Talk:Shaw Communications/Archives/2014

Change Logs
Removed reference to "Recently entered the digital phone"... Shaw has been offering digital phone service for over 5 years and this is no longer considered recent. Bludder204 (talk) 16:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

An email from Shaw Communications
After contacting Shaw Communications by email it appears they know of the problem via this cited source:

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.183.1.81 (talk) 01:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikilinks
This page has way too many Wikilinks in my opinion. It is starting to look a bit messy.

Removed extraneous templates
This article has six different templates at the top, 5 of which I removed. There were three different templates indicating that citations were required; I left one, but didn't think 3 were necessary. There was a template indicating NPOV, one indicating original research, and another indicating weasel words, none of which I could find in the article or find any reference to on the talk page. If those who added these templates can explain why they were there, please re-add them. But having them there without any explanation is confusing and clutters the page. &mdash; P urple  RAIN  14:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"Compromised Network" paragraph
After reading the article you cited, I have again removed the paragraph from the Shaw Communications article. The article does not meet the criteria mentioned in Verifiability, specifically here. The article is self-published, and so poorly written as to make it difficult to understand what claims are in fact being made. Based on this article, it is certainly inaccurate to title the section "Compromised Network." I attempted to rewrite the paragraph based on information contained in the article, removing words like "notorious" and "should" and ended up with very little. If there is in fact a problem with botnets on Shaw's network, this should be reported, but in a more neutral way. I haven't yet seen anything to convince me that this is the case, however. &mdash; P urple  RAIN  22:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is the link to the article cited, in case anyone in interested: &mdash; P urple   RAIN  22:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that you are wrong in claiming that the article mentioned does not meet the Wikipedia:Verifiability and I have reinstated the paragraph.

The article you describe as self published and so poorly written is academic research by a P.H.D candidate out of Northwestern University. The author has presented papers at international and local conferences of the IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers). The citation mentioned is also the second chapter of the book: Botnet Detection: Countering the Largest Security Threat Edited by Wenke Lee, Edited by David Dagon, Edited by Cliff Wang

Format: Hardback, 300 pages, Approx. p. 20 illus. Collection: Advances in Information Security v. 36 Pub. Date: 30-Nov-2007 Publisher: Springer-Verlag New York Inc. ISBN-10: 0387687661 ISBN-13: 9780387687667

"Description (of the book)

Botnets have become the platform of choice for launching attacks and committing fraud on the Internet. A better understanding of Botnets will help to coordinate and develop new technologies to counter this serious security threat. Botnet Detection: Countering the Largest Security Threat, a contributed volume by world-class leaders in this field, is based on the June 2006 ARO workshop on Botnets. This edited volume represents the state-of-the-art in research on Botnets. It provides botnet detection techniques and response strategies, as well as the latest results from leading academic, industry and government researchers. Botnet Detection: Countering the Largest Security Threat is intended for researchers and practitioners in industry. This book is also appropriate as a secondary text or reference book for advanced-level students in computer science."

I don't want to be insulting but I think that you do not have enough education to properly understand the issue and act as an editor in regards to this matter. I do appreciate you challenging me to improve my contribution and I will work on addressing some of your concerns. A botnet is a compromised network, and verifiable data shows that Shaw Communications is a world leader in generating botnet traffic.(see the chart on pg. 11)This data is consistent with raw data reported by internet security organizations.

The use of "should" & "notorious" My use of these words do not reflect a bias against Shaw Communications. The word should is used in Wikipedia article Morchella (Morel)in regards to precautions. Requesting a citation on the use "should" would not be out of order. Please be patient and I will provide one. In the mean time it is a logical precaution and you should let it stand. Many visitors to the Shaw Communications wiki page will be experiencing frequent attacks from this address range and stating a reasonable precaution is not out of order. The word notorious means: generally known and talked of, or, widely and unfavorably known. Do a google search on "Shaw Communications internet attack" and you will see the use of "notorious" is reasonable. I will however work on rewriting this section stating the same information in a verifiable and more neutral tone. You do not have to rewrite this for me, simply state your concerns and I will try to address them. I am the only contributor to this page to present referenced information my work should not be deleted simply because you do not understand the topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.68.225.159 (talk) 16:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your very civil response to a not-so-civil comment on my part. I appreciate your explanation, though I don't agree with all of it.  I maintain that the article cited is extremely poorly written, but that in itself should not exclude it as a reference.  I don't see where in the article it indicates that it is part of a book...?  I assumed it to be self-published because it appears on a webpage named after one of the authors (www.cs.northwestern.edu/~ychen/...).  If the book you mention is a better reference, then I suggest citing that in the article, instead of the webpage.
 * In terms of language, the word "notorious" is not a very neutral word. It has strong negative connotations.  Perhaps "known" or "noted" would be a more appropriate word for an encyclopedia.  And I wonder whether stating unequivocally that the network "should" be blocked is somewhat presumptious.  As far as I understand it, that would block all legitimate traffic as well as botnet traffic, which may not be in everyone's best interest.
 * I would also suggest rephrasing the first sentence of the paragraph. The way it is currently stated, it could be interpreted that Shaw Communications is responsible for the attacks.
 * I'm going to make an attempt at some changes that I think will make it a better paragraph. If you disagree with them, please feel free to change them further.
 * &mdash; P urple  RAIN  21:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The cited article does not reflect the current state. The data collected happened prior to Shaw disabling port 25 for their dynamic IP space. I recommend that the entire paragraph be removed until a more current reference can be cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Findinglost (talk • contribs) 15:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have removed the paragraph, since it seems like the Shaw e-mail above invalidates it. &mdash; P urple  RAIN  20:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This editor is an angry Shaw customer with a couple of conspiracy theories. The edits that are put up by this user should be considered as vandalism. His pc is more then likely infected with a virus and is now a zombie, or he is being attacked by a zombie that is a Shaw customer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.209.209.129 (talk) 15:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

customer service?
hey is it appropriate to put in the fact that wait times on their call in line are in excess of 20 minutes? someone please get back to me on this--Kr4ft (talk) 19:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Your message will be responded to in the order it is received. The average wait time is 3 months. Thank you for choosing Shaw! 204.191.77.209 (talk) 20:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * But I didn't order th--Yes sir you did, it says so right here on my screen, and since you haven't returned it, you were charged $109.00. But I never received anything in the first pl--We will be happy to credit your account when you return it.  Is there anything else I can help you with today?  Thank you for choosing Shaw! 70.71.250.158 (talk) 02:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Photo
Does anyone have a photo of the headquarters on Barlow & 32?--Qyd (talk) 14:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Never-mind, took one. --Qyd (talk) 02:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)