Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Paintball

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello and welcome! Please feel free to leave a comment, or if you have a question about paintball, leave a question in the appropriate section below and you'll usually get an answer within about a day.

WikiProject Paintball News edit
  • The term "paintball gun" is no longer to be used in any article: please change this wherever you see it! We must use the term paintball marker at all times from here on out. Keep up the good work. RavenStorm, Lead Coordinator
  • It has been strongly suggested by fellow member Three ways round that we add references and sources to our articles and make this our priority for now, as expansion and addition of articles has been slow of late. Go find an unsourced article and get some good references! Together we can make the WikiProject Paintball more authentic and encyclopedic. RavenStorm, Lead Coordinator


Archived discussions - 1

Archived discussions - 2

Contents

[edit] Peer Review

If we're pushing Towards FA status for Paintball and Woodsball, Maybe we should start requesting peer reviews. I actually posted one on the woodsball talk page, but I removed it since I should have gotten approval from the community. Community, your response please. J-stan Talk 02:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Info Request - Marker Specific Barrel Bore Info

I've edited the infobox template Paintball-gun and added a "Bore" section. As of right now any article that uses the infobox but fails to specify bore information will simply read "Not Specified" on the "Bore" section. If you know bore information regarding a marker please specify it in the infobox of the article to reflect the standard/stock bore size. Also, many paintball marker articles are missing this infobox please help standardize these articles by adding them. Pmicka 19:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Paintball stub proposal

Hey guys. I think it's about time we got a stub template setup for paintball related stubs. Since there isn't already a stub, the first step is to gather as many article as we can within the scope of paintball that qualify as stubs.

WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals

Any suggestions? --Pmicka 04:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is a simple stub image I just created that we could use for the template.

Image:Paintball_stub.svg

It's a good idea, but isn't it kinda within the grasp of the rateing commitee mentioned below?!? The rateing commitee should be up soon hopfully. I think?!?. maybe we should talk about it down there. -Threewaysround 01:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

ps. if you interested in joining the rating commitee just say so in the section

It is within the grasp of anyone who has time to help compile a list a short paintball related articles that can be classified as stubs, regardless of the article quality. It will make it a lot easier to keep track of articles that need work and will make them a little less diffuse. Pmicka 00:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paintball as an FA article

Hello everyone! Please note that the last item on the FA To-Do list for the Paintball article has been completed today. The article is pretty much everything that a featured article should be, so I say it should be nominated. Thoughts? Suggestions? ~ Maximilli, 23:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, everyone, I think it should undergo a Peer Review first. Forgot to mention that last night. Again, any comments before we do anything? ~ Maximilli, 20:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey, just wondering: Once an article has been nominated, can it never be nominated again? (in case it fails to be made one) The Editor 2 23:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
No, it can be nominated again, which is a good thing, since I can still find one big error with it (the graphics are terrible). However, it can be undesirable for an article to be nominated, but fail the nomination. The nomination's failure is recorded, you see. For some editors, that's a black mark against the article. But the good thing is that after an article fails the nomination, it can be completely revamped by the article's proponents and re-nominated. ~ Maximilli, 06:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

That article is very short on references, as are many of the paintball articles. Many sections are without wikilinks or inline refs at all, such as the entire "Playing locations" section, which reads like someone's opinion. Assertions of specific fact could really use them. The equipment section needs a brief summary and rundown of equipment, not just a link to another article. The price of paintball really isn't important enough to go in the lead, and like a lot of other pieces of information sounds like original research/opinion instead of a sourced conclusion. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 12:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your thoughts. One recurrent problem we have is finding references. Paintball isn't a sport in which any one body has much authority, unfortunately. Magazines are hard to find good information in, and there are few books indeed that are modern and have anything actually significant to say other than newbie nonsense. Not that there's anything wrong with newbies. ;)
At any rate, people complain about the lack of sources, but there's nothing really that we can do. Sometimes we get lucky. Someone worked hard with the Paintball article to find sources for it, and I'm afraid one day we might have to resort to using SpecOPS for woodsball and scenario references. But hey, if it comes to it, we can just go over to About.com. Most of their paintball articles were ripped off from our work anyway. :D If anyone has ideas, do share. They'll be most welcome. ~ Maximilli, 17:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

this really doesn't help much about the paintball article but for some of the paintball markers and other equipment, we could site the company that makes the equpment's pages. Other than that i'm fresh out of ideas, sorry. I'll keep my eye open for anything we can use.

