals, Reapplying Edits Before Consensus Is reached they are doing is not vandalism.