User talk:Lexein/AbleNET

Suggestions
Although I am not the creator of this article, I would welcome/appreciate any suggestions on how to improve it. Santavez 04:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

This issue has already been previously decided. Santavez 01:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Notability
This article still lacks any sources or items of real note. Please make a clear case for AbleNET's noteworthiness in the article before removing the template. Thanks, MrZaius  talk  03:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * How is there lack thereof in comparison with its peers? Notability a subjective and must be measured in relation to its peers. Based on what is comparable, I would ask that you clarify what causes it to lack notability with respect to other articles in this category. The Fizzer coverage alone adds notability, as does the network lineage from early IRC Networks.

I can entertain the argument; however, I don't quite see it the way you do.Santavez 01:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Subjective or no, notability still isn't clearly established in the article. See WP:WEB and WP:NOTE for tips on how to more clearly establish notability. I don't understand your argument that the Fizzer worm comment establishes note. What would be nice is verifiable press coverage or something of the sort. The blog and first-party coverage from IRC-Unity don't cut it on their own.  MrZaius  talk  02:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And how many sources to what particular reference does it take to be convincing?Santavez 02:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Considering that there was only one and that it wasn't a tertiary source, I'm not sure I understand why you took issue with the cleanup template being posted. The link to El Reg suffices - Striking the template.  MrZaius  talk  03:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps my flawed logic was in a referenced source that in turn referenced other sources. I'll take this as an experience to display direct relation. Santavez 03:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Re-Initiation
Suggestions needed and welcome on clarifying content. Santavez (talk) 01:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You may want to convert the references to use the cite web template with at least the url, title, and accessdate options. I considered converting them myself but there were too many for me to convert quickly and I've currently got my hands full with the IRC category cleanup. This wasn't the only article that was targeted but I've been trying to focus on sorting and cleaning up what's left before taking others to DRV, etc. Tothwolf (talk) 02:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Should I still use the &#60;ref&#62; tag to keep the reference as part of the subtext? I apologize for the question, but I am not familiar with the template. I understand the concept, just looking to understand proper utilization.  If you can cite an article as a point of reference, that would make it clear for me. Thank you! Santavez (talk) 03:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Correct, the cite web template should go inside &#60;ref&#62; tags. Tothwolf (talk) 05:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Why COI?
This article refers to WP:COI but fails to identify any e.g. WP:NPOV violations... WP:WHYCOI? -- samj in out 17:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)