Three ways round 23 december 19:39 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I'll keep it in mind; hopefully everyone else will too. ~ Maximilli, 23:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey it was brought ot my attention on the paintball talk page that there hasn't been much discussion on paintball being re-nominated for a FA position, so maybe we should at least start talking aobut it, and pushing for it to get better. I think this would be a good time to concentrate on it, especially with the article rating system about to be started, it would be sweet if we could have a FA article in our category. I think i'll start concentrateing on this page a bit more (i was previously focusing on the Tippmann page), just makeing it more smooth, and seeing if i can somehow find some refrences. anyway let me know what you think

peace- Three ways round 01:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Woodsball strategy as the next flagship article; article quality ratings

Hello everyone! An important member of the project recently suggested to me that we should have Woodsball strategy be labelled a Flagship article of the project. This reminded me of the whole issue of quality ratings in the articles, much after the way of Good Articles and FAs. WikiProject Military History has a quality rating scale that we could model ours after, albeit modified for our substantially smaller subject. My first thought is, we create a project sub-page where we can discuss each article, perhaps in alphabetical order, and assign it a quality rating, perhaps from a scale something like this....

1. Flagship article. (Best work of the project - our version of the FA.) Examples: Paintball, Woodsball 2. Good article. (Pages that are good, but not quite as comprehensive or professional as the Flagships.) Examples: Speedball, Scenario paintball 3. Working article. (Pages that are in need of substantial work.) Examples: Paintball strategy, Paintball tank 4. Stub. (Pages that aren't comprehensive at all, or recently begun.) Examples: Oliver Lang, Woodsball rifleman

Keep in mind, this is a very basic idea. It's got a lot of wrinkles to smooth out, especially the method by which we determine article quality. My thought is, we discuss it on the sub-page mentioned above, and when we have a general consensus for one rating or another, then that's what we rate it as. Ideas? Thoughts? Comments? ~ Maximilli, 06:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

i think the sub-page rateing thing is a good idea. i also think that the woodsball strategy being a flagship article is a good idea just for everybody to hear.
peace-Three ways round 23:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the feedback. Nobody else from the Project seems to be very active right now, except I think I saw Robogymnast doing something the other day. Oh, and VegitaU is seen from time to time reverting vandalism to the Paintball article. But on the whole, I'm starting to fear that except for you and I, we're the only two who are still working for the Project. Oh well! :D I think we should just carry out this idea and any others we have, and if anyone else comes along and doesn't like it, they can say so.

When I have a moment, I'll create that project sub-page so we can start rating articles. Any volunteers for the "rating committee"? ~ Maximilli, 05:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

i volenteer, and ya we are the only two people real active right now, but it also means that we can get stuff without waiting for a lot of people to agree, it just speeds things up a bit. but ya.... i just compeltely forgot what i was about to say so i'll just go
peace-Three ways round 21:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll see if I can whip up a few templates for those... might take a few days if I make it fancy. RavenStorm 16:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, cool. I guess it's official, then - Three ways round and I are now the official article quality rating committee, which we can abbreviate to AQR Committee. Bring out the champagne! I'll start work on the project pages, and I'll put a link up on the main project page so everyone can see what's going on.

Thanks for the template idea, RavenStorm; perhaps you could modify the WikiPB template to look like WP:MILHIST's, which you can see here. What are your ideas? ~ Maximilli, 00:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent idea Max, I'll get to work on it right away... for real this time... right after I get a snack. RavenStorm 02:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Alright, I see a million possibilities for this. First off, what kind of rating system do you want? A-B-C-D-E or 1-5 stars? Try and base yourself on the Military History project's system right here. And do you want to categorize paintball articles (markers, strategies, positions, rules, etc...) or should I just set up a system myself? RavenStorm 02:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Ummm... wow. This is really complicated stuff. You're gonna have to give me a whole lotta time to work on this, but I think I'll be able to figure it out in the end. You come up with a categorisation and rating system, I'll get the tech work done. RavenStorm 02:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

well if we are going to model ours after the military history, they do the whole FA,A,GA,B,Start, and Stub rateing system. It's a pretty common rateing system, i no a couple other wikiprojects who use it. so i'm not exactly sure what Max had in mind but that one seems to work pretty good. comments?

peace-Three ways round 21:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

hey i just thought about a problem with that system this morning, with that we will have no way to include the Flagship article (i'm pretty sure there are already templates or something for that rateing system), and i'm not sure if we can rate something FA, unless it is an actual FA no matter what we think it should be. let me know if i'm wrong or anything.

