User talk:Santavez

Welcome!

Hello, Santavez, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Dr Debug (Talk) 01:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

I have replied to your inquiry on my talk page. --Zsinj^Talk 03:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my honest opinion, based on that article, every IRC server that has been online for 5 years, has channels, and has active members deserves their own article. I disagree with this. If the IRC server is notable in one way or another, be it significant in a published work or hosted a controversial or popular event, than it deserves to be kept. However, the article provides none of this, hence my vote. I hope this clears up your confusion. --Zsinj^Talk 03:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AbleNET AfD

Hello,

Regardless of the outcome of this AfD, I hope you'll continue to edit Wikipedia. I invite you to visit Wikipedia's IRC presence on irc.freenode.net in #wikipedia, and acquaint yourself with the basic tenets of Wikipedia in #wikipedia-en-bootcamp. Cheers!

Adrian~enwiki (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

I agree with what Zsinj above me pointed out to. There are many IRC servers out there. Yes, many of them do have their own article on wiki however, they were noteworthy because of a particular accomplishment and/or controversy. I don't see anything in the article that denotes notability. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 05:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

not a problem.

I'm happy to help anyone new to Wikipedia acclimate to processes here. Though I don't have enough experience with your network to have a personal opinion, I don't like (apparent) abuse of Wikipedia process by single-purpose AfD nominators. Y'all deserve a fair shake.

Adrian~enwiki (talk) 01:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AbleNET

I've revised my vote with your comment in mind. Stifle 14:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

can you not read? I said YOU ARE THE PERSON WHO CLAIMED I WAS A "SOCK" AND DIDNT SIGN YOUR NAME. Stop trying to spin what I say to help YOU. 3H 02:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AbleNET

I believe that the message you sent me was heartfelt and in good faith and I will try to do it justice. I see now that my original vote may have seemed overly bureaucratic and cold-hearted to someone who is as passionate as AbleNET as you. I assure you that my original vote was based on wikipedia’s notability criteria for websites not on the merits of your community.

To answer your question: yes, there’s lots of stuff on Wikipedia that does not belong here, and, yes, I would and do support deletion of articles that I do not think meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria. I never contested that the article’s factualness or the existence of your web community. However, Wikipedia article’s must be both notable and verifiable. The article, even in its present version does not make a claim to notability beyond having 100-300 users. It has received no mainstream media coverage and does not have an Alexa rank which would otherwise cause it to be notable.

I hope that you, and the other users you have attracted to Wikipedia for this vote, will stay around. Perhaps editing and improving other articles. In fact, in time, you may convince this community to loosen its notability criteria, which you seem to disagree with. Too often, AfD is skeptical of the intentions of newcomers to the community, and I apologize for all Wikipedians if you have been insulted or put off by the deletion debate.

However, I hope that you will not interpret my membership in Esperanza as an unconditional belief in inclusionism. I believe that we should apply the notability guidelines to the letter, but hopefully do some in a gentle, rational, and friendly way. Saying your IRC community is not notable should not be interpreted as any more than that.

To deny this article is essentially the same as denying the right to exist.

I hope you do not think that is the case. Having a Wikipedia article is not and should not be the end all and be all. We all are passionate about our corner of the web, and sometimes we fool ourselves as to its larger significance in the scheme of things. Hope this helps. Please do not hesitate to direct any further questions you have to me. Cheers, savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 06:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD closure.

Your request for advice came at a good time, because I have advice for you -- smile.

The AfD for AbleNET has now closed.

>>The result of the debate was despite the sockfest, there was no consensus between established Wikipedias to delete the article. Mailer Diablo 06:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)<<

Your article, by default, will be kept. It may be re-nominated at a future point in time, and it did not have a clear majority to keep, but neither was there a consensus to delete it.

You can help me draft guidelines for notability of IRC networks, or modify WP:WEB to include IRC, if you like. That said, I can't guarantee that those guidelines would clearly leave your network kept.

For now though, you're good. I'll leave a client on AbleNET for a bit just for the hell of it, if you want to privmsg.

— Adrian~enwiki (talk) 06:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. :) Well nobody likes sockpuppetry, but somehow (unfortunately) these days it has become part and parcel of VfD as there are people who will try to defend their article at all costs. Don't worry too much though, as the problem is currently something that is being tackled. - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 09:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

I apologize" for both any attitude or insults I made towards anyone and for AfDing for not being notable, which I should have looked into beforehand. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Srvx

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Srvx, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 22:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]