Talk:Undernet

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Undernet article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article was nominated for deletion on 1 December 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

doesn't this page count as an advertisement? --161.73.43.66 23:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Someguy1221 23:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, didn't notice this page had been vandalised. I appologize to anyone who edits this page legitimately. Someguy1221 23:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither did I. I apologise also. ;) -161.73.43.66 23:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh... do you guys know when Undernet will support IPv6? Simoncpu (talk) 05:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At this time there is no talk in supporting the IPv6 protocol. It is something wE can bring up to our coder-com though. WHIZZARD of UnderNet (talk) 13:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

This article has been tagged for quite some time as lacking reliable sources. Here's how to find some, including CNN and Wired: http://news.google.com/archivesearch?hl=en&um=1&tab=wn&q=undernet+irc&ie=UTF-8 MrZaius^talk 16:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to be able to verify things, as I am one of the founders. I just do not know how to do it in Wikipedia. WHIZZARD of UnderNet (talk) 13:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry: just haven't had time or energy to follow up on this, but the process is pretty simple. As mentioned above, a goodly number of third party reliable sources of the simplest and easiest to verify sort, mentions in the press, are out there. See WP:CITE if you need a guide to adding the actual in-line citations. On any points that may be flagged with {{fact}}/citation needed templates, if no reliable, third party sources are available but primary sources are or can be made available and require little-to-no interpretation, there's no harm in including them. Just keep in mind that multiple reliable secondary & tertiary sources are necessary to meet any number of our quality and notability benchmarks. MrZaius^talk 19:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to welcome UnderNET to wikipedia

This is the first article I have ever viewed that had commented out meta data telling people how to conduct themselves in an article. This is wikipedia, this is not Undernet. How users choose to conduct themselves is moderated by wikipedia not undernet. Woods01 (talk) 18:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]