peace-Three ways round 17:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The FA rating would be reserved for actual Featured Articles, and I'm going to make our own template and include Flagship... RavenStorm 19:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

sounds like a plan to me Three ways round 01:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I could also help out with rating articles, if you need. Just tell me what to do. J-stan Talk 18:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Priority Tasks

hey i was reading the priority tasks, and about the list of professional teams being cleaned up, it was said that the deadline was the 31 of December. that stuff was put in motion before i joined so i don't want to touch it without talking to people bout it first. if you want to extend the deadline or just delete all the non-confirmed ones i don't know, it just looks a bit weird like it is.

peace-Three ways round 21:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not too sure about that article. RavenStorm pretty much runs that article; he created it and has been looking after it since. I guess it's his project - maybe you should ask him whether he's doing anything with it? ~ Maximilli, 00:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, forgot to remove that. A lot of stuff has happened since I passed that "decree" so I guess nothing more needs to be done. *removes* RavenStorm 02:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I am new to this group, I am going to put up a page about a field or two. Let me know of anything that needs done.

Jdash here. Looking at the variants page (the synchronization of which is current priority), and it seems that that goal is completed. any thoughts? J-stan 03:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inactivity

Hello members of the Wikipedia Paintball Project!

Some of you may have noted that not much work in the area of large-scale improvements has been made in these past months. I myself have been busy, committing my time to the much more urgent needs and wants of my employers. However, despite my tight schedule, I still check my Watchlist, like most of you, and make sure our articles stay clean!

So I would like to ask you, fellow members, not to be discouraged by what may be called inactivity. As long as we continue to assure the quality and factual accuracy of every single Paintball article here, we are doing our job! Remember, if you care about paintball on Wikipedia, please go ahead and add every single paintball article to your watchlist. It's not that hard, just go to the and add the articles there to your watchlist. Don't worry, you won't be flooded with alerts on recent changes! Worst comes to worst, just add the articles that seem more important to you. The Paintball article itself must be watched by all of our members!

Nonetheless, a lot of good work could be done if members were to simply add pictures of paintball markers to Wikipedia's servers. I will personally see to the paintball marker's article creation.

Keep up the good work and God bless,

Ravenstorm 17:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC) Lead Coordinator

[edit] GA & FA articles

hey i'm pretty sure that we can nominate articles to a good article position. IF that true (which i think it is) then we have quite a few articles that would probibly get it. Namely Woodsball, Paintball, and Woodsball strategy, as well as a bunch of other ones. i think this will help with rateing, give our project a better image, and i think it will also help us in our trying to get FA's in our project. Any thoughts??

peace-Threewaysround 01:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

the Paintball, and Woodsball articles have both been nominated for good article. I am cuurently waiting for discussion on the Woodsball strategy page, but in about a week that will be nominated too (unless somebody comes up with some amasing argument against it). Comments??

peace-Threewaysround 19:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Sports

Hey i was wondering if we should be listed as a Decendant of the Wikiproject sports, as of right now we are not. We are a wikiproject that deals with paintball, and last i checked paintball was a sport. So shouldn't we be in there somewhere???? Any thoughts????

peace-Threewaysround 20:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I've had to put up with a lot of controversy as to whether or not paintball is a sport... it stands alone, in it's own category, I believe. So no, let's not do that. RavenStorm 16:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

ok -Threewaysround 01:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] sources

ok so throughout the good article nominations (which all failed for one specific reason which will be addressed), i have discovered one very important, and very significant problem that almost all of our articles face. We don't have sources/refrences. The article that had the most sources, refrences, and inline citations out of all our articles is the paintball article, and even that didn't have enough sources. i beleive that finding credible sources should be priority number one (aside from improving the articles in category:paintball but that goes without saying). But that's my opinion and being as i'm not in a position of autority in this project, i'm not going to do anything without some say from the members, and approval from ether RavenStorm, Maximilli or both. Anyway that's our situation and i would like to here your opinion(s) of it.

peace-Threewaysround 21:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, sources are an incredibly important part of Wikipedia. Original research is tough to prove and articles without citations don't last long. We are here, as members of the WikiProject Paintball, to accomplish one single goal: to improve, expand, correct and add unto Wikipedia's paintball-related articles. Make it your goal for the week to find sources for an article! I'm currently working on finding sources for another article I care about, Firearm errors in media, so I do admit paintball has been off my mind for a while. Nonetheless, that article is an excellent example of compromise and referencing... in a single month, we went from having 0 to 10 references and nearly half the article is sourced. We can do the same here. Thanks for bringing it up, Three ways round. Let's get to work on sources! RavenStorm 00:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

man i've been trying to find resources, but i havn't had any luck whatsoever. would you beleive that my entire school library doesn't have one book on paintballing. i'm gonna try some online databases my school has, and then i might pop into the public library if i can.

