Talk:National Broadband Network/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

"trivial" @s'oh!

"people with internet access are more likely to support NBN' = trivial.... --124.168.191.67 (talk) 05:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The text your deleting is "The survey of 1,000 people also found the NBN has stronger support among younger people and Internet users." which is not trivial and it is sourced. Also as Boulevardier and I pointed out to you many times, you need to read WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, you was bold, I reverted you and you start a discussion. You don't start a editing war by reverting my revert. Other editors, including me, follow cycle. —[d'oh] 05:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Not really, I removed it and you reverted without a valid reason given. --124.168.191.67 (talk) 06:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert you because edit warring over 3 words is ridiculous, but can you please explain why it's "trivial"? It doesn't seem obvious to me. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 06:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

People with internet access are more likely to support the NBN... this is a trivial bit of information as it's obvious.--120.28.29.20 (talk) 15:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

That text has been there for some time and wasn't reverted, as per WP:SILENCE, WP:Consensus is assure to keep the text. Your removal was the bold edit, I revert your edit and now you started a discussion. You don't revert my revert, that starts a edit war. Also labeling some text as trivial, is not helpful to build a new consensus, the text is adding new information about the survey, including the number of people who took part and more results. Its not trivial. —[d'oh] 06:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The source says "Just under three-quarters of Australians think the development of Labor’s National Broadband Network is a good idea. Support for the NBN is slightly stronger amongst younger people and more strongly supported by internet users than non-users." I just don't see how this is trivial, it may be obvious but it is still noteworthy and should be mention. You call me "highly argumentative", but you are making a big deal over THREE words, what is the harm? I would agree if it was a paragraph or a section, but its just three words. —[d'oh] 07:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

What ARE you talking about?--120.28.29.20 (talk) 15:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, Shiftchange added the too-short tag based on WP:LEAD. If you read it you will find this article—which is currently about 90k characters—requires at lead four paragraphs of lead. The current lead is only two paragraphs long. —[d'oh] 05:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

new lead

In the interests of being bold I've added a new lead; please be brutal and change whatever you don't like, I'm having trouble proofreading it. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 06:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to explain my thinking, the idea was very roughly that the first para summarises the network design, the second summarises policy development, the third response, and the fourth construction (3 and 4 might be swapped, but this way seems more natural to me since the last para ends on the "future", so to speak. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 06:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I did a quick copyedit, its looks fine; it just needs a bit of work but overall its good. Also I removed OPEL, because having in the lead would give it undue weight. —[d'oh] 07:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Lead image

Can someone confirm if the lead image has a dotted line for wireless? —[d'oh] 14:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeppers. - Shiftchange (talk) 14:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Its bizarre as I uploaded a new version (both wireless and GPON was updated) a few days ago, but the thumbnail cache is not updating. I have purged, null edit and dummy edit, still no update. Strange. :S —[d'oh] 14:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Barnaby Joyce on the NBN

Barbnaby Joyce doesn't support the NBN. The references cited are out of date. 124.149.25.7 (talk) 01:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The article says a number of times the Coalition opposes the NBN. The text about Barnaby in the "Response" section is about him saying the project mirrors a proposal from their think-tank. The section is not about the current views of stakeholders, but just their comments on the NBN. Also, I could be wrong, but I don't remember Barbnaby retracing that statement. —[d'oh] 01:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I just did a quick read of Barbnaby's blog, and his doesn't oppose the idea of a NBN, but his does oppose Labor building it. Also the press release where that text comes from hasn't been pulled down. —[d'oh] 01:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

From Portal:Current events/2011 July 26 ... NBN "hack"

• David Cecil, an unemployed truck driver, is charged with hacking into Australian NBN broadband network. (Kansas City Star)(CBS News)(The Australian) 99.35.15.210 (talk) 22:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

As per this and this, the NBN wasn't hacked into, in fact your sources didn't say the NBN was hacked. For big policy, like the NBN you need to be careful because outlets like The Australian will try and make the NBN look bad by linking stories like this to it, even if the news item is nothing to do with the NBN. —[d'oh] 00:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's more More on the ‘NBN hack’ that wasn’t posted in Security, 27th July 2011 01:08 GMT on The Register. 99.109.124.167 (talk) 01:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

d'oh You dont seem to like The Australian. But this is an encyclopedia, so a reputable source is sufficient. It's not about your opinion of a source115.146.140.11 (talk) 12:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I never said I disliked The Australian, in fact I don't have a personal opinion of the The Australian. I said for big policy issues like the NBN, care needs to be taken when using news outlets, e.g. The Australian. Has in some cases they will link the issue to unrelated story, e.g. the hacked story. If you read into the story you will find at the time of the hack the company wasn't a customer of NBN Co yet, i.e. NBN couldn't have been hacked. —[d'oh] 13:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Someone reverted my addition of a customer uptake section