fighting the good fight, yours truly Threewaysround 21:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Player positions

Hey, is everyone cool with the changes I made to the woodsball rifleman and scout pages? I tried to bring them towards the depth of the marksman page. I will be focusing on those pages for now. Please post suggestions on their respective talk pages. J-stan 16:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ghillie suit

Hello everyone! Just joined this group and was wondering if anyone thinks there should be an article about paintball sniper ghillies. If so, should this be part of woodsball marksman or just be an independent article. I was in the middle of making this article, when somethin happened and I lost it all. I had been going to make it and propose it be merged to see who thinks what, but I will just ask here. Deflagro 00:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think that the topic warrants its own article. Wouldn't it be more effective to expand the woodsball or woodsball marksman article to reference the use of ghillie suits and link to the wiki article that deals with that topic: Ghillie suit If the style of play in relation to woodsball players who used them were dramatically unlike other forms of woodsball then the situation would be different. Pmicka 22:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Marker" or "gun"?

Hey everyone. After moving "Electropneumatic paintball gun" to Electropneumatic paintball marker, it was brought to my attention by another user that it may have been better for me to have opened a discussion on the gun --> marker change either on Wikipedia:Requested moves or on the article's Talk page before doing so unilaterally. The argument was that since it was not official WP:PAINTBALL policy to refer to "paintball guns" as "markers," I was inviting an edit war.

So what does everyone think about making it official policy to refer to all "paintball guns" as markers? I am of the belief that paintball has and continues to hold a bad reputation as a "violent" sport, and that we should do anything we can to change that image. Given that we are aiming for Paintball to become a FA, I think that this is a minor policy change that can have a major effect. Is it possible for us to have a vote of some sort on it? --Donutmonger 06:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I would absolutely agree with that, and have been changing "gun" to "marker" when I come across it. Paintball has enough of a bad rap already from people wrongly thinking that it glorifies violence, and all of the major paintball manufacturers that I know of refer to their products as markers. Simply put, guns are designed to injure or kill, while paintball markers are equipment for a sport. Robogymnast 00:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Agree I don't have a problem with it being called a gun, but I see where it would be better to call it a marker in an encyclopedia. Deflagro 19:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
On the Woodsball marksman page, I actually changed "Weaponry" to marker. I think that if we do this, it will create a less violent view of paintball. Right now there can be an infamous view of the sport. J-stan Talk 20:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Very much agreed. The use of the term gun is not to be confounded with marker. Thank you Donutmonger, Robogymnast and J-stan for your bold contributions! RavenStorm 01:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, we're bold! :) J-stan Talk 02:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Extending on this, maybe we should change "kill" to "elimination". J-stan Talk 23:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paintball strategy deletion review

I feel it is unacceptable to let the deletion of the Paintball strategy article to pass without comments from members of this wikiproject. The deletion passed with 2 votes, none of whom are members of this project. I propose a deletion review as soon as possible. Thoughts? J-stan Talk 16:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I was not aware of this article. Unfortunately I have to update my watchlist (which normally should contain all paintball articles, but since the "List of paintball articles" category is in my watchlist I should be noticing new articles anyways) but the creators of the article as well our members should try their best to integrate these articles into our project. As for whether or not it should be deleted... well, I dunno. I never got a chance to see the article, but anything that sounds like "paintball strategy" just doesn't sound right to me. Strategy is an opinion, something an educated writer would publish, and usually unfit for the encyclopedic format of Wikipedia. Of course I would actually have to see the article to pass a judgement. Then we can decide if the project will back this article or approve of it's deletion. RavenStorm 20:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
My point was that the article, being part of this project, was deleted a) with two votes, which is too little to determine consensus and b) without the opinion expressed from any member of this wikiproject. It was suggested that it be transwikied to wikibooks, but half of the voters (mind you, one voter) informed me that it was outright deleted. J-stan Talk 21:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the reasons given by those involved with that article's deletion were valid and that the decision should stand. Pmicka 13:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Well it can be improved! Compare the Woodsball strategy article. Maybe what we should do is create a Speedball strategy article. That way we can have strategy articles for both games instead of just one. J-stan Talk 21:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ok, we really aren't doing anything

We have been tagged as inactive. Let's get editing! J-ſtanTalkContribs 02:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:PB-familiar

Template:PB-familiar has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. szyslak 09:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Paintball-gun

Just wondering what other people think about this, but since it the the WikiProject's policy to refer to paintball guns as markers instead of guns, should we move {{Template:Paintball-gun}} to Template:Paintball-Marker? Just wanted to get some other people's thoughts on this. Deflagro C/T 01:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes sense. J-ſtanTalkContribs 02:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Anyone else? Deflagro C/T 22:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
No one else seems to be active. J-ſtanTalkContribs 17:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
So should we move it? Because if we are the only two active, that would be a unanimous vote by the Project to move it. ;) Deflagro C/T 21:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
"Silence implies conensus". Go right ahead. It makes more sense anyway. J-ſtanTalkContribs 22:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm active too! I concur with the move. Of course, seeing as how you've already started, my vote doesn't really mean much haha. Good job taking the initiative. --Donutmonger (talk) 09:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Ha. Thanks. I moved it. Can you help me fix the links in what links here for Paintball-gun template? If so start from the bottom and we will meet in the middle. Deflagro C/T 22:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I started, but all that was left was a few talk page comments and the like. Things merely informing others that the template was created. I didn't really see need to continue changing them. J-ſtanTalkContribs 01:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I thought you were online when I posted that. Then when I actually looked it turned out that only about 6 or 7 articles actually used the template...Last template I changed and had to edit every page had about 30 pages and this involved moving the template from the top to the bottom. That was horrible. Thanks anyway! Deflagro C/T 03:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
No problem. J-ſtanTalkContribs 03:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Heh. Better late than never, Donutmonger! Anyway, it wasn't the controversial a move seeing how only about 6 or 7 articles actually use that template..... Deflagro C/T 17:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reinstating the Proto SLG article

Back on Nov. 17, I created an article for the new Proto SLG marker, mostly because there was Proto SLG content in the Dye Matrix article, and the two are completely different markers. Within a few hours, the article was marked for Speedy Deletion, and though I protested, it was deleted soon thereafter.

I exchanged messages on the talk page of the admin that deleted the page (see here), and his basic argument was that the article was not "notable" enough - i.e. there were no outside 3rd party sources that independently discussed the SLG. He was pretty nice about it though, and told me that the article could be reinstated as soon as I came back to him with outside proof that people other than me or the manufacturer was talking about it.

Unfortunately, since its such a new marker, I haven't been able to find anything about the SLG, outside of the usual places (paintball forums). So I'm putting out an open call for you guys to help out. If you come across anything that discusses the Proto SLG in-depth, can you let me know that way I can forward it to the admin? I think all of us know that the SLG is pretty unique (the first automag-type marker in along time), but we need outside independent proof. Thanks! --Donutmonger (talk) 07:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's a blog but I don't think you can cite that. Here's a more profressional blog. Sorry. That's all I can find right now. Deflagro C/T 22:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, blogs won't work. I'll help out. J-ſtanTalkContribs 22:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I knew we couldn't, but that was all I could find with a quick search. Deflagro C/T 22:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions guys. I guess just keep this in mind, and if you come across anything in your internet travels, post it here. It's just frustrating because so many articles for less-notable markers (Spyder Rodeo?!) have made it past the admins. --Donutmonger (talk) 02:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Couple of things

Greetings, paintballers. I'm dropping you a note to inform that I've put Tippinators up for deletion. It's not within the scope of Wikipedia to have amateur clubs like this, which haven't received any publicity. Please join the debate at Wikipedias:Article for deletion/Tippinators. --Montchav (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Paintball Chat

Good Day,

I saw this wiki project when I was browsing through articles releated to paintball and Internet Relay Chat trying to decide if it would appropriate to create an article about the Paintball Chat IRC Network. I don't know if we would fall into the scope of your wiki project but I figured that I would ask. I am the current Net Admin of the Paintball Chat online chat community. We were the first paintball related IRC network and we have been around in different forms for about ten years now, and our network has been featured on sveral major paintball websites over the years includingWARPIG. The network has had several different hosting and incarnations but it has always been dedicated to paintball. Among the domains we have had (in no particular order) are paintballchat.net, snake.homedns.org, shenko.homedns.org, paintballchat.org, and pbchat.us. Over the last year the network took a bit of a dive becuase of hosting issues, after which I took over the orginization. I am currently trying to bring the network back to what it once was. We have a small site which is still in the beta stages located at [1]. I am currently working on partnerships with several large paintball sites to get some more users into our network, and to help get us back into the view of the paintball community.

So I guess my questions are A: Is the network notable enough to rate an article? B: would this article fall within the scope of this wiki project?

Thanks,

Kyle "Snake6" Hammond Webmaster IRC Administrator PaintballChat.Org —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snake6 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)