Rationale given was "too early". I dont get it. The NBN is operational. The number of customers on it, recorded over time, seems highly relevant. I had sourced it properly. Please explain.115.146.140.11 (talk) 12:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I can't speak for Timeshift9. In either case, that number is wrong the number of customers on the NBN has passed 700, and the take-up rate is already in the article. Why should it be repeated again? —[d'oh] 13:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying the source is wrong? 203.35.135.136 (talk) 23:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I can't find a reference to the "700" you mentioned. Neither can I find a mention in the article wrt to the current total customer number. I feel it's an ipmortant part of the article to track the NBN customer rampup. After all, this is what it's all about. 203.35.135.136 (talk) 23:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

You didn't look very hard did you? "More than 700 homes and businesses across Australia are now connected to the NBN as part of the trials, including 114 on the mainland."[1] The number of customers are not put into the article for a reason, the number is a moving target. NBN Co has said they are connecting customer at a fast rate, if I remember correctly they said around one per day, but that was sometime ago now. To try to keep up with that when NBN Co doesn't always release the numbers is silly. The take-up rates are where they belong with the launch of the sites, because that is what they are customer numbers at launch. —[d'oh] 00:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

"700" is the number of premises connected to the NBN, not the number of customers it has. This is a commercial venture with stated business plan and expected returns. So what counts as ultimate success measure is the number of paying customers it attracts. Seems pretty fundamental to this large investment. 203.35.135.136 (talk) 00:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not. The number of connected premises is much higher, in Armidale alone about 2,610 premises were connected to the NBN. As of 4 August 2011, at least 700 customers are using the NBN. —[d'oh] 00:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Doesnt yoour own source above say connected? Please supply a source for the 700 users you mentioned.203.35.135.136 (talk) 01:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you serious? You are playing with semantics. NBN Co uses 'premises' to talk about which premises had the fibre installed. When talking about the number of users they just use 'connected'. There is an example in the source. I also have a number of other sources for the amount but I am not going to dig them up, since I have already shown you one. —[d'oh] 01:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

ownership

d'oh you may be getting too close to WP:OWNERSHIP 203.35.135.136 (talk) 01:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

No hes not, it's a silly addition which is disputed and has no consensus. Timeshift (talk) 02:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

We'll looks like he is according to WP:OWNERSHIP. Pls remain civil, too. "silly" is over the line 124.169.145.127 (talk) 05:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagreed with you, disagreement is not WP:OWNERSHIP, it is actually apart of WP:CONSENSUS of which you ignore. —[d'oh] 06:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

IBRS source

Someone questioned authority of this source. I find it authoritative http://ibrs.com.au/component/option,com_analystbio/Itemid,2/ 124.169.145.127 (talk) 05:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

also, same user reverted a raft of edits with this one argument - not cool! 124.169.145.127 (talk) 05:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

You didn't read my edit summary, did you? I didn't question the "authority" of the source, I questioned why is this one analyst is notable to be included in the article, over the many, many analyst who talked about the NBN who wasn't included. —[d'oh] 06:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

You questioned whether he was noble not notable. 203.35.82.136 (talk) 01:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh I am sorry, please forgive me for making one typo, I am sure you can understand seeing how you have trouble putting together a sentence. For the revert, I have already stated my objections (see the edit summary) you need to explain here why my objection is wrong, not me. If you can argue my objections is wrong and other editors or I agree with you, the edits will go back up. Again I suggest you read WP:CONSENSUS and WP:CYCLE. —[d'oh] 02:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

u r being disrespectful 192.148.117.108 (talk) 21:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not being disrespectful, I am trying to reason with an unreasonable person. I am not "in violation" of WP:OWNERSHIP, you need to read it again (looking at this section). I never said I am the owner of the article nor I required edits received my approval before they go up, I attempting to preserve the quality of the article. A number of edits has already been subject to discussion, including the length of the lead, which was within the lead policy and does not need to be shorten or "succint". The major aspect of your edits is the deletion of 2k+ of text, with a reason of "clean" and "succint", the deletion of a large amount of text requires more explanation than one word. If you look at the diffs, you will see I did not revert ALL of your edits I actually took the time, assure good faith and went through them and only reverted when I had an objections. Some of the objections, was addressed in later edits of which you reverted. In the end, the only reverts I made was explained in the edit summary, including the deletion of text, the IBRS notable, the unreasonable removal of a number of details in the lead (e.g. Telstra deal, policy history, supportive parties, etc) and the addition of incorrect details, e.g. "several attempts to generate support for various iterations of a national broadband network", there has been only two "attempts" of an NBN, we are on the second at the moment and the use of "to generate support" is not neutral. All of which you have not address, instead you have engage in edit warring, thrown around misinterpretations of policies and labeled my actions as "not cool". I hope now you act more reasonable and at least entertain the opinions of other editors, since the world doesn't revolve around you. —[d'oh] 01:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:National Broadband Network/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

How is this a low importance article if it is talking about the largest infrastructure investment since the snowy hydro scheme.

Last edited at 01:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC). Substituted at 21:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)